A recent HBR piece asks the question, "Why, if digital is so measurable and targeted, does traditional ad spend still outnumber digital by 3 to 1?" In a nut shell, the writer says, because the CMO's don't get it and they're scared.

He says there is something "fundamental happening behind the numbers; something lurking in the very nature of digital marketing and what it asks of leadership and what it means for accountability." That something, he suggests, is exactly what we're always talking about - a "digital disconnect in the executive ranks".

We translate this to mean that digital performance is not communicated at the boardroom- manager- level. Reporting is focused instead on media, and it's done so in a way that's too complex. Hence, the fear, and frankly the disinterest.

The article also says that the CMO feels scared by digital because it means they are held more accountable for performance. We would disagree with this statement. In fact, in our experience, the CMO feels better when they have a relatively low risk way of assuring profitability. When they know more, rather than less. The trick is knowing more about what really matters- not media, but the business affects of that media.

Our solution strips away the complexity around the media. It delivers a roadmap for profitable growth through marketing. Because ultimately, that's the only thing the CMO should care about.

I saw this study a few weeks back looking at Social Media - not your typical facts and figures, but the disconnect between how marketers interpret engagement metrics and how consumers really feel. (Ironic to me that we're disconnecting on the very media we use to connect to consumers.)

For example, only 15% of consumers who share an ad feel invested in a brand, while 49% of marketing executives measure sharing ads and other online content as highly influential.

In general the study found that marketers tend to overestimate the value of engagement "... viewing consumers’ proactivity via social media as more engaging then consumers do. The inflation of “engagement” in this case has been caused by the ease of social media use and equating online followers with successful marketing."

Meaning that marketers and brands can't place the appropriate value on social actions because they're not tied to tangible business goals.
"Measurement of social media engagement is an area where CMOs often don’t know what they don’t know," so they just measure the actions in-and-of-themselves.

Why does this matter? It goes back to my assertion that you need to tie social (as Awareness media) to a bigger picture - to the bottom line metrics. Not because you expect them to produce sales in the same way as other more direct-response media, but because it should still be a part of the overall financial framework.
 

I came across this phrase in a Bloomberg article last week and it's stuck with me - "Egocentric bias". The article used it to explain why people give other people gifts they don't like. But it keeps popping back into my head for another reason.

As brands or marketers, we often make mistakes about the customer. We assume things about them, and these assumptions come from our own view of the world. We like electronics and recipes so our customer must be interested in those things too - let's advertise on CNet and MarthaStewart. Or we stereotype based on our own singular experiences.

This is what makes diligent Customer Insight so critical. Taking the time to understand your existing or aspirational customer. Where do they live? Do they have families? Are they into sports or cars or horses? When we do this, we better able to target them through media they might actually enjoy - in places where they might actually be.

I am surprised by how frequently I am surprised by what I find - which is to say, how different people are from myself.