Why do you feel marketing has become difficult?

Re-think: “ Marketing Jobs”

This time, I hope to rethink the changes in marketing work.

1. Why has marketing become difficult?

Li Jiaoshou asked this question on the official account : What changes in marketing have made you uncomfortable in the past few years?

Most of the answers are:

• Users are distracted and it is increasingly difficult to attract their attention
• Media channels are becoming less effective
• Traffic is getting more expensive
• Spending money won’t get you good promotion results.
• Spokespersons are not as effective as they used to be.

These answers were within my expectations, because anyone who has worked in marketing will have this feeling.

Take one aspect of marketing, advertising, for example. I often use this analogy:

If advertising is compared to a lullaby (essentially, it is about influencing the target users) , then advertising in the past was akin to " singing a lullaby to users in a closed room" - through large-scale advertising bombardment, forcing the other party to accept the concept, the effect was very good.

However, users’ attention is becoming increasingly fragmented and there are more and more media, which has led to the current advertising being like “playing a lullaby to users on a motorcycle at 100 kilometers per hour” - users can still hear it, but they are no longer so easily brainwashed.

Therefore, the cost of affecting users will also rise.

Many people have similar feelings. In addition to advertising, there are also public relations, distribution channels, promotions and almost all other marketing links - it is becoming increasingly difficult to influence users, and marketing costs are getting higher and higher.

So, this has become the core argument for many people: attention is distracted, marketing costs are rising, and marketing becomes difficult.

So is this the truth? Is the feeling that “marketing has become more difficult” that most people have really due to the so-called “distracted attention” and “fierce competition” leading to rising costs?

Of course not. If you take a little time to analyze it, you will find that this so-called "insight" is somewhat inconsistent with another fact: the total marketing cost of society has not increased .

Data shows that the proportion of advertising expenditure to GDP has not increased in recent years. Data source: PWC CITIC Securities Research and Development Department, National Bureau of Statistics

If that’s the case, why do we generally feel that marketing is “getting more and more difficult”?

Before analyzing the reasons, you must first understand the two basic types of jobs: "value-capturing" jobs and "value-creating" jobs.

This classification originates from two classic concepts in strategic studies: "value-capturing" strategy and "value-creating" strategy.

The core of the "value-capturing" strategy is to find ways to gain more existing resources.

Reflected in marketing work, it is similar to buying better advertising space, increasing marketing budgets, negotiating better channel prices, finding top spokespersons, extending working hours, purchasing more traffic, etc.

The key to doing value-capturing work well is not marketing methods, but management methods - such as making Gantt charts, coordinating resources, contacting channels, controlling budgets, and communicating efficiently.

The core of the "value creation" strategy is to create new value by switching the way resources are used.

Reflected in marketing work, it is similar to finding more resonant themes for your activities, exploring and studying the real needs of users, switching product positioning and strategies, etc.

The key to doing value-creating work is not management methods (such as budget control and Gantt charts) but marketing methods , such as consumer behavior, motivational psychology, creative ideation, and transformational thinking perspectives.

In the past, most of the work done by marketers was actually "value-extracting" work, so you could see many people in the marketing departments of many companies dealing with numbers and tables all day long instead of understanding consumers' motivations and psychology.

The key to “value-capturing” work is that I can win the battle for existing resources and build barriers.

• "I signed a bigger endorsement deal."
• "I got the advertising space on CCTV."
• "My advertising volume overshadows yours, which leads to my popularity surpassing yours."
• "I have secured better channel resources ."

A popular article some time ago, " Startups are facing life and death every day because they can't afford to buy traffic," described this phenomenon. The reason why simply buying traffic is becoming increasingly inefficient is because "buying traffic" itself is a simple "value-grabbing" behavior - if you do not create differentiation in marketing and simply want to complete the work through "purchasing", how can it be so easy?

What many people mean by “marketing becoming more difficult” is nothing more than a reduction in the “value-extracting” work they are accustomed to, and a greater need for “value-creating” work.

Anyone who has been to business school knows that there is a course called " Marketing Management." However, in reality, most marketers only do half of this course: they focus on "management" and neglect "marketing."

(P.S. To clarify, the “management” here refers to management in a broad sense, not the work of senior management. The budget table, plan chart, channel negotiation, etc. made by a grassroots marketer are also management behaviors.)

This trend is so prevalent that even many organizers of "marketing forums" have fallen into the "value-grabbing" work - instead of spending more energy thinking about how to find an inspiring slogan for the forum, looking for a unique entry point that can impress many marketers attending the forum, or creating unique meeting needs (this is value-creating work) , they spend the most energy on management work, coordinating resources, persuading more "big names" to join, contacting the media, and looking for the highest potential venue...

In fact, what can bring value more effectively now is "value-creating" work.

For example, when selling flowers, most companies mainly do "value capture" work, constantly looking for new channels, negotiating with more powerful suppliers, spending more money on advertising, and using negotiation skills to lower prices... In essence, it is a battle for existing stock resources.

But brands like "Take Some Time" have rethought "why people need flowers" and redefined flowers as "daily companionship" rather than "occasional gifts" (order model) , which is equivalent to creating new value - the original resources (whether flower suppliers or advertising space) have been used in a new way.

For example, some time ago I also wanted to do an online marketing training. During the whole process, more than 80% of my energy was focused on "value-creating" work, such as rethinking why marketers need training, rethinking why the effect of training is often limited, and rethinking what impresses people to participate in training (is it really the so-called endorsement by big names) .

Then we released the “14-Day Change Plan”, which made the training process more focused on training rather than learning, classified the training as “a journey and experience” rather than some “content”, etc. As a result, it quickly became full.

Value capture VS value creation - If you compare these two types of work, you will find that although "value capture" work is costly, it is easy to implement : investing 100 million yuan in advertising and then ensuring basic results is very costly, but the work of "completing the delivery" itself is very easy.

The opposite is true for “value-creating” jobs. The real cost is limited (most of it is intellectual cost) , but the work is very difficult - you have to constantly study consumer needs, study how consumers make choices, understand the latest trends, and find unique entry points...

If these two types of work are compared to exams, then "value-extracting" work is like the "CET-6 exam". Although the investment is high (it requires six months of review) , there are clear paths and methods. As long as you invest enough, you will generally succeed. "Value-creating" work is more like a "brain teaser". Although the investment is not high (it does not require a lot of review time) , there is no clear path or method, and it is difficult to accomplish simply through diligence and hard work.

Therefore, we feel that marketing has become difficult, essentially because the "value-grabbing" type of work that does not require much thinking is becoming increasingly limited, while value-creating work is not an easy job.

This feeling occurs not only in marketing, but also in daily work.

For example, in the past, a person's outstanding performance in a large company was more due to his strong ability to compete for existing resources (for example, he spoke sweetly, thereby winning the appreciation of the leadership, or his excellent communication skills enabled him to gain support from more departments) , but his efficiency in utilizing these resources was not actually higher than that of his colleagues (the same could be achieved by giving the same support to another colleague) .

But now in more and more companies, the key to internal promotion is no longer the "ability to compete for internal resources" (value capture) , but the ability to creatively use the same resources (value creation) .

2. Why is it more difficult to engage in “value grabbing” behavior?

So why did this change occur? Why is it becoming increasingly difficult to achieve success through “value capture”?

Actually it’s very simple. I think it’s the combined effect of a short-term factor and a long-term factor - the short-term factor “dividend reduction” and the long-term factor “the world is flat”.

“Diminishing dividends” are easy to understand - when the market is full of opportunities and the entire market is growing, you should quickly seize resources. For example, when Weibo first became popular in 2011, no matter how good your writing was, you could become popular by writing on it quickly. But when the dividends decrease, simply competing for existing resources through "value-extracting" work will reduce efficiency.

Of course, this factor alone cannot cause such a big change. Another important change is that the world is becoming more and more "flat" and the flow of resources is getting faster and faster.

In the past, when resources were flowing slowly, as long as you could quickly seize the beachhead and occupy resources during the bonus period, you could gain a lot of advantages. Then, simply relying on these accumulated advantages to "capture value" will allow you to live a good life.

For example, because of the capital advantages accumulated in the 1980s, you were able to have more sufficient funds in the 1990s (while others did not) , which allowed you to advertise on CCTV (while others could not) , and naturally you were able to lead the way.

However, with the advent of the information age and the emergence of various platforms, one change that cannot be ignored is that the significance of any past success is becoming less and less.

For example, when resource mobility is low, you can persuade a very high-quality talent to join your company simply through "value capture" behavior, which will naturally continue to create additional value for you.

But once we enter the information age and the flow of resources becomes faster, this high-quality talent will soon find that they can play a greater role in other companies, and you will lose this cash cow talent - in other words, simple "value capture" (persuading talent to join) is no longer effective, and you have to engage in "value creation" (for example, your business model can enable this same talent to play a greater role) .

Almost the entire business community is undergoing such changes, making it impossible to live a good life simply by "grabbing value" a thing of the past.

With the emergence of various financial institutions (such as venture capital and angel funds) , the liquidity of capital has increased, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for you to rely on the capital advantages brought by past success to defeat entrepreneurs in seconds.

With the emergence of various consumer product evaluation agencies, searches, and purchase reviews, consumer mobility has also increased. It is becoming increasingly difficult for you to rely on past brand success to build trust and outperform later, unknown brands.

For example, in recent years, there has been a very influential study abroad that has shaken many brand theories. It found that the more popular Yelp (the overseas Dianping) is, the worse the business of chain restaurants will be, while the business of independent restaurants will improve.

This is because in the past, consumers lacked information and found it difficult to judge quality (for example, they didn’t know whether an unknown restaurant was good or not and didn’t dare to go in to eat) , so they could just judge by well-known brands (KFC is a well-known brand, so it should be correct) .

Now, you can just open the reviews and see how many stars they have, which reduces the need to judge quality by brand.

This means that the brand power of “well-known brands” that represent past success will also decline.

Another example is the distraction of consumers, which is essentially "the flow of attention is getting faster and faster" - watching TV one second and playing with mobile phones the next. It is more difficult to influence consumers by occupying a certain channel and forcing them to occupy attention resources and prevent them from watching other things (similar to the previous one, forcing a person to change jobs) .

In short, the world is becoming "flatter and flatter", and all resources (including capital, consumer choices, talent, channel partners and even user attention) are flowing faster and faster, which means that it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve sustained success simply through "value grabbing".

Because it is difficult for you to keep a resource in your hands.

On the contrary, it is precisely because resources flow faster and faster that "value creation" has more opportunities.

For example, decades ago, Honda launched the Super Cub motorcycle, which was compact and a disruption to large motorcycles in the American market. When it was first launched, it was difficult to find a channel - motorcycle channels were unwilling to sell such a non-famous brand and low-profit-margin product. (ps. I finally found a channel in a sporting goods store)

Now, various new products that cannot be categorized according to the original shelf logic are constantly emerging, and it is easier to find channels. For example, according to shelf logic, high-end olive oil has to be placed next to low-priced peanut oil, and the contrast effect makes it difficult to sell. Now, it can be classified as “healthy living products” on e-commerce platforms .

Therefore, if the current logic of business success still remains at "you can succeed because you are better than others at competing for existing resources", then it will be difficult to achieve sustained success - the dividends will disappear in the short term, and in the long term "the world will become flat".

3. What is “value-creating” work?

So what exactly is “value-creating” work?

If the core of "value-extracting" work is "resources", then the core of "value-creating" work is "the way resources are connected."

For example, in the operation of a football club, the "value-extracting" work is to recruit more powerful superstars.

The "value-creating" work is to improve the tactical system (change the way stars connect with each other) .

(Although they will affect each other, for example, after "recruiting superstars", the tactical system will naturally change, and after the tactical system changes, some stars will naturally be more willing to join. But the core difference is - when you work, are you thinking about optimizing the tactical system? Or don't figure out these things, just recruit superstars.)

For example, when looking for a spokesperson, the "value-grabbing" behavior is - I found a spokesperson for a big brand, and his fans can bring me users - but in fact, all brands have this effect when looking for this spokesperson, that is to say, the "resource" of the spokesperson does not add value to you, you are purely engaging in a "competition for existing resources."

The behavior of "value creation" means that the same spokesperson can produce more value here than at other places - for example, when AutoNavi hired Lin Chiling as its spokesperson, it directly recorded her voice into navigation, which is equivalent to bringing added value to the same resources.

Although this idea seems simple, many people cannot get around it.

For example, I met someone who was in the decoration business before. He wanted to plan a communication that would go viral on WeChat Moments (that is, he wanted to gain the resource of consumer attention) . However, we know that decoration is a low-frequency, high-priced, high-decision-making threshold, and practical product. Large-scale communication is often a waste - out of 100 people who see the communication idea, there may be only 1 who happens to need to decorate his house. (This is not like Durex , which most people need.)

This means that your effective use of consumer attention as a resource is definitely not as good as Durex.

At this point, you must have discovered a magical phenomenon: no matter what industry, the abilities required for "value-capturing" jobs are similar (all management) , while "value-creating" jobs in different industries each require professional knowledge in their field.

for example:

Marketing

• Value-extracting work: persuading, purchasing resources, negotiating...
• Value-creating work: finding user needs, switching positions, and finding the “why” that arouses users

Football field

• Value-extracting work: persuading, purchasing resources, negotiating...
• Value-creating work: Reconstructing tactical systems, etc.

Company Management

• Value-extracting work: persuading (employees to work overtime) , purchasing resources (such as better people) , negotiation, etc.
• Value-creating work: optimizing work processes, etc.

The same is true in the film industry, recruitment industry, etc.

Conclusion

Why is marketing becoming more and more difficult? It’s not because the actual marketing costs have increased, but because you no longer have the method of “there is a fixed path, you just need to increase investment and effort, and there will be rewards”.

It's like a student who no longer has that "as long as he works hard he can get high scores" English test, and has to think hard about the few difficult questions.

Due to space limitations, this article only talks about the difference between the two types of work, but does not explain how to specifically carry out "value creation" rather than simply "value extraction." In next week’s article, I will talk about how to do it specifically, as well as what ideas and new market opportunities can help us create value.