What happened to the communications field?

A Surviving Facts Blog

Marketing has destroyed the communications field.

I’ll tell you why.

I have spent much of my career in the marketing and communications field. When I started in this area 30 years ago, businesses understood the distinction between communications and marketing- and the value of both. Communications managed issues and complex subjects, public relations and media (as in journalism and reporting), crises, leadership messaging and reputational issues. Marketing focused on customer buy-in. The disciplines were- and are- part of a spectrum, with many intersecting points. But they weren’t the same. Communications finessed and dug deep while marketing pushed and glossed. If they were visual art, communications would be a landscape and marketing pop art.

As business has evolved, the distinctions between marketing and communications became blurred. Eventually, marketing became the umbrella for the entire spectrum. And with that, communications got lost. Many corporations cut communications completely in favor of large marketing teams. As technology progressed, those large marketing teams became automated systems targeting customer demographics. Communications as a discipline disappeared.

Did this change work? For tech-driven companies like Amazon, marketing has delivered customers what they want even before they knew they did. This comes from automation systems, which learn from clicks, views and purchases and serve up more. The focus is on consumer goods. Retail. Algorithms, and now AI-written messages, flood inboxes and social feeds to sell, sell, sell. It works; consumerism has soared to benefit enormous digital and big box retailers. For those businesses, sledge-hammer marketing makes sense. If you want body wash, you usually don’t care about the history of body wash, how it’s regulated and the chemical composition (unless you’re concerned about certain chemicals, in which case you’re buying a specific pre-determined brand). It’s a quick purchase for a specific need.

For information- based businesses, the purchase action is very different. What’s an information-based business? Research and other consultancies, professional and trade associations, political think- tanks, membership groups, perhaps even learning institutions like universities, etc. In these kind of businesses, the customer isn’t seeking a quick, in and out purchase. Their interaction with the company is driven not by use but by connection, affiliation, learning and knowledge. The outcome is a life goal (learning how to make bread, for example) or professional need (certification, for instance). For this kind of business, marketing fails. “Buy” approaches alienate rather than push to act. This customer usually is an expert in a field- scientists, engineers, accountants, lawyers. Using the body wash example above, if I’m a beauty product scientist, I need information on chemicals, research and regulations.

For this kind of business, marketing is not a lather, rinse, repeat process. Why then do so many information-based organizations, such as associations and think-tanks , struggle to embrace a communications-first approach to marketing?

Here’s a comparison, borne out of my consulting and work experience.

Organization 1 is still in concept, representing a combined liberal arts and science area (yes, there is such a thing). A friend of mine came to me with a group of fellow specialists in 2024, seeking to explore the possibility of an organization for professionals in this small market, no greater than 10,000 worldwide. Most in this field work in academia, but increasingly, their knowledge is needed in business. Without going into too much detail, this group wanted to create connection among like professionals before forming a dues-based membership organization. The question they had was: what do those in my field need enough so that they are willing to pay for it?

We began with research- of course- to tease out needs, wants and desires. The results were pretty clear- these professionals were seeking the latest developments and research, peer-reviewed articles and a regular journal since none existed in their area, an annual gathering to network and hear ideas, and a social group to maintain connectedness.

With this information, we were able to map out a group of information-based resources that professionals would be willing to pay an annual fee for. What became clear was that these professionals wanted connection, updates and information. They didn’t want to be bothered with anything else. The group is now testing 2 sets of resources to assess which resonates most with potential members- results to be determined. If this group had jumped to sales, then the professionals would have shut down. Value had to be proven first.

Organization 2 has been around for a long time. They also represent a group of science professionals, but unlike the first organization, their focus is wider and bigger (but not big). Years ago, their membership was strong, underpinned by a reliable resource set members had received year after year. Since then, the organization has sought to cut costs and increase sales. They had fatally broken apart the materials members had enjoyed, seeking to increase revenue through individual sales. It didn’t work. Membership decreased; the resources lost their value.

As with Organization 1, we started with research. That’s where you always start. And from this, we identified the steps needed to get this group back on track. There’s not much I can say here, but this: Mostly, this group has to recreate a value set- key word being set. The value is in the full suitcase, not an empty bag. Their professionals don’t want to pick and choose. They want the work done for them.

I share these two consulting and work situations because they underscore the point I started with. Not everyone wants to be sold to. Everywhere people turn- social media, physical and digital spaces, even paid entertainment channels- they are bombarded with buy, buy, buy. This may work for deodorant, but not for the ideas and information we need. Indeed, social’s targeting of information as if it were advertising, likely has contributed to the polarized perspectives we see today (I have to think about this more and write a blog about it!).

Businesses complain about marketing’s costs, team size and results. For good reason. Marketing, especially with the simplification of automation and the current unreliability of AI, has lost trust. How to get it back? Communications- both in the sense of talking to one another and as a professional field. People are seeking authenticity, emotional connection, closeness that today’s automated marketing systems don’t deliver.

To marketing professionals, this may seem a circular argument. It is, sort of. But a full circle didn’t exist. We have lost half of the circle. In going back to the beginning, we are recovering the part of the spectrum called communications that got lost in the drive for revenue. We begin with customers and what they want- all marketing and communications should. The next step is to find words- meaningful words- that matter. Words become messages; messages become images; together, they become an act of communicating. Communications means connection. At least, it should.

My marketing friends also may say I’m creating a false distinction. I would have agreed 4 years ago. The marketing spectrum had swung definitely to the like and buy model. But now the pendulum is swinging back. The only way to engage people who are tired, burned out, shut down and polarized is to take the slow, local train rather than the bullet. That’s communications.

The word “slow” can scare many businesses, but as a wise woman I know used to say: go slow to go fast. This means paint the landscape, provide details, answer the hard stuff. Finesse. Go deep. If you do this, trust builds. People turn toward trust. People are hungry for trust. At the right time, purchase will follow.

My recommendation? Kill marketing and rebuild communications. You keep the effective technology systems and efficiencies and use them for connectivity and information-sharing. It’s time to return to the basics people are seeking. This is a trend. People are turning away from big and easy- even for retail. After all, look at how much Target has lost (billions, if you don’t know). So have Walmart and Amazon. The political landscape has contributed but underneath that are communications that failed to resonate with buyers. DEI was more than an HR policy for Target. It was a meaningful message delivered not through marketing push but through store signs and messages. I myself haven’t stepped into Target since they communicated their DEI drop.

If you’re an information-based business struggling with growing, evolving, surviving, look at how your value is being delivered to the customer. Look at how you’re interacting. If every message is a sales push, you’re missing opportunities for meaningful relationship building- the kind that create loyalty. I’ll give you an example. Ever since Dawn shared their commitment to cleaning up oil spills, I became a Dawn loyalist. Their message wasn’t BUY. It was, “we care.” This is, of course, a retail example, but I’ll share an information-based one now. Law firms are increasingly becoming information providers on social spaces like LinkedIn. One law firm regularly provides details about certain employee rights. This reminder of their presence leads to people turning to them when they need help. In fact, I know people who have. I shared a LinkedIn post recently of a law firm that does this.

In today’s disruptive, competitive, polarized market, the job for marketing and communications experts is harder than ever. Again, this stems partly from how facile marketing has become. If companies want to thrive- especially information-based companies- they need to shift their strategy. Look to communications to sort it out and provide the answers. And, by the way, I’m here to help when you’re ready.