The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) gets a lot of flack from press and practitioners, some of it justified, some of it not. Until now, B2B Marketing has remained generally supportive of the association, recognising that it generally does a good job, often in difficult circumstances and with limited resources.

However, recent revelations have called into question my personal attitude towards the DMA, with particular regard to its support for the B2B sector.

As reported in the news section of this edition, the DMA has scrapped its Business List Audit (BLA) data quality initiative, and has effectively mothballed its response to the Government on proposed changes to the way the Corporate Telephone Preference Service (CTPS) is implemented. Both of these developments are potentially disastrous for the B2B community – data quality and telemarketing are both fundamental to future of effective business marketing, and given the DMA’s role at the focal point of the direct community, it is the only organisation really capable of achieving a real and significant change in both areas.

So why then has it abandoned both? The problem stems from how the DMA is structured around various discipline-focused councils (e.g. telemarketing, email, field marketing etc.), which is a legacy of its history as an amalgamation of various formerly separate trade bodies. A B2B council had been formed, but it was dissolved following complaints from the other councils that this was overlapping on their territory. Currently B2B is represented by a standing committee, but this demonstrates a disconnect between how other interests groups are represented. For example, the CTPS issue is being handled by the Contact Centre Council, although the DMA also generates revenue from running the overall preference service, which potentially presents a conflict. The BLA, meanwhile, had been developed and run by the B2B Committee, rather than the Data Council.

It’s a confusing picture and in short, it seems that B2B is out of sync with the rest of the DMA, which may explain why it is not being prioritised. The DMA needs to address this, and start putting its weight behind B2B issues, or risk being seen as irrelevant by this significant audience.

Over recent years, figures produced for PWC and the Internet Advertising Bureau, have been tracking the gradual demise of traditional (ie. Print) media. In 2005, advertising via the Internet exceeded that spent on cinema media for the first time, and last year’s figures showed online had left newspaper advertising in its wake. Its rise would seem to be inexorable, as would the demise of traditional media. However, further new figures suggest that the situation may not be quite that straightforward.

The Deloitte Tech & Media Report, released earlier this year, for example, suggests that 2008 will see “growing antipathy towards online advertising”, greater regulatory scrutiny and – shock horror – “growing competitiveness from traditional formats.” It seems there’s life in the old dog yet.

And it seems there’s plenty more where that came from. According to research produced by Pulsetracker for Amsterdam-based online ad firm Toading, 71 per cent of European companies have claimed deterioration in ROI on pay-per-click, “with 21 per cent of the total claiming a major drop in performance.” It blamed this decline in lack of expertise and an increase in competition, both of which are totally predictable things to happen when a route to market becomes established and widely understood.

So what does all this say about digital marketing and media? I’m not for a moment pretending that it’s all fad and is going to disappear in the next six months – that would be ridiculous. Digital is undoubtedly here to stay, but what is happening is that some of the gloss is wearing off, as it becomes more mainstream and the ability to use it for differentiation disappears.

The obvious consequence is that people will recognise that, although it will continue to offer fantastic opportunities, digital is not the panacea that we were led to believe it would be. Indeed, if the regulations are tightened as Deloitte suggests, it may become increasingly threatened and compromised. Meanwhile, traditional forms of communication are offering an increasingly effective means of cutting through the clutter to deliver business messages, just as inboxes become increasingly overloaded.

The next set of figures from the PWC/IAB figures are due in March, and these will undoubtedly demonstrate a continuing increase in digital spend. What they won’t show, however, is the real impact of this communication.

It seems that I am regressing back to the beginnings of time asking what is B2B marketing all about, or more precisely what is a B2B marketer all about? I have my own views, but more importantly, do practitioners actually see themselves as B2B Marketers in the first place and are there any benefit to it at all?

 

I am in a fortunate position, as publisher of B2B Marketing, to meet many marketing practitioners each year and invariably ask the question. Many say that B2B marketing is a collective term of all those working in marketing with either a complete, or core focus, towards marketing directly to businesses. They also see a huge benefit in learning across other verticals and overlaying successes and initiatives to their own marketing efforts (and not just exclusively creatively) – where relevant.

 

However, there are a number who do not see any real relevance to the term B2B [Business-to-business]. They think only by vertical i.e. “I work in manufacturing therefore I am a specialist manufacturing marketer”. They seem only interested in what their sector is doing [in marketing] and all other verticals are too far removed to them to have any relevance or bearing on their working lives. It is these people that I think are missing a huge opportunity.

 

Why? Well first off (and I am only using manufacturing as a working example), what has the marketing of manufacturing of high performance valves got to do with the marketing of manufactured fleet cars? Not a great deal. There are synergies between the actual process of producing the different products from HR, Health and Safety, material sourcing, design and efficiencies of production, but not a great deal when it comes to marketing, and incidentally sales.

 

High performance valves are a high-ticket product, sold in low quantities, to a limited audience of very specialist engineers. The marketing of fleet cars is a game of high volume sales, with a mid-ticket price, selling to procurement departments. I could go on for more time, but I'm sure you getting my point.

 

I would argue that there are many more synergies between marketing company wide mobile contacts and fleet car contracts – that is manufacturing learning from the telecoms space, or visa-versa. In this instance, both product life cycles are the same, buying patterns are similar and the market is equally competitive. Likewise, marketing valves is similar to that of IT servers. Both products are sold to specialist professionals, in small quantities, but at a high unit ticket value, where detailed specifications and service is key to the proposition. This is manufacturing relating to the tech space.

 

There are loads of other examples and permutations, but the point I make is that just taking inspiration from your vertical can be misleading and also you miss opportunities of utilising ideas from other relevant markets.

 

Layered on that, being a specialist B2B marketer gives you more weight in the employment market. Why would you want to pigeonhole yourself to just one vertical? Why be a one-trick-pony? Defining yourself as a marketer, by focusing on your sector, does not give you great reach. Being a successful B2B marketer means you can demonstrate an ongoing understanding of market forces and how to develop that into a successful marketing strategy, whatever the vertical. Marketing tools are the same wherever you go, it is the variance in application which is the key differentiator.

 

For all those people who are already with me, I apologise for going over old ground, however, for those of you stuck in the 20^th century, I hope I have made a good argument, which might help you in the long run. Exposing yourself to ideas outside your vertical market will pay back with dividends. And for those of you who say that you do not have time to swat up on your own industry let alone others hear this… a new phrase I have heard from industry leaders is that marketers are beginning to de-skill. Marketing is changing at such a pace, that marketers need to evolve with a more rapidly than ever before. Just relying on your own potentially dated sector ideas, to furnish you with all the mental enrichment you need, is not enough anymore.

 

I believe that those professionals who embrace my philosophy and put it into practice are setting themselves up for a successful and prosperous future, the others will just have to ‘use the force’ to guide them!