The Marketing HiPPO.

 Years ago I worked for a Marketing Director who took his job seriously. That meant that every pack design, advertisement, poster, publicity shot, research proposal, all the day to day business of a busy marketing function had to be OK’d by him.

Not only did this lead to a huge bottleneck, it virtually stopped anything worthwhile, or a bit different getting through the approval processes.

We had a bad, almost terminal, case of the “Marketing HiPPO’s”, highest paid persons opinion. Its sibling, highest paid persons wife’s opinion (HiPPW’sO) is the only condition affecting marketing management that I can think of that is worse. 

The antidote is a dose of marketing by analytics, using data to guide decision making. When dealing with innovation, things that are genuinely new, data can be misleading because assumptions are easily fumbled, but for all other situations, data is king.

Edwards Deeming said years ago that “in God I trust, all others bring data” and that still holds, it is just that we are now able to gather and analyse so much more data, much better, giving us the potential for huge increases in the productivity of marketing investments.

The emergence of A/B testing via the web is in the process of transforming the way marketers approach their markets, by enabling lots of small scale experiments, differentiated offerings tested against a standard whose performance is understood. It is a technique used for years in labs, particularly in applications like optimising manufactured food products that are a mix of flavours, densities and textures, and has become routine in  software development in the last decade. 

Now with the advent of theflexibility and  tools on the web, the potential for use is far wider, and the returns tangible.

Branding frameworks

Selecting the best branding option is a topic that always attracts debate, in any business I have worked with. What is usually missing in these conversations is a framework for the thinking, boundaries against which to measure the options.

This post from David Aaker offers a framework with considerable merit, and the webinar link in the post expands on the ideas. 

Original thinking on marketing is hard to find, Aaker is original.

 

Perception drives good decision-making.

30 years ago when housebrands were making their first inroads into Australian supermarkets, I took over management of Fountain tomato sauce. At the time it was a runaway market leader in NSW, but was being badly hurt by emerging cheap housebrands, priced a few cents less, 0.69 cents Vs 0.73 cents. Clearly to consumers there was not much difference in the products, they may as well take the few cents for themselves.

We lifted the price of Fountain significantly, the shelf price difference was then sufficient to suggest to consumers that Fountain was substantially better than any cheap housebrand, which was in fact, the case. Lo and behold, not only did our margins improve, so did our volumes.

The perception of the value delivered by Fountain overcame the rational response that sauce is sauce. Test yourself on this next time you walk into a liquor store, and consider a purchase of wine.  Obviously, the greater the price, the better the wine?

In this great TED talk, Rory Sutherland, a big cheese in British advertising makes the point beautifully that decision making has three components.

    1. The technical considerations
    2. The cost/benefit considerations
    3. The psychological considerations.

The first two have a range of widely used and well understood models, whilst the third is often the province of the mavericks, creatives, and other assorted ratbags, and is therefore  often dismissed as having a valid role in decision making. However, the best decisions are made at the intersection of these three perspectives.  

Value chain sustainability.

The word sustainable holds connotations of farming practices, and environmental sensitivity, all true, but only half the story.

A sustainable chain must also be commercially sustainable, and one without the other is by definition, unsustainable.

The characteristic that drive both are similar, transparency, and connections through the chain, both facilitated by the collaboration tools of the web. The outcome is increased productivity  of the whole value chain.

The price deflation being experienced in the value chains supplying Australian retailers are testing the limits of Australian suppliers, and those that are surviving are dedicated to the implementation of chains that are commercially sustainable, and increasingly environmentally sustainable as consumers interest in product provenance increases.

Quietly, out of a home office, GFAP, a small chain consultancy that supplies a customised web based tool that manages value chains, to this point  largely around horticulture, is flourishing. Very few pieces of produce arrive at Woolworths or Coles without being touched in some way by this system, but few have ever heard of it.

 

 

Digital Darwinism.

It is simply a fact of life that digital media is evolving faster than the existing institutions around it, particularly the regulatory ones.

The decision during the week to reverse the Federal Courts decision on the streaming of “almost live” NRL and AFL games by Optus, determining that after all, it was a breach of copyright,  is a case in point. Regardless  of the merits of either sides case, and the logic that the continuing success of the professional codes relies on funding from TV rights, the world has moved on, but the business model of the professional games has not.

We will wait around for another year or so until the high court comes down with a decision, and there will be a winner and loser, but from a long term perspective, both will be losers, simply because another year has been wasted trying to shore up the gunwales against Digital Darwinism, and we all know how successful that has been in the music industry, newspaper publishing, and a host of others.

If both games wish to engage with youngsters, those who will be around for a while to fund the games by watching, buying branded gear, attending events, they need to consider how these youngsters consume entertainment, and adapt.

The current copyright law was conceived in the 1700’s, and whilst it has evolved, it no longer is a reflection of society, but a distorted shadow vainly trying to keep up with technical changes happening at digital speed.

Advertising: cost or investment?.

The costs of advertising only get counted when you do lousy advertising.

When you place an ad, and you get a great response, the costs are never considered, but place a lousy ad, getting little response, then the cost is alarming.

Therefore the task is to be sufficiently compelling to a targeted audience to bring a quality response, then the cost is not considered,  because you get an outcome that (presumably) makes commercial sense.

My son recently sold a car on line, it was a good car, but not one that would be for everyone. He thought  he would just put up an ad, and it would just sell, easy, because it was a good car, and the price offered good value.

Failure, this first ad got almost no response, and those that did respond were not interested in the car, just getting it at half the advertised price.

We had another shot at writing an ad, putting in much more detail, and then placed it more specifically to attract a specialised buyer, one to whom the particular characteristics of the car beyond the provision of a transport device would be of value.

It got a number of responses, several very good ones, and it sold very quickly at the full price.

The cost of the second ad was irrelevant, but he is still complaining about the first placement.