Good morning, Marketer, and let’s find out what a publicist thinks.
Last week I wrote about the dividing line between martech and other kinds of technology which helps marketers do their job. I had some great feedback from a publicist who represents some very well-known brands in the space (she asked to remain anonymous).
“Working in PR, I’ve had a lot of clients tell me ‘hey, we should pitch this to a martech publication’ and quite truthfully, sometimes I don’t see the relevance. I’ve certainly had a blurry view of what martech definitively is, and reading your story helped me to understand that it’s not just me. I think that many of my PR clients do fall into the camp of ‘it’s martech if the vendor is selling to marketers.’ I think this probably has to do with their definition of PR too. If they view PR as part of the sales funnel, helping to influence decision making, then I guess it makes sense that they would want to have as broad a definition of martech as possible, in order to validate their PR efforts across as many verticals as possible.
“One of my clients is a communication editor, helping to improve grammar, tone, readability, engagement for users. Like you mention in your story, they are sort of the ‘light’ in the art museum, as their tool is relevant to everyone who wants to improve their communication. But does this make them martech? I do think that compared to a scheduling tool, they might be considered more of a martech tool; but they’re not ‘classic’ martech.
“I think that the definition of martech might always remain ambiguous. Building off of your art analogy, two big aspects of determining “what is art” are artist intent and personal perception. Perhaps this is intrinsic to martech too; that there will always be this discourse around what is and isn’t martech, guided by the people who create the tools and the people who engage with the tools.”
Kim Davis
Editorial Director