Marketing 2.0 vs. Marketing 1.0 (part 2)

There is no doubt that choosing to use a Marketing 2.0 strategy for your business is a faster, less expensive and more efficient way to strengthen the relationship with your customers and promote your brand. On my previous article I argued that some of the Marketing 1.0 techniques can still play a role in a company’s Marketing 2.0 strategy, and can still make a positive impact on a company’s brand. This article will attempt to shed light on how.

Before I explain the how part, let me just state that personally I reject almost all of the Marketing 1.0 techniques. In fact, with the exception of two or three Marketing 1.0 approaches, which I think still have a place in the new era of marketing (but to a lesser degree), I reject them all.

On my previous article I gave the example of Apple using Marketing 1.0 techniques to interact with their customers, fans, and future customers.  Specifically, I focused on the iPhone TV ads series, and how, in contrast to other TV ads, it managed to captivate the attention of many viewers.

There are two fundamental, but important, reasons why Apple succeeded to captivate our attention with the iPhone or Mac ads:

  1. Apple relied heavily on Marketing 2.0 techniques to introduce their products. Blogging about it; using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media tools to ‘talk’ about their products; and finally creating a community of loyal fans and customers that will do the same for them, and by doing so creating a social media tsunami effect. The latter is important from a marketing perspective, because what it entails is that Apple’s fans are promoting their products for free!
  2. The second reason is what I think makes Social Media Marketing a powerful marketing tool. Allow me to use an analogy to explain this profound phenomenon:

Imagine that you have a new friend on Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn. This new ‘friend’ is great, because he helps you solve problems, and he adds value to your life by giving you ‘gifts’ you always wished to have for free. This friend is like your personal genie. You wish for a phone with a camera, and Abracadabra it is there. You wish to check your Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, and email on your mp3 player, and 1 2 3 it is there. Your new ‘friend’ is great, and you can not wait to tell all of your friends about this new ‘friend’, and encourage them to tell their friends about him too.

Then one day you find out that your new ‘friend’ is on TV. You came to learn about it because he ‘told’ you this, personally, on Twitter.

Would not you want to see your new ‘friend’ on TV? Of course you would, he is your ‘friend’ after all.

A few months after his appearance on TV, he told you that he is going to be in this big event. In fact, he is hosting this event and he wants to meet you there. You and your new ‘friend’ are going to meet for the first time! And, since you already know that your ‘friend’ always surprises you with free gifts, you are more eager to pack your bag, get your ticket, and fly all the way to the West coast to meet him.

Apple did it right, and it is why they are successful in integrating Marketing 1.0 techniques into their Marketing 2.0 strategy.

Marketing 2.0 is about creating relationships, adding value to your community, listening to what your community has to say to you, and most importantly not pushing your community to do things they do not want to do.

Feel free to share your comments. Do you agree/disagree with what I have to say?

facebook comments:

  • Nice example Itai! Marketing in almost always is an combination of many tactics. What is so unique about your point, is that both of Apple’s marketing efforts 1.0 (traditional TV & event marketing) were not just run simultaneously with their 2.0 social media efforts, but were INTEGRATED with them.

    In your example, Apple showed their Social Media audience respect by first giving them an “insiders invitation” to both their commercial screening as well as to the event. Only an “insider” would know about these things making them feel special — a direct result of having a relationship with your customers.

    In other words, social media allowed Apple to leverage their 2.0 “social” relationships to promote their 1.0 “traditional” efforts. And their 1.0 efforts, helped to further solidify and engage their 2.0 relationships. The results I suspect, equaled far more than sum of the parts.

  • Thank you Rena for commenting. I always enjoy reading your insight on marketing.

  • Itai: Great stuff here in both of your insightful and informative blog posts. I’m in agreement with you and Rena that both Marketing 2.0 and Marketing 1.0 techniques require careful integration to achieve successful marketing results. However, I think we also need to carefully consider how we measure and evaluate a marketing channel’s impact in an overall, integrated campaign. This is a highly important validation step before rejecting outright or carefully reconsidering the use of any marketing channel (regardless if it’s 2.0 or 1.0). For all you know, we may actually find that some Marketing 2.0 techniques perform better than others and may require some re-thinking if a specific 2.0 technique should still be part of the overall integrated strategy. Or, what if you validate that 1.0 actually performs better in engaging your target buyer persona?
    I’m in complete and absolute agreement that 21st century “tip-of-the-spear marketing” clearly points to increasing utilization and investment in Marketing 2.0 techniques. However, when trying to optimally engage a selected buyer persona, I think we still should carefully consider/analyze if a Marketing 1.0 technique(s) warrants integrated usage with a Marketing 2.0 technique(s).
    For example, what if your target buyer persona lacks prevalent access to high-speed broadband? What if the current costs of data plans are causing slower than expected adoption of smartphones (which subsequently limits the impact of a great mobile advertising campaign)? In these situations, good old-fashioned Marketing 1.0 techniques like direct mail, television/radio advertising, periodical/newspaper advertising, or live in-person business development presentations may actually have a valid place in your overall integrated strategy.
    Thanks for making me think and contemplate your insightful views on a beautiful, Sunday afternoon. On most days like today, I’m outside enjoying a cold drink and taking time to recharge my mental batteries from a long workweek. Your thought-provoking blog articles influenced me to do something else – Nice Work!

  • Thank you for this insightful comment, Tony.

    “For example, what if your target buyer persona lacks prevalent access to high-speed broadband? What if the current costs of data plans are causing slower than expected adoption of smartphones (which subsequently limits the impact of a great mobile advertising campaign)? In these situations, good old-fashioned Marketing 1.0 techniques like direct mail, television/radio advertising, periodical/newspaper advertising, or live in-person business development presentations may actually have a valid place in your overall integrated strategy”

    I think it all depends with the type of product or service you provide. Strategy is important, and planning is everything. I had this conversation with Rena the other day, and we both agreed that integrating marketing 1.0/2.0 is a good tactic to cover all ends. However, the formula that we had in mind (and I give full credit to Rena on this) is that it should start with relying heavily on marketing 2.0 (creating relationship with your customers, and of course saving money especially if you are a startup in its early stages), “polish” with some marketing 1.0, and finish again with marketing 2.0. It is a cycle that you repeat for every new product service you launch (again, depending with the size of the company, and the strength of your competitor)

    Thanks again for this comment. I hope you enjoyed the cold drink, it was indeed a beautiful Sunday.

  • Steve Early

    Hi Itai – Another nice post. Great insights.

    Steve

  • Thanks Steve, I always appreciate the comments you write on my posts.