The following is a summary of the response to the ideas posted in the article Hypothesis #5: The Campaign is Dead (5/24).

This morning we attempted to define what a campaign is. And with a little help from academia, I think we got a bit closer. Kimmo Linkama, a professional copywriter, has simplified these ideas rather nicely, I think:

Campaigns and branding are not mutually exclusive. Branding is a top-level exercise. Campaigns are subordinate to the brand. Branding is the strategy, if you will, and campaigns are the tactics to make the strategy succeed.

Now, what Kimmo is not saying is that campaigns are the only tactics that work to make a branding strategy successful. And that’s the point that I want to elaborate on.

It goes back to what Brian Halligan wrote in his original post. Marketing should be about creating and publishing compelling content not just frequently, but constantly. If you want to talk about every blog post published, every white paper made available for download, or every client testimonial posted on YouTube as a campaign, then more power to you. But those aren’t campaigns, really. That kind of content should be generated all the time.

I wonder what your opinion is on the validity of this idea: Marketing is no longer about messaging to people. It’s about actively starting and engaging in conversations everywhere, all day, every day. Is Halligan way off-base here? What do you think?

Photo courtesy Rhett Crowe.

The following is a summary of the response to the ideas posted in the article Hypothesis #5: The Campaign is Dead (5/24).

What do we mean by “campaign”, anyway?

I think Brian Halligan had a somewhat narrow definition of the word when he wrote that he wanted to see it abolished. What Halligan seems to have meant is that the idea of buying a list and sending things to the names and addresses on it is becoming increasingly ineffective. People have caller ID, spam filters, pop-up blockers, and banner blockers. And direct mail is, well… junk.

If that’s how we characterize campaigns — as unsolicited communications — then Halligan has a point. These things are dying, no matter how narrowly we segment our lists. Technology is inhibiting the proliferation of unsolicited communications. Period.

Now all that said, couldn’t it also be true that content marketing — the kind Halligan advocates — is also campaigning? Is Halligan’s differentiation between inbound marketing and campaigning a matter of semantics?

Some of you think so. Dr. Roberto Friedmann, Associate Professor at the Terry Business School, University of Georgia, says the following of the Apple example I referenced:

“Is [Apple's] branding not part of an overall marketing effort that also shows: great product design, terrific retail presence, wonderful support from Genius bar, masterful performances by Steve Jobs, enhanced product features, fairly systematic pricing policies, and innovative new products? ( And those are just some of the elements).

“You can make a very strong argument that all of these elements are part of a marketing campaign ( not to be confused with an advertising or communications campaign) and working from a variety of perspectives to have a positive impact on the consumer.”

What do you think? Is the concept of a “campaign” somewhat amorphous? Is branding possible without campaigning?

The following is a summary of the response to the ideas posted in the article Hypothesis #5: The Campaign is Dead (5/24).

What do we mean by “campaign”, anyway?

I think Brian Halligan had a somewhat narrow definition of the word when he wrote that he wanted to see it abolished. What Halligan seems to have meant is that the idea of buying a list and sending things to the names and addresses on it is becoming increasingly ineffective. People have caller ID, spam filters, pop-up blockers, and banner blockers. And direct mail is, well… junk.

If that’s how we characterize campaigns — as unsolicited communications — then Halligan has a point. These things are dying, no matter how narrowly we segment our lists. Technology is inhibiting the proliferation of unsolicited communications. Period.

Now all that said, couldn’t it also be true that content marketing — the kind Halligan advocates — is also campaigning? Is Halligan’s differentiation between inbound marketing and campaigning a matter of semantics?

Some of you think so. Dr. Roberto Friedmann, Associate Professor at the Terry Business School, University of Georgia, says the following of the Apple example I referenced:

“Is [Apple's] branding not part of an overall marketing effort that also shows: great product design, terrific retail presence, wonderful support from Genius bar, masterful performances by Steve Jobs, enhanced product features, fairly systematic pricing policies, and innovative new products? ( And those are just some of the elements).

“You can make a very strong argument that all of these elements are part of a marketing campaign ( not to be confused with an advertising or communications campaign) and working from a variety of perspectives to have a positive impact on the consumer.”

What do you think? Is the concept of a “campaign” somewhat amorphous? Is branding possible without campaigning?

The following is a summary of the response to the ideas posted in the article Hypothesis #5: The Campaign is Dead (5/24).

Apparently quite a few of you disagree with Brian Halligan. That’s okay; in fact, that’s the reason I started this blog.

Some of you argue that the old-fashioned notion of campaigning is the only way to reach a target demographic. The trick, says David Jenkins, of digiBunker, is blending promotions with branding:

Businesses often have different demographic targets to reach and various objectives in a given year. In order to achieve the goal of getting the message out to the consumer they’ll often launch different marketing campaigns. For those campaigns to be successful they need to keep the campaign attached to their branding message.

So was Apple’s “Get a Mac” campaign just that — a series of advertisements tied to a series of branding messages? Or, as some of you indicate, is it something a bit more complex? Are we perhaps combining ad campaigns into more sweeping branding efforts?

Take, for example, the testimony of Julie Gareleck, Founder and Managing Partner at Junction Creative Solutions:

Executing truely comprehensive marketing strategies consistently over time will yield a greater return. As consumers become more contextual, the need for consistent and persistent brand experiences to engage and retain is great.

The point that is often reiterated is that inbound marketing — the kind that defies any notion of “campaigning” — just can’t offer the same kind of targeting as, say, emailing a segment of your database. Tomorrow I will present the flip side to this coin — hopefully with the expert input of a few of my more inbound-oriented friends. But what do you think about all this? Do campaigns still serve a purpose? Can they be replaced with something else? If so, what?

To participate in this conversation like David and Julie have, please either leave a comment below or join the conversation on LinkedIn.