by Jake Sorofman | March 4, 2014 | 4 Comments
There’s a lot of talk these days about authenticity versus transparency as the prevailing value for brand storytelling. Cynics suggest that authenticity and marketing make strange bedfellows, two ideas forever divided by conflicting goals. After all, authenticity, by definition, speaks truth without agenda. And marketing, as an instrument of commercial persuasion, is agenda writ large.
Cynics say that marketers’ application of authenticity is, in and of itself, inauthentic. They point to examples like Dove Real Beauty Sketches, one of the most successful viral campaigns in history, as the rare exception to this rule. More often than not, they say, authenticity in marketing looks hollow and false. In its attempt to reach the heart, it lands squarely in the stomach, turning it vaguely queasy.
Enter transparency, the brash, but believable cousin to authenticity. Cynics say that authenticity, which despite its guileless appearance, is really just an agenda wrapped in an earnest sugary coating. Transparency, on the other hand, may fail to warm the cockles of audiences’ hearts, but it succeeds in earning their trust with no-spin straight talk.
But transparency, itself, is also driven by agenda. This spin-free attempt to dazzle audiences with honesty is often just a judo flip designed to disarm.
So suggests a fascinating article by Heather Havrilesky in this week’s New York Times Magazine. It explores the Lego Movie, a surprisingly well-reviewed kid’s movie that represents what may well be the post-modern frontier for modern marketing. My kids haven’t dragged me to this particular movie (yet), so I can only make inferences. But it appears to be an infomercial wrapped in a storyline and pretending to be nothing but precisely that.
This absence of pretence—this agenda laid bare—is the subversive conceit. And somehow it seems to work. Haverilesky says, “In the movie’s final moments, big tears stream down my face. I am weeping over a 90-minute infomercial.”
Crocodile tears. Now that, dear reader, is persuasive testimony for the power of transparency.
Category: digital marketing Tags: Brand, content marketing
by Jake Sorofman | February 27, 2014 | 3 Comments
Earlier this week, Andrew Frank and I published a post on HBR.org called “What Data-Obsessed Marketers Don’t Understand.” Here, we unveiled Gartner’s Intelligent Brand Framework, which we believe will become very useful for helping marketing leaders build and balance broad interdisciplinary skills.
Why is this so important? Because high-performing marketing organizations lead by both head and heart, exhibiting strength in a broad range of data-centric and human-centric competencies across both strategic and operational domains. The Intelligent Brand Framework (below) helps you identify your power center, flex zones and areas of weakness as the foundation for purposeful, balanced thinking.
But don’t marketing leaders already do this by habit or accident?
Isn’t this pretty much a reptilian reflex for marketers?
Actually, not at all.
Too often, marketers submit to the insidious, inexorable force of the shiny object. It’s human nature to bow our heads faithfully to the gravitational pull of shiny and new. Social. Mobile. Big Data. The next new thing can become like the broaching humpback drawing overzealous whale watchers blindly to the starboard rail, as each passenger’s good-intentioned enthusiasm adds up to a precarious loss of balance.
The same thing happens in marketing organizations. All the time. These shiny objects may not measure up to the majesty of megafauna in full breach, but they do capture our collective attention and imagination perhaps more than you realize. The risk? Irrational exuberance and inflated expectations for the areas of active investment and the opposite for areas perhaps less shiny and new.
This imbalance is a silent threat to sustained marketing performance.
Thus, the Intelligent Brand Framework.
But think of this as more than a static model. We expect this framework to become the basis for prescriptive patterns that help guide your organization through dynamic digital marketing terrain.
Stay tuned. More to come on the Intelligent Brand Framework.
In the meantime, tell us what you think. Oh, and read the full article here.
Category: digital marketing Tags: Brand, Intelligent Brand Framework, Strategy
by Jake Sorofman | February 19, 2014 | 3 Comments
The lead story in this week’s New York Times Sunday Business section caught my eye. It’s a fascinating profile of Dr. Genevieve Bell, Intel’s director of user experience research—essentially, their resident futurist responsible for discovering innovation opportunities in subtle moments of human behavior.
This approach to participatory observation—known as ethnography—is certainly nothing new. For ages, marketers have known that the truth is often found between the lines, in the dark corners and shades of gray revealed by what people do, not necessarily what they say.
Often, it’s found precisely in the dissonance between what consumers report as fact and what’s observed as truth.
Today, ethnographers play an increasingly important role in tuning into the voice of the customer. Surveys and focus groups, it turns out, often suffer from groupthink and false reporting. And big data, while a powerful source of insight, can hide the truths only found in human observation and inspiration.
My colleague Andrew Frank and I have published research which seeks to correct the imbalance between head and heart—to ensure we don’t ask too much of data or expect it to deliver the whole truth and nothing but the truth (see “Introducing Gartner’s Intelligent Brand Framework” [subscription required]).
Stay tuned for more on this particular research in a future post.
In the meantime, consider what happens when you bring this now somewhat ancient idea of participatory observation to the digital domain. Here, sensors, quantified self and the Internet of Things become a source for new insights revealed through close observation of reflexive, utterly human patterns of behavior.
As the digital and analog universe becomes wholly instrumented for measurement, this approach to digital ethnography will go mainstream and it will shine light on the truth like never before.
But the question this all raises: at what cost? This is something that Richard Fouts, Mike Gotta and I explored last year in our Maverick Research project, “Personal Surveillance as the New Barter System” [subscription required].
The instrumentation of everything will only fuel an inequity that consumers will seek to correct by demanding remuneration for the personal data marketers seek to collect.
Consumers will rise up, demanding a fairer exchange of value for the recycled byproducts of their connected lives.
Category: digital marketing Tags: ethnography
by Jake Sorofman | February 12, 2014 | 3 Comments
A lot is being asked of marketers these days. Many stand flatfooted at the edge of the precipice, disoriented by what exactly it means to find, engage and convert customers in this new digital dimension.
They’re asked to become data wranglers and marketing technologists.
They’re asked to become brand publishers, social and mobile marketers.
They’re asked to personalize—but to never, ever be creepy.
Against this backdrop is another less heralded challenge: Executing apace with digital.
How do you get work done when the digital afterburners engage? How do you keep pace when planning and execution cycles are compressed from quarters and months to days, hours and—gasp—minutes?
Enter agile, a methodology that practically saved the hide of software development when markets became hypercompetitive and business got wise to the magic of software innovation. I’ve written before about the burgeoning agile marketing movement, which seeks to apply agile principles to our discipline. But now the question becomes:
“Big A” or “little a”?
What sounds like a silly, Dr. Suessian turn of phrase actually raises an important question for aspiring agile marketers: What type of agile marketer do you want to become?
The “big A” variant of agile marketing implies a somewhat strict adherence to the conventions of the methodology. For example, agile often asks you to:
- Decompose your work into small chunks, executed in short iterations
- Create backlogs as a dynamic inventory of work (which you “groom” regularly)
- Focus on use cases and stories instead of detailed requirements documents
- Assemble cross-functional, nonhierarchical and often self-governing project teams
- Conduct daily standup meetings to keep work on track and aligned to priorities
- Display “burn-down” charts to measure progress, Kanban charts to manage workflow
- Measure continuously and hold post mortems to capture learning for the next iteration
These artifacts of agile software development don’t always translate perfectly to the world of digital marketing, which is why many aspiring agile marketers opt instead for the “little a” variant.
Here, the approach is more philosophical:
- As much as possible, break work into smaller chunks and execute shorter iterations
- Test multiple variants before scaling your investments
- Meet every morning to discuss the work of the day
- Flatten hierarchy, encourage experimentation and discourage politics
- Eliminate or substantially reduce paperwork and administrative process
- Organize cross-functional teams that work outside of silos
- Measure relentlessly and ask questions that allow for continuous learning
More often than not, agile marketers are disciples of this “little a” variant. They embrace the principles of agile, if not the prescribed process. They cherry-pick, applying just the elements that add value. They look beyond the methodology itself for other creative ways to improve velocity, adaptivity and efficiency.
For example, Zappos is reorganizing around the principles of Holacracy, which seeks to flatten hierarchies and makes work products—not people, titles and politics—the central driver of business. The goal is self-organizing, self-governing teams that adapt dynamically to changing market conditions.
Sound like too much, too soon for your organization? Look to freelance communities like Content.ly, Skyword and Visual.ly, which aggregate creative talent that brands contract on demand, as an elastic utility. “Talent on tap” is a simple way to throttle up your resource-constrained marketing team. Or, better yet, look for ways to offload work to your customers and audiences by harnessing the wisdom of crowds, cultivating user generated content, and building advocates who amplify your marketing efforts.
“Big A” or “little a,” the lesson here is that you’ll need to find creative ways to accelerate and scale if you expect to—as Dr. Seuss absolutely never said—meet the daunting demands of the digital dimension.
Category: digital marketing Tags: agile marketing
by Jake Sorofman | February 6, 2014 | 5 Comments
Word on the street is that the chief content officer is on the rise. With growing frequency, my colleagues and I are hearing this title (or, perhaps more accurately, the role that this title implies) as content marketing operations come of age in the service of brand storytelling.
In many cases, content marketing programs have lacked clear leadership. Good rarely happens when ownership and accountability of any complex operation diffuse into that ambiguous space of “shared responsibility.” Policies, standards and direction are rarely set and enforced; quality suffers; and so does timeliness, as enforceable deadlines mutate into discretionary guidelines.
For many aspiring content marketers, this absence of leadership has resulted in a supply chain that’s perhaps more of a chaotic mess than anything resembling a coordinated pipeline of engaging content. But marketing leadership seems to be hearing the call: this content marketing thing isn’t likely to fade away and, consequently, it requires some care and feeding.
Clearly, the chief content officer is the senior-most staffer responsible for driving the editorial calendar, managing the supply chain and distribution strategy, and ensuring trains run on time. They’re responsible for managing a sourcing strategy, including agency and freelance relationships; discovering and harvesting resident content geniuses hiding in plain sight; safely curating third-party content; and establishing governance policies as the guardrails for fair play. In many cases, they may also be expected to collaborate with the CIO on architecture and tool chain for streamlining and automating the content supply chain and publishing workflows.
But the chief content officer will also be held to another standard: business impact. While content marketing is generally a strategic bet that pays back on relatively long horizon, it is still beholden to the burden of positive return. The chief content officer will be held to this burden.
Where do you find a chief content officer?
Think media. When you’re expected to look and act like a publisher, it’s only sensible to get help from those who know what it means to buy ink by the fifty gallon drum. So to speak.
Expect to see more chief content officers in 2014. This role is on the rise.
Category: digital marketing Tags: content marketing
by Jake Sorofman | January 29, 2014 | 1 Comment
When all things are equal, how could less possibly be more?
Think about that for a second.
It may sound like whacked-out pseudo-philosophy, but I’d argue that it informs something fundamental marketing leaders should consider before betting the farm on any certain set of activities.
Focus is among the most sacrosanct of off-the-rack management wisdom. Industrial operators will tell you that variability outweighs velocity in the productivity game. We’re taught that, to scale, we need to standardize and simplify to a sort of lather-rinse-repeat cadence that ensures we’re engaging the flywheel in our efforts, where the incremental cost of output declines as we build muscle memory and mastery.
But this idea of focus can also collide headlong with the all-important principles of creativity and innovation. Here, focus, which should be a virtue, can become a bedeviled vice.
We need to test and fail before we learn and scale. We need to shine light on the path forward by having the courage to lay it out there—to exercise the art of the possible, while also feeling around in the dark to find the boundaries of the practicable.
Of course this all speaks to the value of agile marketing, which is about mitigating the risk of scaling too early by engaging in a continuous cycle of iterative experimentation and relentless measurement.
Which brings me back to my original question: When all things are equal, how could less possibly be more? Well, it all comes down to focusing on the right set of things. Timing is, indeed, everything. It’s why lean startup philosophy wisely removes the burden of focus until a business model is fully baked (or at least less gooey).
Focus is your friend when you’ve chosen well and little more than false comfort when you haven’t. Call it wrong and focus can becomes like running a tight ship making good on a course to nowhere in particular. But call it right and you’ll engage that beloved flywheel that fuels that beneficent miracle of momentum, which is indeed a beautiful thing to behold.
Category: digital marketing Tags:
by Jake Sorofman | January 22, 2014 | 3 Comments
In this disposable age of throwaway everything, it’s nice to see a renewed appreciation for craft. Look around and you’ll see plenty of examples—things baked, brewed, woven, hammered and sewn. These items are all available in two distinct varieties: mass produced, where the primary motive is profit; and handcrafted, where the primary motive is, arguably, something a bit deeper.
TV shows like Portlandia parody this cultural phenomenon, where disaffected hipsters in threadless t-shirts peddle their fixed-gear two-wheelers to coffee houses and brewpubs to perform daily incantations of the local and the egalitarian at the alters of the artisans. I happen to live in a city that wholly embraces this sort of thing. And while it can sometimes begin to feel like a parody of itself (perhaps not unlike Portlandia), it certainly contributes to a richer, more distinctive experience for me as a consumer.
Why am I talking about such things on a blog dedicated to digital marketing? Because, love it or loathe it, this whole craft thing has implications for modern marketing—particularly content marketing.
Someone recently asked me how content marketing was different from what marketers have always done. After all, content has been the marketer’s currency of trade—give or take—pretty much forever.
The difference to me is simple: when audience attention is divided by a superabundance of choice, marketers that rise above the din are generally the ones that care a little more. They’ve traded in the slick tactics of yesterday’s adman for a different form of persuasion. They’ve embraced an approach that more closely resembles the artisan. These are mostly meat-eating capitalists. But they put craft ahead of profit in their pursuit of engagement. They’ve learned that allowing great content to speak for itself—by toning down the crass commercialism—is the way to engage hearts and minds.
More than anything, the best content marketers—like the best artisans—focus on authenticity and distinctiveness. They learn to carve words with a chisel and render images audiences are unlikely to forget, much less ignore. They learn to put the audience first and, if you’ll excuse the vaguely righteous suggestion, to care just a little more.
The results—like the content itself—tend to speak for themselves.
Category: digital marketing Tags: content marketing
by Jake Sorofman | January 16, 2014 | 4 Comments
There are three types of truths in business (and perhaps, more broadly, in life):
- The truth according to what is said;
- The truth according what is observed; and,
- The truth according to how resources are allocated.
Of course, this third truth—the proverbial money trail—often yields the keenest insights.
It turns out that we’re all pretty much wired to vote with our wallets, as individuals and as organizations. That’s why Gartner for Marketing Leaders makes an annual tradition of its survey on digital marketing spending trends. Its goal is to reveal the truth as demonstrated in dollars.
This year’s Digital Marketing Spending Survey yields some interesting insights:
- Marketing budgets on the rise—perhaps it’s no surprise that marketers are yielding a larger slice of discretionary budgets as brand engagement and customer acquisition and retention gain the strategic attention they duly deserve. This year’s survey shows marketing spend at 10.7% of revenue, up 8% over last year.
- Budgets march toward digital parity—while traditional marketing spend still outstrips digital, this year’s survey revealed that the gap is closing rapidly. This year, 3.1% of revenue was earmarked for digital, up an impressive 20% from last year.
- Customer experience comes forward—the belief that customer is king has graduated from platitude to practice as 77% of respondents report a chief customer officer in name or role among its top executives. Nearly half report into marketing.
- Marketing technologists redouble—last year, the rise of the chief marketing technologist equivalent was top news. This year, it’s clear that this is no passing fad. The CMT is now found, in role or title, in 81% of organizations—up from 70% last year. It’s a clear indication that technical chops are crucial to digital marketing magic.
- Content and search marketing spend falls off—this year’s survey pointed to the strategic demotion of content and search marketing, which fell from second and third spending priority last year (behind only online advertising), to sixth and seventh place, respectively. Why? These disciplines are increasingly intertwined as search algorithm changes point to truer measures of audience engagement. Call it the sophomore slump for what are likely to be two solid matriculators on the longer horizon. The rebound will likely depend on a more deliberate focus on proving ROI.
Those are just a few of the findings from this year’s survey. The complete research is available here (subscription required) for Gartner for Marketing Leaders clients.
Category: digital marketing Tags: budgets, spending
by Jake Sorofman | January 13, 2014 | 2 Comments
Maybe you also read Benjy Boxer’s Forbes.com post last week, “Will the Content Marketing Trends Continue? It Depends on Proving Your ROI.”
Let me first say that he’s right: a discipline as resource intensive as content marketing must be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Like any other strategic investment, content marketing programs will face a crisis of confidence if they fail to demonstrate measurable impact on business results.
But while I agree with the premise that it’s time for content marketing to stand up to ROI scrutiny, I believe this post fails to address a crucial point: content marketing is the result of a fundamental dislocation in audience engagement, not yet another swing of the pendulum.
Let me explain.
Boxer says that “although content marketing techniques are prescribed as a new method of telling a brand story, [they’re] really just another iteration of … soft sell advertising …” He describes a cycle forever vacillating between hard and soft selling techniques, which marketers embrace and reject by turns as they dial up and dial down the commercial assertiveness in their brands’ communication frequency.
Boxer offers the example of an excellent soft-sell campaign like Apple’s “The Crazy Ones,” which he suggests generally unleashes something of an irrational exuberance for the soft-selling form. To illustrate, he offers the memorable example of Infinity’s (infamous, unsuccessful) launch of the Q45, which featured gauzy shots of haystacks and sweet little zephyrs rippling across a pond.
It was both beautiful rendered and wholly ineffective.
Apple’s campaign struck a chord with consumers who were reminded what the Apple brand used to stand for. It was a turning point for the company’s rebound, a key moment in their return to great things. But, in the case of the Infinity campaign, consumers struck a contemplative pose, collectively scratched their heads and beat a path to the closest Lexus dealership. The failure of this campaign was proof that sometimes the soft-sell is perhaps a little too indirect to provide consumers with the marching orders they need.
OK, so far, Boxer’s done a fairly good job selling us on the idea that the soft and hard selling philosophies will forever live in diametrical opposition, two ends of the spectrum that enter and exit in alternating cycles, like the hemlines of dresses or the conspicuous display of facial hair.
But here’s why I see today’s “iteration” of soft-selling as far more than the rhythmic sweep of the pendulum: the disaggregation of audiences, the fragmentation of buying journeys and the rise of earned media represent a massive structural shift for marketers that fundamentally requires a softer approach to selling.
This, my friends, is a dislocation; not a fad.
That’s not to say that soft-selling has fundamentally crowded out more direct approaches to engaging customers. And it’s certainly not to say that content marketing is somehow relieved of the ROI burden.
Not by a long shot.
In fact, data-driven marketing techniques make both of these things imminently possible. With the illuminating effect of data, brands can blend hard and soft selling to highest yield—and they can begin to trace the thread between content marketing investments and real business outcomes.
The result is continuous optimization—or what manufacturers might call “smoothing”—of tactics and techniques based on what’s currently engaging audiences and moving the needle for the business.
In the absence of a closed loop, data-driven strategy, brands will continue to endure the thrash of the pendulum, hoping in vain that they’re holding a strong hand on the early side of the right bet. For marketers, the right answer is replace fads with facts where the swing of the pendulum is replaced by a more sophisticated and effective instrument of measurement and strategic direction.
Stay tuned for much more to come on this topic.
Category: digital marketing Tags: content marketing, ROI
by Jake Sorofman | January 7, 2014 | 8 Comments
Maybe you read my post a few weeks ago predicting the end of the marketing campaign. My colleague Jennifer Beck sure did, because she’s pretty much beaten me about the head with it ever since.
“That’s wrongheaded,” she said, referring to my belief that the rise of content marketing and brand storytelling will match the fall of marketing campaigns. Let me first say that Jennifer is generally right. That’s why her words got my attention.
Gee, I thought, if JB thinks this idea is wrongheaded, perhaps it is.
That was a fleeting thought, which coincided with a challenge that we throw down the gauntlet. A good, old-fashioned duel with a modern twist. The transcript from our impromptu IM faceoff is pasted below.
Read along and, in the comments, let us know where you stand on the debate.
Sorofman,Jake 1:01 PM
Campaigns are as good as dead.
Beck,Jennifer 1:01 PM
Well, let’s first define things. What do you mean by a campaign—before you pronounce them dead?
Sorofman,Jake 1:02 PM
I see it as a concentrated, time-bound promotional effort to drive some change in demand or selling motion. To me, it’s an inside-out, brand-centric concept that puts the marketers’ interests first.
Beck,Jennifer 1:03 PM
I think of campaigns in gaming or military terms—as a connected series of battles, adventures or scenarios. Think of military campaigns. Take that hill, secure the city, push forward on the front—they all feel like marketing maneuvers geared up to open a new market, retain customers or grow revenue. The analogy works, marketers have been using the lingo—guerilla marketing, under the radar, competitive win back, and the like for ages.
Sorofman,Jake 1:03 PM
I agree with that the structural aspect of campaigns remains valid—logical linkages between goals, themes and efforts. But in an age of abundant choice, engagement needs to be centered around what the customer cares about, not what the brand cares about.
Beck,Jennifer 1:04 PM
So herein lies the challenge of balance.
What brands need, what buyers want.
You need to satisfy both.
Sorofman,Jake 1:05 PM
Actually, I don’t think these ideas are mutually exclusive, but marketers need to break out of campaign thinking to become better brand storytellers. I don’t see this as the death of sound, focused business practices, where marketing efforts are tied to sales outcomes; but I don’t think campaigns alone are sufficient, particularly when they’re used as the grist for social engagement. I think the best campaigns have more authentic storytelling extensions and storytelling itself also must happen apart from these campaigns.
Beck,Jennifer 1:07 PM
So what’s the social engagement equivalent in military terms? Not arguing with how content plays a dominant role here or that you have to tell a story, not shout about your offers.
Sorofman,Jake 1:08 PM
I like the idea of two-speed marketing: speed-one is brand-centric, goal-driven campaigning; speed-two is the daily discipline of audience engagement through storytelling, which is driven by content creation, curation and cultivation.
Beck,Jennifer 1:09 PM
So, Jake, tell me a short story and show me where you put the storytelling part that isn’t part of the campaign.
Sorofman,Jake 1:09 PM
Beck,Jennifer 1:10 PM
Sorofman,Jake 1:11 PM
So, my campaign goals are about selling more of product A to segment B. I’m going to shape that demand by cranking up ad spending and promotional investments through retail incentives, etc. So that’s the campaign stuff …
Sorofman,Jake 1:13 PM
On the storytelling side, I’m going to focus on issues that directly relate to my audiences, whether or not they’re directly connected to a near and present call to action. This could be an element of my campaign itself, but that’s not sufficient. Campaigns have beginnings and ends; storytelling needs to persist beyond the time boundaries of a campaign. And storytelling is about driving preference and loyalty over time. It rarely moves the needle as quickly as traditional campaign tactics. So neither is sufficient unto itself. I believe the answer is (blessedly, mercifully) both.
Beck,Jennifer 1:16 PM
I think continuous loop – marketing is a non-stop function. But I don’t think just a good story will drive the business objectives your executives expect in return for their investments. Now a good storyline, executing across campaign structures – like the chapters of a best seller – that I can see working. Most executives don’t get the non-stop part though. They like to see results quarterly. But marketing can’t sit back and sigh, pop the cork on the champagne and celebrate the end of Q4 as they close the books. You have to keep going into the 5th and 6th quarters. Campaigns help you balance the reporting with the continuous engagement.
Sorofman,Jake 1:17 PM
Yes, definitely, but if you focus all of your effort on driving near-term customer behavior through traditional campaign tactics you’ll exhaust your customers. Engagement also needs to be less directly about the CTA; it’s also about building dialogues which influence preference and loyalty through trust and affinity that you nurture over time.
Beck,Jennifer 1:18 PM
Can you have a storytelling campaign? The goal is brand extension perhaps?
It would be like that movie – The Never-ending Story.
Sorofman,Jake 1:20 PM
In a sense, yes, but most content marketers would call these themes, not campaigns. Because campaigns, right or wrong, place the emphasis on the brand, not the audience. Semantics, yes, but I think there’s a real danger of content marketers forgetting to play the longer bet on the customer when they think of what they do as a campaign. But these themes are often time-bound and driven off of a calendar, which makes them campaign-like, I suppose.
Beck,Jennifer 1:21 PM
You know – all this talk about empowered consumers, engagement, experiences, trust, loyalty, affinity—blah, blah, blah—every company I talk to is trying to make money.
Sorofman,Jake 1:21 PM
No doubt! But they are also aware that loyalty isn’t what it used to be and competitive alternatives abound. I think the perverse consequence of hypercompetition is that, frequently, the more you focus on the commercial pitch, to paraphrase Guy Kawasaki, the less enchanting you are as a brand.
Beck,Jennifer 1:23 PM
Enchanting. Now that’s an admirable goal for a brand. I like the idea of advocacy marketing over the notion of loyalty. It’s like the industrialization of word of mouth. Turn your buyers into sellers. Nothing beats having someone else tell your story for you.
Category: digital marketing Tags: campaigns, content marketing, storytelling