Following up from the last post, Jeremiah Owyang makes the observation that Tara's Pinko Marketing is essentially Marketing 2.0. He opens with an interesting question: "Pinko Marketing is Marketing 2.0, or is it just Marketing before there was Marketing?" He doesn't really try and answer this question, but I think he hits an important nail on the head.
The era of broadcast marketing to the mass market seems to be a unique and possibly fleeting time in human history. An extension of industrial revolution thinking. It makes sense that the "new marketing" is a throwback to the old ways. As the means of broadcasting information diffuses to the mass market, personalized communications and relationships begin to take presidence.
This is an example of technological maturation: when a given technology undergoes a reversal from being dehumanizing to enhancing what it is that makes us human. I'd consider this a natural process. Not that the past hundred years or so of mass marketing is unnatural, but clearly an early stage in the growth of the enabling technologies. incidently these same technologies are also enablers of globalization.
The difference between marketing previous to the 19th century and marketing in the 21st century and beyond, is that the village market is now the global market. The methods of communication have changed, but the same kind of thinking applies. If you can imagine the kinds of challenges and practices involved with marketing in a village previous to the industrial revolution, then you're on your way to surviving the disruption presented by todays communication technologies.
How does this relate to marketing in isolated third world communities? What does the cultural growth of these communities look like when we give them the tools to operate in the global marketplace, essentially bypassing the mass consumerism culture that we have in the first world?
Technorati Tags: marketing, disruption, Web 2.0, globalization
Recent Comments