How to know you're really, really good at marketing.

My five year old grandson just joined a baseball team for the first time. Two weeks ago their first practice session was held.

To get to know one another, the coach asked each player to tell the team a little about themselves. He asked for their name, the school they attend, and whether or not they had played baseball before.

One six year old youngster announced his name and his school. He said he’d never played baseball before, “But, I’m really, really good”, he proudly proclaimed.

Intrigued, his coach asked how he knew he was so good if he had never played on a team before.

The future major leaguer quickly explained, “My Dad and I play baseball all the time. And, every time we play he tells me I’m really, really good!”

Good for the dad for encouraging his son! And, good for the young lad for believing him! The kid’ll probably play a better game of ball because of it.

I’ve told that story so many times because it kind of warms the soul. So cute!

Earlier this week I was talking with a team of direct marketing professionals. They manage a lead generation program to support their outside sales team. They told me the new program they created had done extremely well, so they probably will continue executing it the same way.

I congratulated them on their success. Trying to understand their situation a little more, I probed for key performance metrics achieved in the program – response rates, cost per lead, the conversion of lead to sale rate, cost per sale, etc.

They responded, “You must track things differently than we do. We don’t have that kind of information.”

For some reason I was reminded of the little baseball player. In the absence of proof of his abilities, he simply believed his dad. There’s something wonderful about that.

In the absence of proper tracking and measurement, the marketing professionals were convinced of their success as well. They believed one another’s opinions, feelings and congratulations. I think there’s something tragic about that.

One thing I love about direct response marketing is that you can know how a program performed. Beyond opinion. No feelings involved. Know. Good tracking and measurement can pinpoint what went well, and what needs more attention. I’ll watch and believe the numbers!

There are no comments for this post.

You can observe a lot by watching.

Just read an interesting Ad Age CMO Strategy piece on "Why Consumers May Never Be the Same" after the recession.

The author, Eric Spahr, talks about how to figure out consumers. And he suggests observation, rather than focus groups. Here's what he said:

Consumers are notoriously bad at predicting or remembering their behavior, so don't rely on what they say in focus groups or one-on-one interviews. Instead, watch what they do. Last year, people were ready to trade in their SUVs for hybrids at the thought of $3-per-gallon gas. Today, those same SUVs are swerving across three lanes of traffic for the opportunity to fill up for gas that cheap.

That made me smile. It's true, isn't it? What was unthinkable a short while ago becomes business as usual soon enough.

Yogi Berra, the great 20th century baseball zen master had it right. You can observe a lot by watching

Spahr's proposition also reminded me of a focus group I observed many, many years ago. The client was a non-profit organization. They wanted to know why some people wouldn't respond to our most successful direct mail package. It had been the best idea we could come up with . . . but there were still some folks who wouldn't give, even though they'd received it several times.

The group was selected based on the criteria that they had given to this organization in the past and they had received this direct mail piece at least twice, but hadn't responded.

They were gathered in the room behind to one-way glass. They were loosened up with some small talk. Then the real meeting began. Each person was handed a sample of the mailing and asked what they thought.

The consensus? It was brilliant! If they got something like this in the mail, of course they would respond. Nothing could stop them from writing a check.

That didn't answer our question about how we could improve our mailing. But it did give us valuable information. We concluded, as did Eric Spahr, "consumers are notoriously bad at predicting or remembering their behavior."

Don't ask. Merely watch. You'll observe more.

There are no comments for this post.

Learn from your customers

This month the CMO Council came out with a new report suggesting that marketers are "struggling with amassing and strategically applying data and customer insights to effect substantive business growth and strategic gain."

In other words, they don't know their own customers well enough to keep them -- or make money from them.

(Those multi-syllable words sure make them sound a lot smarter, don't they?)

The report goes on to detail just how unhappy these executives are with their ability to collect data, to share data, to come up with actionable insights from the data they have and more.

It's a little depressing. These are supposed to be some pretty high-powered individuals -- and yet they come across as somewhat helpless.

There are a couple of ways to handle this enormous problem.

One approach is for the CMO to get the CIO on his or her team. The CIO controls the data. If they're focused on business results (as they should be), the CMO's request should be a priority. Many times the CIO and CMO just aren't connected -- so the CIO doesn't even know the CMO has a problem. What's more, the CMO could build a powerful alliance. It's an old saying, but a true one: You can accomplish just about anything if you don't care who gets the credit.

If that doesn't work, another idea is to completely circumvent the CIO. Start your own database with new customers -- the ones you bring in through your own marketing efforts. (Of course, I'm talking about direct marketing here. That's the only way you'll know who these folks are.) Make sure you track the data you need. Start building on the information and insights you gain with your own database, then extend it to the big group the CIO still controls.

Another truism, which applies in this case, is that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.

If all this seems difficult, keep in mind . . . it's the CMO's job that's at stake. And that's why they call it work.

There are no comments for this post.

Why is ''integrated marketing'' important?

Marketing Charts says "integrated marketing communications" is the number one priority of senior marketers. They surveyed 157 members of the Association of National Advertisers.

That's nice. But it looks like it may be putting the cart before the horse. The number two concern is "marketing accountability." And number six (!) is "advertising creative that achieves business results."

Dang. Integration is more important than getting results. Excuse me?

Don't get me wrong. I believe in integration. It's my job title, for Pete's sake. But if you can have cave men in one commercial and a gecko in another and make it all work for your brand – by which I mean "achieve business results" and ultimately grow revenue and profit – that's fine with me.

If your creative isn't achieving business results, why the heck do you care if it's integrated with anything else? If you don't have accountability, how do you know integrated marketing even works?

It makes me wonder… Do most firms in the U.S. run their business without a scorecard and disciplined approach? I don't think so. So is it just the marketing departments within them that tend to operate differently? Has marketing become a haven for people that love "creative" and "cool campaigns," but forget why they have a job and how their company makes money?

This study is another example of people drawing conclusions without having a clue about the big picture.

"The rapidly evolving marketing landscape demands an integrated approach," said Bob Liodice, president and CEO of the ANA. "The survey findings confirm that integrated marketing is one of the foundational pillars the ANA believes are critical to create a transformed marketing environment."

Come on. "Transformed marketing environment"? We’re all grownups here. Business is competitive. Frankly, business is cut-throat. Every CEO expects employees to show up every day and play to win. If they aren't, they shouldn’t be there if you ask me. Marketing shouldn't be held to a different standard than their colleagues in Sales or Manufacturing.

If you're not measuring everything against your business results and holding people (and your creative) accountable, how can you expect to win? Heck, are you even competing?

There are no comments for this post.

The only metric that counts

Ever since the beginning of online advertising, marketers have been trying to get a grip on measurement. We can all agree that there are too many data points to absorb and act on, if we're going to retain our sanity.

It's old news that click-through rates are not the key. (Marketers started saying that just about the time when click-throughs started dropping through the floor.)

Brandweek came out with an article last week saying that perhaps the new metric is "engagement." Of course, the people pitching this idea are the social media experts -- and social media are all about getting consumers to participate in a conversation . . . or pass along a widget to a friend . . . or make a video of themselves using the product . . . or create a commercial. You get the idea. Engagement.

Brandweek quoted some skeptics.

"There's always been a certain level of engagement as consumers click on a banner," said Jeff Hinz, svp/director of client services at ID Media, a digital services company in New York."

Of course, Jeff's company buys online media for banner ads.

Others said that brand recall and favorable impressions were more important.

I have my bias, too. I say none of it matters unless your marketing efforts make a profit for your company.

Net profit. That's the metric that counts.

There are no comments for this post.

Don't bury the lead!

I've gotten pretty far in the direct marketing biz by understanding the "what's in it for me" principle. My job is to get inside the head of someone else in order to figure out what they want. And then I climb back out again and show that person how my client gives them just what they're looking for. (As a friend of mine says, "Be careful. It's dark in there.")

The WIIFM idea works for headlines, copy leads, calls to action -- just about everything.

Sometimes this approach is lost in an effort to be more interesting or clever or just different. I've found that it's sometimes very hard to make a clever approach work. Not because people don't like cleverness -- they often enjoy it very much. But, more often, we creatives fall in love with an idea that isn't actually clever at all. In fact, sometimes it makes no sense, unless you have someone there explaining it. (That's why I'm a little suspicious of creative presentations to the client or account team that require a lot of set-up.)

Now, as the economy worsens, everything we do has to pay off and the work has to speak for itself.

My advice is to be sure your creative approach doesn't get in its own way. Keep coming back to the point -- and the point is always about how the reader benefits.

There are no comments for this post.

Thinking critically.

You must remember Charlie Brown's saying, "I love mankind. It's people I can't stand."

I love statistics, it's analysis I can't stand.

It drives me nuts that people derive their own conclusions that basically just prove their own point when looking at data. And when the "data" isn't that great to begin with, the conclusions just get wackier.

What got me going this time is a Forrester report called The Connected Agency. Looks like it was released in February. I exaggerate when I say it involves data. Mostly it's about observing the agency zeitgeist and piling on the "what this might mean" conclusions. It looks like they plan to market this "intelligence" to the big agencies they're trying to throw the fear of God into.

Here's one takeaway from this report that makes no sense to me.

Rethink consumer segmentation. Traditional segmentation models work with demographic approximations of consumer understanding, similar to the blunt target audiences of the mass media. But a 41-year-old woman may have little in common with a 25-year-old, even if they both watch Desperate Housewives or American Idol. In reality, consumers cut across multiple lifestyle, life-cycle, and behavioral segments. Today’s generations have shortened, requiring marketers to reformulate audience strategies. For example, Nike now plans with age gaps of as little as four years; Procter & Gamble has moved from decades to a handful of years.

I agree that traditional agencies don't have a grip on segmentation -- but, judging from this paragraph, neither does Forrester.

For one thing, marketers -- as we've said many, many times in this blog -- shouldn't be segmenting on "demographic approximations." To me, it's much more interesting that a 41-year-old and a 25-year-old may something in common-- something that has relevance to me as a marketer. So what if their lifestyles differ? If I sell kitty litter and they both have cats, how old they are makes no difference. If they're both fashionistas and I sell shoes, there may be a difference in how much one is willing to spend on accessories -- but I'm not ready to hazard a guess which woman is which until I see a previous buying pattern, not an age.

And how do they justify the statement "today's generations have shortened." Really?? It seems to me a lot of 40-year-olds have more in common with their teenagers than parents and kids back in the 1970s or earlier. My guess? Procter & Gamble and Nike have better data now, so they can identify ages with more accuracy. They haven't provided the data to back this conclusion, so my conclusions have as much weight as theirs . . . until they show me the difference those shortened generations really make on their marketing (or on their products).

There are no comments for this post.

Would you rather be smart or lucky?

Smart people tend to depend on their smartness and don't necessarily think about luck. Since none of us is perfectly smart all the time, a little good luck is a wonderful thing. Being smart can't always help you with things like timing.

No one is lucky all the time either. In that case, having brains can pull you out of some scary-bad situations.

And intuition is something else altogether. But if you read Blink, you know that some intuition may be based on having a lot of experience.

One of ways I'm lucky is that I work with smart people -- people who catch my mistakes before it's too late. (That's one of the wacky things about posting to this blog. I don't have any proofreaders or editors looking over my shoulder and I feel like I'm working without a net!)

So . . . smart and lucky may be related. Some will tell you that persistence is another part of what looks like luck.

When it comes to marketing, you can look at your competitors, heave a sigh and consider them lucky if they're getting all the business you want. Or you can focus on the parts of the lucky-smart equation that you have control of -- consistent, persistent selling . . . surrounding yourself with smart advisors . . . continually learning so you hone your instincts. And by doing that, you may be able to create some of your own marketing luck, regardless of how smart you are.

There are no comments for this post.

Direct marketing in less-than-direct channels

One of the wonderful things about direct marketing is complete control one has over the entire selling process. We like to talk about "planning backward from the point of sale." And we actually can do that. If the customer is going to buy direct, the direct marketer can fine-tune every communication and transaction along the way. We create a breadcrumb trail of offers (if you do this, we'll give you that) and lead our prospects down a path that culminates in a purchase.

This generally makes direct marketers control freaks.

We're always tweaking headlines, testing offers and incorporating more value propositions into the copy to see what has a big impact on results at each step.

So when we're asked to use direct marketing tools and techniques to do something other than sell directly, we usually have a lot to offer our clients -- and not necessarily where traditional agencies would be likely to try.

If you ask a general agency to try to drive traffic to retail stores, you'll get a lot of questions about the products you sell and the consumer profile. The result will be a media plan and a new creative approach.

If you ask a direct marketing agency to do the same thing, you'll get a lot of questions about the whole process of the sale. If you're selling cars, for example, the process is a lot more complicated than if you're selling jeans. What are the steps consumers take before coming into the store? What happens once they're there?

The result from your direct agency should be a media plan, a new creative approach and a communication plan once you get a prospect to express any kind of interest.

A lot of us enjoy focusing on the creative aspects of our marketing campaigns. Don't forget that the changes you make to the sales process can have a far bigger impact on results.

There are no comments for this post.

Does recession mean more budget for online?

We've seen it in the past. Direct marketing spending holds up, even when the economy tanks. When you have the numbers to back you up, it's easier to justify spending on direct -- even when you can see the cost-per-sale go up.

Six or eight months ago, before the word "recession" had been spoken aloud, the outlook for online marketing was hot. Now it's gotten even hotter.

Just so I don't sound completely self-serving here, let me put on my contrarian hat.

I love online marketing as much as the next guy . . . but you can't rely on it to be your whole media plan. At least not yet.

National marketers simply won't get the scale necessary via that single channel. You need the aggregate impact of all medium – broadcast, print or even direct mail, etc. – to hit the growth numbers and new customers most companies need.

Search. Banner. House email campaigns. They all can deliver phenomenal results and ROI, but there are only so many people to market to – finite searchers for your product on the major search engines, finite opt-in email addresses of prospects or customers. No matter how much more you wish there were – there aren’t. There’s no way your CEO is going to be content to grow sales by this channel alone. If you need to sell to crowds of people, you probably need more than the Internet can give you by itself.

Chances are, it’s likely much of your other marketing efforts – PR, TV, Mail, Print, and Events – that are driving your search and online activity.

The crux of the discussion (and a heated one at that) shouldn't focus solely upon giving credit to the channel where the response came through … but how should you attribute the credit appropriately to all the channels that influenced that sale.

Go ahead, put more eggs in your online basket – it will surely pay dividends in the future . . . but don't abandon other media just yet.

There are no comments for this post.