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”.

Better Ways To Do More With Less

Crawling around inside a few dozen large marketing and finance organizations these past months I’ve seen some evidence of five patterns of “do more with less” which seem to work best.

First, the “best” clearly define what “doing more with less” really means. The most common metric appears to be “marketing contribution efficiency” – an increase in the ratio of net marketing contribution per marketing dollar spent. That’s seems appropriate when budgets are falling (recognizing the need to monitor it over time as it can be manipulated in the near term).

Second, when they cut, they do it strategically. Face it, most of us didn’t take Budget Cutting 101 in B-school. After eliminating travel and consultants and other easy stuff, bad decisions creep in under mounting political pressure. More about this in last week’s post.

Third, they watch the risk factors. CFOs want to cut marketing spend to increase the likelihood of (aka decrease risks against) making short-term profit goals. Yet when marketers try to do more with less, risk exposure rises in ways never imagined – especially if it wasn’t clear which elements of the marketing mix were working before the cuts. It’s the “risk paradox”. If you want to make sure your “less” really has a chance of doing “more”, manage the new risks that have silently crept into the plans.

Fourth, they avoid the ostrich effect. Just because there’s enormous pressure on today, the best don’t ignore the fact that tomorrow is right around the corner in the form of 2010 plan. And when looking ahead, the only thing certain is that historical norms are no longer a reasonable guide. So the best are anticipating the key questions for 2010 plan, and working on getting some answers now. They’re committed to leading the process, not getting dragged behind it.

Finally, the best push their marketing business case competency further, faster. The marketing skeptics and cynics have more political clout now. Un-tested assumptions, like ostriches, will not fly. Better business case discipline is the new currency of credibility.

We all have basically the same tools at our disposal to do more with less. The “best” seem to be able to apply their imagination most effectively in the use of those tools. I’m the world’s biggest proponent of the importance of creative inspiration and instinct, but the lesson here I think is to start the conversation these days with “what do we mean by ‘effective’?”

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.

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".

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.