There is a lot of talk recently about the need to drop the word 'digital' in marketing and advertising. The reason: it sets up an artificial separation - as if there is 'regular marketing' and 'digital marketing'. Well, there is merit in the argument and in my view, it has nothing to do with the digital age. Marketing has always been about reaching out to a brand's most relevant audience in a profitable way using channels (distribution, advertising) and platforms (pamphlets, print, radio, TV) in an optimal manner. Both channels and platforms have evolved over the years, but have never been demarcated from overall marketing efforts - we did not use 'TV marketing agencies' when television became a popular medium for advertising. So, why then did we coin 'digital marketing' as a term? And, should we continue using it?
If I had to go back in time and attempt banning a word, it would have been 'agency' in the context of advertising. The reason: advertising agents were those who represented a publication in order to secure ads from advertisers - they were 'middle men' for lack of another word. These shops which created advertising for clients were far from being agents of a publication, but the name stuck. So, even after 100 years, we are referring to a creative ideas company comprising great minds in business and marketing strategy, creative arts, media planning and buying, consumer behaviour, analytics, technology specialists and more as being part of an 'agency'. New agencies have attempted to call themselves 'idea shops', 'communication specialists' and so on, but the market keeps referring to such as 'agencies' - simply because there was no viable, universally acceptable alternative coined. The industry remained agents.
The term digital marketing is mostly used to refer to any activity in channels beyond the traditional (print, TV, outdoor, radio) and those with an online component built in. So, a long-format video film - often created by specialist digital agencies (sometimes, a pure ad, without any pretence to being 'branded content') meant for release on YouTube is considered to be part of digital marketing. Even a regular presence on social media channels through posts and contests is part of digital marketing, not to mention the good old web banner. In most cases, the interaction or engagement with the content is measured in terms of CTRs (Click-Through Rate), view counts, likes, and shares. So, in my view, not all of it is strictly interactive.
While I agree that 'digital' should not be treated as an afterthought ('now that we have defined the central creative idea, let's look for a digital expression of this') ... as a separate department, it is not yet second nature for all stakeholders to create a brand idea which is adapted to make best use of every medium and platform. Also, not every brand may need to use all the platforms available - sometimes for a brand, a popular YouTube film may meet the objectives, it may not need a presence on Instagram and Twitter with the same idea. For another brand, the reverse maybe true. But, at least every brand is thinking of going beyond traditional media, chasing its relevant target audience. For me, that's a start. If they continue to refer to such activities as 'digital marketing', so be it - there is no grave harm in it. Industry leaders and companies who have consistently created great, effective work in new media can lead the way and educate the others. Someday, all marketing will be digital-led -- then the silos will not exist in our minds.
(The author is a marketing communications professional, and vice-president - corporate communications, at Robosoft Technologies, a mobile solutions provider.)
The article was first published on LinkedIn.