<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is the 1-to-1 future here yet?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitalsolid.com/2009/05/26/is-the-1-to-1-future-here-yet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitalsolid.com/2009/05/26/is-the-1-to-1-future-here-yet/</link>
	<description>Marketing Technology Musings and Tips by Jeff Larche</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 02:41:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Shevlin</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalsolid.com/2009/05/26/is-the-1-to-1-future-here-yet/comment-page-1/#comment-4972</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Shevlin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 00:20:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitalsolid.com/?p=1463#comment-4972</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a mistake to talk about CRM and the 1:1 vision in the same sentence. Despite all the talk about CRM helping to &quot;makie the right offer to the right customer at the right time, blah, blah, blah&quot;, CRM has always been more about achieving marketing efficiency than effectiveness. 

The investments made in CRM over the past 10-15 years may been cloaked in 1:1 language, but they were really about paving the marketing cowpath that already existed -- i.e. outbound campaign management and execution, and inbound service execution. 

Will marketers of the future get to 1:1 marketing? I agree with you that they will, but for different reasons. There are two barriers that need to be removed: 

1) Branding dominance. The mentality among many marketers (especially large-firm, consumer-oriented marketers) is that &quot;brand building&quot; efforts take precedence over quantitative marketing efforts. Branding efforts focus on reach, awareness, and consideration. Database, or quantitative marketing efforts tend to focus on segmentation, preference, and purchase. When we achieve more parity between these two marketing approaches, 1:1 has a better chance of realization.

2) Organizational structure. Many firms are organized by product (or even geography). 1:1 marketing can only be achieved when firms organize by customer segments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a mistake to talk about CRM and the 1:1 vision in the same sentence. Despite all the talk about CRM helping to &#8220;makie the right offer to the right customer at the right time, blah, blah, blah&#8221;, CRM has always been more about achieving marketing efficiency than effectiveness. </p>
<p>The investments made in CRM over the past 10-15 years may been cloaked in 1:1 language, but they were really about paving the marketing cowpath that already existed &#8212; i.e. outbound campaign management and execution, and inbound service execution. </p>
<p>Will marketers of the future get to 1:1 marketing? I agree with you that they will, but for different reasons. There are two barriers that need to be removed: </p>
<p>1) Branding dominance. The mentality among many marketers (especially large-firm, consumer-oriented marketers) is that &#8220;brand building&#8221; efforts take precedence over quantitative marketing efforts. Branding efforts focus on reach, awareness, and consideration. Database, or quantitative marketing efforts tend to focus on segmentation, preference, and purchase. When we achieve more parity between these two marketing approaches, 1:1 has a better chance of realization.</p>
<p>2) Organizational structure. Many firms are organized by product (or even geography). 1:1 marketing can only be achieved when firms organize by customer segments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

