In this corner, we have our traditional approach and standard go-to guy, CAMPAIGN MANAGEMENT! In the other corner, we have the up-and-coming challenger, INTERACTION MANAGEMENT!
So, Zimm, who do you think stands a better chance? The tried and true method of “campaigns” or the curious, but incredibly powerful, “interaction.”
First off, I would like to know who is asking the question. I mean, seriously, if I am the one writing this blog, I am dealing with either a ghost writer, which means a guest spot on SyFy Ghost Hunters, or I am dealing with multiple personalities.Either way, I find myself still answering the question.
It would be a tie. If you checked out my recent blog post about the “Personality Maturity Model,” you would have seen that I have already alluded to a need for both. It is a rather interesting blog, as it takes you through the steps of growing your campaign program, and once you are ready, maturing into an interactive marketing powerhouse.
You know, Zimm, I would have to agree with you. I enjoyed the article so much that I read it twice – and I even copied and saved the pic for future reference.
Thank you, strange voice from somewhere unknown.
But back to my point.
In the blog, I mention, just briefly, that there is a place for both. There are times that an algorithmic model should manage your customer interactions, while other marketing objectives require the finesse of a rules-based, segment enabled campaigns. Understanding the differences between campaign and interaction may just help you understand when you should be building a campaign and when you should be empowering interactions.
So, to help, I took a stab at outlining the differences in the following table:
|Experience||Segment / Target Group||Individual experience|
|Offer||Product / Service||Next-Best|
|Collateral||Group Creative||Dyanmic Delivery|
|Messaging||One message for everyone||Right message for individual|
|Approach||Scheduled / Triggered||Conversational Response|
|Typical Use||Broad Announcements||Consumer Engagement|
|Design||Linear campaigns||Dynamic interactions|
|Managing||Monthly / Quarterly||Agile Marketing|
|Insight||Analysis and Data Mining||Self-Learning / Predictive|
|Response||Delayed / Batched||Real-time / Right-Time|
|Brand||Mass defined||Individual relation|
Some of those sounded a bit repetitive, Zimm.
Yes, but I’m trying to get a point across. As similar as they may seem, the differences are in the nuances. The beauty is when you understand the two well enough that they end up working seamlessly together. Interactions trigger campaigns, while campaigns begin interactions. You realize that it is not so much campaign versus interaction, as it is campaign and interaction. Each serves a purpose.
If anything, think of the two of them in a dance. While campaign may be the one leading the way, it is the interaction that is attracting and delivering the one-to-one personalized experiences.
So, no fight? A dance?
[whitepaper nid="3987" width="50%" align="right"][/whitepaper]It is an analogy. I was trying to make a point. It is not one or the other. It is an intricate strategy weaving both methodologies into a single ongoing consumer conversation.
Well, there you have it. No real winner and a politician’s response that attempts to make everyone happy. Tune back next time, when we will discuss “Targeted campaigns: Do they really hurt?”
I will not be writing any such article like that.
You’re a horrible announcer – whoever you are.
To learn more about the seven of the most common techniques companies are leveraging to deliver one-to-one personalized experiences that drive relationships and develop loyalty, see Zimm’s white paper.