It seems hip to reject old school.
I don’t think a day goes by that I don’t hear someone say “that’s old school!” And I’m fairly certain the phrase is not slung with adoration.
Is anything in marketing old school?
The birth of marketing thought was sparked by the acceptance of the marketing concept. Prior to the adoption of the marketing concept, the field of marketing was largely based in agriculture. General Electric was the first company to identify a marketing function in their organization chart in the 60’s.
Most would agree that we are in late first generation of knowledge in the field. While I agree that first generation thinkers have grandchildren who may today be thought creators, it’s hard to claim that any study in marketing is old.
The danger of young minds grabbing all the new media as replacement parts to classical thinking is that the frame of reference of strong theory evaporates. New, for the sake of new, rarely advances thought. New media works best when attached to the coat-tails of basic marketing paradigms.
Old lessons of grey thinkers have been passed on as a starting point to the advancement of marketing knowledge. The knowledge bank is not quite ready for a trip to the Smithsonian.
As I watch the proliferation of social media and the self-anointed claims of “expert status,” I can’t help but wonder if the expert spent time at the feet of a wise marketer. The medium only delivers a marketing message. Marketing words are derived from consumer behavior studies that are rooted in classical research.
I’m reading and hearing with increasing frequency that social media isn’t producing new revenue for companies. Some companies have abandoned their social media initiatives because “it doesn’t work.”
Media should not necessarily be jettisoned because of lack of results. There needs to be greater study into HOW to make any medium work (as measured by ROI).
The solution to creating efficacy in social media lies in old school marketing knowledge.
If it’s not increasing revenue, it’s not hip.