Mark Ritson’s column about the need to retain knowledge of marketing’s founding principles and not to be distracted by jargon continues to generate huge debate (www.mwlinks.co.uk/ RitsonReinventors):
In his leader some months ago, Mark Choueke talked about the fact marketers can’t seem to make themselves heard on the top table. Perhaps Mark Ritson points to why – no one can quite agree on what we’re all meant to be doing. What marketing needs to be doing is proving its worth, no matter the methods. So if one person wants to call corporate wining and dining ’brandiosity’ and another schmoozing, let them. Just get on and do it. (And for the record, I’m a ’re-er’. I see a new evolved future of marketing on the horizon and want to be one of the first to play with it.).
The doctrine that something so abstract as marketing has fundamental principles seems both arrogant and fearful. This is capitalism, for goodness’ sake – shouldn’t we be happy with whatever works best? Never mind the comparisons to medicine and democracy; your own position is reminiscent of a religious zealot, whose faith at once precludes any other ideas, and is apparently unable to withstand the slightest criticism. “More reverential”, you say. What next, ex-communicate the non-believers?
Do you expect your students to be this unquestioning?
And Mark Ritson contributed one more comment:
A fine debate in the end. But I can conclude it by pointing out that: a) My original article does note the need for marketing to evolve
(just not throw its whole syllabus out the window) and b) Many of the comments come from senior established marketers who are literate in marketing (or at least think they are). Can we spare a thought for the more than 50% of marketers still learning their craft? It does them no good whatsoever I think to be told that CRM is pointless or brand loyalty a myth.