Curious what folks in marketing think here. The intuition makes sense, but the marketing teams see the leading indicators.
I'd expect there to be a rise in corp budget for partnerships, influencer marketing, etc.
I'd expect there to be a rise in corp budget for partnerships, influencer marketing, etc.
* I agree with Rand that this change is happening and it heralds a big vhange. It is also worth reading his older analysis of just how few Google searches turn into a click.
* Marketers, in general, are not aware of these changes and are not planning ahead. We are still running the old playbooks of "pay for google ad, make a gated whitepaper with a form". The change is going to blindside many marketers.
* Email has been the trusty channel that just kept giving. But I think it's becoming oversaturated.
* Allocating budge to partnerships and influencer marketing: yes! The smart marketers are already doing this. Also: community building. Anything that creates an environment of trust & where people interact with experts. Communities will be the immediate place of refuge from all the GPT-generated noise that's killing search engines.
* Another traditionally smart move is to reallocate those Marketing dollars to Sales/cold outreach - but remember how I said that email is becoming over saturated? It's also impacting salespeople. When was the last time you replied to a cold email? Picked up the phone when an unknown number rang?
It's a time of massive change for Marketing, and things haven't shaken out yet. I'm curious to hear others' thoughts about what Marketing could look like in the future. I'm also here to answer any other questions, either in this thread or through email (in profile)
Ehhh... why does it always sound so dishonest when marketing people talk about these things? "community" is just a tool for you. "environment of trust" is just leverage to you. Alex Jones is an "expert" in the world of marketing, since he's selling some crap supplements.
You're just finding ways to pry open our brains, and everything is on the table. This post reads like an ad. Maybe it is? Maybe that's how you talk on daily basis?
Marketing folks are the reason we're here. What makes you think their thoughts here will be useful?
The current set of incentives and technology are why we are here.
If there is a good alternative, they are also the ones likely to know it.
> I think they understand the situation and insights better than anyone.
> The current set of incentives and technology are why we are here.
> If there is a good alternative, they are also the ones likely to know it.
This reads a lot like "lets get the drunk drivers together to figure out how to make the roads safer". I mean, sure, they may have more knowledge about the causes.. but they've also made it very clear they don't care about making things better.
There is a big difference between seeking the knowledge where it exists, and expecting the subject matter experts to solve the problem. This is doubly true when it is something you perceive as a problem and not them.
Their industry is marketing. That's their profession. If they want to make it better, they should quit. They do not quit, ergo, they do not want to make it better.
Given a offer of same pay and the ability to use the same skills, I think people would choose to to make things better instead of worse. That means they would like to make it better.
You are making a different absolutists claim, that any desire to make things better doesn't count if someone wont sacrifice everything for it.
This is by its nature a comparison, and not a statement about one things.
Keep in mind that this all in question of if people in marketing might have knowledge or insight about changes in advertising.
Im not sure that I directly attribute that to advertising itself, as much as upstream SEO choices.
I dont mind at all if a recipe includes commission links or ads. I hate that the optimal SEO format is to waste as much of the readers time as possible.
That said, I also see your point in how SE results have an incentive to bury valid non-commercial results.
The industry has been making it very clear and overt for years now that what they consider "making things better" is directly opposite of what normal people consider "making things better".
The marketing industry only makes money by making things worse for us all. They are concerned, though, with finding out exactly how much worse things have to be before it starts interfering with their income streams.
Shouldnt marketers have been doing this since Day 1?