So, How Are We Doin'?

 

For the past few years, we’ve spent a lot of time standing on a soap box railing the industry about the lack of accountability in marketing. No regrets about that. And we have appropriately encouraged a more disciplined, metric based approach to marketing management.

 

So, let’s put our money where our mouths are and ask “so how are we doin’”?

 

First, the good news.

 

In a study released today, conducted jointly by the ANA, MMA and Guideline, formal marketing accountability programs are becoming an accepted business practice among marketers. Almost all companies (92%) have created and institutionalized marketing accountability processes. That’s a terrific showing. It appears that the industry woke up and recognized the need for greater accountability for the half trillion dollars that are spent across all marketing platforms. Excellent, right?

 

Not so fast -- now the bad news. The study found that dissatisfaction about marketing measurement and internal marketing accountability processes is rampant. Frustration levels among marketing executives are rising. Some specific issues of note:

 

• Dissatisfaction with marketing ROI measurements      (42%, +7pp vs. y/a), 
• Lack of marketing ROI definitions (45%, +20 pp      vs. y/a) 
• Poor organizational response to marketing ROI      data (48%,  +16 pp vs. y/a)

 

The study found that the relationship between marketing and finance lacks strength and consistency – particularly when attempting to establish metrics and methodologies for measuring marketing ROI. Most marketers (61 percent) indicated “some” cooperation between marketing and finance, while only 22 percent indicated full cooperation. In about one-half of the companies, respondents said that the marketing and finance departments don’t speak with one voice or share common metrics. 

 

Perhaps the most disturbing fact was that only 55 percent indicated that their marketing ROI goals were closely aligned with their company’s overall corporate goals while half (51 percent) said there were no written goals for marketing ROI in their organizations.

 

Ok – so should we feel bad about this? Definitely not!! We certainly wish the industry could have made more progress. But, being the eternal optimist that I am, I see “the glass half full”.. Five years ago, we didn’t even know what marketing accountability was or what to do about it. We do now. There is no doubt that we have a long way to go. But we are moving down the right path and we are headed in the right direction. The study may have dampened our enthusiasm. But it should also serve to strengthen our resolve and our determination to put marketing accountability right at the top of Chief Marketing Officer’s objectives for 2008 and beyond.

Comments

[derrith]

One area where I don't see a focus of measurement is on marketing copy. Consumers are in control and are more influential to each other. Why? Perhaps they find word-of-mouth and user reviews so helpful because the marketing copy intended to influence them is laced with jargon, "happy talk" or a bulleted list of product specs. And not what prospective customers want to know like "what's different from this product and that one? Why should I pay more for that one? What things can't it do well? Will this do/make what I want it to? How hard will it be for me to learn how to use it?..." Marketing copy in most ads, packaging and in-store merchandising doesn't address these basic questions.

What if marketing copy had to go through a "BS detector" with the customers it was intended for? Do these prospective buyers find it credible? Helpful? Do they understand the words used? (no jargon) Does it make them want to learn more? Buy now? Tell their friends? Why can't a manufacturer's or retailer's copy say "not good for this use"? Why can't it highlight the key features people really want in the product and explain "why pay more"? And "why buy this brand"? Why can't it be more like what consumers say to each other through word-of-mouth and on web sites? Editorial product reviews are credible because they give pros and cons. Why aren't marketing leaders at companies striving to get their agencies to write copy that replicates what the customer would want to hear from a really helpful salesperson or their sister-in-law?

Why don't marketers turn over control of what copy gets into their marketing pieces to their customers and let them decide what's most effective? Why aren't customers involved in generating, editing, evaluating and improving copy? Why isn't more quant testing done on alternative copy to discern what works best for customers? And for different types of customers? That's what a good sales person would do -- tailor the copy to be most credible and helpful to the person they are talking to. Why aren't customers asked in quant testing to compare ads with editorials and user reviews so the baseline is higher than "better than these other ads"? What if marketers strove to develop marketing copy that was as effective as a user-generated review? That would be bold.

Maybe a picture is worth a thousand words because most marketing copy in ads, direct mail, packaging and in stores is so utterly unhelpful. Marketing will become more irrelevant and uncredible if we don't change our ways and engage the very customers we are aiming to serve in helping us to do a better job in giving them the information they want to make confident buying decisions.

Derrith Lambka
HP Printing & Imaging Marketing (yes, we're guilty of this and trying to change our ways!)

derrith.lambka@hp.com