I was thinking a lot about this yesterday, and wondering at the difference between “engagement marketing” and “experiential marketing”.
As I often do, when all else fails, I went literal.
By the definitions:
1. Engagement (noun) a : the act of engaging : the state of being engaged b : emotional involvement or commitment
2. Experiential (adjective) a : based on direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
The difference? Emotion, I think. One can experience something without having a profound emotional reaction, but to be engaged is to be emotionally involved. As marketers, that is what we are always striving for, right?
So it would seem to me that while you can invest heavily in Experiential Marketing and still fail to engage, if you invest heavily in Engagement Marketing, you will always create an experience.
Of course, I double-checked with Wikipedia, just to be sure. To my surprise – Wikipedia indicates that they’re generally accepted to be the same thing:
Engagement marketing, sometimes called “experiential marketing,” “event marketing”, “live marketing” or “participation marketing,” is a marketing strategy that directly engages consumers and invites and encourages consumers to participate in the evolution of a brand. Rather than looking at consumers as passive receivers of messages, engagement marketers believe that consumers should be actively involved in the production and co-creation of marketing programs, developing a relationship with the brand.
Certainly, the two are inter-related, and if you gone so far as to ask the question, you’re probably moving int he right direction. As for me, I’m going to focus on engagement.
Just my two cents.
PS – I should probably note that Engagement Marketing™ is a registered trademark of Constant Contact, who just happens to be a partner in my latest endeavor (but that really is kind of a coincidence).
