A new definition of marketing: the AMA's update can mean enormous opportunities for higher education

University Business, March, 2005 by Robert Sevier

In August of 2004, the American Marketing Association LAMA) changed its definition of marketing. Unfortunately, this change received little recognition in higher education and that's unfortunate. Because the change actually telegraphs enormous opportunities not only for marketers, but for the organizations in which they work and the customers they serve, it warrants further attention. Since 1985, this was the AMA's definition of marketing:

   Marketing is the process of planning and executing the
   conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of goods,
   ideas, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual
   and organizational goals.

Most practitioners were reasonably comfortable with this definition through the '90s. However, as changes in technology, an increased awareness of the importance of customers, and a greater understanding of lifetime value began to be felt in the profession, the definition lagged. Fortunately, the AMA took up the challenge and unveiled a new definition in 2004:

   Marketing is an organizational Junction and a set of processes
   for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers
   and for managing customer relationships in ways that
   benefit the organization and its stakeholders.

Let me outline four reasons why this new definition is important.

CORE OPERATING PRINCIPLE

First, this new definition places responsibility for marketing at the organizational level, rather than the individual or even departmental level. With this definition, marketing is rightly recognized as a central, core operating principle; quite literally part of an organization's DNA. There is no longer a simple, separate marketing function that falls neatly within one division or in one person's job description. Rather, marketing is seen as an organization-wide, or in our context, campus-wide, understanding and responsibility.

Recognizing this sea change, the question is no longer "how can our marketing department do a better job?" Rather, the question is "what are the marketing ramifications of decisions made in academic affairs or student services ... or parking?"

With this definition, everyone is involved in marketing. It is no longer a tool, but an attitude. It is no longer the commitment of a single individual, but the commitment of all individuals in the organization. By extension, individuals who do not value this "we are all in the marketing boat" commitment, especially if they are in positions of authority, imperil the very organizations they try to lead.

Takeaway for colleges and universities:

* Marketing must have a seat at the major decision-making table of the institution.

* There will be less of a need for a separate marketing plan that tries to do all the heavy lifting. Rather, there should be a marketing dimension in all existing plans, especially the strategic plan. In fact, every plan should include a question: what are the marketplace implications of this goal or activity?

* Because group responsibility often means no responsibility, senior leaders must make sure that this collective responsibility is felt and acted upon in a systematic and engaging way and that correct attitudes and behaviors are rewarded.

* In an interesting turn of events, the chief marketing officer (CMO) is now realty a coordinator. Rather than trying to exert his or her will on a recalcitrant campus, the CMO works through, or coordinates, the marketplace impact of decisions made in the other primary functional units.

EMPHASIS ON INTEGRATION

Second, the new definition of marketing emphasizes integration. Like many practitioners, I have tong proposed that of the two words that comprise "integrated marketing" the more important, useful, and compelling word of the two is "integrated" or "integration." This new definition affirms that insight.

Marketing is art about shared goats, as all major functional areas work toward the fulfillment of a common vision. As a result, it is less about new dollars and resources and more about coordinated dollars and resources. To illustrate the impact this notion of integration has, consider for just a moment eight rowers in a racing shell (yes, here we go again with my favorite illustration). When all eight rowers are in sync, the shell moves swiftly and leaves its competitors behind. When all senior administrators are in sync, communicate, and instill this synchronicity in their middle managers, great things occur.

Of course, this means that all eight rowers must be willing to row toward a common vision and understand their role in helping to achieve that vision. This occurs much less often, and with less enthusiasm, than one might hope. If integration is critical, and it is, then building a senior team of like-minded administrators will become the most important undertaking facing all college presidents.

Takeaway for colleges and universities:

* It is all about sharing goals and resources and coordinating activities toward the accomplishment of a single, well-focused set of goals that support the institutional vision.