Judging from Pat LaPointe's post, it seems that ANA's (Association of National Advertisers) 2007 Marketing Accountability Conference was a bit underwhelming. From Pat's description:
- the number of companies actively measuring Marketing ROI has not changed from past years
- CMOs seem to be losing interest in ROI measurement, it seems that the topic is losing relevance for them
- It may be that CMOs delegate the task and responsibility of measuring ROI
He concludes that this state of affairs leads to Marketing losing credibility and influence.
I don't dispute the facts, and not having been in Florida for the conference I accept that the attendance was not at the level of years past, but this does not necessarily imply that the topic is losing relevance, it may be that, instead, the conference is losing relevance. This conference may have been different but the trend for conferences and webcasts is that they've become more a chest-thumping and publicity opportunity than a forum for useful discussion of even to learn something new.
More realistically, however, is that we should never expect that Accountable Marketing be a common process in all companies. The need to implement this practice is felt in companies that are stagnant at best, or that are in crisis at worst; aside from these two extremes I can't see a CMO allocating funds to an initiative that does not map clearly to a benefit. What I am point at is the irony that the ROI measurement effort itself must pass some ROI threshold: the resources dedicated to it must generate some incremental benefit to justify being implemented. Measurement for the sake of measurement generates a cost with no benefit.
Which brings us to the cases in which accountability becomes necessary: when the orders no longer roll in like before, or when sales stop growing. In these cases it makes sense to allocate the extra funds to find out what marketing vehicles truly drive sales, and how they can be maximized; other than that, it is nice to know where marketing dollars are going but there may not be a sense of urgency in tying the expenses to a benefit. In most organizations, accountability off the general ledger works just fine.
American's Dim View of Advertisers
A survey reported in DM News recently found that 14% of those queried respected advertisers, all others seemed to take a dim view of the profession. Unlike what I've done in the past, I'll quite the article here:
Other key findings include:
· 84 percent agree (strongly/somewhat), “Too many things are over-hyped now."
· 74 percent agree, “The Internet helps me make better product choices."
· 72 percent agree, “I get tired of people trying to grab my attention and sell me stuff.”
· 52 percent agree, “There’s too much advertising — I would support stricter limits.”
· 47 percent regard “Advertising as background noise.”
· 42 percent agree, “American advertising has improved in recent years.”
· 38 percent believe “The advertising industry understands Americans in general and connects with them.”
· 22 percent believe “The advertising industry understands and connects with me.”
· 24 percent “resent advertising.”
· 82 percent indicate a positive engagement with media overall.
· 59 percent consume “traditional” media.
· 41 percent consume “interactive” media.
The results are so dismal that I am not even sure if accountability will help the image that the profession has created.
04:38 PM in Business Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)