Don't throw the marketing baby out with its bathwater.

The classic marketing mix for B-2-B products has been overhauled in recent years as we all know very well. Traditional combinations of personal demonstration, word of mouth, advertising, editorial, printed literature, direct mail, press releases, exhibitions and training courses have been eclipsed by websites, PDF downloads, video presentations, bulk emailing, RSS and social media feeds.

But is this 180° turnabout really what your customers actually want? We are hearing clients complain about these so-called Internet marketing methods. "It seems more like a way of saving money and balancing budgets," seems to sum up the mood in certain quarters. Few can still support the cost of a personal representative on the road visiting clients for a few pounds of sales per visit. It simply doesn't make sense if the end result is only collecting an order for a dozen nuts and bolts. However, what is often forgotten is the hidden benefit of face to face contact. What are your customers thinking, who are the new competitors, and why are they better? Would you have found out about a potential contract for another part of your business without popping in for that chat? How is the market changing and why?

Of course, you can spend money on market research and focus groups to gather information, but they can't replace direct sales feedback. Or, it seems, printed material. We are finding that more and more clients have gone into online information or PDF downloads for technical data and are starting to come out the other side and embracing print again. It is a hot subject with supporters on both sides: those who want to find information online and download it and those who what a printed brochure to put in a file.

One thing is certain and that is the argument for and against different marketing methods will continue for the forseeable future, but what is starting to appear is a hybrid approach of taking the best from both philosophies to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

A recent project to promote a range of data management hardware components included a simple 16pp guide for specifiers, written in a form of language that neither intimidated the novice, nor patronised the expert. Considered alone it didn't mean much, but as a souvenier of a sales visit, a gift for visiting the website, or a direct mailed piece, or the result of replying to a Tweeted message, it has been an undoubted success.

Thus the technical marketing strategy is to look at all options for marketing - from the traditional and up to date lists - and merging the best tactics from both to create a coordinated and appropriate approach to boosting profitable sales.

Saying what you mean

Estate agents were at one time renowned for the ability to describe properties that others would consider a ruin, or tiny with such glowingly positive descriptions as 'has great potential' or 'charming bijou residence ideally located for shops/school/station'. Legislation was introduced to limit the flamboyant descriptions to have greater affinity with reality.  Marketing and PR however are not exempt from generous descriptions of their client's products. Outrageously high ticket items might be described as 'reassuringly expensive' to allay any concern that the published price is an error and to hint at a delicious sense of exclusivity. One company preferred to describe products as 'inspiringly priced' to pre-empt price objections and eliminate the risk of bargain hunters thinking they were going to get a budget priced product. One blog this week obviously felt the need to provide a series of translations for advertising agency speak. Examples of agency code speak include, 'the product as hero is old hat' and 'it blew their minds in research' translating to, 'we think the product is crap' and 'consumers think the product is crap too'. Other codes are budget related - 'it's highly campaignable' translates to 'we can make even more in production' and 'it'll work in the press' as code for 'they can't afford television'. Then there are engineers writing sales copy. They are not all as extreme as a public lecture given a few years ago by an eminent scientist whose opening line was reported as, 'let me start by assuming everyone is familiar with double differential integration'. But in general few buyers are actually interested in whether the product is a marvel of engineering excellence, instead they prefer to know that it works, is reliable and if necessary can be fixed easily if it goes wrong. Most of all they want to know what is in it for them? In short why would they consider buying the product? That's where marketing is essential, not only to ensure that the product was developed to meet a market need in the first place, but to explain in simple terms why it will enrich their lives. Working in partnership with a technical marketing agency that can speak engineering and marketing language is something that many successful businesses have recognised - and one of the reasons they are successful.

User generated content

There is much discussion of web 2.0 technologies, associated web site phenomenon and in particular user generated content. It raises all kinds of questions. Is content dumbing down? Who is accessing this content? Who has the time to produce it all? Is it giving rise to an alternative economy, does it make business sense … ? I could go on. Just today some major brands withdrew their advertising from a user generated content site because of concerns that their name appeared in juxtaposition to unsuitable content material. Maybe that is inevitable given the apparent chaotic, anarchic and irreverent content that some might choose to post. Then on the other hand there is the success of Wikipedia - amazing by any standards. The Internet certainly seems to be a fertile ground for overnight successes. Started in 1999 Wikipedia today claims 1.92 million articles in English, has 4.8 million registered users 1,200 volunteer editors who edit articles that anyone can submit and requests donations to keep it running. According to accounts on the site, donations were $1.3 million in 2006. What kind of business model is that? Recently we learn that an article by Harvard Business School has explored ‘issues of how online cultures are made and maintained, the power of self-policing organizations, the question of whether the service is drifting from its core principles, and whether a Wikipedia-like concept can work in a business setting.’ All amazing stuff and if it were not for the huge numbers of visitors to the most notable Web 2.0 sites would they be of business interest? It certainly marks a sea change, but will it impact b-2-b or is it all totally disconnected from the old world notion of business as selling products and services to make a profit?