April 18, 2007When the writing's on the wall...
Filed Under: Sightings of the 30-second spot
|
|
Yesterday I keynoted at MIPTV in Cannes and after my presentation, I sat down with BusinessWeek's Jon Fine to chat a bit on stage. One of the questions he asked me was about P&G, who talk a lot about change and moving away from a TV-heavy media budget, and yet remain a heavy and committed TV-adspender.
My response referenced a newly released study, titled "Define & Align the CMO." The study was conducted by MarketBridge for the CMO Council and amongst other insights, revealed the following:
- ...fully half of all executive searches for CMOs last year were conducted in order to replace departing CMOs, rather than to fill new positions.
- One hundred fifty-two CMOs left their jobs last September, setting an all-time record
- CMO failure was seen as resulting from their having "no real authority or clout in the organization" (59 percent) and "a lack of credibility and respect among key stakeholders" (54 percent).
- 62% of board members disagreed that their marketing leaders were providing adequate ROI data whereas CMOs with greater quantitative focus and measurement emphasis have a significantly longer expected tenure, "greater than 20 percent longer"
In other words, just because the networks are still teaming with 30-second spots, doesn't make it right and more importantly, doesn't mean it's working. Bottom line, CMO's are losing their jobs - left, right and center - only no-one knows why? I find that hard to believe, but let me suggest that it's because of the dogged persistence on using staid and irrelevant approaches which no longer resonate with consumers, coupled with the lip-service to change given by executives at conferences, but never followed up on within the organization.
The CMO study specifically calls out CMO credibility and the demise of the "rockstar" CMO in favor of the geek; the quant-jock; the number-crunchers (sounds like 1984 on Acid: Here's to the geeks; the quant-jocks; the number-crunchers....) and while they may not be going to Cannes any time soon, at least they'll have jobs this time, next year...
SPONSORSHIPJaffe Juice – brings a fresh new marketing perspective and commentary from industry thought leader and author Joseph Jaffe. Click here to find out more about sponsorship opportunities. Jaffe Juice continues below... |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/307546/17815116
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When the writing's on the wall...:
Comments
I read the article as well. I've only been out of college a couple years but consider myself relatively well informed on the state of marketing (although inexperienced with corporate protocols).
My thought is that most CMO's actually understand a great deal about what they are doing and why. They simply can't quantify it in plainspeak for a board.
Marketing as a vocation is vulnerable to many different attacks. The most important is the CFO (with good reason), so first and foremost a marketer in a CMO position should learn to quantify their results. Second is the idea of brand perception; a marketer has to be creative and appeal to people with a brand. Basically, this means if your brand is stagnant or a higher up doesn't like your company position they may look for someone with better ideas (i.e. new, which before long is old). Lastly, a marketer in such a position needs to be able to authoritatively manage and express vision. If their department lags, they will (and should) be disregarded by the CEO.
That's a thin line to walk. That's why so many marketers lose their CMO positions. It's a combo of not being accountable, not being visionary, or not being a leader.
Posted by: Robert John Ed
While I don't doubt the study's findings, my sense is that it show's a broader lack of understanding of marketing.
If only we new precise ways to measure the impact of marketing with the degree of precision that boards would like or could predict with any degree of accuracy how things will turn out. Boards most likely look at new approaches and deem them to be risky, leading to the CMO exiting left. They place higher value on the predictable and "proven" methods.
This broader lack of understanding about the state of marketing is likely stopping the "risk taking" you are talking about.
Posted by: mark lewis
