The Great AMI Debate: Round 2
This post is the second in a series looking at the AMI. Click below to read the others:
- Whats wrong with the AMI
- The Great AMI Debate: Round 2
- The Stark Reality of the AMI
- The AMI Bites Back
- Marketing the Marketers: the UK perspective
- Bowll bites back: Geoffrey responds to the AMI
Roger James, chairman of the AMI, has hit back at
Geoffrey Bowll in a response he’s written to Marketing magazine, and he
doesn’t mince his words.
I am a passionate believer in the benefits of marketing
and that’s why I spend a lot of my time working on this cause. If you
feel the same way and can put aside those unsubstantiated assertions, let me know.
Ouch! Looks like Geoffrey might have stirred up a hornets nest.
So where do you stand in this debate? Do you agree with Has been
that AMI stands for ‘Absolute Minimum Influence’ or perhaps the problem
isn’t the AMI at all. Perhaps, as Roger James says in his response,
Sorry. Maybe it’s you.
The full response from the AMI will be published here on the website
this Friday, and you can also read it in July’s issue of the magazine,
which hits the newsstands on June 25.
Check out the original snapshot of Geoffreys article online, or pick up a copy of Junes Marketing magazine to experience the inimitable Geoffrey in his element.