I've had this article sitting on my desk for a while now and was finally able to carve out time in my day to read through it. I would highly recommend exploring this article, as it is both succinct and insightful. McClelland explores existing literature in library marketing and analyzes job postings on ALA JobList for an mentions of marketing activity in job description. The results were not what I would have expected.
I may have a predisposition to agree with this article, as I've already mentioned a pet peeve of mine is using marketing terms interchangeably. McClelland shows us the lack of consistency in terminology, staffing, and even discussion of activities. Not only are marketing duties being discussed in very uncertain terms, but they are being assigned to librarians (or non-librarians) in inconsistent rolls, capacities, and commitments.
This inconsistency in attitude and operations reflects a lack of distinguished identity between "marketing as operational work" and "marketing as project work." All library staff and faculty should be expected to participate in some way with the library's marketing efforts. However, when marketing is explicitly "everyone's job" it can very easily become nobody's job. By assigning small marketing tasks for each project, it can be assumed the library is doing an adequate job. However, these "small tasks" do not equate to a marketing plan, or a coordinated effort. Marketing is frequently being thrown into job descriptions in the same category as the term, "other duties as assigned." While marketing quite obviously has it's place in project planning and temporarily assigned duties, it should first and foremost be seen as an operational duty managed by a full time expert and helping those temporary projects along the way.
How is marketing viewed at your library? Is it operational or project based? Do you have a full time staff member, committee, or other?