Bob Gilbreath, Bridge Worldwide’s Chief Marketing Strategist, is a big fan of “Marketing With Meaning” (the concept, and the actual words).
I’m thrilled that Supe and Schmidtt (from Razorfish) align on the use of the word “meaningful” to describe the concept that we are dedicated to promoting. We sometimes find that the word only conjures elements of Cause Marketing-which, while important, is only one of many ways that brands can deliver value to people’s lives. It is a word that has much more soul than rival expressions like “branded utility.” And I believe “meaning” is superior to “marketing as service” because it suggests that there is a progression-i.e. brands can do more by reaching people in an increasingly meaningful way.
So, already we have the struggle to define terms. Such is the nature of business. Personally, I’m good with branded utility. I like the word “utility” because it evokes real work, like the work of the water company, electric company and so on.
“Marketing with meaning” has a nice alliterative ring to it, but the meaning of the phrase is a bit too open-ended. “Meaning” to one, could be advertising to another. Whereas, branded utility clearly states that the brand is intent on doing something useful for a change.
I like the way the guys from Razorfish put it:
What a brand says will always be important, but in this day and age what a brand does – how it acts and how it brings its beliefs to life in ways that add value to consumers — will be the most important, and ultimately the most engaging.
When you step back and look at this movement towards meaning, it’s kind of radical. All of a sudden consumers aren’t going to take any shit from marketers? They’re going to demand that brands first add value to their lives and the community, before a “conversation” can even begin? That’s the price of admission today?