Ethics And Business-What About Civic Responsibility?
The question whether business and ethics are mutually inclusive remains to be one of the most controversial yet rational, reasonable and relevant topics that is worth the time and intellectual effort if committed for it. The topic has been the favourite grain for gossip mills mainly to the oriental ones and intellectual arguments with varying dimensions have also been credited with to have aroused out of this seemingly simple topic. Once the topic gets debated and deliberated mainly from issues and instances that underlines the need for mutual involvement

Performance Contract Review - Is this the Way?
Performance contracts. Performance management - useful or major challenges? They are easier if they are kept simple, through strong and trusting relationships built and people effectively managed through daily informal contacts - yet someone, sometimes isn't listening at all! Take a look right here...I wonder what you think of the 'invitation' to a performance review shown below. It is real, though some of the details have been amended, for the safety of recipients!As you read it, please see it through the eyes of someone who expected

Using Technology to Create a Year-Round Event
The conference that you have spent months planning went off without a hitch - your attendees, sponsors and exhibitors all left happy and the goals of the conference were accomplished. But now what? To get the most out of your conference start thinking about it not as just a three or four day event, but as a year-long event – continually engaging your audience. Here are some great ways you can utilize technology to easily and effectively communicate with your attendees, potential attendees, exhibitors and sponsors to keep your conference going year-round. death. In this blog post I will attempt to demystify the subject of marketing and give you some actionable items can be implemented immediately to generate improved results.

Let’s take a moment and have some fun with definitions. The following two definitions of marketing come from the American Marketing Association. The first was a definition was used from 1985 until 2004 when the “revised” edition was released by the AMA.

Previous AMA Definition: “Marketing is the process of planning and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of goods, ideas and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals.”

Current AMA Definition: ”Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.”

OK…a quick analysis of the two aforementioned definitions shows that the mistake of obviating the customer from the original definition was corrected by the clear and emphasized inclusion of the customer in the revised definition (I guess I won’t resign my AMA membership just yet). Let me be clear that I’m not meaning to make fun of academic theory or best practices, but I have little use for generic, omnibus or overarching statements as they tend not to accomplish anything of value, but rather they just create confusion among the ranks.

Let’s take a look at a few more definitions…Most of you know how fond I am of “Druckerisms” and so in good conscience I must quote him to you yet again…Peter Drucker’s definition of marketing is: “Marketing and innovation are the two chief functions of business. You get paid for creating a customer, which is marketing. And you get paid for creating a new dimension of performance, which is innovation. Everything else is a cost center.” Now we’re getting a bit closer, but this is still too ambiguous for my taste…

From my perspective the problem with marketing as a discipline is that the desired result often gets lost in the vast expanse of it’s multi-disciplinary nature. The reality is that marketing is really the aggregation of any activity that touches the customer and that

n of goods, ideas and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals.”

Current AMA Definition: ”Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.”

OK…a quick analysis of the two aforementioned definitions shows that the mistake of obviating the customer from the original definition was corrected by the clear and emphasized inclusion of the customer in the revised definition (I guess I won’t resign my AMA membership just yet). Let me be clear that I’m not meaning to make fun of academic theory or best practices, but I have little use for generic, omnibus or overarching statements as they tend not to accomplish anything of value, but rather they just create confusion among the ranks.

Let’s take a look at a few more definitions…Most of you know how fond I am of “Druckerisms” and so in good conscience I must quote him to you yet again…Peter Drucker’s definition of marketing is: “Marketing and innovation are the two chief functions of business. You get paid for creating a customer, which is marketing. And you get paid for creating a new dimension of performance, which is innovation. Everything else is a cost center.” Now we’re getting a bit closer, but this is still too ambiguous for my taste…

From my perspective the problem with marketing as a discipline is that the desired result often gets lost in the vast expanse of it’s multi-disciplinary nature. The reality is that marketing is really the aggregation of any activity that touches the customer and that

omer in the revised definition (I guess I won’t resign my AMA membership just yet). Let me be clear that I’m not meaning to make fun of academic theory or best practices, but I have little use for generic, omnibus or overarching statements as they tend not to accomplish anything of value, but rather they just create confusion among the ranks.

Let’s take a look at a few more definitions…Most of you know how fond I am of “Druckerisms” and so in good conscience I must quote him to you yet again…Peter Drucker’s definition of marketing is: “Marketing and innovation are the two chief functions of business. You get paid for creating a customer, which is marketing. And you get paid for creating a new dimension of performance, which is innovation. Everything else is a cost center.” Now we’re getting a bit closer, but this is still too ambiguous for my taste…

From my perspective the problem with marketing as a discipline is that the desired result often gets lost in the vast expanse of it’s multi-disciplinary nature. The reality is that marketing is really the aggregation of any activity that touches the customer and that

n are the two chief functions of business. You get paid for creating a customer, which is marketing. And you get paid for creating a new dimension of performance, which is innovation. Everything else is a cost center.” Now we’re getting a bit closer, but this is still too ambiguous for my taste…

From my perspective the problem with marketing as a discipline is that the desired result often gets lost in the vast expanse of it’s multi-disciplinary nature. The reality is that marketing is really the aggregation of any activity that touches the customer and that is just too much for most organizations to get their arms around, let alone to manage and execute on.

So, at the end of the day I believe marketing is “any activity that catalyzes a selling opportunity” (my definition). Put simply I want marketing activities to make my phone ring! I don’t care what the medium, market or message is, if it doesn’t put a qualified prospect into a selling situation it is a waste of time, money and effort. Before the Myatt bashers come out of the shadows, I’m not diminishing the value of brand equity, market share, mind share, etc., but I’m simply trying to take a complex subject and make it real and actionable.

If you’re conducting brand campaigns or mind share initiatives that’s fine, but realize that in most circumstances while these may classically be defined as marketing activities these efforts don’t catalyze sales opportunities in the short run. The litmus test of any good “gorilla marketing” effort is measuring return on cost of sales. A great marketing campaign generates a high velocity of selling opportunities at the lowest possible cost over the shortest possible selling cycle. If you juxtapose this with the typical branding initiative you’ll see that these two efforts are truly diametrically opposed.

So the goal of marketing is to not get caught up in theoretical debates and academic exercises, but to realize that the main thing, is to keep the main thing the main thing. If you can’t put every marketing initiative under the magnifying glass and tie it to an acceptable return based on the generation of sales then you might want to reconsider what you’re doing.