The Prosecution were contending that marketing ‘has failed to demonstrate to business how it creates value for customers and shareholders of the business’. Also, that ‘marketing has failed to provide practitioners, and those aspiring to practice, the skills they need to create value for customers and shareholders of the business’.
Without going through the detailed arguments of each side, suffice it to say that the Defence came out on top. The Prosecution case rested on the tired old tropes of the naysayers, such as ‘only 5% of FTSE100 companies have Marketing Directors on the Main Board’, ‘only 3% of GCSE students saw marketing as a worthwhile career’ etc etc.
The Defence of marketing was much more interesting, pooh-poohing the Prosecution’s use of old facts and quotes from academics and practitioners of yesterday, such as David Ogilvie, Malcolm MacDonald et al.
The main conclusion I drew from the ‘court proceedings’ was that marketing is guilty of not marketing itself: it has not been guilty of losing the case – rather of winning it, but not broadcasting it from the rooftops!