Perhaps marketing isn’t taken seriously (by some) because we’ve forgotten to teach new generations its ultimate job: driving sales. NosyHQ’s Kathryn McGarvey reports.
We’d been watching The Chase when an advert captured our attention. “That’s a good ad,” my teenager said. As a young man who is cynical about marketing (thanks, son!) and has a gift for finding fault in just about everything, his praise was, quite frankly, staggering. “But what was it actually advertising?” I asked.
Because, despite pausing dinner prep mid-chop to watch it closely, I was in the dark. He shrugged – he didn’t know either.
This little scene perfectly reflects conversations I regularly have with fellow vintage marketers. When did marketing start caring more about capturing attention for the sake of capturing attention and stop caring about capturing attention in order to sell? Because isn’t marketing’s job actually, ultimately, to help drive sales?
At a marketing conference a little while ago, there was a slide in the presentation that said: “You bank commercial results, not marketing metrics.”
A surprising number of arms raised phones in the air to capture this simple and straightforward message. Marketers were treating this idea as if it were a profound revelation rather than a basic statement of what marketing is supposed to do.
I’ve been collecting definitions of marketing for years. I’ve seen it described as:
- nurturing relationships
- building community
- sharing something you think is good
- taking a company, product or service and making them shine.
All admirable and very fine things. But none of them capture what marketing actually needs to do: contribute to the commercial health of the organisation.
That contribution doesn’t always look like immediate sales. Brand building takes time and pays dividends down the track. But only if it’s strategic – not just accumulated likes and shares that you hope will eventually add up to something.
I think part of the problem is what we’re teaching the next generation of marketers. In my first marketing role out of university, it became quickly apparent that my qualification hadn’t prepared me for marketing in the real world. Not one little bit. It was an academic qualification only, disconnected from the realities of marketing in a commercial environment. But it seems that perhaps we’ve overcorrected.
Can marketing grads connect the dots?
I’ve seen students learn how to shoot and edit reels, how to tell compelling short-form stories, how to manage Meta Business Suite – all incredibly useful skills and things that employers genuinely want.
But are we teaching them to think strategically about why they’re doing this work in the first place? Are we teaching them to connect these activities to commercial outcomes?
The tools might have changed dramatically since I was a student, but the basics of marketing haven’t. If we’re turning out graduates who are proficient in social media but don’t understand its strategic role, then I reckon that we are teaching them the wrong things. That’s bad news for the future of our industry.
Gwyneth gets it
Gwyneth Paltrow once told Harvard students that all the media noise about the latest wackiness from Goop enabled her to “monetise those eyeballs”.
She might not be everyone’s cup of black sesame and goji berry tea, but she understands something fundamental that seems to have been lost from marketing education. Paltrow knows how to turn attention into cash and she knows that eyes on your marketing – even millions and millions of eyes on your marketing – is a waste of budget if it doesn’t turn into revenue.
The ad my son and I watched during The Chase was beautifully executed. It told a story and demonstrated real craft. But as neither of us could tell you what it was selling, it failed to do its job.
Marketing without a commercial return isn’t marketing. At best it’s just entertainment, at worst it’s busy work.
And if young marketers are entering the profession believing that viral moments are what success looks like, then yes, we’re teaching them the wrong things. We should be teaching them that marketing that doesn’t shift behaviour, build brands or drive revenue isn’t actually marketing… it’s just noise.
This article was part of our colouring-in cover story in the March-May 2026 issue. You can read the rest of the series here:
- Marketing: What’s compelling and what’s colouring-in?
- Why marketing needs a wider lens
- Courtney Henderson’s challenge to Aotearoa’s marketing industry
- Why the best marketers invest in relationships, not just skills
- Structure meets innovation: Mike Pepper on how to be strategic
- Future Demand: exclusive extract from James Hurman’s new book
This story comes from NZ Marketing magazine issue 86, March-May 2026. Why not subscribe? Get four issues a year for just $50 (including delivery) if you autorenew.
Essential marketing intelligence. Don’t miss it.
