In my recent webcast on marketing careers I spoke about the rise of marketing operations as an important development in the field. In doing so, I referred to "marketing operations," somewhat erroneously as it turns out, as the "fifth discipline of marketing." Hence, the above question.

I based this statement on a conversation concerning the case for marketing operations that I conducted with MarketSphere's Mayer Becker towards the end of last year. As he put it then:

I think of marketing operations as the "fifth role" in marketing. Traditionally, marketing departments are responsible for four areas: brand, product, voice of customer, and revenue generation. The marketing operations role, which should be at the same level organizationally as these others, is responsible for making sure that the other functions are working together effectively and that people inside and outside the department understand how their activities are linked to the overarching corporate objectives.

I hope this answers this question.

Another marketing careers webcast related question. Actually, in its entirety, the question went like this: "Given the downturn in the economy, combined with the marketing dept. being the 1st to be cut/reduced, do you expect an increase in project-based opportunities?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe that marketers will see an increase in project-based opportunities and here's why.

First of all, it appeals to the organizations that hire marketers. Certainly, parsing tasks into clearly defined projects can help with budgeting and cost-control, but even more importantly it represents a more efficient and effective way of actually doing marketing.

"Operationalizing" marketing, as I discussed, involves separating planning from execution. With the advent of increased automation on the execution side, the planning component, a marketing plan for a new product, for example, becomes a discrete input that can be generated by someone who then moves on to do something else.

At the same time, project-based work should appeal to marketers as well. On the one hand, it offers flexibility so that you can focus on doing the things you want to do without getting locked into a particular role or stagnating within a particular organization.

On the other hand, it allows you to consciously construct your career path around targeted learning experiences involving new markets, new companies, and new technologies.

One downside to this trend is job instability, because you have to spend more time thinking about your next gig. The other downside is, paradoxically, missed learning opportunities. In the course of a project-based career, you might get to try a lot of new things, but you may not have the chance to see a plan through to fruition and thus discover what worked best and what doesn't work at all.

Got this question after our AMA webcast on marketing careers t'other day and I'm reading it this way: Should all marketers be thinking about Search Engine Optimization (SEO) or should there be a specific individual in the organization who focuses on SEO?

My answer is, "Yes." Now let me explain, since it doesn't make any sense to answer an "either/or" question in the affirmative.

Marketers, especially in the communications and advertising realm, all need to think about SEO. The "comms" (PR, corporate communications, investor relations, etc.) should be thinking about it because most if not all the content they produce will probably live on the Web and should serve to drive convertible traffic to the relevant site. For this reason, said content ought to be optimized for search and fit the company's overall SEO strategy.

Likewise, ad campaigns should have an SEO component in the sense that you should think about buying keywords you don't already own if they are showing up in your TV, radio, or print spots. For example, I believe the folks at Sobe bought "Thriller" when they ran their Super Bowl ad, though my memory could be playing tricks on me.

At the same time, SEO has emerged as a discipline unto itself, meaning that people can get paid to focus entirely on that. Because this is a specialized and evolving field, every organization should at least hire an SEO consultant or contractor to help get their strategy right. In fact, it will even make sense for some larger organizations to hire a full-time SEO specialist.

In other words, "Yes, SEO is part of marketing AND a separate job."

I used to listen to the Talking Heads a lot. In fact, these lyrics from their song, "Found a Job," echo down the corridors of my mind to this day: "If your work isn't what you love,/ then something isn't right."

There used to be a time when work was seen as a kind of punishment (I think it says that towards the beginning of the Old Testament). Nowadays, it's taken for granted that everyone has to work and, therefore, you should be doing something you love. In fact, if you aren't doing what you love, "then something isn't right."

Of course, "doing what you love" and "getting paid," don't always go hand in hand (though they can, just ask my former colleague, and achievement junkie, Nelson Rodriguez). The main reason is that most of the time the things people LOVE to do - eat, have sex, play music, paint, hunt, etc. - are difficult to get paid to do.

If you are a graphic designer, for example, you probably got into that line of work not because you were obsessed with optimizing visual communication for maximum ROI, but because you love the visual arts and the act of creation. Still, you've probably discovered that, in order to get paid to exercise your aesthetic inclinations, you've got to serve an overarching commercial interest. If it's about the money, it's not about your vision or personal expression, anymore. It is, at least in the first instance, about the money.

For my part, I'm a writer and have always wanted to be a writer. I didn't take a job with Aquent as a writer but, over time, that has come to be a central and essential part of what I do here. In a sense, I followed the money (the job, really) and gradually figured out how to do what I love within that context.

How have you bridged the devilish and bedeviling divide between love and money? Have you? Did you choose one over the other? Do tell.

Image Courtesy of Smiguel.

I have three words for you: The Vader Project.

About twenty years ago, after I had stopped out of grad school, quit my job at SuperShuttle, and was so broke that I made all my family members collages as Christmas presents, my father sat me down for a fireside chat. The gist was: Dude, you got to get it together, figure out what you want to do with your life, and just do it. The problem was, as he put it, "You don't seem to do anything."

Was I a lost soul at that point? I suppose I was. My band (Spanking Machine) wasn't going anywhere, I was unemployed, and, frankly, very depressed. When I returned to San Francisco from my demoralizing holiday in Los Angeles, I got a temp job (thus launching my current career, oddly enough) and wrote my father a letter.

Aside from the fact that the main point of the letter was to ask him for money so I could fix my car (yes, I did that), I also took issue with his criticism of my do-nothing lifestyle. On the one hand, as I pointed out, I did actually do stuff like write poetry and surrealized beatnik musings, play music, and hang out with my friends. I also reminded him that there were quite a few cultural and spiritual traditions that emphasized doing nothing over doing something as the true goal of life and enlightenment and that I was not unsympathetic to their views. Moreover, the idea that our lives and the world at large were there as a resource for us to do something with was symptomatic of our metaphysical age, as Martin Heidegger explained in his essay concerning the question of technology.

Here's where it gets deep (so watch out). To this very day I bristle at the existential imperative, whether in secular or religious garb, that says you have to do something with your life. There are so many things that are wrong-headed about this notion that I don't know where to start (or finish), so I'll just highlight two logical inconsistencies that dog this everyday ethical commonplace.

On September 25th at 1:00pm EST, I will be hosting a webcast in association with the American Marketing Association on "Careers in Marketing: Flux, Flexibility, and the Future."

The crux of my presentation is this: Evolving communications technologies continue to drastically change the buying behaviors of consumers, from product research to purchase and beyond, placing new demands on marketing organizations and resulting in new roles, new ways of working, and new means for finding talent and getting work.

These changes affect every marketing function and call for the ability to nurture customer communities, orchestrate engaging experiences, and effectively execute complex, multi-pronged programs. The organizations and individuals who succeed in this environment will be flexible, versatile, and, in many ways, unconventional.

If you want all the details, please join me on the 25th. You can register for it by following this link.

Also, if you have any insights on this subject you are dying to share, please contact me.

As I mentioned towards the end of this post, the French marketing genius Clotaire Rapaille discovered that the brand essence of the "US Presidency" is "cheap entertainment." Ever since I heard that, I have never doubted it, and every subsequent election I've lived through has proven it to be, if not "true," at least "accurate."

Now, some of you may know that there is an election coming up in the US. The question is, based on the findings of this errant Jungian, which ticket will win? Frankly, I think it'll be McCain-Palin, if only because reality isn't flexible enough to tolerate the dream ticket: Obama-Palin.

Let me be perfectly clear. My conclusion here is not based on any assessment of the issues or the relevant positions of the relative candidates. It is instead based on comparing the tickets to bygone television shows. McCain-Palin reminds me of Green Acres, while Obama-Biden is kind of listing towards Dragnet.

Given the choice, which would you rather watch?

Update: Aquent Houston is back on-line. I know it's gonna be a long haul for a lot of others, however. There are plenty of ways to help those folks out and one good one is to donate through Red Cross. Please let me know if there are other aid services you think that people should know about. - Matt

No thanks to Hurricane Ike,1. 5 million Texans are without power, among other things. This includes our Houston office, which is closed for the time being.

If you need to get in touch with our Houston staff, you may do so through our Austin office at 512-442-0992.

If you're just trying to get through this, I'm wishing you all the best.

What little I know about usability I learned from Jakob Nielsen. "More people visit other sites than visit yours," or however he put it, was a great way of recommending that you not buck the established conventions for navigation.

In other words, you should design your site/interface/whatever so that it conforms with people's expectations, established by their visits to Amazon.com, CNN.com, etc., rather than forcing them to learn a new system for getting around a website (thanks to Luke Amery for filleting this one). I'm sure this is not news to you.

Anyway, Nielsen is an über-nerd (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm an unter-nerd in longstanding myself). If you had any doubt, check out his list of User Interface Bloopers in Movies and on TV. Talk about "spoilers." Sheesh.

Image Courtesy of Marco Gomes.