Marketing education has to change

The phrase ‘that might work in practice, but does it work in theory?’ is invariably attributed to economists trying to make their latest data-free theory sound credible.

Unfortunately, the theoretical aspect is also what holds precedence in marketing degrees in many of our universities.

In an article on Medium in 2016, Tribefire founder Daniel Palmer described studying marketing at university as “a frustrating waste of time”. When he was asked “Hey mate, you’re studying marketing at uni. Can you help me with my business?” As Palmer points out, for many studying marketing at an undergraduate level, the answer to that question is probably “no”.

I had a similar experience to Daniel Palmer. Except, I have the following educational and experience background.....

• Actual marketing experience with blue-chip brands in four countries and three continents over 20+ years
• An undergraduate degree with a speciality in marketing
• a post-graduate Masters in marketing
• An MBA.

About 10 years ago, swotting my way through the textbook-heavy MBA, it dawned on me that none of the marketing books I was reading bore any resemblance to my real-world marketing career. It was almost impossible for me to explain to my fellow students (who had no marketing background) why this was so.

And, when the crunch came in the form of one of my MBA buddies asking me to give me some help with his start-up, well, it was embarassing (for me, that is!)

What he needed was customers – now. He needed SEO, copywriting, online lead generation – none of which was discussed in our MBA, laden as it was with case-studies on US and European blue-chip brands.

What was the outcome? A few years later my friend had created a business with millions in revenues and subsequently sold the business. Sadly, with no useful help from me to actually market the business, aside from some guidance. Not the real heavy-lifting he required.

As Daniel Palmer points out: For those of us who want to work for anybody else aside form a company with an extensive training programme for graduates, such as startups, small businesses, agencies et al.— a "three year degree should be the “training programme”.

Just like my MBA, Palmer felt his "undergraduate degree fails to equip students with the necessary skills to connect businesses with their market. This is absolutely unacceptable".

Indeed, then proceeds to list out what topics were NOT covered in his undergraduate degree:

When you see it written out like this, it's sort of compelling!

Peter Thiel, legendary contrarian and early-stage investor is even more pointed about university. He is well-known for saying going to university is a waste of time and it's bad for you: “I think one of the downsides of too much education is that you get to be brainwashed.” was one of his quotes!

Probably his most memorable quote about universities is comparing them to the Catholic Church 500 years ago: “People thought they could only get saved by going to the Catholic Church, just like people today believe that salvation involves getting a college diploma. And if you don’t get a college diploma that you’re going to go to hell.”

So, there are some seriously contrarian views on learning at university: we need to have to a realistic debate over the need for teaching theory and the skills that work for today's world.

Speaking of the Catholic Church....

Where does the idea that theoretical is better that practical come from?

In the mid 19th century, Cardinal Thomas Henry Newman wrote about the ‘The Idea of a University’. He believed that narrow minds were born of narrow specialisation and suggested that students should be given a solid grounding in all areas of study.

Now, I am going to go out on a limb here, but I would suggest that the sort of person going to university in the 1850s was not facing the milk round or, for that matter, student loan debt.

However, I have sympathy with both Palmer’s and Newman’s worldviews.

Why? I have, as author Nicholas Nassim Taleb calls it, “skin in the game“.

I’ve been teaching classes on marketing – in particular digital marketing, 100-plus hours a year in Dublin, London and Madrid – since 2011 as well as programming a large marketing conference DMX Dublin.

Guess what students and attendees want? Practical, hands-on tools, tips, tricks and techniques, not theory. That's why they are there.

The slight problem with the tip and techniques approach.

There is a problem with this ‘tools, tips and techniques’ approach. In every single one of my classes, which are mostly filled with marketing professionals, I see a lack of understanding of some key tenets of strategy and marketing.

Take, for example, the work on strategy and competitive advantage by Harvard Professor Michael Porter, or on positioning by Al Ries and Jack Trout. I don’t get many hands in the air when I ask who has read these. The startup world, in particular, is littered with crackpot ideas and a two-minute skim of Porter, Ries and Trout would save a lot of heartache.

Likewise, a basic understanding of economics: scarcity, substitutes, switching costs, externalities, perfect and imperfect competition, oligopolies really help you create strategy – and tactics.

For example, if you understand oligopolies, you will quickly understand that the notion of customer centricity might not be high on your list of priorities. Having market power means you can say ‘no’ to lots to things that the rest of us who work in competitive industries have to say ‘yes’ to.

If you don’t believe this, think through the follow industries:

• The big banks in UK, USA, Australia, Ireland: think, say Wells Fargo, WestPac, RBS etc
• Food retailers in the same markets: think say, Kroger, Woolworths, Tesco, Supervalu.

Cost of switching your choice of food retailer for consumers: pretty much zero.

Cost of switching banks - I will let you be the judge of that. 

The argument between 'theoretical' and 'practical' might soon be over

Nevertheless, as a teacher, I also understand that teaching ‘practical’ tactics like SEO is very challenging: developing and teaching a useable and repeatable technique takes a lot of effort by the instructors. Personal insight here: all my classes have to be updated every quarter. Try updating a three hour class every quarter – it’s a lot of heavy lifting.

But perhaps we are about to see a total change in the ‘theoretical versus practical’ discussion. We read that work in the future will be challenged by the rise of the robots. Machine intelligence and automation has already reached manual work, and the professions that were considered impossible to automate - like the legal, financial services, product design, education and health - are now being eroded.

We are now seeing something unprecedented, so maybe the discussions around ‘theoretical versus practical’ are just discussions looking in the rear view mirror and projecting a possible future from an interpretation of the present.

Most university courses are based on teaching knowledge. But with Google search on every smartphone, we’re rapidly approaching the era of abundant knowledge – a time when you can know anything you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want. 

As Peter Diamandis, author, entrepreneur and futurist says, ‘if you think Siri or Amazon Echo is useful now, the next decade’s generation will be much more like JARVIS from Iron Man, with expanded capabilities to understand and answer’. Diamandis also claims that in the future, it’s not “what you know,” but rather “the quality of the questions you ask” that will be most important.

What is the capability about being to frame good quality questions and being comfortable with uncertainty? The word used to describe this are 'soft skills'.

I think that 'soft skills' have a problem.

They are labelled incorrectly. 'Soft skills' are actually hard to learn, hard to apply and hard to live by. 

And the 'soft skills' are not something that is taught well in university either.

Ending the debate between the theory and practice of marketing

So, where does leave the teaching of marketing and the challenge of theory versus practice?

1. Knowing the theory will even become more important. Learning a theory is more useful in the long run than learning a tactic. Once you know the theory or understand strategy and positioning, you can apply that knowledge again and again, with more ease each time. Frameworks and ideas and tools go in and out of style, but strategy rarely change and principles never change.
2. Any tactic, for example, SEO, will need to be embedded as the practical aspects of any course, but with the total understanding of the students that they are going to be updating those on regular basis for as long as they have career in marketing. The learning won’t stop the day they get their parchment.
3. Learning the soft skills of marketing will become the thing that the student has to spend the most time on, as this is the skills that separates us from the robots and creates our own personal unique ability.

In the future, embedding the interpersonal, the communication and the natural curiosity skills needed to create a great career and a great life is the real challenge for us all.

And that is learned best of all in the university of life, a process you will have to undertake yourself.

This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared in my Marketing Week column.