>Modern marketing is all about data and however hard you might try, you can't spend any time around marketers online without being subjected to endless think pi

>Modern marketing is all about data and however hard you might try, you can't spend any time around marketers online without being subjected to endless think pieces, how-to guides, ebooks or other dreck about how we need to track and measure and count every little thing. I understand that this might be the perceived idea of a marketer, because the marketers that shove this down our eyes are the loudest ones. But it doesn't mean they represent marketers. Marketing is way more then advertising and media buying, which is what most of this article is about. Either way, data should be taken for what it's worth - different data has different value, and people that work with this know it. It helps you make some judgement, it can give you insights, and can help you understand if you're doing some things right. Data always served this purpose and decisions were still made despite the data granularity/quality - because once again, it was taken for what's worth. You still have major brands leaning on share of voice, GRPs, Reach, which are children of TV/Radio. If you ask me, is it worth to have AB Testing? The answer is I have no idea, because it depends on the brand/product/budget/audience and the message itself. I'm a strong believer that a solid communication strategy stomps heavy data approach. Some people might say: "what if it doesn't work?!", well then it doesn't work - or better yet, it will work to some extent but might not generate all the expected outcomes. But that's part of it, you have to take risk in these decisions and there's no data that will make the decision for you. That's why I argue that AI won't replace marketing anytime soon. I dare to say AI might replace the bulk programmers first before it replaces marketing. Unless you think marketing is eating data and spitting out insights. Then you are already being replaced since the past 5 years.