Wanting to see if we each took from it similar conclusions, Jeremi swung by last week with a copy of this Deloitte Research article with the nicely alliterative title Navigating the Marketing Measurement Maze: Aligning measurement design with strategic intent.
The paper makes the case that often marketing measurement is siloed within specific departments of a company, where ideally marketing measurement should be focused on a company's overall strategic goals, and measurement planning should adjust dynamically to include metrics to support these goals.
To support this proposal, the report suggests that marketing metrics should be anchored from the highest levels to the firm's strategic intent, allowing management of outline activities grounded in performance of these strategic goals:
"Instead of just revenue growth per marketing dollar, metrics include the number and quality of insights and dollars spent on marketing research."
This all makes sense, except that any kind of quantification of insight and dollars spent on research would then suggest a need to quantify the results of that insight. New research findings which result in neither action nor quantification of returns on said findings are about as useful as coming up with a new way way to say the word "twelve". Unless it's actually useful to someone, aren't you just saying "twelve"?
With the ability today to connect results across multiple campaign channels, and tests available for almost any kind of marketing -- particularly in interactive digital media -- surely there are better examples of ways in which the described insights could be researched, built upon, and launched into new streams of revenue?
One useful point authors Mahidhar and Cutten did describe is the oft-neglected need to include external market factors into measurement design. They give the example of a company's product being underpriced by its competitors just subsequent to launch, bringing down projected returns. The low initial returns would at first glance seem to indicate a flaw in the launch, but instead just reflects a more dynamic market, meaning extra-corporate metrics like relative pricing should be included accordingly.
That issue aside, it continues to amaze how so much published "research" consists of three-to-five-page whitepapers which manage to discuss a great deal related to "C-suites" and "aligning business objectives" while actually saying extremely little. Here's a quote from the paper's conclusion:
"An effective marketing performance measurement system must include... holistic measurements, including... the process dimension. Metrics that span the value delivery process address the influence of other functions and channel partners on marketing outcomes."
What does this even mean?
Let's break it down. Marketing performance measurement system. A process by which marketing's effectiveness can be measured. Got it. The process needs to holistically include metrics which cover ground outside of the specific campaign objectives. Still there. But metrics that span the value delivery process address the influence of other functions and channel partners on marketing outcomes?
If the authors had provided even one example of a metric which spans the value delivery process the above might make perfect sense. If the influence of other functions or channel partners had been illustrated via their their influence on more commonly used performance metrics then it might have a point.
But to write about strategy in a vaccuum with no clear calls to action? About as useful as creating a campaign measurement plan with no clear target objectives.
Listen to what you're preaching, guys.
Recent Comments