• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, February 4, 2016

I was stunned to read that a new survey by the Association of National Advertisers shows that more than one third of marketers don't have a clue what the marketing-tech startups they work with do.

Stunned, I say, because I absolutely do not believe that 66% of marketers DO understand what their mar-tech partners do. The ANA apparently said in a release that "the biggest barrier to engagement is the startup's inability to articulately describe its offering in a meaningful and relevant manner."

You can find lots of cogent arguments about the overabundance of mar-tech companies (such as the one here) which in many ways contributes to the confusion over who is doing what to whom — and at what price — in the electronic ad ecosystem. But at the heart of the confusion about what mar-tech companies do is insecurity, mostly of the founders and their backers.

From the inauspicious start of online advertising — with an AT&T banner ad in October 1994 — the tech heads who started it all wanted to sit at the grownups’ table and rub shoulders with the heads of TV networks, radio stations, ad agencies and media companies.  But with a very few Steve Jobs/Bill Gates/Sergey Brin exceptions, they were ignored. This meant that if they couldn't impress the Real World, they would have to settle for impressing each other. So to sound like savvy, smart "industry insiders,” they made up a language only they could understand.

If a five-cent word would do it, they came up with a 25-cent word to replace it because it made them sound cool and important.

Why would you say "clear" when you can say "transparent" or say "new" when “cutting-edge" sounds so much more urgent and progressive? Doesn't "solution" sound more vital and necessary than "program" — and wouldn't you rather have a "rock star" working for you than a really good employee? Stop collecting and start “curating," and don't call us a company; we are an "enterprise." One that is “purpose-built,” providing a "seamless" "360-degree" view of the customer "journey" "providing" "end-to-end" "accountability." I could go on like this for another 1,000 words or so, but you get it. You have either heard, or spoken it — most likely both.

When insecure startup founders start to prepare their initial market and funding outreach, they pile every conceivable mar-tech cliché into their presentations because they think it makes them sound more experienced. When they pitch the angels and/or the VCs, they hear back a whole new lingua franca that of course they have to adapt because it is SO much cooler to "open the kimono" than to "explain," or have your "users" "lean forward" rather than "read."

Then they see "thought leadership" (not byliners or opinion pieces or op eds anymore), which add more nonsense to their lexicon because the writer is a "disruptive," “game-changing" “story-teller,” not just some guy on a soapbox. And they go to conferences (er, sorry, "Summits") where they hear about "cross-device," "tentpole ideas," "20,000 foot views," "clean, well-lit environments" and "ecosystems" — and promise to work that bullshit into their next pitch.

When they hear these words and phrases coming out of their own mouths, they do not think, "Why am I getting back a blank stare?" Rather they feel well-versed, confident and a member of the club. That they have obfuscated, failed to clarify or effectively communicate who they are, what they do and why someone should buy it, is only a distant concern dimmed by their feelings of power and elitism.

As I have said before, we live in an attention-deficit world, where you have milliseconds to communicate. Asking the other person to sort it all out in his head and come back to you with questions is now simply a quaint idea.  If someone is having a hard time understanding who you are, what you do and why it matters, you have only the visage in the mirror to blame.