CEO vs CMO

I recently read an article by Lloyd Truffelman titled "Blame CMO turnover on metrics mania" (originally published on June 18 edition of AdAge).

As markets, the media landscape and consumers are becoming more and more diverse, a strategic approach to marketing is fundamental. Undoubtedly, marketing and communication needs facts as a solid basis in order to be tailored to specific market segments and choose appropriate mediums from a wide variety of media channels if it wants to be successful.

Nevertheless, times have changed, making it difficult for traditional marketing difficult to be realized. The initial pure informational marketing efforts did not survive the constant social developments of time. An growing partial attention of the consumer due to the abundance of available channels, as well as an overflow of communication messages have created new challenges for the entire industry. It has become increasingly difficult for marketers to capture the attention of the audience, which is why creativity is has long been a buzz word in the industry. The common belief has been that marketing and communication needs to be creative, new and original in order to be successful. Consequently, while having a strong strategic fundament, today’s marketing needs to be of an entertaining or interactive nature and at the same time offer a strong emotional appeal.

In that context, it needs to be highlighted that marketing is not a battle of products, but a battle of perception, which often forms the major discrepancy between the mindset of a CEO and a CMO. People believe what they want to believe; and see what they want to see. Truth is illusive, making it impossible for marketers to change a consumers mind even if rational facts show promising focus points for their brands. Even though “fast” might be the major DMU to prefer one fast food chain over another, Burger King cannot use it as a central theme in it’s communication, as in the mind of the consumer the word is owned by McDonalds. Management however often focuses on facts, because they believe in objective reality. It is then of course easier to believe that truth is on their side. Armies of researchers are employed, focus groups conducted, questionnaires tabulated and what comes back in a two pound report is often a wish list of what consumers want. But if brands go after everything, they might risk standing for nothing. No two companies can own the same positioning in the mind of the consumer. It is therefore much more complex, involving a combination of issues and trends of the market and consumer environment with one’s own brand mantra. And that largely involves the intuition, the gut feeling of the CMO, in order to come up with a creatively original execution.

As the Trufelmans article rightfully points out, an “overreliance on metrics” can “crush creativity”. This pattern holds true for battles between general management and the CMO as for interagency dissension between –for instance- account planners and creatives. The big challenge therefore often consists of finding the right balance between strategy and creativity. If marketing was indeed like Jazz music, the musician would have to ensure that his music is unique and new, while being in line with the contemporary taste of the listener as well as general music market trends, in order to be successful.

Undoubtedly, a consequence from these constraints on the CMO is that companies often try to "communicate" when they should actually be trying to "position." And in today's over communicated society, it takes endless repetition to achieve this effect. For instance, as Al Ries repeatedly exemplifies in his columns, the BMW might not be the most fun car to drive, but with their consistent claim of “the ultimate driving machine” they have anchored the "driving" position in the mind. For a typical consumer brand to come to this point, that might mean years and years of advertising and hundreds of millions of dollars. Most companies don't have the money, vision and patience to do that and if immediate results are not visible, the marketing department is usually the first one to blame. Consequently, companies jump from one message to another, hoping for an eventual magic pick that will energize their brands. However, this approach does not work today. It appears as if Pepsi changes their logo, marketing messages and slogan continuously and with that never succeeded in surpassing “the real thing” Coca-Cola. The only thing that works today is the BMW approach of strict consistency. Integrated marketing Communication means not only a synergy of different marketing tools but also to have a brand with a common sound, look and feel over time. And that simply is not possible with an average CMO tenure lasting only 26 months. Marketing Managers need time, trust and creative freedom to achieve enduring success and strategic advantage in the market place.

For another interesting perspective on the subject, note this podcast episode of "The Ries Report" by Laura Ries:

Francesco Wesel MA
Integrated Marketing Communication
www.francescowesel.com
www.brandnewtimes.blogspot.com