Marketing is a commercial function not a shouty one

Before I got into the communications industry I sort of assumed that was what marketing was all about, communications or more accurately TV advertising. Understandable really, fresh out of college all I could see was the advertising on our telly, the big posters on the high street, and the press ads. I was wrong then and a lot of organisations are equally wrong today.

Too frequently marketing has become the home of what is perceived as useful but non essential type activities like advertising, CRM, Brand, Events.Thats is why marketing lacks board representation. It is an attitude even more prevalent in sales led organisations.

Maybe in some instances it is the right one but it is frustrating for marketers because marketing in the broader sense has the power to transform a business. Notice I didn’t say drive leads or sales. You have to set your sights higher than that. Marketing is, or more to the point, should be a commercial function not a shouty function. It needs to help the business address the big questions like.

Who are targeting? Who are we NOT targeting? What are they worth? What are we prepared to invest in converting them? What do they need? Why are they not engaging with us? Is our product or service fir for purpose? Is there a smarter way to distribute our product or service? How are we going to make money? That sounds like the start of a business case.

It feels as though the CMO has all too often become the CCO, the chief communications officer. The role of marketing has been split across multiple functions, including sales, finance, customer service; lots of owners but little accountability for the big picture. This is in stark contrast with Peter Drucker’s viewpoint on the importance marketing.

“A business has only two functions, marketing and innovation. Everything else is cost.”

Drucker’s perspective is difficult to argue with this especially now in a world where businesses are transparent, products are increasingly commoditised or  copied and such a premium is placed on customer experience.

So how is it going to change?

I wonder if the catalyst will be the recognition that we are now all in the business of service, every product brand is effectively becoming a service or it should do so. If you buy that idea then you tend to think of your business having two sides the customer facing half, and the internal half. The new CMO will be the CXO, the customer experience officer.

And with that the role of marketing is re-elevated. Job done.

Social subversion

http://wheresthesausage.typepad.com/

More subversive views questioning the value of social media and suggesting we focus more on content.

Personally i think social's value varies enormously by sector, is it a big purchase or is it something where purchase and consumption are frequent. Is information readily available? Is there inherent risk in the purchase decision? Is it a fun product?

The other point made is that majority of people who interact with brands in social media tend to be loyal high value or dis-satisfied. Certainly in retail it is hard to get the former to purchase more so what is the value of social in enabling them to influence the less frequent buying majority.

Interesting to see its the same old case studies referenced. Where's the new news?

Inactive sponsorship

I am sure i am setting myself up for a fall and will be accused of being too left brain about this but I don't really get a sponsorship. What do Samsung get out of sponsoring Chelsea? What return on investment does Vodafone get from England Cricket. I think they call this passive sponsorship.

I definitely understand sponsorship when there is a shared relevance so Flora sponsoring the London Marathon and, is it, Pedigree sponosoring Crufts Dog Show. And it is even better when a sponsorship is active or strategic, where the sponsorship showcases the product or service. So I am thinking IBM and Wimbledon, Ariel and Championship Whites, SAP and HP in F1.

Can anyone explain what they get out of logo sponsorship?

Measuring advertising effectiveness

It's tricky.

But clients don't (want to) belive you.

Then some consultant comes in with a econometric model built with half a data set, lots of dummy variables or worse than that neural networks completely confusing cause and effect. The outrage.

Anyway nice when someone like Stephen Levitt (Freakonomics) says it is difficult, and it is on film, and it is funny so you can show it to someone without hammering the point home.

http://linkbee.com/3KH

If you don't want to watch it all, watch the 5 minutes 15 minutes in.

Dusting down our customer retention models?

Are we going to see the return of the retention focussed consultancy?

We are already seeing clients with limited resources and a need to show immediate returns on investment so a campaign to retain, win-back and save customers could be an easy sell in, especially if you can utilise email.