Pat Owings created an interesting piece arguing that inbound marketing was the way of the future, as opposed to disruptive marketing. To first try and dissect the argument, I had to understand further exactly what each were. Disruptive marketing is self explanatory in that it’s advertising that appears in an unwanted place or situation(billboard, TV, mail) where as inbound marketing is advertising that one comes across, say though social media, a blog or a podcast.

Ready to change the channel

Relating the issue to myself, I would tend to agree with his theory. When it comes to disruptive marketing, I’m not sure I’ve ever paid much attention to it. The fact that they are so prevalent almost creates an immunity. Shows PVRd, ads skipped. Live sports? Turn to your buddy, check your texts,  or quickly check what’s happening around the league on your computer. Seemingly, that’s universal, with according to Owens’ blog, 86% of American reporting skipping or ignoring ads.

Inbound ads tend to be much more efficient for me. When I want to buy something or learn about something I search for it on the internet, be it a blog, social media or video, almost assuredly I will receive the information I want AND have learned about a new product(s), which is exactly what marketers want.

Image 1: http://www.volusion.com/demo/37408/upload/uploadedFiles/tv%20ads.jpg

Image 2: http://janefriedman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/blog2-1.jpeg