OK, to all those who are now saying there are differences, I agree, but let's not pretend. In truth, there's a hair's breadth of distinction between the practices. Both rely on creating engagement, encouraging involvement in the message and encouraging information to be supplied by the user for two-way interaction in the future. This may be for a purchase or ongoing regular information. Both practices use a database infrastructure for the wealth of data produced and both will plan a programme of development with the user, prospect or customer.
What are the differences? It is true that digital is a powerful branding vehicle. Digital communication can adapt and express a client's brand values. This can be done in a powerful, creative manner. The point is that digital communication doesn't stop there - at every stage of the approach, viewers are encouraged to be users, be engaged, interact and join the 'customer journey'. Direct communication builds and supports brand equity. It is slower, less wide reaching, sometimes less regarded, but it is delivered.
So, does it matter if they're similar? It's all about wasted resources, whether that's great direct practices a business has built over years or customer data that a media owner has never developed, or where agencies or sales teams see the need to protect their patch. There are huge skills, systems and knowledge not being used to their fullest. And that's a crime.
When we recognise that direct marketing and digital communication are hand-in-glove practices, business is all the richer for it.
.jpg)
.jpg)