There is plenty of popular press today about the lack of quantitative metrics in marketing departments. In a recent study of senior marketing executives nearly 31% rely mostly on qualitative measures. About 24% consider some basic quantitative measurement, and 23% answered they base decisions on the previous year’s performance, not tied to any specific business objectives. A study by executive recruiter, Spencer Stuart, shows that the average Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) at 100 leading consumer companies hang on to the job for just over two years–26.8 months to be exact.

Are these two data points related? Is there some link between effectively measuring your performance and tenure? Compare the above finding to perhaps the most measured individual in the “C-suite” – the CFO. The CFO is responsible for reporting the financial results for the organization including regulatory, tax and compliance filings. A CFO will not survive unless he or she utilizes robust quantitative analysis and can communicate quantitative metrics to audiences that range from the most sophisticated (e.g., Wall Street, S.E.C., etc.) to the most simple (e.g., mom and pop shareholders, reporters). And the tenure of CFO’s? The average tenure of CFOs in the top 500 companies is now 4.1 years, almost double their CMO counterparts.

What is a CMO to do? They can continue to measure marketing in terms that are relevant within the confines of their departments and agency partners. Or CMOs can broaden and deepen their organization’s quantitative skills and demand to be measured. Without taking a stance on measuring the value of marketing and the hard-dollar returns, marketing will continue to be viewed as a cost center – spending millions on advertising campaigns without a clear return – instead of the organization’s engine for acquiring and expanding customer relationships and generating revenue.
How is your marketing department being measured? How are you working with the CFO and finance department to make sure the appropriate metrics are in place?

Let us know your thoughts.

A recent Wall Street Journal article describes how Best Buy – having disposed of arch nemesis Circuit City – now plans to focus its efforts on Wal-Mart’s increasing presence in the consumer electronics space.  Since early 2007 Wal-Mart has stated its intent to challenge Bust Buy in the $140 billion plus space and has had quite a bit of success by replacing the no-name electronics brands it once carried with major name brands such as Samsung, Sony, Philips, Apple iPod and, of course Dell
 
Should Best Buy be worried?  Absolutely – the quintessential “category killer” has come to town.  Best Buy’s plan hinges on emphasizing its advantage in terms of tech savvy employees,  offering an interactive in-store experience that Wal-Mart cannot match, and matching Wal-Mart’s prices.  While Best Buy certainly has more tech savvy employees and their tight focus on consumer electronics will no doubt allow them to offer a more interactive experience than Wal-Mart would choose to roll out in its stores, this strategy begs several questions:
 
 1     If Best Buy is going to offer an interactive experience that Wal-Mart cannot or will not match, do they really want to try and match Wal-Mart’s prices as well?  Do they risk negating their employee/interactive experience advantage by making it a price game?

2.      Are the consumers Best Buy is losing to Wal-Mart the ones on which Best Buy should be focusing, or is their primary target a different consumer set altogether?  

3.      By focusing on Wal-Mart, does Best Buy risk losing sight of potentially equally dangerous competitors such as Amazon.com? How many people are “test driving” at Best Buy and then purchasing the same product online?

Let us know your thoughts on this topic.

BusinessWeek magazine’s third annual “Customer Service Champs” list (BW 3/2/2009 issue) ranked Amazon as #1 in customer satisfaction ahead of customer service stalwarts like Lexus, The Ritz-Carlton, Nordstrom and Four Seasons Hotels.  This is most impressive when you realize that Amazon’s philosophy of “the best service is no service” implies that customers are rarely serviced directly by anyone throughout the typical buying process.

So how can Amazon lead in customer service over best-in-class companies with legendary face-to-face customer service? Amazon excels by focusing on maximizing the customer experience, which includes: having the lowest price, having the fastest delivery and having it reliable enough so customers don’t have to contact anyone.  Amazon lets customers get what they want without ever talking to an employee. When things go wrong, then employees get involved. Amazon saves customer service for those unusual situations.

Amazon’s customers want to be served, served promptly via their preferred touch-points (read about TopRight’s approach to understanding and dealing with consumer needs at each touch-point – The Consumer BuyWay).  Amazon tracks CPO (contact per order) to measure customer satisfaction – it seeks to minimize and eliminate unneeded and unwanted contacts. Consumers can hardly get a customer service rep on the phone or online chatting when placing an order at Amazon.com. However, by carefully crafting the customer experience to provide customers what they need at each touch-point Amazon delivers on Jeff Bezos’ vision:  “To be the world’s most customer-centric company.”

Skateboarding has long been considered an “outlaw” sport that rebels against the social norms of society and commerce. Many corporations have tried and failed to enter the growing $5+ billion skateboarding market, which consists of homegrown skateboarding companies–usually started by skaters or other extreme sport companies that already have a foothold in the market.

Nike and Adidas both tried at different points in the 1990’s.  After failing a few times, Nike made a commitment to taking a different approach. Early in 2000, they started infusing traditional marketing strategies they had optimized in the past with innovative marketing approaches they thought would cater to the market. In 2003, Nike Skateboarding only produced a disappointing $25 million. Today, Nike Skateboarding has grown tremendously and is now a $200+ million business. This remarkable growth can be attributed to four different strategies:

1)      Finding a young, upcoming athlete to sponsor, and to build a business around.

2)      Selling only to independent skate shops.

3)      Bringing back the Nike Dunk and tweaking it to become a functional skate shoe.

4)      Using skateboarding magazines as the only medium of traditional advertising.

Nike is now a staple in skate shops and the market leader in sports gear has once again established itself as a major player in yet another sport. Which market will Nike target next? Will they be able to apply these same strategies and innovative approaches to achieve similar success? Only time will tell.

President Obama announced this week that the administration will begin branding projects funded by the economic stimulus package so that people can easily recognize the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Obama was quoted as saying: “These emblems are symbols of our commitment to you, the American people — a commitment to investing your tax dollars wisely, to put Americans to work doing the work that needs to be done. So when you see them on projects that your tax dollars made possible, let it be a reminder that our government — your government — is doing its part to put the economy back on the road of recovery.”

Later in the day at the Transportation Department, Obama rolled out a second brand to highlight the 150,000 jobs that would be saved or created under highway spending from the recovery act. In a stroke of marketing genius, the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery act has been branded TIGER.

Of course, not to be confused with…

Nothing like a little marketing to make us all feel good about spending nearly a trillion dollars.

Let us know what you think and add your comments below…