Inbound VS Outbound Marketing : Débat théorique et comparaison des deux approches marketing

For a long time, companies made sure to implement their marketing strategies in order to satisfy their target customers and acquire new ones. If the outbound marketing, also called the push strategy, was the most commonly used method, the inbound marketing strategy (Pull strategy) has only emerged more recently due to the appearance of social networks. It is true that this method had a lot of success during the Covid-19 period in 2020, since it was one of the major solutions to this crisis and encouraged firms to continue their activities. The fast-digital development has allowed the pull strategy to gain more importance, and has taken the outbound marketing down to a level below. Indeed, it was much more common to see brands chasing after their customers. However, with the increasing use of web marketing, digital marketing and the inbound strategy are now more common approaches. These currently stand out as the strategies and disciplines of choice, as they stand in contrast to the much more intrusive nature of the inbound method. Several doctrines, influenced by their environment, bring with them marketing theories regarding the two approaches, basing them on a system of knowledge and beliefs, that companies take into consideration before putting their strategies into action.We will therefore raise an important question in this article: Are the inbound and outbound marketing methods complementary or totally heterogeneous and incompatible with each other? from one another? The goal of this article is to theoretically analyze both marketing strategies, compare traditional methods to digital methods, and to evaluate their efficiency and efficacy from the consumers’ perspective.   Keywords: Digital marketing; Inbound marketing, Outbound marketing; Marketing strategies. JEL Classification: M31 Paper Type: Theoretical Research.Pendant longtemps, les entreprises ont fait en sorte de mener à bien leurs stratégies marketing pour pouvoir satisfaire leurs clients et en acquérir de nouveaux. Alors que la stratégie outbound, aussi appelée marketing direct, était une pratique courante auparavant, la stratégie inbound (marketing indirect), quant à elle, est apparue lors de la dernière décennie grâce à l'émergence des réseaux sociaux. Il est vrai que cette approche a connu beaucoup plus de succès lors de la période Covid-19 en 2020, en faisant notamment partie des grandes solutions apportées à cette crise pour continuer l'activité au sein d'une entreprise. Le développement à toute vitesse du digital a donné plus de force à cette méthode et a fait que la stratégie marketing indirecte tombe peu à peu dans l'oubli. En effet, il était beaucoup plus courant de voir les marques courir après leurs prospects, sauf qu'avec l'explosion du webmarketing, du marketing digital et de la stratégie inbound, ces derniers sont plus présents, et s'imposent comme approches et disciplines de choix en raison de leur opposition à la nature beaucoup plus intrusive et moins personnalisée que possède la stratégie outbound. Plusieurs doctrines, influencées par l'environnement qui les entoure, apportent des théories marketing institutionnelles en relation avec les deux approches, basées sur un système de connaissance et de croyance, que les entreprises prennent en considération pour mettre en action leurs stratégies. Opposant alors souvent ces deux méthodes l'une à l'autre, nous allons soulever à travers cet article une problématique importante : Est-ce que l'inbound et l'outbound marketing sont deux stratégies complémentaires ou hétérogènes ? L'objectif de ce travail est d'analyser de manière théorique les stratégies marketing utilisées et de comparer les méthodes traditionnelles aux méthodes digitales, afin d'évaluer leur niveau d'efficience et d'efficacité aux yeux du consommateur.   Mots clés : Marketing digital ; Marketing Inbound, Marketing Outbound ; Stratégies marketing. Classification JEL : M31 Type de l’article : Article Théorique

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century