Hypothetical example: If I’m trying to pitch a new investment vehicle to senior citizens, an old-school commercial during “60 Minutes” is probably a better bet than a Facebook ad. To ensure awareness, I might combine that with some print in a dead-tree newspaper, a snail-mail delivered direct-marketing piece, and publicly-trumpted sponsorship of local symphony orchestras.

Another example: If the target of my marketing is other businesses (as is the case with my agency), then the tools I opt for involve more direct, in-person interaction, such as conferences and networking events. Only after I meet my prospective customers and swap some analog business cards, I might invite them to read a relevant post on my blog. Facebook will likely never enter the equation. (None of my current clients even have personal Facebook accounts.)

So, yes, there might be dominant forms of logic in marketing, just as there might be dominant strategies in professional football. But in both cases, they apply only to certain situations and circumstances — and they might become obsolete as soon as some strategic genius creates an end-around.

Why does the debate so often get framed as either/or: mass marketing or word-of-mouth (pick one)? There are lots of tools in the marketers toolbox, and not all of them do the same things equally well.

But there were so few media choices then. No Internet, cable TV, iTunes. We were it, unless you wanted to hear “Having My Baby” every 20 minutes. But now broadcast radio has become homogenized. It can still be profitable – but less audience share – expenses remain. It’s boxed in pretty tight creatively – esp. in mid sized markets like Omaha.

Facebook cuts though that. Very little cost. Huge audience. And I believe it can be both the new mass media, or a “narrowcast” channel because of the ability to segment. There’s room to be creative – stretch out a bit.

And so, in a few years, when marketers want to reach a LOT OF PEOPLE, fast and cheap, they’ll turn to Facebook. And they’ll “broadcast” messages designed to reach the masses. And maybe — just maybe — the delusion that Facebook and social media represent some new and different kind of dominant logic in marketing will be understood.

Direct mail is a great way to drive new account openings into branches. But the US Postal System is hemorrhaging money. Three day a week delivery should be seen in our lifetimes. Branches will be smaller with less of a transactional purpose. Direct mail will have to be more targeted. But it will still be part of the mix.

Ron, you’re right. The picture is murky with old marketing channels. But one does not need a fancy crystal ball to see newspapers are on the decline. How mass will the mass media outlets be 15 years from now?

The natural decline of the old channels along with the rise of the new can only mean marketing’s dominant logic is changing. A 360 degree change in marketing production and outlets used to happen every 250 years. Then it was every 50 years. Now it seems like it’s every 50 days.

But why has the economics of communication changed? Because of technology. We’ve always talked trash about the bad service we get from firms. What’s different is that any one individual’s sphere of influence is greatly expanded. Technology has become a magnifying glass: That wart a firm has in customer service can’t be hidden anymore.

I agree 100% with your advice. What I’m arguing here is that what has changed — what has caused the need for your advice — has more to do with changes in technology than it does with any fundamental change in people or a change in the “effectiveness” of marketing channels. And that marketing’s “dominant logic” isn’t really that different than it was 10 or 20 years ago.