A successful integrated marketing communications program yields many happy - and measurable - returns, according to a panel of ANA members
Delitha Morrow Coles has a practical viewpoint regarding the importance of measuring the integrated marketing communications (IMC) programs she oversees for the safety business at Kimberly-Clark Professional. "Measurement helps us better demonstrate the impact that marketing can have on helping the business reach its goals," says Morrow Coles, who is manager of marketing communications for the business-to-business arm of Dallas-based Kimberly-Clark Corp.Morrow Coles is hardly alone in being attentive to measurement, whether it be increasing market share, boosting the bottom line, or building brand equity. "As a marketer, you have to put in place systems and analytics that allow you to have effective measurement capabilities," says Eduardo Conrado, corporate vice president of global marketing and communications at Schaumburg, Ill.- based Motorola, Inc.
Morrow Coles and Conrado are among a trio of ANA members who participated in a recent roundtable discussion to share their thoughts on the measurement-specific information collected as part of the 2008 ANA Integrated Marketing Survey. Joining them was Karna Crawford, director of media and interactive integrated communications for the Sparkling Business Unit at The Coca-Cola Company, based in Atlanta.
"I truly believe that an ability to do IMC well and with speed is a competitive advantage," says Crawford, sharing her similarly practical viewpoint. "The ones who get that right move to market quicker and have better creative, programs, and relationships with agencies."
More valuable insight is included in the Q&A that follows.
Q. According to the ANA survey, 58 percent of respondents say "market share" is one of the methods used to measure their IMC programs, a 14-percent increase over 2006. Do you find that surprising? Why is there an increased focus on market share? What has been your own experience?
A. Delitha Morrow Coles: I'm not at all surprised. In fact, I think it's a reflection of the sign of the times. More and more, we're all being asked to ensure that we're making the best use of our resources to deliver results to the bottom line. That means focusing on building the right programs with the right messages for the right audiences at the right time. Since we began to focus on delivering more integrated programming, trade publication editors have been coming to us more often with requests for bylined articles, and we're invited more often to present at events. We've also experienced double-digit growth in brand awareness in some of our key product categories.
Eduardo Conrado: We do track market share, but when you tie it into how we measure an integrated marketing mix, in some companies that may not be the No. 1 driver. Depending on campaign objectives, we may measure lead generation rather than longer term market share gains. Other measurements we track may translate into market share gains - not necessarily market share itself, but something that would lead to a gain in market share.
In the meantime, business needs require that we have ways to measure program effectiveness in real time to ensure that we're allocating our resources appropriately. Thus, I believe ROI analysis will continue to be a more critical measurement tool.
Conrado: ROI will gain more importance, especially as we move heavily into EDM, DM, and other interactive components. I think it makes it much easier to do full return on marketing investment tracking, especially as we tie into a direct automation system. Brand equity measures will continue to be important, but I'm not sure they will gain in importance ... definitely something to keep in mind as brand health evolves over time.
Crawford: I think both are critical. Brand equity measures are particularly critical in my industry because there is a huge proliferation of beverage products. You're reaching a point where your differentiation comes through your brand, not necessarily through your functional benefit. When you have a lot of products that offer the same functional benefit, [it's important to measure] equity drivers. It's particularly critical for interactive because of the fact that many people don't yet buy into interactive being a volume driver. I'm not one of those people. When I'm doing an interactive program, I like to use both volume and equity measures. I want to show both sides of that story and continually reinforce to my stakeholders, who are usually the brand team, that it can drive volume leveraging the interactive space. On the RO I front, it's kind of a no-brainer. The market consistently is moving in that direction.
Q. On the flip side, "advertising research," "profitability," and "customer relationship management data" each slipped significantly; they are among the least used measures. Are you surprised? Why the sea change?
A. Morrow Coles: I'm not at all surprised that ad research, profitability, and CRM data have slipped as measurement methods. Again, I think there's more of a requirement to ensure that programs are delivering the right return on investment. Profitability and CRM, in particular, are byproducts of that.
Conrado: I think it's because there are measures that are stronger, have fewer systems involved, and provide better data than traditional advertising research.
Crawford: On some level, it surprises me, but I wonder if people are starting to roll those things in as tools [for measuring brand equity and volume]. When I think of the role of CRM, to me it's a tool that I use to drive equity among my consumer target or to drive a behavior. I wouldn't necessarily use CRM as a measure of success, but as a tool to drive an action. And when I think about advertising research, it's a tool I use to assess equity performance.
Q. The lack of a standard measuring process is still considered one of the most serious challenges in planning and executing an IMC program. How can the marketing organization overcome this challenge?
A. Morrow Coles: Marketing can overcome the challenge of the lack of a standard measuring process for building an IMC program by building an understanding of the target audience, building programs that are customized for that audience, and finding ways to measure the effectiveness of those programs. For example, before we implemented our new ROI measurement program, I relied on brand awareness studies, ad recall studies, brand awareness analysis, and sampling studies to measure program effectiveness.
Conrado: It depends on what the different companies find important for them. Some might be trying to grow brand perception within their market, so they may feel brand perception is important. The survey is not only showing that we lack consistent measurement capabilities but also that what is important to different companies varies depending on what you want to impact.
Crawford: One of the things we need to do to overcome this challenge is to have the mentality to think differently and be willing to potentially end some of the tried and true measurement approaches. It will never work if we keep trying to piece together independent approaches to measurement. I want to look at a campaign consistently across all elements of my mix and be able to benchmark myself against the marketplace and against my different programs. There will always be flaws. We need to create a new, more comprehensive or more cross-media approach. And we have to be flexible in how we create it. It requires that people be willing to walk away from, or adapt to, things that have been tried and true and proven over the years. I don't think you're looking at a silver bullet change or an easy change, particularly when you think of how TV is measured. That's a deeply held, entrenched, traditional approach that has all sorts of financial and systematic factors related to it. It will not be easy to get people or the system to change. I'm of the mentality that you can do anything, but you have to be creative in how you solve a problem. I believe the same thing about measurement. I believe we have to be willing to change versus forcing people to create change and not allowing them the flexibility to adapt to new things.
Source
"Measurement Matters." Ken Beaulieu; Bob Barrett. The Advertiser, June 2008.