... marketing going forward?

We touched on it in the session.

So yeah, I think first of all, you're right.

The tactical digital toolkit that really has been the growth engine for careers over the last 10, 15 years is still required, but that's the vulnerable bit first, obviously.

I think what's left then is a bigger picture marketer that can see the context, that understands not just strategy and not just diagnosis and not just tactics, but has the bigger picture of it all.

Yep.

And then I think the, the, the final one, which for me is probably the most important, is we, we are, and I said it again today, we aren't, we aren't gonna see a complete and utter revolution of everything.

I think I'm old enough now to have seen enough of these, the digital revolution and the web revolution and, you know.

Um, what are your thoughts on that?

Uh, I think it's half there.

I mean, we live in a different world now, thanks to our friends at Ehrenberg Bass.

So they would hate that, that statement 'cause they would argue spontaneous brand awareness is not what they're on about.

They're on about something very different, which is essentially this idea of, you know, uh, the category entry points and, and driving this, this level of, uh, of mental, uh, availability, and it's interesting.

So their core argument, which is a very complex argument, is the whole of marketing for 100 years said, "Here's a brand.

Does it come to mind?" And what they've said is start with, well, what's the need? What's the fundamental category need? Now, now start with that, and then which brands are fired from that? So they've kind of reversed it.

Yeah.

What are your thoughts on that?

I think it's half there.

I mean, we live in a different world now, thanks to our friends at Ehrenberg Bass.

So they would hate that statement because they would argue spontaneous brand awareness is not what they're on about.

They're on about something very different, which is essentially this idea of category entry points and driving this trend.

this level of mental availability.

And it's interesting.

And so, I don't know, just do some crystal balling for us.

What comes to mind when I say B2B specific marketing?

I mean, I'm probably, my consulting career is probably about 50-50 if I really look at it properly.

But we never talk about the B2B brands.

And my business now is literally 50-50 B2B.

We do a lot of enterprise work with big client, training big client teams, you know, I'm in the NBA, as well as recruiting B2C.

When I think of B2B, I think of two things.

So my main take on B2B is it doesn't matter, yeah? So- it becomes a barrier or a excuse or a constraint.

How should we approach it? Like knowing what you've just said, then kind of what are the numbers and the economic conversation that you typically would recommend people to have in a B2B company?

You know, synthetic research, for example, really landed with me when you were talking about.

No, no, it's exciting.

I mean, AI is, you know, I don't want to say that we aren't going through a revolution.

It's another one and it's a big one.

I think our focus on AI and advertising is a bit of a MacGuffin.

Again, we're so obsessed with advertising.

We've looked at AI and it's making ads.

But this oral point you just make there is fascinating.

... maybe he-

Fair point.

Fair point.

Evidence-based.

Um, but the point is that, you know, what is AI? It's not...

You don't need to be trained in AI.

AI is doing all that.

It's almost like there's a bit of an uncivil war going on.

And Mark, what would you say the impact of, uh, How Brands Grow has been?

Uh, I think it's still a work in progress, and I think we're all very clear on that.

We, we ...

It sounds fancy talk, but in, in academia, we've always looked at paradigms i- in a very specific sense, uh, Kuhn's idea of there's a socially constructed vision of truth within a scientific movement, and they ...

Paradigms do shift.

And that, that's where that, that phrase comes from.

And what we're seeing in marketing as we live through it is a paradigm shift from what we could call the, the, the American or the Kotlerian school of marketing to one that is now, you know, derived not exclusively, but mostly from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, but it takes time.

... that's a piss-piss-best place to talk to a philosopher.

What the hell is a Van W- [laughs]

So Van Westendorp sounds like some Dutch detective that found the, you know, the dead bodies in the garage, right? No, Van Westendorp was this crazy Dutch economist who worked out you can ask your market four questions-And you will get essentially a pricing prism that will tell you how to price.

And the four questions are open-ended.

At what point will this product be too cheap, so I question the logic, is good value, is okay but starting to get expensive, and then is so expensive I wouldn't buy it, yeah? And you get a numerical open-ended number from the consumer.

Very simply, you can set that up on a couple of axes, and it literally creates a hole which is where you should price it.

Now, it's a pretty crappy pricing approach.

There are lots of arguments against it and, and, and I... my pricing colleagues will tell, tell you you have to go to conjoint trade-off, which you do if you're Unilever.

... that you think is really, really important.

[laughs]

Well, that's good.

That's good.

That's good.

Um, w-we found that, yeah, uh, seventy percent of marketers can't pass a basic test of marketing.

So, you know, only about f- I think it was only about, uh, fifty percent of them knew what above the line meant or what positioning was.

And it's not, you know, do you believe in positioning? It's just what is it, you know? So I then looked at the data and said, "Why is it so bad?" And the answer is dead simple.

So what went wrong then?

When you think about, you know, if marketers don't even have the fundamentals down, how are they even gonna use AI to begin with to help them with their marketing stuff? Do you think AI is gonna make that knowledge gap even bigger?

Yeah.

I, I mean, there's a couple of things there, right? It is a revolution.

I mean, you don't need me to explain that.

But I think we're all in the place now where we realize the implications are gigantic, and they're only just beginning.

I think it will mean less marketers.

H- how much less marketer is an interesting question, right? And I don't think anyone really knows.

I'm curious, has your stance on that shifted at all? And if not, I'd love to hear why you think, uh, marketing effectiveness is a better framing, I think, that you said than, than marketing science.