In February, the Harvard Business Review online published a syndicated article ‘Marketing Is Dead, and Loyalty Killed It’. The article cited erroneous examples of where loyalty was a supposed replacement to marketing. Yet it failed to understand that marketing is in fact the strategic direction that decides how important loyalty is for a business and how to foster ongoing engagement.
After several rounds of correspondence with HBR online, the article has subsequently vanished.
Publications that aim to adhere to professional standards should ensure that their contributors have the expertise to comment on a profession. Any author that claims marketing is tactics, rather than strategy, does not meet these standards.
While they claim this is due to technical issues, the ongoing correspondence has resulted in the consideration of a published response to demonstrate the breadth of the marketing profession.