In conversations this week about “new marketing”, or “newer”. I’m having a problem with taxonomy. I know it’s not “digital marketing” because moon boots are out of style and so is that term (but hey, I’m reliving 1987 this week so maybe I’ll pull that term out a few times). I hate the term web 2.0 because it’s just this big blob of trendy, I’m-cool-because-I-use-terms-fashioned-after-software-release-nomenclatureness. Still hate it, still see it being used by people that don’t want to define why their web 2.0 thing is cool, they just want you to take their word for it because they already showed you their web 2.0.
What I’m trying to define is this collection of marketing activities that are enabled my current media. So it’s where marketing meets blogs and wikis, viral activities (from mail to video to in-person stuff), community engagement in all it’s forms, cell phone marketing, non-traditional influence marketing (a la Huba and McConnell). The challenge that I am having is that it’s hard to put my finger on the one thing that all of these have in common other than the fact that they fall outside of how we did marketing ten years ago. Some are technology enabled and some are grassrootsy.
Calling them “non-traditional” or “new media” doesn’t work well. What’s new now isn’t in a few years and what’s non-traditional now becomes traditional with more widespread adoption. Or maybe it is “new media” and the selection of media to choose from changes as we move forward. But then “new media” turns into the new “web 2.0” where people have to guess about what you are talking about.
Help me out here. If you are working at a company that does these types of things (or have seen a company do any of them well), can you tell me a little bit about what it is and what you call it?