Survey: 27% of Marketers Suck

A recent survey conducted by the Committee to Determine the Intelligence of Marketers (CDIM), an independent think-tank in Princeton NJ, recently found that:

· 4 out of 5 respondents feel that marketing is a “dead” profession.
· 60% reported having little if any respect for the quality of marketing programs today.
· Fully 75% of those responding would rather be poked with a sharp stick straight into the eye than be forced to work in a marketing department.

In total, the survey panel reported a mean response of 27% when asked, “on a scale of 0% to 100%, how many marketers suck?”

This has been a test of the emergency BS system. Had this been a real, scientifically-based survey, you would have been instructed where to find the nearest bridge to jump off.

Actually, it was a “real” “survey”. I found 5 teenagers in a local shopping mall loitering around the local casual restaurant chain and asked them a few questions. Seem valid?

Of course not. But this one was OBVIOUS. Every day we marketers are bamboozled by far more subtle “surveys” and “research projects” which purport to uncover significant insights into what CEOs, CFOs, CMOs, and consumers think, believe, and do. Their headlines are written to grab attention:

- 34% of marketers see budgets cut.
- 71% of consumers prefer leading brands when shopping for .
And my personal favorite:
- 38% of marketers report significant progress in measuring marketing ROI, up 4% from last year.

Who are these “marketers”? Are they representative of any specific group? Do they have anything in common except the word “marketing” on their business cards?

Inevitably such surveys blend convenience samples (e.g. those willing to respond) of people from the very biggest billion dollar plus marketers to the smallest $100k annual budgeteers. They mix those with advanced degrees and 20 years of experience in with those who were transferred into a field marketing job last week because they weren’t cutting it in sales. They commingle packaged goods marketers with those selling industrial coatings and others providing mobile dog grooming.

If you look closely, the questions are often constructed in somewhat leading ways, and the inferences drawn from the results conveniently ignore the statistical error factors which frequently wash-away any actual findings whatsoever. There is also a strong tendency to draw conclusions year-over-year when the only thing in common from one year to the next was the survey sponsor.

As marketers, we do ourselves a great dis-service whenever we grab one of these survey nuggets and imbed it into a PowerPoint presentation to “prove” something to management. If we’re not trustworthy when it comes to vetting the quality of research we cite, how can we reasonably expect others to accept our judgment on subjective matters?

So the next time you’re tempted to grab some headlines from a “survey” – even one done by a reputable organization – stop for a minute and read the fine print. Check to see if the conclusions being drawn are reasonable given the sample, the questions, and the margins of error. When in doubt, throw it out.

If we want marketing to be taken seriously as a discipline within the company, we can’t afford to let the “marketers” play on our need for convenience and simplicity when reporting “research” findings. Our credibility is at stake.And by the way, please feel free to comment and post your examples of recent “research” you’ve found curious.

Adam & Eve Beware: Another Apple in the Garden of Accountability

I saw an article in Ad Age today headline: Banks That Spend the Most on TV Ads Performed the Best. It referred to "A new report from financial-services research firm Aite Group, which examined ad-spending trends and return on advertising performance of 32 of the largest 50 U.S. retail banks from 2006 through 2008, found that top 25% highest-performing banks are those with TV-heavy buys.". The data was provided by TNS.

Great news for TV sales reps. Likewise for TV production companies. But a sucker's bet for bank marketing executives who would rip out that page of Ad Age and run into their CFO's office to defend a recommendation to spend more on TV.

First, this "study" didn't isolate the non-media marketing variables which may have affected the outcome. Little things like customer service quality, direct marketing spending programs, message effectiveness, word-of-mouth, etc. Bet they didn't count the number of toasters given away either.

Nor does it appear to have accounted for other characteristics of the banks themselves which may have driven performance higher. Price perhaps. Or interest rates charged/paid. Or branch location demographics. Or in-branch cross-sell incentives. Or other things which would never show up in syndicated spend data.

So what can a bank marketing executive take away from this study? Nothing. They just measured what was easy to measure and didn't answer ANY of the open questions surrounding the payback on marketing investments beyond a reasonable doubt. Worse, it is the apple and marketers are Eve. It beckons with faint promises to fulfill the desire to believe that it may offer "evidence" of the beneficial impact of marketing.

If you value your credibility, don't circulate stuff like this within your marketing organization, and don't EVER use it in discussions with a savvy financial executive. When you see a headline like this, just pass it along to your trustworthy, naturally-skeptical research professional and ask them to find the flaws.

Stuff like this isn't research. It's PR. One bite of this apple will cost you your reputation - perhaps permanently.

We'll keep working on raising the standards in the media on what passes for good content.

How do You Know if it's Time to Spend MORE?

In times like these, budgeting and resource allocation decisions tend to get made fast and furious, with little time for clear thinking. Unfortunately, it’s exactly these times when some real discipline is required to both make smart decisions and build credibility with the rest of the senior management team. So if you’re thinking about recommending that your firm should be spending MORE on marketing right now, STOP.

If you’re thinking “let’s spend more now to gain share”…

Good luck. Headline-grabbing stories of marketing heroes who have taken this approach tend to emphasize the few who have succeeded and gloss over the vast majority who have simply squandered more by throwing money into an economic hurricane. The fact is that there’s not much empirical data to prove the merits of this strategy beyond a reasonable doubt. Many “studies” have been done, but none have derived their conclusions from projectable samples which account for the primary risk factors, nor have any led to any high-probability “formula” for succeeding with this strategy. The margin of error between success and failure tends to be very narrow. It’s a roll of the dice against pretty long odds.

If you’re thinking “we’ve got to keep up our spend to maintain our share of voice”…

Be careful. Matching competitive levels of spend (or making decisions on the basis of “share of voice”) is most often seen by CEOs and CFOs as foolish logic. How do you know the competitor isn’t making an irrational decision? What do you know about the effectiveness of your spending versus theirs? How much ground would you lose if they outspent you by a substantial amount? If you don’t have specific answers to these questions, relying on anecdotal evidence won’t help. It may get you the spend levels you’re requesting in the near term, but if it doesn’t work out, the memory of your recommendations will undermine your credibility for years to come.

When times get tough, buyers re-evaluate the value propositions of what they buy. They make tradeoffs on the basis of what is or isn’t “necessary” any more. Shouting louder (or in more places) is unlikely to break through newly-erected austerity walls.

To make a sound case for spending more, tune into what the CEO is looking for… leverage. They want to find places to squeeze more profitability out of the business. To help, focus your thinking around:

• the relative strength of your value proposition, channel power, and response efficiencies versus your competitors.
• your assumptions about customer profitability and prospect switchability as buyers cut back.
• your price elasticity to find out where the traditional patterns may collapse or where opportunities may emerge.
• the relevance, clarity, and distinctiveness of your message strategy, and your ability to defend it from copycat claims.

And make sure to check with finance to see if the company’s balance sheet is strong enough to handle higher levels of risk exposure during revenue-stressed periods. If it’s not, the whole question of spending more is moot.

If your comparative strengths seem to offer an opportunity, then increasing spend may just be a smart idea. But even so you have to anticipate that competitors aren’t just going to let you walk away with their customers or their revenues. And that may just leave you both with higher costs in times of lower sales. In technical parlance, this is known as a “career-limiting outcome”.

Think ahead while cutting back

Setting aside for the moment that no company can succeed by cutting expenses alone, let’s dwell on the practical necessity of today’s world: cut, cut, and cut some more.

Yes, we all should have been smart enough to build sufficiently robust measurement capabilities BEFORE the dramatic assault on our budgets began. Yes, we should have put some water in that bucket BEFORE the fire consumed so much of the house that marketing built.

But we didn’t. So what do we do now that we’re caught in the downward cutting spiral? Where do we turn once all the “fat” has long since been excised and all that’s left is muscle and bone?

First, get your head out of the emotional sand. You’ve lost the battle over the power of marketing to drive the business in the near term. But don’t let your fog of disappointment cost you the war. Suck it up and look ahead. And don’t take it so personally.

Second, define the objectives for making smart cuts.

1. Achieve the target reductions the CEO is asking for (most people stop right here).

2. Clarify the mid- to long-term strategy for competing successfully.

3. Conduct a thorough and unbiased analysis of the options.

4. Provide a comprehensive assessment of the near- and long-term implications of the cutting alternatives.

5. Preserve your credibility. Live to fight again another day.

If you’re not thinking about all 5, you’re likely suffering a very slow death by 1000 cuts yourself.

Third, frame your cutting analysis on the basis of strategic dimensions of competitiveness, NOT on the basis of what’s easiest to cut (e.g. travel and outside contractors), and for heaven’s sake do NOT cut proportionately across the board (which strengthens the hidden weaknesses in your plan while weakening the strengths). Think about the relative value/importance of customer segments; product groups; channels; or even geographic regions. Consider the marginal returns of a dollar spent in each one. Cut ruthlessly from the bottom of the importance rankings.

Fourth, engage people in finance, sales, or SBUs in your thought process. You have nothing to gain by being an island now.

Fifth, get comfortable with making educated guesses on expected impacts. You’re beyond the point where data-driven analysis is likely to help. Think about using monte carlo simulation and other probabilistic assessment methods to make intelligent guesses now (and loop back to “fourth” above).

Finally, present your findings with passion, but not bias. The time for “I believe…” is past. The mantra of the moment is “having run many options by the good people in finance and sales, we all feel that the smartest course of action is…”

And by the way, NOW is exactly the time to begin building that measurement capability you really wish you had over the past few months.If you need more help, start here.

Death of the Influentials?

In the flat world of web communication networks, is the old marketing strategy of seeking out influential opinion-leaders really dead?

Some digital digerati (like Guy Kawasaki) suggest that in today’s world of blogging and tweeting, mass reach is the name of the game. Guy’s argument is that the internet and social media have eliminated or substantially reduced any semblance of information dissemination hierarchy. As such, if you extend your reach as far as possible through as many network nodes as possible, you will reach more prospective customers and thereby optimize your results. In this view, focusing on reaching “influentials” who might effectively distribute your message to an audience of more likely buyers is a waste of time. Just blog away and let anyone and everyone carry the message.

On the other side of the issue are people like Ed Keller of Keller Fay, who literally wrote the book on the influentials. Ed’s research into both online and offline WOM suggests that A) online WOM is still only a small fraction of offline WOM volume in most categories, and that nothing is more effective at driving behavior than the objective recommendation of a known, credible source. This would suggest that pursuing sheer volume of reviews and opinions flying around the websphere may be a potentially distracting pursuit to the marketer seeking highly effective leverage of their limited resources.

I see some parallels in marketing history here to how first network television and then direct mail each boomed on the strength of message delivery efficiency, and then busted under the declining marginal returns as clutter and CPMs rose and response rates declined. Each respectively then fractured further (network TV to cable TV; direct mail into database marketing) in search of targeting efficiencies. The idea of targeting “influentials” was born out of a desire to focus the increasingly constrained marketing team resources on the points of greatest leverage in the market.

Granted, there are substantial differences in the evolution of web communications, not the least of which is the no/low cost of pushing out messages. But it strikes me that the real cost of communicating with a flat world is the time and energy it takes to respond to all the feedback you get, much of which is irrelevant (owing to the reverse-application of the flat world theory back on you). This is just one of the dimensions of measuring WOM effectively.

So I suspect that the futurists forecasting the death of the influential-centric strategy are just that, futurists (and, somewhat paradoxically, influentials themselves). If you’re selling Coke or Crest or something else that practically anyone in the world (including emerging economies) would buy, maybe the flat world model works. But until we have appropriate technology for effectively and efficiently sifting/sorting and managing the feedback from the flat world, most marketers would probably be better off concentrating their efforts on reaching the right “nodes of influence” within the websphere.

Presumably that’s what you and I are both doing right this very moment.

Taking Full Credit When Harvesting Brands

I’ve spent the past few days at the AMA’s MPlanet conference, listening to every speaker make some form of the following statement:

Now more than ever before, we need to build and nurture our brand assets.

Presumably this is intended to mean that in these times of great economic challenge, we cannot afford to let our brand standards slip, our brand equities become cloudy, or our brand experience decay.

Fair enough. But does that mean that we should be spending money to build these brand assets, even in the face of substantial cutbacks elsewhere? Or just be cautious not to cut things that would cause an undue decline in brand strength?

This had me wondering … under what conditions would we expect to be able to “harvest” some of the investment we’ve been making? How bad would things have to get before we expected the brand to “pay us back”? At what point would a CMO stand up and advocate “harvesting brand value”?

Sure, I understand that you should always be working on building your brand, and that done right, it is always paying you back. The flow is bi-directional and fluid. But it’s also transparent, and that’s the problem.

Assets, in a financial context, are a way of storing cash value for later use. You invest in stocks as assets, with the expectation that they will appreciate and return more cash to you later. Likewise, you invest in assets like manufacturing equipment, software, or other “tools” required to produce goods or services to sell. Brands could be said to play a similar role. Yet property, plant, and equipment are depreciated over time to reflect the decline of their useful life. Stocks and bonds are liquid assets for which there are markets to quickly buy and sell them, thus establishing their value.

Brands, on the other hand, aren’t depreciated. They can become “impaired” (accounting term meaning they are worth less than you paid for them, thereby triggering a write-down), but only if you purchased them from someone else. So if we marketers are going to rationalize some of our cash spending in good times by talking about “investing” in brand “assets”, at some point we are expected by the financial types to demonstrate how that asset value is being realized back into cash. I call it, “harvesting”.

So under what circumstances would you consider harvesting some of that brand equity?

Well, for starters, if you need to raise prices without adding any incremental costs associated with new features, benefits, or other value visible to the customer. In that case, you are relying on your brand asset to carry you past the danger of customer defection. To the degree that you averted attrition related to unilateral price increases (not matched by competitors immediately), you can legitimately claim that your brand “saved” you money. This is measurable.

Likewise, when a competitor announces a new product/feature/benefit that you cannot match, thereby taking an advantage in perceived value, you rely on your customers’ relationship with your brand to carry you through until you can once again restore your value proposition to its rightful state. This too is measurable.

And finally, when some aspect of your customer experience is deficient – a poor interaction with a call center agent, an inaccurate statement, or maybe a data privacy mishap – you rely on the strength of the overall brand relationship to carry you through. The value of this too is measurable.

So in this economy, while your budget is getting cut again and again, be sure to take the necessary steps to earn credit for how you’re now “spending” some of that “asset” value you built up over time. Done correctly, it will underscore what a good steward of company resources you are, and how far-sighted you’ve been all these years.

Just be careful not to overspend that brand asset account along the way (also measurable).

Yes We Can - The Marketing Renaissance Moment

It strikes me that the spirit of "Yes We Can" is very applicable to marketing at this particular point in time when many have recently suffered significant cuts in marketing budgets owing to their lack of ability to demonstrate the financial value derived from those investments.

Yes We Can apply more discipline to how we measure the payback on marketing investments without increasing the workload proportionately.

Yes We Can embrace this discipline without harming the creative energy so critical to marketing success.

Yes We Can measure those "softer" elements like branding, customer experience, innovation, and word-of-mouth, and link them to impacts on company cashflows.

Yes We Can overcome gaps in data and find ways to build reasonable approximations which even the CFO will embrace.

Yes We Can align the entire company on a single set of marketing metrics and all use the same yardsticks to measure success.

Yes We Can forecast the impact of changes in spending amount or allocation in ways that will inspire confidence instead of criticism.

Yes We Can anticipate the challenges ahead with reasonable certainty and act now to prepare ourselves to meet them head-on. And most importantly,

Yes We Can restore credibility and confidence in marketing as a means of driving profitable growth in our companies, regardless of industry, sector, corporate politics, culture, structure, or market dynamics.

The present economic environment offers a unique opportunity to re-invent the role of marketing in the organization, and to re-establish the critical links between our marketing efforts and the bottom-line shareholder value they create.

Believe it. If you're not doing it, your competitors likely are. There are no more good excuses. There is only "Yes We Can".

Gaining More Than "Experience" from Measurement

I recently did some in-depth interviews with CMOs from 6 multi-billion dollar companies which revealed these key measurement challenges and obstacles still looming large in 2009:

1. Lack of clarity - not having a specific definition of what they're trying to measure, and getting lost in the ambiguity of the process. HINT: define and prioritize the key questions you're trying to answer BEFORE you set out to measure them. Read this.
2. Inability to measure the "brand" impact - having great difficulty getting funding for branding activities/initiatives due to absence of any hard financial evidence of how brand drives value. Here are a few ideas. NOTE: solve this one now, or what's left of your branding budget may well disappear in the tough year ahead.
3. No or bad data - this is not a reason, it's an excuse. There are dozens of ways to overcome short-term data gaps IF you realize that doing so is a people/politics challenge and not a technical one.
4. Low credibility in the board room - the chickens have come home to roost. In the good times, we should have been working on building your knowledgebase of how marketing drives shareholder value. Now, all we can do is move funds from the more intangible activities to the more quantifiable. That's not a strategy. That's an outcome. How to NOT lose the battle next time around.

If you're still struggling to get an insightful and credible measurement program off the ground (or to see it reach a higher level of value), look here to see what your symptoms are, and then find the prescribed cure.

On the bright side, out of this economic crisis marketers are sure to gain some valuable experience ("experience" is what you get when you don't get what you want). As a community, we will learn from it and do better next time. At least, those of us who are actively working hard to get better will.

Research Priorities Are All Wrong

I got an email today from the Marketing Research Association spelling out the "top 6 issues for protecting the profession". Included were:

1. Increasing difficulty of reaching consumers via cell phones
2. Consumer fears of behavior tracking
3. Stage and federal government interest in shady incentive practices used to entice medical professionals
4. Unpopularity of "robocalls" and automated dialing
5. Public backlash to "push-polls"
6. Data security and breach protocols

Wrong.

While each of these dynamics is a threat to the future of the research industry, the bigger threat is the increasing irrelevance of research to senior management. More and more companies have outsourced their strategic marketing research functions to suppliers. The suppliers have been consolidating, often being acquired by bigger agency or marketing services holding companies. Not surprisingly, there is a serious degradation of objectivity that occurs in the process. And the more junior marketers now left client-side to direct the research program within their companies are not generally as politically senior/influential as one needs to be to push through the right research agenda - especially in times of immense cost-cutting pressure. (see Rebuilding Trust in Research as a Measurement Tool)

Sure, there are many executional threats facing the research industry today. But unless the way research is conceived in an appropriate strategic/financial context and prioritized for the value it potentially holds, the methodological threats will be but cubes floating in an ocean of icebergs.

It's time the research profession re-rises to the occasion. I hope they do.

Fools Rush In - Searching for Magic ROI

If the current economy is encouraging you to think about shifting resources from traditional media to digital alternatives in search of cost effectiveness and overall efficiency, beware: nearly EVERYONE ELSE HAS THE SAME IDEA.

Implication: you will be moving into an increasingly cluttered marketplace, where broad reach options will continue to lose effectiveness and highly-targeted delivery will come at a higher price as demand outstrips the supply of good inventory and good people to execute. Consumers too will become increasingly savvy with respect to their digital media usage patterns, and harder to “impress” with incrementally new ideas or executions.

I know I’ll get lots of letters about this post “educating” me on the infinite scalability of the digital media, and reminding me that true creativity is likewise boundless. I’m sure many of you have research that shows how the returns to digital marketing programs just keep growing as the audience of users grows across more and more platforms. Fair enough. But the laws of marketing physics suggest that more marketers and marketing dollars will rush in to the arena than proven executional avenues can accommodate in the short term. And most of them will NOT bring breakthrough new creativity with them. That will create lots of failure and un-delivered expectations, which in turn may slow adoption of otherwise valuable marketing options.

Here’s a simple suggestion as you contemplate the great digital shift towards the promise of better ROI… set your expectations based on poorer results than you may have experienced in the past, and/or ratchet-down vendor claims of look-alike results presented in “case studies”. Before committing to the “me too” plan of going digital, ask yourself if your planned online campaigns would be a good investment if they were 10% less effective than originally anticipated? Would your new social networking programs still provide good payback if they had a 20% less impact on potential customers? These may very well be the new reality when everyone rushes in.

In stark contrast, a friend who’s CMO of a packaged goods company tells me that while he is continuing to shift the balance of his total spend towards digital media, he’s doing so in a measured way built on careful experimentation. He’s working on a cycle of plan>execute>learn>expand>plan again. So he’s spending 20% more on digital media in 2009 than in 2008, but not moving huge chunks of his total budget all in one big push for magic returns. Nope. His philosophy is “hit ‘em where they ‘aint.” He’s buying more radio and magazines – media he’s developed clear success cases with in the past and places he can more accurately predict the impact on his business. He may find himself all alone there. But I suspect that’s part of the appeal.

Trying to "Justify" Superbowl Spending?

"...as a responsible employer of more than 290,000 employees and contractors world-wide, there is a time to justify such an ad spend and a time to step back."

This quote was provided by the director of advertising at FedEx, in response to a question about why they would not be advertising on this year's Superbowl - the first time in 12 years they would be absent from the annual ad-fest.

The implication from his statement seems to be that, up until now, the Superbowl ads were "justified" by something other than sound economics. Sure, there was the fabulous reach into an attractive target demo, but the price is high. So maybe the premium was being "justified" by some "softer" benefits like employee morale, channel partner collaboration, or even that most elusive of all... "brand preference". And in these days of extreme bottom-line focus, these non-economic "justifications" just weren't going to cut it. It would send the wrong message to people losing jobs and benefits.

The sad truth here is that each and every one of the "softer" benefits can, in fact, be economically measured to a reasonable degree. There are practical, credible ways to calculate the ROI of employee morale, partner collaboration, and brand preference. But they require some techniques that few marketers have yet investigated, let alone perfected.

I don't have any idea if Superbowl advertising is a sound economic decision for FedEx, and I'm not questioning their judgment. It might have been a superb use of shareholder funds, or it may have been a terrible waste. I just cringe when I hear how such important marketing decisions are still, in this age of measurement enlightenment, being made on the basis of "justifications" that suggest something less than a robust economic framework was applied.

We, the marketing industry, can do better. We can measure each and every one of those softer elements in ways that our finance partners will embrace. Those 290,000 employees and contractors need us to do better. For their sake, let's try to ramp up our measurement game in 2009, shall we?

Trading GRPs for Clicks?

Television networks are making their prime-time programming available in full-form via their websites. And not just the latest episodes of “Desperate Housewives”. CBS and ABC have both announced that they are now streaming from deep inside their programming vaults, bring back favorites like “The Love Boat” and “Twin Peaks”.

Hulu (joint venture between NBC and Fox) attracts more than 2.5 million unique viewers (distinct cookies) monthly, who stream content an average of more than 20 times each! That’s a bigger, more engaged audience than many cable stations draw in a month’s time. And anyone who knows their way around a Bass diffusion curve will tell you that adoption of online viewing is on a trajectory to achieve substantial penetration very rapidly.

All this is causing pre-revolution heartburn in the media departments of major ad agencies today. They’re trying to figure out which metrics best equate clicks (or streams) to GRiPs (gross rating points), so they can compare the costs of advertising online to advertising on TV. Apples-to-apples.

Wrong mission.

Online content streaming is, by its very nature, an active participation medium, while television is passive. As such, the metrics should reflect the degree to which advertisers actively engage the consumer: streams launched; ads clicked; games played; surveys completed; dialogue offered; etc. Selecting passive metrics encourages the content owners to use the computer to stream like they broadcast, thereby replacing one screen with another. In time, that will teach consumers to use it as a passive medium like TV.

If we (the marketers) want to capture the true potential of an active medium, we have to demand performance against active metrics. We have to design ads that give the multi-tasking consumer of today something else to do while they’re watching the show – enter contests on what will happen next; decide who’s telling the truth; test their show knowledge against other fans; shop for that cute skirt – you get the idea.

Effectiveness in this new realm is a function of the actual (active) behavior generated versus the expected amount. And the expected amount is that degree of behavior shift necessary to make the business case for spending the money show a clear and attractive return. Efficiency is then how much more positive behavior we’re generating per dollar spent than we did last month/quarter/year.

Sure, we need to have some sense of which content is attracting people who “look” like customers or prospects, but that’s just the basis upon which we decide where to test and experiment. The real decisions on where to place our big bets will come once we learn what execution tactics are most impactful.

Until then, be careful what you measure, or you will surely achieve it..

Blogging On (or is it "Blogging In"?)

OK. I'm back.

I actually got quite a few requests to resume this blog, even though there were very few comments posted during the year I ran it originally. Plus, it seems to do REALLY well on Google organic search results.

So what have I learned?

1. Blogging on a subject matter like marketing measurement is less about the number of engaged readers than it is the quality of engagement of a few.

2. Blogging is far more about building a well-rounded web marketing presence. No single piece of the puzzle puts one over the top on search results. It's constant experimentation. Having dropped the blog for a while, I can tell you we saw a clear drop in performance of our organic search traffic.

3. Social media is so immature at this point that we're experimenting with many platform components from Twitter (follow me as "measureman") to feedster, to several dozen other elements. The cost of experimentation is high, and I used to think we weren't making sufficient progress towards any real insight. Then I had a bit of an epiphany... the experimentation process really IS the marketing process. Experimentation isn't just what we do to get to a marketing plan. The marketing plan is a summary of how we're experimenting with various methods, tools, and messages to get the desired results.

If you're interested in how we're measuring our own results here at MarketingNPV, shoot me an email and we can talk about the specific metrics.

Blogging off...

As someone who prides themselves on allocating precious time to the highest return activities, I'll be ending this blog now.

It's not that there isn't a great deal left to be said on the topic, but rather that there don't seem to be too many people seeking information on this topic in blog form. Having tested several tactical approaches to getting the message into the market, this particular one does not seem to justify the time and energy it requires to feed the insatiable appetite for practical advice in the area of marketing metrics.

So I'm thinking of installing a web cam in my car and allowing you all to watch me as I drive...

Seriously, if you're looking for great content on marketing measurement, marketing metrics, marketing dashboards, brand scorecards, marketing resource allocation, marketing budgeting, or any of the other key search terms, catch us at our home page, www.MarketingNPV.com, where you'll find what you're looking for.

Thank you.

TiVo to the Rescue?

Hot on the heals of the Google/Nielsen partnership, TiVo has entered the measurement fray with its announcement that it will begin providing advertisers with data on the viewing (and skipping) habits of consumers using TiVo’s panel of 20,000 set-top boxes. This has the potential to be far more illuminating than the Nielsen data as TiVo can provide insight into who is skipping ads (both on the demographic/lifestyle segment level and on the individual-addressable level) and which ones they are skipping. The result could be a wealth of information on ad performance, sliced and diced on many dimensions.

Even more interesting, TiVo will offer advertisers the ability to learn (on a blind basis) the viewing habits of their actual customers. By providing TiVo with a customer file, marketers can get insight into exactly how many (and which types) of customers are skipping their ads, which should help both fine-tune message execution and enhance negotiations with networks.

TiVo still can’t tell us who is watching the ads – only who isn’t. But with its jump on the interactive feature options, TiVo may be faster to offer advertisers the back-end direct response element of the engagement chain.

This is a promising frontier for advertisers seeking to understand the actual payback of their advertising investments. It’s not in itself a magic bullet, but another step forward in getting the objective insight we need to draw credible conclusions.


Technorati Profile

Google to Dominate Dashboards?

Having conquered the worlds of web search and analytics, is Google about to corner the market on marketing dashboards?

Hardly.

What Google is doing is coordinating online ad display data with offline (TV) ad exposures. Google is partnering with Nielsen to take data directly from Nielsen’s set-top-box panel of 3,000 households nationwide and mash it up with Google analytics data to find correlations between on- and off-line exposure. The premise is, I’m sure, to help marketers integrate this data with their own sales information and find statistical correlation between the two as a means of assessing the impact of the advertising at a high level. By using data only from the set-top box, Google is able to present offline ad exposure data with the same certainty as it does online – e.g., we know that this ad was actually shown. Unfortunately, we don’t know if the ad (online or off) was actually seen, never mind absorbed.

However, with the evolution of interactive features in set-top boxes, it won’t be long before we begin to get sample data of people “clicking” on TV ads, much like we do online ads. So we’ll get the front end of the engagement spectrum (shown) and the back end (responded). But we won’t get anything from the middle to give us any diagnostic or predictive insights to enhance the performance of our marketing campaigns.

A full marketing dashboard integrates far more than just enhanced ratings data and looks deeper than just summary correlations between ads shown and sales to dissect the actual cause of sales. Presuming that sales were driven by advertising in the Google dashboard model would potentially ignore the influence of a great many other variables like trade promotions, channel incentives, and sales force initiatives.

Drawing conclusions about advertising’s effect solely on the basis of looking at sales and ratings would quickly undermine the credibility of the marketing organization. So while the Google dashboard may be a welcome enhancement, it’s not by any stretch a panacea for measuring marketing effectiveness.

It seems to me that Google has created better tools. But through their lens of selling advertising, they’re perpetuating a few big mistakes.

Masters of Marketing Minimize Measurement Mentions

This year’s ANA “Masters of Marketing” conference in Phoenix was, as usual, the place to see and be seen. There were plenty of very interesting brand strategy stories from the likes of McDonald’s, Fidelity, Liberty Mutual, Anheuser-Busch, and AT&T. Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, set some bold predictions for the digital content consumption world of the future, and Al Gore introduced the fascinating new business model of Current TV (which, btw, stands to redefine the dialogue on “engagement” far beyond the current amorphous context).

To his great credit, Bob Liodice, ANA president, asked every presenter to comment on how they were measuring the impact of their work. Unfortunately, most of the speakers successfully ducked the question through a series of politically correct, almost Greenspanian deflections:

“Well, Bob, we’re making a major investment in improving customer satisfaction and continuing to drive brand preference relative to competitors to new heights while keeping our eye on price sensitivity and working to ensure that our associates understand the essence of the brand at every touchpoint.”

Leaving me (and a few of the other financially oriented attendees) to wonder why – as in why are the Masters so reluctant to share their true insights into measurement?

OK, so I get that measurement isn’t anywhere nearly as sexy to talk about as the great new commercials you just launched or your insightful brand positioning. I also get that many aspects of measurement are proprietary, and giving away financial details of publicly held companies in such a forum might give the IR folks the cold sweats.

But by avoiding the question, these “Masters of Marketing” – the very CMOs to whom the marketing community looks to for direction and inspiration – are sending a clear message to their staffs and the next generation that the ol’ “brand magic” is still much more important than the specific understanding of how it produces shareholder value.

The message seems to be that, when pressed for insight into ROI, it is acceptable to point to the simultaneous increase of “brand preference” scores and sales and imply, with a sly shrug of the shoulders, that there must be some correlation there. (If you find yourself asking, “So what’s wrong with that?” please read the entire archive of this blog before continuing to the next paragraph.)

Having met and spoken with many Masters of Marketing about this topic, I can tell you that each and every one of them are doing things with measurement that can advance the discipline for all of us. Wouldn’t sharing these experiences be just as important to the community as how you came to the insight for that latest campaign strategy?

Only the Masters can take up the challenge for pushing measurement to the same new heights as they’ve taken the art of integrated communication, the quality of production, and the efficiency of media. It seems to me that people so skilled in communication should be able to find a framework for sharing their learnings and best practices in measurement in ways that are interesting and informative while also protective of competitive disclosure.

Living up to the title of Masters of Marketing means going beyond message strategy, humor, and clever copy lines. We owe that to those we serve today and those who will follow in our footsteps, who will need a far better grounding in the explicit links between marketing investment and financial return to answer the increasingly sophisticated questions they’ll get from the CEO, CFO, and the Board.

So the next time Bob asks, “How do you measure the impact of that on your bottom line?” think about seizing the opportunity to send a really important message.

And Bob, thanks for asking. Keep the faith.

Use It or Lose It

Do you have any leftover 2007 budget dollars that are burning a hole in your pocket that you have to spend by the end of the year or lose? Here’s an idea: Consider investing in the future.

By that, I mean consider investing in ways to identify some of your key knowledge gaps and prioritize some strategies to fill them. Or investing in development of a road map toward better marketing measurement: What would the key steps look like? In what order would you want to progress? What would the road map require in terms of new skills, tools or processes?

It seems kind of odd, but while the pain of the 2008 planning process is still fresh in your mind, start thinking about what you can do better for 2009. By orienting some of those leftover available 2007 dollars toward future improvements, you might make next year’s planning process just a bit less painful.

Lessons Learned – The Wrong Metrics

In the course of developing dashboards for a number of our Global 1000 clients over the past few years, we’ve learned many lessons about what really works vs. what we thought would work. One of them is a recognition that, try as you might, only about 50% of the metrics you initially choose for your dashboard will actually be the right ones. That means half of your metrics are, in all likelihood, going to be proven to be wrong over the first 90 to 180 days.

Are they wrong because they were poorly chosen? No. They’re wrong because some of the metrics you selected won’t be as nearly as enlightening as you imagined they would be. Perhaps they don’t really tell the story you thought they were going to tell. Others may be wrong because they will require several on-the-fly iterations before the story really begins to emerge. You might need to filter them differently (by business unit or geography, for example) or you might need to recalculate the way they’re being portrayed. Regardless, some minor noodling is not uncommon when trying to get a metric to fulfill its potential for insight.

Still other metrics will become lightning rods for criticism, which will require some pacification or compromise. In the process, you may have to sacrifice some metrics in order to move past political obstacles and engender further support for the overall effect of the dashboard. If one of your organization’s key opinion leaders is undermining the entire credibility of the dashboard by criticizing a single metric, you may find it more effective to cut the metric in question (for the time being, at least) and do more alignment work on it.

Finally, many of your initial metrics simply may not offer any real diagnostic or predictive insight over time. You may pretty quickly come to realize that a metric you thought was going to be insightful doesn’t have sufficient variability to it, or it may not offer much more than a penetrating glance into the obvious.

So the fact that half of the initial metrics will be proven to be wrong over the course of several months after your roll out your dashboard is bad news, right? No – it’s actually a good sign. It shows that the organization has embraced the dashboard as a learning tool, and that the flexibility to modify it is inherent in the process of improving and managing the dashboard as you go.

Here’s my advice: When implementing a new dashboard, be prepared to iterate rapidly over the first 90 days in response to a flood of feedback. After that initial flurry, develop a release schedule for updates and stick to it, so you can make improvements on a more systematized basis. But above all, make sure you’re responsive to the key constituents and that those constituents have a clear understanding of how their input is being reflected in the dashboard. Or if it’s not being reflected there, be prepared to explain why.

Knowing Is Believing

Now that 2008 budget season is upon us, it’s time to identify knowledge gaps in the assumptions underlying your marketing plan – and to lay out (and fund) a strategy for filling them.

We recently published a piece in MarketingNPV Journal which tackles this issue. In “Searching for Better Planning Assumptions? Start with the Unknowns” we suggested:

A marketing team’s ability to plan effectively is a function of the knowns and the unknowns of the expected impact of each element of the marketing mix. Too often, unfortunately, the unknowns outweigh the hard facts. Codified knowledge is frequently limited to how much money lies in the budget and how marketing has allocated those dollars in the past. Far less is known (or shared) about the return received for every dollar invested. As a result, marketers are left to fill the gaps with a mix of assumptions, conventional wisdom, and the occasional wild guess – not exactly a combination that fills a CMO with confidence when asked to recommend and defend next year’s proposed budget to the executive team.

Based on our experience and that of some of our CMO clients, we offer a framework to help CMOs get their arms around what they know, what they think they know, and what they need to know about their marketing investments. The three steps are:

1. Audit your knowledge. The starting point for a budget plan comes in the form of a question: What do we need to know? The key is to identify the knowledge gaps that, once filled, can lessen the uncertainty around the unknown elements, which will give you more confidence to make game-changing decisions.

2. Prioritize the gaps. For each gap or unanswered question, it’s important to ask how a particular piece of information would change the decision process. It might cause you, for example, to completely rethink the scope of a new program, which could have a material impact on marketing performance.

3. Get creative with your testing methods. Marketers have many methods for filling the gaps at their disposal; some are commonly used, others are underutilized. The key is determining the most cost-effective methods – from secondary research to experimental design techniques – to gather the most relevant information.

Don’t let the unknowns persist another year. Find ways to identify them, prioritize them, and fund some exploratory work so you’re legitimately smarter when the next planning season rolls around.