Not paid enough?

I have always been confused why marketing is not better rewarded. They grow profits by attracting customers and increasing their long term value. Intuitively it feels good, businesses worship growth.

But there again an accountant can save the company millions by hedging against changes in exchange rate or against oil prices (although i know of one budget airline that forgot to do this) or depreciating capital equipment at a faster rate through some neat sleight of hand. Intellectually it is not very imaginative, a bit black and white. So why the big rewards?

I know some of the arguments.

Share price, short termism of the city, easier to measure the impact of savings, paid on a % of savings etc. And i am pretty sure the guy who came up with every little helps (culture not just an ad line by the way) got a whole lot less than many jobbing in the procurement department.

However given the recent activity it is clear that financial roles are far more valuable than i realised. Businesses that have not managed their cash flow, suppliers and balance sheets are going under. And clearly it must be difficult because so many who get paid so much got it badly wrong, which goes back to my first point.

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.