by John Eberhard
  The idea occasionally pops  up that the Internet has changed the basic nature of how we do marketing. The  idea is that through Internet 2.0, with social media and blogging and all that,  that marketing has changed from a top-down conversation to a back and forth  conversation. It empowers the consumer to be able to talk back to the company  and so on. In other words, it's no longer one person speaking to thousands,  it's now a one-on-one conversation.
  There are various outgrowths  of this idea.
  1. One outgrowth is the idea  that one has to have permission before he communicates
  2. Another outgrowth is the  concept of duplicate content being bad on the Internet.
  3. Another outgrowth of this  idea is the concept that the traditional method of marketing, where ads are  inserted amongst content the consumer wants, like in a magazine or newspaper or  on TV, now called "interruption marketing" by some, is now outdated  and doesn't work anymore. Instead, we have search engines and people come there  specifically looking for something.
  Well I guess it is partly my  job here on planet Earth to be an iconoclast (One who attacks and seeks to  overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions - American Heritage  Dictionary Online).
  First of all I will say that  I have been involved full time in marketing, for a wide variety of industries,  for 24 years, since 1989. That was well before there was an Internet, so I  think I am well qualified to answer the question in the headline above.
  The basic nature of  marketing is that there has to be communications going out from one source to  thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or more, people. That's  the initial marketing push, and that has to be where you spend the majority of  your attention and budget.
  The only thing that the  Internet has changed is that through social media and blogging it is now easier  for the consumer to talk back, give his opinions, communicate about problems  and so on. And the wise company will pay attention to what consumers are  saying.
  But the idea that the  Internet has changed the basic nature of marketing is complete and utter  nonsense. Any company that buys this idea and decides to stop sending out  communications to wide audiences in order to interest those audiences in their  products or services, will drown. If you think you can market your products or  services just one on one, you will starve. That's the sales model, and sales  and marketing are very different animals.
  You still need to send out  marketing messages to the multitudes, in order to make them aware of your  offerings, and to generate responses. And you need to handle those responses  with sales people, and pay attention to the consumer feedback that the Internet  has facilitated and made easier.
  Now let's address some of  the ideas that have grown out of the concept that the Internet has changed  everything.
  1. Permission marketing: This idea largely came from a guy named Seth Godin,  and it grew out of the large amount of spam email that was occurring in the  early to mid 2000s. But if you examine the idea, it falls apart. How can you  get someone's permission to send them a communication if they do not initially  see a communication from you? I mean, I get the whole thing that people don't  want to be inundated with unwanted email, and perhaps Godin's concept applies  mainly to email. But we do have the CAN-SPAM Act, a federal law that requires  companies to remove someone who requests off a list.
  So if companies follow that  law, why do we need every email company on the planet requiring that all email  sent be opt-in? Why do we need vigilante companies compiling lists of  "spammers" that ISPs subscribe to, in order to block those people?  Permission marketing in terms of email is now virtually enforced.
  2. Duplicate Content is Bad: According to SEOMoz, " Duplicate content is  content that appears on the Internet in more than one place (URL). This is a  problem because when there are more than one piece of identical content on the  Internet, it is difficult for search engines to decide which version is more  relevant to a given search query. To provide the best search experience, search  engines will rarely show multiple, duplicate pieces of content and thus, are  forced to choose which version is most likely to be the original (or  best)."
  So we see that this is really  a search engine problem. But this idea that duplicate content is bad has been  so thoroughly disseminated that you probably have the idea that there is something  inherently wrong (bad, evil) with having two or more web pages with the same  content.
  As an example of this, sites  like Squidoo.com and HubPages.com will no longer even accept an article that  exists elsewhere on the web. They will only accept totally unique content.
  According to this idea, if  you have an article that you want to syndicate in multiple places across the  Internet, you can't. You have to write a separate and unique version of that  article for every place on the Internet that you want it to appear.
  I have been doing link  building for clients using articles and press releases for over 7 years,  putting the articles on dozens of sites, and putting the releases on dozens of  sites, and have carefully tracked the results, and have seen absolutely NO  negative impact for the clients. Using this program I have been able to build  500-1,000 links per month for clients, and I am not aware of another program  that can create that kind of volume of links.
  Yet most other SEO  consultants are in such a state of propitiation to Google that just the fact  that Google says it is bad is enough for them to accept it verbatim.
  My thought is that when you  write an article, you want it to go out widely so that thousands, tens of  thousands, or hundred of thousands of people see it. That's marketing. And I  will continue to resist people who tell me I can't do it.
  3. Search Engines, No More "Interruption  Marketing": Search engines are  a new innovation and have added a new dimension to marketing, a line for marketers  to place themselves in front of people who are actively searching for  something.
  That's great. But it still  doesn't change the fact that initial marketing and branding of a product needs  to be done widely to the masses. And I will say again that if you drop your  communications going from one source out to thousands, in favor of only being  in front of people who search for something, you will starve. And I think that  people who advocate that no one do any more "interruption marketing"  are hopelessly naive and short sighted and will steer people wrong.
  For one thing, how did that  person who went on the search engine first learn about the product or service  to know enough to search for it? Huh? Gotcha thinking, didn't I?
  Summary
  I know I am taking a  position here that is out of agreement with a large group of people, and may  even offend some or piss people off.
  But I feel strongly that  these ideas I have mentioned above are wrong and are stopping people from  marketing today. And I think it is my job to say so.
  Posted via email from Real Web Marketing's Posterous