Is marketing experiencing an identity crisis?

I always start my marketing classes with an online survey asking students what words come to mind when they think of the discipline. Without fail, I get a nice word cloud with one term towering above all the others: 'advertising'. This gives me a satisfying moment for my ego to explain that it's not that at all, and that marketing is infinitely more than its most visible component: strategic marketing, market selection, micro-segmentation, positioning, the 4Ps, 4Cs, SAVE, etc.

This much broader and more complete definition of marketing has always seemed to me to be an absolute truth because it is rooted both in theory, Saint Kotler pray for us, and my practical experience as a marketing manager, even if the latter is starting to get a little old.

Except that. Having to systematically explain to the average Joe that, you see, he has a rather limited understanding of what this noble discipline is, is one thing. But having to repeat it tirelessly within the business world itself is quite another matter and, let's be honest, a little bit tiring.

So, what's going on, in my humble opinion? Apart from very large, highly marketing-oriented companies (typically the Unilever and P&G of this world), marketing seems to have been reduced to one of its components, namely communication, often its most tactical component.

This is why we see a proliferation of statements contrasting 'branding' and 'marketing'. If we reduce marketing to mere communication, it makes perfect sense. But if we refer to theory and my experience, it's absurd. Branding is a way of expressing a positioning, which is itself one of the cornerstones of marketing theory. It's like opposing egg yolks and mayonnaise.

So far I have always fought to explain, more or less patiently, what seems to me to be the 'truth', but I admit that I am getting tired.

A philosopher friend opened my eyes by saying: should we consider things according to their theoretical definition or according to their tangible reality?

In other words, isn't it up to me to let go and consider that, if the reality for 90% of companies is that 'marketing equals communication', why bother trying to explain something else?

Perhaps. But then the question becomes: who takes care of the rest? If the marketing department doesn't make the major strategic choices based on market needs, if it doesn't position the company, if it doesn't design solutions based on the aspirations of the target audiences, then who does?

And that's a real problem. In many of the SMEs I advise, the strategic and product portfolio management aspects aren't handled by marketing. That's not inherently a problem, but it often means they're managed by people who, while competent, lack formal marketing training and, worse, often don't have the 'marketing mindset' to think about everything from the customer's perspective.

This is neither neutral nor innocent. We therefore often have organizations with 'marketers' who are extremely skilled in communication but work in organisations with huge gaps in their expertise in strategic marketing and solution design.

So, either we reframe things and give the marketing department the place assigned to it by the theory books. But I think that's a rearguard action. Or we ensure that the people who actually make strategic marketing decisions have sufficient mastery of the discipline. When will we see a strategic marketing curriculum for CEOs and R&D/Production managers, or even IT managers?

To paraphrase Clemenceau, marketing is too important to be left to marketers, especially when they are merely communicators, however brilliant they may be. So let's ensure that marketing principles permeate other functions within the organization. Otherwise, we'll go backward.

We could also take this opportunity to broaden the concept of marketing to include 'markethics'…but that’s for another article.