Marketing is in trouble and has become its own worst enemy. Over the past few decades, the discipline has evolved into a trade, rather than a profession, focusing on managing and executing marketing communications. This trend is demeaning.
Early in my marketing career, I kept running into the same paradox: the marketing campaigns that actually moved the needle led with emotion, yet most clients insisted on leading with facts—bullet points, technical specs, rational arguments.
A recent study by McKinsey & Company documents the continuing decline in the influence of the marketing function and the growing frustration of CEOs with the contribution of marketing. Much of this frustration stems from marketers’ inability to clearly explain how marketing activities contribute to the firm’s financial performance and the continued use of metrics like brand awareness and brand equity as evidence of performance. There is, of course, nothing wrong with measures of brand health,...
Can a CEO build a brand that is bigger than their company’s? A truly iconic brand? Can a CEO brand have the power to transfer from one business to bring power and credibility to succeed in totally different businesses? Can a strong CEO brand create significantly more financial value than the brand of the business they run?
From all my years in research and consulting, I think I’ve learned a thing or two about marketing worth sharing. Enduring fundamentals, mostly yet often overlooked. So, this year, I want to share some snippets for your consideration. I hope they’re helpful. This week’s thought: Marketing is not an exact science.
