Back To Basics: Marketing versus Communications
In my presentation at the Stamats conference, I asked a group of self-proclaimed “marketers” what I thought would be a relatively simple question: What is the different between Marketing and Communications?
I didn’t expect a lot of hands to shoot up (no one wants to be that guy), but I didn’t expect what I got: You could have heard a pin drop in the room from silence. Eventually a few people started shouting out answers, but none of the captured what I was looking for:
Communications makes marketing tactics tangible
The problem? The constant confusing between the two terms, making them (in the minds of many practitioners) interchangeable. In other words, a lot of people who produce communications materials for their institution consider themselves to be marketers when they’re really communicators. It’s not that one is better or worse than the other, but they are different practices.
I really like the above definition of their differences because it articulates two things to me:
- There is more to marketing that simply an execution of a communications piece, like a viewbook or an email solicitation.
- The communications component of marketing is vital - without it your strategies are never made real for your audience.
Marketing is a more complex process than communications but when communicators mistakenly label themselves marketers, they’re prone to skip over important steps in that process. Here’s my simplified version of the steps of marketing:
- Set goals: What are you trying to achieve? When you set goals, you are planning what success looks like. One of the keys to setting goals is that you also need to make sure they are measurable, which comes in later in the marketing process.
- Plan your communications: Now that you know what you want to achieve, how are you going to achieve it? This is the part where you research your audience (wants, needs, demographics, etc…) and plan the strategy for communicating with them (message, medium, tone, etc…)
- Execute your communications: This is the communicating part! This is where you’re creating and sending your emails, designing and mailing your viewbooks, holding your events, and so on and so forth.
- Assess your results: Did you meet your goals? What can you do better next time? This is the step I most often see communicators overlooking. They just move right on to the next project.
When a person skips over one or more steps in this process, it throws the whole thing off - if they skip over goal setting, they end up deeming that it can’t be measured (how many times have you heard that about social media?) when it COULD be measured if they had put the mechanisms in place to do so. If they skip over assessment, they miss the whole point of this process in the first place, which is continual refinement and improvement to the marketing plan.
The most prevalent hole I see people falling down when it comes to e-marketing is that they choose the technology they’re going to use before they know what they want to achieve. In other words, they’re starting at step two in the process (where you select your medium(s)) and skipping over goal setting entirely. Again, this is a great example of what happens when people proclaim that marketing efforts over social media can’t be measured.
The key takeaway that I hope you get from this post is that there’s more to being a marketer than executing communications tactics. There’s planning, research, goal-setting, assessment and continual refinement (and a bunch of other stuff too but let’s just start there for now!). If you want to call yourself a marketer, you need to go through all the steps - not just the fun, sexy ones.






December 4th, 2008
I remember you making this statement at the Stamats conference and I remember trying to make it make sense (for me) at the moment. Thanks for illuminating! I know we are guilty of skipping especially the planning and assessment steps - mostly because we’re so snowed under with requests from outside departments (who also do not plan) to execute their one-off projects. One of my biggest takeaways from Stamats was that we need to get a whole lot better at the entire process, and especially these two steps. Thanks for further driving that home.
December 4th, 2008
I’ll be the first to admit that its not easy to do all this stuff. It’s hard to fit it all in, especially when you’re doing like 9 different jobs like most of us do in higher ed. Like I said, being a communicator is not worse then being a marketer - just different. The problem comes when people confuse the two and think they’re doing one when really they’re doing the other.
December 4th, 2008
I agree that there’s a difference between marketing and communications… but I think that there are some key distinctions between the fields that require clarification here.
The textbook definition of marketing generally involves more than just campaign strategy and execution. When developing a marketing plan, generally there should be some degree of situational analysis and research (this may include a review of your 4 P’s - product, placement (essentially your distribution strategy), promotion and price - it may also include a SWOT analysis of the business/product, or a competitive assessment, it may include an evaluation of macroenvironmental trends, an analysis of target audiences etc.) Once you’ve done this - then you proceed with recommendations… again this may address all aspects of the 4 P’s (not just promotion.) These recommendations should be actionable and to some degree measurable.
Communications is not entirely the activity of “making marketing tactics tangible”. (Although I suppose it is a possible tactic that may come out of a marketing plan.) Traditionally communications have been equated with PR - ie. dealing with the media (or investors, unions etc), writing speeches, press releases… and now attempting to manipulate social media.
Does that make sense?
December 4th, 2008
Molly, I definitely understand what you’re saying. Throughout the post, I said it was a simplified version and that there was more to it. I meant it as a means of introduction to people who have the two confused, not as an MBA level course, which is impossible to achieve in 500 words.
I should say that while I’ve studied marketing in an academic setting for my MBA, I don’t necessarily think that textbook definitions do us a heck of a lot of good when applying those principles to the web. It’s an old school mentality that, frankly, leads to really annoying your users when implemented. I would never encourage people who are interested in e-marketing to even look at the 4 Ps, the 3 Cs or anything like that (MAYBE SWOT analysis, but not actually doing one like you would in an academic setting - moreso a quick assessment that can be done in your head on the fly). The session given by the two doctors at the AMA symposium who subscribe to all the old school theory failed completely for me, because they stuff so fast to their guns and didn’t acknowledge that what they were talking about didn’t really apply in the world of Web 2.0.
Finally, I’m not sure I agree with your definition of communications (and this is coming from a communications/public relations undergraduate). I think you’ve applied it extremely narrowly, particularly considering that public relations is not just about dealing with the press - its about dealing with the PUBLIC. That includes your audience. Traditionally, these are all part of the “marketing mix”, which holds the definition I gave at the beginning very true - marketing sets the strategy and the communications part comes in when you’re actually executing your tactics.
December 4th, 2008
Ahem - just looked at your bio… with your educational background, I don’t really need to tell you about the textbook definition of marketing or communications. That being said - here in Ottawa, a job in marketing is considered very different from a job in communications. I think the difficulty that I’m having is that a statement like “Communications makes marketing tactics tangible” - seems somehow incomplete to me… marketing tactics should be tangible no matter what… The activities that encompass “communications” are really only a subset of the marketing toolkit. Thoughts?
December 4th, 2008
To me the comparison that we always do is Marketing to Sales. I hate sales. I think of it as kind of the difference between push and pull marketing. In my opinion if you have good marketing than you don’t need to sell and sales is a better way of saying your brand has a bad marketing plan.
My $0.02.
December 4th, 2008
Ye old school answer was: public relations (communications) is free coverage; marketing (advertising) is paid.
I probably would have been silent, too, if I had attended that session!
December 4th, 2008
Ah, DW. You’re so old-skool! (Same here.)
December 4th, 2008
@DW and Andrew - I don’t consider you guys old school at all. You’re on here, you’re blogging, you’re having conversations - you get Web 2.0 (as much as I hate that terminology). That’s really the difference to me between old school and new school - old school clings to traditional, academic definitions and practices (which usually don’t include the web) while new school embraces the Web and the conversations happening by taking traditional strategies and adapting them to the medium.
I can feel a blog coming on about this topic
December 4th, 2008
While I’m fascinated with the argument over the difference between marketing and communications (thanks for throwing sales into the discussion, Kyle!), I think the point of the post was really contained in the 4 steps– call it marketing, communications or whatever you like. If you don’t define what it is you want to achieve, plan measurable tactics for how to achieve it and actually measure the effectiveness, you’re not likely to see much success (and if you do, you’ll have no idea what that success is attributed to.)
I can’t tell you how many schools I have worked with that create a new brand, redesign a website, institute a CRM or create beautiful new print collateral and just expect applications or donations to roll in. I see clients scratching their heads to make sense of analytics data when the numbers mean nothing without a plan.
December 4th, 2008
@Molly
“Ahem - just looked at your bio… with your educational background, I don’t really need to tell you about the textbook definition of marketing or communications.”
You’re right, you don’t BUT I will say that my definition (in terms of how things actually work when they’re put into practice) differs from textbook definitions (mostly written by academics who don’t practice). I think it’s a very important distinction to make. I could go on and on in this blog about stuff I learned doing my MBA…but I don’t necessarily think a lot of that stuff is actually going to help my audience. Theory is great, but what my readers want (I think) is practical applicable advice that they can use in their jobs today. I also don’t think that traditional marketing/communications profs have caught up with the web, for the most part, and therefore the things they teach aren’t necessarily the most applicable concepts in todays world. I finished my MBA almost 2 years ago and I didn’t learn boo about the web or how to apply the theory I learned to it.
“That being said - here in Ottawa, a job in marketing is considered very different from a job in communications. I think the difficulty that I’m having is that a statement like “Communications makes marketing tactics tangible” - seems somehow incomplete to me… marketing tactics should be tangible no matter what… The activities that encompass “communications” are really only a subset of the marketing toolkit. Thoughts?”
You’re right that the statement is incomplete in that it’s a soundbite. The “Back To Basics” series that this blog is kicking off is about introduction, and I think that the abbreviated statement works well for that. However, I’m going to stand behind it as technically correct because ultimately its the dissemination of a message via communications outlets that makes the tactic tangible to the audience. If the communication part never happens, then it never becomes real to the audience.
(just to note, I didn’t come up with that quote - I pulled it off of MarketingProfs.com)
December 4th, 2008
This is a really interesting discussion, especially because so many marketers in the college/university environment–whether old school (and I admit to being the oldest person in this thread, even older than *gasp* Andy) or new skool–don’t have an opportunity to do anything about the most important of the Ps: the product. When did a faculty member or a dean ever ask for an opinion from someone in marketing–no matter their rank in the institution–about how to shape academic program at their institution? I’ll admit it might happen, but I’d bet it’s rare….
So what happens is that marketers take what is given, try to influence product where they can, and develop campaigns that can demonstrate how the public can benefit from a specific product–whether it’s an institution or a program. The best marketers focus on goals, then develop a program that (at best) relies on various communications channels depending on whom one is trying to reach and/or influence.
Going back to the beginning: Karlyn, I *really* like your original distinction between communications and marketing. Works for me, here in the real world.
December 4th, 2008
@michaelstoner - I’ll bet anything you’re not older than I am
I’m following you now on Twitter. Get updating, man, and follow some of these folks. You won’t be ‘old’ long!
-@kathlee
December 5th, 2008
Marketing, communications, sales… in times of economic uncertainty and budgets that are flat I find the need to do aspects of all of these jobs. Like Michael I also like the original distinction in the post.
December 5th, 2008
“Hi I’d like to sell you something.” vs. “Hi I’d like to tell you something.”
What’s so difficult about this?
Marketing brings together buyers and sellers for the mutually advantageous exchange or transfer of products. ..According to a definition i pulled somewhere. For communications, you’re not talking about transfer of products. More transfer of ideas.
I think the key to this discussion lay(lies) in the difference between information/ideas and products.
Trust me guys. I’ve got a degree in Fine Arts.
December 5th, 2008
Hi Drew,
I’ll agree with you to a certain extent, but communications within the greater context of a marketing program isn’t just about articulation of ideas - ultimately you’re trying to get someone to DO something. If you don’t have that call-to-action at some point, then there is no point of doing the communication in the first place.
December 5th, 2008
sure, within the greater context of a marketing program, you’re right. In the broader reality, marketing inhabits a narrow, lonely, Scrooge McDuck spectrum of communications.
Communication is the process of creating a shared understanding between the sender and the receiver of any given message. Marketing, on the other hand, only attempts to get the person receiving the message to buy something. Marketing does not necessitate a shared understanding. Marketing doesn’t sustain a dialogue with the customer.
I wish I wrote that last paragraph. I lifted it here: http://www.dsg-candr.com/dimensions/does_your_marketing.html
December 5th, 2008
Drew, I have to ask what the point of doing communications within a business context is if its not within a larger marketing context? You’re spending money to not make any money? I think that’s a bit unrealistic.
Also, marketing isn’t always about selling. That’s sales. Completely different discipline and one that I would not claim to know a thing about LOL. I firmly disagree with you that marketing does not necessitate a shared understanding or sustain a dialogue with the customer. In fact, if a marketer is doing their job, they HAVE to have an ongoing dialogue with the customer or their strategies will fail. You’re looking at marketing within a very narrow context.
December 5th, 2008
[...] I found that article while googling for argument ammunition on Karlin’s post about the difference between Communications and Marketing. [...]
December 5th, 2008
Just cause this discussion seems to be continuing, and BTW great discussion, I want to throw something else out there.
I know it’s almost so obvious that we regularly overlook it, but EVERYONE at your institution is a marketer. Yes even the janitors because the job that do cleaning toilets has an impact on the perception people have of your school.
I think that is one of those things that we tend to ignore/forget from time to time. In fact any associated with your brand affects marketing. It is our job to mold and get out the good while controlling and responding to the bad.
December 5th, 2008
I’ll chime in one more time on this and then move on:
Communication is about more than just talking (i.e., more than “Can I tell you something”). It’s also about listening. Sometimes we forget that communication is two-way.