Where will marketing be 40 years from now? Someone just posed that question to me. Of course no one knows the answer, but I am hoping that together we can assemble a few ideas. I have listed some ideas on the topic in this post and I hope that they may provoke you to add your thoughts too.
In spite of the prognostications of Raymond Kurzweil, I do not believe that in 40 years we will all be scanned and living in virtual reality full-time. I’ll be happy if someone can finally come up with a form of flying personal transport that works. People have already been working on that for more than forty years.
So do we really believe that science can crack the truly complex challenge of scanning our brains and duplicating consciousness? (Having asked that, I am now reminded that in 1943, IBM Chairman Thomas Watson said, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.")
Assuming we are not all digitized, it seems reasonable to expect that in 2048 we will still be subject to our emotions, prone to apparently irrational behavior, and disinclined toward thinking too much. In other words, marketers and market researchers will still be in business.
I am sure that many out there will assert that in 40 years time we will not be worried about brand attitudes. Instead our attention will be focused on the battle for sales. This reminds me of what I heard from Irwin Gotlieb, CEO of GroupM, at the Conexion conference last year.
As I related in this blog post, Irwin suggested that in the future, we will see direct targeting enabled by technology, as when, for instance, an individual’s search has provided “a direct indication of interest.” He then suggested that we might see the battle for sales move away from the real shelf space to a virtual one. As I suggested in my post, I see this as a recipe for disaster. Increased price and promotion activity will hide eroding brand equity and declining base sales in a tumult of wildly fluctuating sales volume.
I hope that in 2048 we will know a lot more about how brands "work" and what makes people bond with one brand over another. I actually believe that even today, behavior is broadly predictable on the basis of attitudes. But because we do not properly understand the context and cues that shape an individual’s decision making, that behavior seems irrational and incompatible with pre-existing attitudes. To get a better understanding of why people make the decisions they do, I envisage nanobots following people and detailing their behavior in intimate detail (without impinging personal identity, of course).
The actual nature of brands is bound to have changed by 2048. I expect that new levels of affiliation will have been layered onto the existing ones: trustmark, status symbol, product differentiation, self-affirmation, identity signaling…what’s next? Green or environmentally-friendly claims will no longer be value-added nice-to-haves but will be prerequisites for doing business. Maybe we will assess brands on the basis of how much they contribute to the advancement of the human race in general. Or maybe we will see the rise of the mega-brand contrasted against brands that appeal to tightly knit communities, both geographic and virtual?
I think it is also safe to assume we will be spending a lot more time in virtual reality – albeit in our actual bodies – and that branded content will be the main brand-building communication channel. Movies and video games are already on track to converge; by 2048 this will be a done deal. Why watch James Bond drive a Ford or Aston Martin when you can drive one yourself? Role playing and interaction with brands in a realistic representation of the world will replace TV as THE means to connect with consumers.
Physical events will become the complement to virtual entertainment. Because the cost of travel (and much else) will have risen dramatically, the authentic experience of attending a live event will command a premium – and infer that value on sponsoring brands – simply because it is real not virtual. Today people pay thousands for a diamond that is virtually indistinguishable from cubic zirconium, because it is the real thing. (Or am I being too influenced by De Beers’ advertising?)
OK, enough vague predictions from me. Now it’s your turn. How do you see marketing evolving in the next 40 years? What about marketing communication? Let us know please.
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
August 14th, 2008 at 9:36 am
When I think of the future. I think of the Matrix movie where there are 2 distinct realities virtual and real. I wonder which will influence which. Will our virtual identies be able to vote!
August 14th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Your comment triggers memories of another movie, Minority Report, where John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is propositioned by holographic ads as he walks past them - including one for Guinness if I remember correctly. Of course, that is not so far from becoming a reality. There are a number of companies selling systems that project apparently 3D images.
Thanks, Nigel
August 14th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
It seems logical to say that the future of marketing depends on where it goes from here but this is especially true at this time in our world history. We thought by now we would have flying cars, didn’t happen. Right now however, not only is technology influencing the market place in a new way but people are changing rapidly, they want more, they want better.
A huge point to watch are the changes with television. Digital media fusion creates new opportunities. I think the question is, who will be the pioneer to really understand how to use these technical evolutions, both Web and DTV to set the tone for the next 40 years? That person holds you’re answer and the future in their palms. =-)
August 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
While we’re talking about movies, I’m reminded of the movie Wall-E in which the entire society is basically run by large corporations. Though I don’t think that our lives will ever be entirely run by corporations persay, I do see branding as becoming much more integrated into our everyday lives. One example of this trend already happening is the prevalence of sponsorship in our society today. I recall reading an article which reported that even some elementary schools have been looking into corporate sponsorship as a means of gaining additional funding. On a more extreme note, I’m sure you’ve heard of the girl who auctioned off her forehead or somewhere as an adspace that she would display for a year. With this said, I think that advertising will become much more involved in our everyday lives, with things such as household appliances and furniture(which will all be integrated with the internet) sending us marketing messages. While this may seem like an invasion of privacy, I think that when marketers work with consumers in bettering the life of the consumer (as you mentioned in your blog on mobile marketing), people will accept this and maybe even embrace it.
The challenge is creating marketing which is both advantageous for the marketer and still something that the consumer finds valuable. To that end, I think that building relationships between brands and consumers will be more important than ever, for people’s lives will be defined by the brands that they use.
August 14th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Thanks for the comments.
I saw Wall-E the other night. Loved it but then I am a bit of a Pixar fan.
Picking up on your point Kevin I think that there has always been a value exchange in marketing it is just getting tougher for the marketer to provide tangible and intangible value that consumers can’t get elsewhere.
Nigel
August 14th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
On the subject of movies, the first one that came to mind when thinking about the future was “Idiocracy”. If you haven’t seen the movie, the basic summary is that a man gets cyrogenically frozen and wakes up in a future where society has been dumbed down and entertainment/marketing in particular rely on little more than toilet humor and sex to communicate to consumers.
While that future, by the movie’s reackoning, is hundreds of years away, whose to say that even in the next 40 years marketing communication won’t have begun to dumb itself down? The website below shows a Budweiser ad from the 1940’s that is radically different from the stereotypical beer ad we think of today (which is one step ahead in reaching “Idiocracy”)
http://www.adclassix.com/a4/40budweiserbeer.html
I agree that new technology will open up the door of advertising possibilities (whether or not we’ll accept them), but my question is if this will be deployed assuming educated consumers or used as pure, unadultered entertainment with little more to say than “buy now and we’ll make you laugh”.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Thanks Alex, I guess some people would suggest that marketing communication has already begun to dumb itself down - see my post on obscene ads.
However, I do think there is hope. The number of brands that have tried to create much more engaging experiences is growing, e.g. the Audi A3 launch in the US, Guinness’s La Leyenda del Domino de Oro. With campaigns like these you get involved with the brand by trying to solve a complex online puzzle, hardly dumbing down!
August 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
This is an interesting topic and I am happy to share my thoughts, however right or wrong they may be.
I think there is a marketing life cycle, and it is up to the companies using marketing communications to ultimately prolong the acceptance of advertising or to contribute to the downfall and disapproval of it.
As a consumer, I have two very separate and different perceptions of advertising. I enjoy viewing ads and receiving communication from those brands which I incorporate into my life and depend on. Similarly, I also feel that the brands I have a better relationship with are the ones who respect my privacy and do no inundate me with emails and ads. At the same time, advertising from brands that do not interest me or that I know do not perform as they should from personal experience irritate me and negatively affect my perceptions of the brand. These are the brands that I feel are constantly throwing marketing communications at me with wasted efforts.
I think that if we, as marketers, focus on the consumer and solving a specific need in an honest and genuine way, we can continue to build long lasting relationships with consumers and find more innovative ways to incorporate brands into their lives at relevant times. But, we do run the risk of increasing consumer skepticism and pushing consumers away, as the relationship is fragile and most brand relationships can easily be replaced with a competitive product.
With emerging technologies and communication/networking innovation, being mindful of giving consumers ’space’ will be critical in improving the reputation of marketers and not scaring the consumer away (think ’spooking’ the deer while hunting.) Consumers are getting a bit more skeptical and more elusive with each generation (especially Millennials), making it that much more difficult to step up and prove value to them. But once the value is established, provided it is maintained (and appropriately increased), the consumer is likely to be loyal. Besides, with all of the technological innovations and virtual realitythat are sure to come, who has time to switch brands?
August 19th, 2008 at 5:49 am
I believe that as we progress over the next 50 years, marketing would get a lot more personalized.
Large corporations will - with the aid of technology - be able to track an individual’s specific interests, likes, dislikes and start to create a mass (yet customized) campaign using a multitude of touch points.
Aspects such as Holograms & virtual reality will be a very small aspect of a larger marketing campaign that will direct address those specific needs that an individual might have (not to say that each individual would like to be as unique as possible).
I agree largely to Krista’s point of view above. As long as the marketeer is able to give the consumer ample space, yet be ubiquitous and be a lot more “genuine”, I believe that there is a scope for technology to aid in marketing in creating a truly comprehensive yet personalized approach to consumers
August 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Hi Krista and Subrahmania, thanks for sharing your ideas.
I think your comments come back to that age old difference between “selling product” and “brand building.”
If you are just out to sell stuff the transaction is viewed as an isolated event, so you don’t really care how the buyer feels (think second hand car sales person), or, for that matter how anyone else feels. If you are building a brand you better care about how everyone feels because you are trying to build an ongoing relationship with the buyer (that will result in repeat sales) and do not want to put off people who might not find your brand relevant today but might buy in future.