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?