Let me first explain the idea. Instead of the barcode serving as a tool for supply chain management and inventory, it will assist search indexing engines in tagging the picture. For example, I’m wearing a Prada shirt which has the invisible barcode built into the design of the shirt, invisible to any person. I go out for a night on the town and my friend takes a digital picture of me that they upload onto the web. When Google indexes the picture, an algorithm recognizes the built in barcode on the shirt and automatically tags the picture with a keyword. A world away, someone searches Prada in Google Images and the picture of me and my friends shows up in the results.

The problem: First, while the barcode would serve to better organize information on the web, does it bring any advantages to the wearer of the barcode that outweigh the inherent loss in privacy. Second, do customers want to advertise through personal digitial pictures by default? The same argument applies for embedded RFID chips in your skin, location-aware marketing, and web tracking through cookies. While arguments can be made for these technologies as benefiting consumers such as: consumers receive much more pertinent marketing and easier access to buying things they want. The benefits to consumers only go so far. Companies have much more to gain from the shrinking gap between potential customers and the action of purchasing.

The Question

How is a company supposed to know how far to push their businesses’ potential relationship with customers?

In a nutshell realize you’re appearing at a party uninvited. Companies seem to be fixated on finding the characteristics that exemplify their target customer. These characteristics are often based around location, pay, and other demographics. This is the equivalent to a stranger, walking up to you at a huge party and assuming you have a connection because you’re dressed similarly. This approach may work in a smaller setting, but in reality, not only are they uninvited, but you are standing next to millions of other people who are uninvited and doing the same thing. In the end you just want to have fun with your friends.

There is a better way to meet people. At a party, have your own fun. If someone is engaging others about you, or they are outright engaging you, you participate. Anything more is a nuisance and too intrusive which will lead to people tuning you out, or worse, getting downright angry.

New Technologies

This may be a ‘duh!’ moment. Saying consumers decide how far a technology and products will go is pretty obvious. For some reason, marketers do not seem to get it. Every time a new technology is introduced, the same discussion pops up – how do we take advantage of this?

New technologies are like the small party. Marketers can make a much larger impact on the target market, but the effects will be negative if they are looking to take advantage. Marketers may even be able to provide the drinks and music, but if they don’t blend in to the party, they will be ostracized, dilute their image, leave a negative impression, and also negatively impact the progression of the party into the future. In a nutshell, blend in, the exact opposite approach from the big party. Otherwise, if you influence the party to much, you’ll loose your target market in the mix.

My deconstruction of the digital barcode made me realize, new free technologies will have to be introduced through a grassroots interest in the abilities they offer. Those who seek, create, and use new technologies are more likely than mainstream consumers, to pay for the service. Pioneers are willing to invest more in order to keep new tech services independent, exclusive, and ad-free. Marketing supported technologies, such as GPS paid for by ads, would have to be demanded by, and deployed to, a very large mass of people to reach a break-even point.

The ‘freeness’ of services on the net serves to attract the masses but it doesn’t work well in a tech-push scenario. For ‘free’ to work a massive pull from the market must already exist. Unfortunately, there isn’t time to wait around on the net. The creators of the new technologies must try to predict future demands, despite only a glimmer of present demand.

I’m curious to see what all these internet start-up companies are projecting as break-even points, or better yet, what is the critical mass they are trying to achieve. Something tells me there will be a lot of marketers leaving the party with their heads down in the next couple years.

The internet has offered reflections on marketing from every angle. Just Google ‘death of marketing’. It yields hundreds of results that showcase a trend in redefining marketing. This is a result of a paradigm shift in businesses realizing marketing encompasses a much broader spectrum than ever before. The argument is the same in every other expanding genre, too, like when musicians sing about the death of hip-hop and rock & roll. Both marketing and music have grown and resulted in many new niches. The game has evolved. Since ‘marketing’ has taken on many new avenues in recent years, thanks to the internet and other enabling technologies, we aren’t sure how to categorize all the new business practices. Questions pop up like: Where does marketing stop and public relations begin? Or, should we ditch marketing all together, since consumer/customer relations seems more appropriate?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. It’s all up to the businesses who are concerned with labeling. After reflection on the subject, I came to my personal definition:

Marketing – a business function responsible for facilitating relationships between brands and consumers.

The definition is broad, simplistic, and might not ring true for everyone, but it’s also hard to disregard. When I picture a marketing canvas, I see a huge blank slate between a business and its consumers. Marketing is the entire image. The image of the business from every consumers’ perspective, the businesses’ view of all its consumers, and the best practices to maximize connections between the two.

Like an artist, marketers are free to paint their own reality. We have countless options, countless realities to manifest. So, it doesn’t matter what you call marketing. Marketing will still remain the department of consumer relations in colleges; the majority of businesses will still be calling whatever “it” is marketing, and we’ll always have misconceptions on what people perceive as marketing.

For me, I ditch the lame jargon. Instead, I try to work on giving a tried and true field a better name. Marketing isn’t about what you call something, even though it technically is; time and time again, history has proven that actions speak louder than words. Deliver, make an impact, follow through on promises, and call your position whatever makes you feel best.

I’ll call “it” marketing.