A Condensed Guide to Marketing Accountability for CEOs
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

A Condensed Guide to Marketing Accountability for CEOs

on

  • 430 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
430
Views on SlideShare
430
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

A Condensed Guide to Marketing Accountability for CEOs A Condensed Guide to Marketing Accountability for CEOs Document Transcript

  • A Condensed Guide to Marketing Accountability for CEOs By Oscar Jamhouri and Marek Winiarz September 2013
  • All material contained in this document remain the copyright of Integration (Marketing & Communications) Limited. No part of this document shall be used or reproduced or transmitted without the express written permission of the copyright holder. Copyright 2013 by Integration. All Rights Reserved. Integration® is owner of all MCA® products, tools and trademarks.
  • Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5 Section 1 – The Road to System Thinking 1. The Marketing Problem ..................................................................... 8 2. What do the Experts Say? .................................................................. 11 3. The MCA System Provides Marketing Accountability ......................... 12 Section 2 - The Right Data 1. Marketing Data Fundamentals ........................................................... 14 2. What is “Right” Data? ......................................................................... 14 3. Data Relevance ................................................................................... 14 3.1. Interaction Effectiveness.................................................. 15 3.2. Transaction Effectiveness................................................. 16 3.3. Costs of Marketing ........................................................... 17 3.4. Marketing ROI .................................................................. 17 3.5. MCA Solution: Return in Brand Experience ..................... 19 4. Data Quantity ..................................................................................... 20 4.1. The MCA Data Quantity .................................................... 21 5. Data Quality ....................................................................................... 22 5.1. Measurement Validation .................................................. 22 5.2. Voice of the Customer – Sampling ................................... 24 5.3. Internal Data – Activity Based Costing ............................. 24 6. Data Compatibility .............................................................................. 26 6.1. Compatibility Among Outcomes ....................................... 26 6.2. Compatibility in Time ....................................................... 27 7. Timeliness ......................................................................................... 27 7.1. Leading Indicators .......................................................... 28 7.2. Early Outcome Indicators ................................................ 28 8. Cost of Data ....................................................................................... 29 9. Presentation of Data .......................................................................... 30 31 9.1. Executive Dashboard Metrics .......................................... 9.2. Performance Indicator Dashboard ................................... 32 9.3. Efficiency Indicator Dashboard ........................................ 33 9.4. Return in Brand Experience Dashboard .......................... 34 9.5. Operational Dashboard Metrics ...................................... 35 9.6. Tactical Indicators ........................................................... 36 9.7 Other Metrics .................................................................... 36
  • Section 3 – Management Must Manage 1. Managing Accountability ..................................................................... 38 2. Marketing Accountability Essentials ................................................... 39 2.1. System Thinking ............................................................... 39 2.2. Measurement is Compulsory ............................................ 40 2.3. Measurement is Comprehensive ...................................... 40 2.4. Measurement is an On-Going Practice ............................. 41 2.5. Universal Practice ............................................................ 41 2.6. Operational Process ......................................................... 43 2.7. Technical and Empirical Process ...................................... 43 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 44 Appendix 1. Marketing Accountability Data Checklist ............................................ 46 Appendix 2. Marketing Accountability Process Checklist ....................................... 48 References ............................................................................................................. 49 Author’s Notes ....................................................................................................... 50 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 51 List of Figures Figure 1. Lack of System Thinking Plagues Many Enterprises .............................. 8 Figure 2. System Thinking in Marketing Accountability Shown Schematically ....... 10 Figure 3. Factors Affecting Profitability ................................................................. 18 Figure 4. Contact Clout Factors (CCFs) .................................................................. 23 Figure 5. Activity Based Costing Explained Schematically ...................................... 25 Figure 6. Example of Outcome Performance Indicators ......................................... 32 Figure 7. Example of Efficiency Indicator Cost per BEP ......................................... 33 Figure 8. Example of Efficiency Indicator: Return in Brand Experience ................ 34 Figure 9. Voice of the Consumer is the Only One that Matters ............................... 40 Figure 10. Finding Market Similarities in a Global Data Set .................................... 42 Figure 11. Change Management ........................................ ................................... 44 List of Tables Table 1. Metrics for the Executive Dashboard ........................................................ 35 Table 3. Essential Metrics for the Tactical Dashboard ........................................... 4 31 Table 2. Main Metrics for Marketing Operations Dashboard .................................. 36
  • Introduction “Marketing’s ultimate goal: delivering sustainable demand generation in every market, globally.” – Oscar Jamhouri Marketing and communications represent a large proportion of business investment. Yet research by the Fournaise Marketing Group (WARC 2012) shows that a surprising number of CEOs don’t understand what they are getting for their marketing and communications money. Although performance of other parts of the business is routinely quantified, comprehension of marketing performance remains problematic. Yet marketing performance can be as accountable as any other business function. It is not difficult and it is not expensive but it requires system thinking, the right data and a consistent process. Accountability requires little more than uniform measurement of all marketing activities using the same scale for all your brands, in all your markets, time after time. Management Accountability Essentials 1. System Thinking: The whole is more important than any part. 2. Compulsory practice: Evidence-based management is impossible without it. 3. Comprehensive process: All functional activities are equally evaluated for their contribution. 4. On-going practice: Periodic evaluation to understand performance trends. 5. Universal practice: All stakeholders and markets are evaluated on the same scale. 6. Operational process: Clearly defined procedures and requirements for all. 7. Technical & Empirical process: Knowledge derived from experience.
  • In this publication we show you what is necessary to make Marketing accountable. In Section 1 we describe the “big picture” marketing problem and argue for system thinking. Section 2 details data requirements, and Section 3 closes with the process essentials for accountability. Each section describes the fundamental principles and then describes how Integration’s Market ContactAudit (MCA) System (Integration 2013) satisfies them. The MCA System assures understanding of fundamental marketing performance and provides tools to improve it – internally and versus competition. 6
  • Section 1 The Road to System Thinking
  • Section 1 1. The Marketing Problem The Fournaise Report (WARC 2012) clearly shows business managers’ frustration with understanding the marketing function. They want to see clear links between activities and results. How does this currently work? The reality is that many organizations are unable to drill down to a local level in marketing budgets. Marketing communications are essentially atomized. Once budgets are signed off at the corporate level, the actual implementation is handled by brand managers that make decisions based on the local context, needs and opportunities. The responsibility for spending is gradually decentralized to a degree that makes it very difficult to reconcile with the original budget. If spending is the input to the marketing process, then the outcome is equally fragmented. What is happening at brand level? There are a number of marketing yardsticks. But which of them actually drove the results in sales and the bottom line? Who or what is most responsible for the hits or misses? Can we learn from this and leverage it as best practice across the organization? I´m glad the hole isn´t at our end... Figure 1. Lack of System Thinking Plagues Many Enterprises 8
  • The Road to System thinking The disconnect between marketing departments and management is a reality in many companies, leading to misunderstandings, guesswork and often a very poor level of effectiveness and efficiency. Marketing accountability means establishing a clear line of sight between activities and results. • • INPUT: The marketing activities and actual spend in marketing communications. OUTCOME: Results of all marketing communications initiatives and their respective contribution to the business. Management must acquire indicators that are meaningful to the business and accurately represent the outcome condition: Indicators that can be used to optimize marketing and communications operations. Inputs must be aggregated in dollars by activity for all communication activities (TV Ads, Billboards, Point of Sale Advertising, Digital Contacts, Word of Mouth, etc.) Input data requirements are: • • Marketing communications spend using Activity Based Costing Applied consistently across the enterprise (all brands, regions, markets, etc.) Outcomes must likewise be collected for all communication activities, using a metric that identifies how the consumers (targets of these communications) perceived them. Outcome data requirements are: • • • Unique marketing outcome Brand Experience: A holistic measurement for quantifying the overall influence of marketing communications. Reported in common units (“common currency”) that enable performance comparisons among activities and over time. Validated measurement (accurately represents the business condition) that is understandable across all corporate functions, categories and markets. Accountability is only possible using system thinking: assuring that all marketing activities are evaluated on the same scale, in context of the business and competition, and not as stand-alone entities or actions.
  • Section 1 Figure 2. System Thinking in Marketing Accountability Shown Schematically 10
  • The Road to System thinking 2. What do the Experts Say? One of the most influential figures in marketing research today, professor Byron Sharp argues for evidence-based marketing (Sharp 2010). He convincingly shows that the presumed unpredictability of marketing randomness is “utter nonsense”. His extensive research, based on empirical observations, shows that there are immutable “marketing laws” that can be applied to the advertising process (Wind and Sharp 2009). In fact, he argues, the creative process must be firmly anchored by marketing laws, just like another creative process – architecture – is bound by the laws of physics. Like physics in architecture, or treatment in medicine, marketing management must be evidence-based to be accountable. This is only achievable by collecting system- thinking data. W. Edwards Deming (Wikipedia 2013) asserts that the only way to achieve accountability in marketing, as in any function, is to apply system thinking and move this mission away from the functions themselves. Doing this: • • • Liberates the marketing expert to focus on strategy and the execution of creative, effective marketing communications initiatives. Assigns the job to experts in accountability and system thinking. Enables all stakeholders to contribute and be aware of performance. Asking marketing managers to provide accountability is unfair and simply doesn’t work. After all, Formula 1 drivers are not asked to provide metrics when negotiating hairpin turns at 200 km/h for a very good reason. You can’t analyze a process while you are actively trying to achieve difficult goals. Telemetry and metrics are handled by individuals tasked to evaluate and improve team performance; the driver concentrates on driving.
  • Section 1 3. The MCA System Provides Marketing Accountability Currently, only one validated system meets all requirements for the systematic gathering of spend data and measurement for multi-contact marketing activities: the MCA System. MCA Clients’ experience with Integration technology shows that accountability and transparency in marketing is entirely possible to achieve – quickly and everywhere. The MCA system empowers management by generating a quantifiable, comprehensive overview of the effectiveness of brand’s marketing from the consumers’ perspective. It does this by systematically tracking and analyzing the inputs and outcomes of marketing functions. Developed over 20 years, the MCA System quantifies the ability of the whole marketing system to generate sustainable demand through: • • Marketing communications’ ability to interact with and impact the target markets. The ability to convert this impact into transactions and market share. The MCA System clearly shows which activities are contributing to brand experiences that sell, which ones needs improvement, and which need to be reconsidered. The principles – data and process requirements – are described in sections that follow. 12
  • Section 2 The Right Data
  • Section 2 1. Marketing Data Fundamentals “The volume and variety of data are increasing with ferocious velocity.” I quote an IBM Study (2011) where the overwhelming majority of CFOs feel overwhelmed and underprepared for the deluge. It is true that there is no way to know everything, but getting buried with data is no excuse for not knowing marketing fundamentals. To understand business fundamentals, you need the right data. Do you have the right marketing data? If you don’t understand what the data says; if you don’t see what outcome you get for your money; if you are faced with jargon that only an “expert” can interpret; if you can’t perceive the major factors that produced the outcome; and if your data divines outputs from input information, you don’t have the right data. So what is right data? 2. What is “Right” Data? The concept of “right data” is a multi-faceted one. The major facets are: • Relevance – provides information actively used in management. • Quantity – complete but lean, no redundancies, only what is necessary for management. • Quality – validated, representative of business condition, confidence intervals quantified. • Timeliness – available as soon as outcomes are known. • Cost – minimal processing and “data factory” expenses. • Presentation – dashboards results are obvious to everyone. Let us explore their properties in sequence below. 3. Data Relevance At its core, the data has to support the way fundamental decisions are made. In marketing, the two major outcomes include: 14
  • The Right Data • Interaction effectiveness with the marketplace: measurement of the contribution of each contact activity to the promotion of the brand. • Transaction effectiveness: understanding the contribution of product, price, and place on the sales effectiveness of the business. These effectiveness measures must come from the “outside” – the target brand users. Peter Drucker (2001) points out that “the single most important thing to remember about any enterprise is that results exist only on the outside”. The only relevant outcome results of your marketing efforts must come from the Voice of the Customer (VOC) In order to get a complete picture of your marketing management, you also need corresponding input data, in dollars to connect to the outcomes. The ratios of outcomes to inputs indicate the efficiency of your marketing operations – what you get for your dollars – or “marketing ROI” (return on investment.) 3.1. Interaction Effectiveness Interactions with the marketplace are conducted through marketing activities. These activities include any connection of the enterprise with the consumer. We call them communication contacts, and they are also referred to as “touch-points” or “channels.” They are activated through a variety of corporate, brand, regional, and/or retailer activities. They all cost money and they are all designed to influence the customer (consumer or business customer) toward the promoted brand. How effective they are can only be determined if their effect on the target group is measured in context of the marketplace, within the clutter of all communications offered by your brand and your competition. It is the only way you can evaluate what is significantly influencing, and what does not engage consumers.
  • Section 2 The MCA System provides a true VOC outcome measurement in common units of “Brand Experience.” Brand Experience (BE) is a composite outcome measurement of consumer engagement as perceived by the marketplace. Additionally, Brand Experience contains diagnostic information for the Marketing Manager. BE comprises the influence of each contact, factored by the capacity of a marketing team to activate these contacts with creative execution. A key point to make is that Brand Experience provides you information about your Brand Interaction with consumers within the competitive context, because MCA captures the interaction of competitive brands at every audit. 3.2. Transaction Effectiveness Knowing how your contacts are received by consumers allows you to ask: Are these interactions converting into transactions (market shares)? This key question must also be answered in the context of your business. A brand with Brand Experience Share that is less than its Market Share can benefit from additional marketing activities. On the other hand, an over-promoted brand will not benefit from additional marketing efforts. Causes of inferior sales performance are elsewhere, perhaps poor distribution or uncompetitive product quality. One of the key attributes of MCA is that it correlates very well to market share of the enterprise. This strong correlation has first been determined by Chattopadhyay (2001) and tracked ever since. In 35,000 brands audited among more than two million consumers across 523 categories in 90 markets and 40 languages, the correlation coefficient R is 85 percent (Winiarz 2006). Comparing Brand Experience Share to Market Share determines whether the brand promotion is in line with your sales share in the market. MCA System delivers unambiguous metrics about consumer engagement with your brand as well as transaction performance in context of your competition. An examples of a summary dashboard showing Interaction and Transaction effectiveness for a car category is shown in Figure 6 (Dashboard section.) Note that Interaction and Transaction outcomes are singular to 16
  • The Right Data marketing. They are wholly “owned” by Marketing, and are not shared with any other function in the enterprise. This is why they are the suitable indicators of marketing effectiveness. Attempting to measure marketing effectiveness by indicators shared by other business functions is inappropriate. 3.3. Costs of Marketing While the marketing outcome indicators must come by the Voice of the Customer, internal rigor is necessary to quantify marketing costs. These costs must be collected by marketing activity using Activity Based Costing methods (Kaplan & Cooper 1998). This allows performance comparisons for any activity, market, brand, or category. An IBM study of C-suite executives (2011) included over 1700 CMOs from all continents, in 60 product and service categories. Fully twothirds of them believe that they are insufficiently prepared to deliver “hard business numbers” about marketing. Until costs are connected to activity performance, hard numbers will continue to be elusive. Most C-executives believe that indicators such as ROI will be the primary measure of effectiveness in marketing and that Marketing ROI is the most important measure of success. 3.4. Marketing ROI Marketing ROI is an elusive measure that marketing community has been struggling with for a long time. That we don’t have an accepted method is not for lack of trying. Much has been attempted, various models have been proposed by respected consultants and yet after all this effort we are still searching. Let me go out on the limb here and postulate that traditional ROI measures – ratios of profits to equity – are not possible for marketing. I offer no proof other than the observation that if a formula existed, it would have been found by now - after all the effort and expense devoted to it by brilliant minds in the last few decades and before. The reason is that while marketing expense can be captured, marketing outcome cannot be tied to profitability in any “hard-wired” way (Winiarz 2005). Profits are a result of many factors that include “money in” and
  • Section 2 “money out” (Figure 1). In Six Sigma terminology, Profit is an Outcome designated a Y, which depends on many factors, called x’s. Marketing is only one factor (x) among many and not a very prominent one. Marketing contribution is confounded by other, faster acting, more direct factors. Marketing is just one of the factors in sales and it’s a long road from “sales” to “profits.” Figure 3. Factors Affecting Profitability Contribution to profitability by marketing activities is at most a second order effect, unlike manufacturing where costs have an immediate and direct effect. For example, a poor management decision in a manufacturing plant will immediately wipe out and mask any profit contribution from marketing activities. Conversely, an excellent marketing campaign effect may not show up until much later, and only if other factors remain steady. Realistically, the myriad other factors fluctuate, frustrating the efforts. 18
  • The Right Data Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of CMOs believe that such a measure is needed to provide marketing accountability. Since a direct connection to profitability is tenuous, “hard” numbers must be obtained by proxy. 3.5. MCA Solution: Return in Brand Experience The MCA System provides a proxy – real outcome not in profits but in Brand Experience. Brand Experience is one attribute that Marketing owns – it is not shared with other functions or departments. We can call a proxy ROI a Return in Brand Experience or Yield in Brand Experience: a ratio of Brand Experience Share to Dollars. While this does not quantify the contribution to profitability, it is a “hard” measure of marketing efficiency. If brand experience increased and costs did not, then the marketing program became more efficient. A ratio of Brand Experience Share to Dollars is a “hard” measure of marketing efficiency This indicator is measured in percent change, and it is an accountable efficiency metric (an example is shown in Figure 8 in the Dashboard section). At the top level of management only three items of information are relevant to Marketing: • • • Is Marketing effective in interacting with and engaging consumers? Is Marketing effective in translating engagement into transaction, sales, and market share? Are costs increasing or decreasing for these consumer outcomes? Using the MCA System, these questions are answered at any level of granularity for brand managers and analysts to find effective and efficient practices to support, and ineffective ones to redirect.
  • Section 2 4. Data Quantity Data collection requires money and resources; hence the amount of data needs to be as little as necessary to evaluate the holistic business picture. While you need to assure completeness - that is all necessary information to make sensible decisions - it should include only the relevant information. Excess data is counterproductive: it clutters the system, it confuses decision makers, and it is a waste of money. You may rightly ask why do I need more data? Don’t I already audit enough? Don’t I already have so much data from so many sources? Don’t I spend enough to get information? Don’t I have models to tell me what will happen in the future? Just recently Marketing persuaded me to spend more on social networking data. Why should I spend more to get yet more data from MCA? The probable answer is that you have too much data already, from too many sources – data streams that accumulated over time. The trouble with each new added measurement is that nothing was eliminated and now you have a mess of measures, most of them incompatible with each other. From all this data you try to divine marketing business performance and you are not getting it. Correct? This so called “data explosion” tops the list of CMO headaches according to the IBM study (2011). Let’s ask some questions. Are you measuring social media on a different scale than TV advertising? Does engagement with mass media mean the same as engagement from sponsorships? Do you have one set of data for financial performance and another set for your mixed media modeling? Do your models consider one communications activity (or a subset) to the exclusion of others? Do you get one set of data for one brand, a different set for another? Do you evaluate each region, each country, each market differently? Do you get into social media minutiae stressing over individual comments? All this, unfortunately, is too much data that confuses rather than directs marketing decisions. With too much data you cannot confidently determine marketing fundamentals. Do not get bogged down into too many details, but assure that you carefully track the big fundamental things. The Titanic didn’t sink because the captain was unaware of every piece of ice in the water; it 20
  • The Right Data sank because its crew missed the very big one. In management-speak, it was a disastrously disruptive event. Can you see your icebergs? In the fog? In the dark? Under water? 4.1. The MCA Data Quantity To establish the right quantity of data, data acquisition needs to be addressed holistically. All your marketing activities and all communication contacts need to be measured on the same scale. Each brand performance – including competing brands - and each market performance must be evaluated in the same way, using the same scale and the same units each time. Otherwise comparisons are impossible and you are stuck listening to marketing mumbo-jumbo. MCA is the only audit that provides the requisite amount of data to manage – to assure no gaps in understanding. All activities, contacts, brands, and markets use the same scale so that activity-to-activity contribution, brand-tobrand performance and market-to-market performance can be simply compared. The data can be segmented and stratified by any socio-demographic target group or location, independent of product, service, or customer (business-to-business or business-to-consumer). In tracking costs by activity, changes in performance relate to expenses. Thus when evaluating whether MCA is right for you, all your data systems must be equally evaluated, accompanied by their costs. You may find that your people are invested in their pet measures reluctant to let them go. However the only sensible decision is to eliminate the ones that do not show clear contribution to the information as stated in the preceding paragraph. Eliminate mercilessly. Doing so will greatly reduce data clutter and confusion, save money, free up resources, and clarify decision making.
  • Section 2 5. Data Quality Quality data is trustworthy. That means that the source is trustworthy, the collection methods are trustworthy and free of bias, and that the measurement system is validated. You can be confident of what it measures; its confidence limits are quantified. Quality data is a vital link between the marketer’s intent and the actual outcome. While data is not the outcome, it represents the outcome. It must be accurate. Accuracy is easily measured for a rifle. Mount it rigidly and fire a few times. Noting the scatter on the target you will know what to expect. You can compare another firearm in the same manner. But put that rifle in the hands of different individuals, and you will get a wholly different set of results. Rigid firing accuracy is called repeatability, manto-man differences are called reproducibility. Both matter a great deal. A sharpshooter will have a difficult time with an inaccurate rifle; a clumsy shooter will fail with the best firearm. The combination of repeatability and reproducibility delivers accuracy. This phenomenon is the same for all data. In marketing, the audit data depend on the excellence of the data acquisition system (repeatability), and its application (reproducibility). In gathering data from consumers, accuracy depends on the goodness of the system (target group selection, questionnaire relevance, lack of bias, etc.) and process (method of administering the audit). Integration has developed rigorous procedures and processes for the MCA System assuring you uniformity in audits and quality of resulting data globally. 5.1. Measurement Validation Quantifying the accuracy of the data acquisition system is called validation. By “validation” we mean using accepted scientific methods to quantify how well the data represents reality. Statistically a “Confidence Interval (CI)”1 is a range of values that the data point could represent. Confidence Interval (CI) must be paired with a confidence percentage. Example: CI +/- 2% at 90% confidence level. The +/- 2% means that if your data shows a value of 10, the actual number is somewhere between 8 and 12. Confidence level of 90% means that this is right 9 out of 10 times. One out of 10 times it will be outside these limits. Beware of low confidence levels: 50% confidence is the same probability as a coin toss. 1 22
  • The Right Data For good data, these are small and the true value is near the measured value. Not so for poor data. Confidence limits are critical to know if you are making decisions. Remember that the data never makes decisions for you, rather you act upon the information that data provides you. The much over-quoted phrase “Garbage in – garbage out” has become trite, yet do you know that your data is not garbage? How? Do not be afraid to ask of your data supplier: What are the statistically significant confidence intervals for your data? He is obligated to answer if he claims to provide good data. If he squirms out of an answer, or claims it’s impossible to know – you don’t have valid data. MCA is a fully validated data system. Integration rigorously studied each of its indicators to validate the entire data chain. The work was started by Chattopadhyay and Banerjee (2001) who found an initial 80% correlation between Brand Experience Shares and Market Shares. I expanded the work to include a much broader sample of 2100 data sets in 67 categories and 37 countries. MCA predicts market share with the correlation coefficient R at 85% (Winiarz 2006). Figure 4. Contact Clout Factors (CCFs) shown with corresponding upper (95%) and lower (5%) confidence limits for a laundry category in Europe. As is reasonable, high CCF values have the tightest CIs (1%). They decrease to 5% for low influence contacts.
  • Section 2 Rigorous validation work continued by the Statistics Consulting Center of the San Diego State University to determine the confidence intervals for all MCA indicators. The fundamental work on the validation of the Contact Clout Factor was performed by Dr. Kelly (2005). Figure 2 shows typical CIs for the laundry category. Dr. Steffey (2007) continued the work to provide a method to extend statistical validity for all MCA indicators. We did not stop there. The methods and results were reviewed in detail, corroborated, and endorsed by the Advertising Research Foundation (Cook 2007) 5.2. Voice of the Customer - Sampling To be sure, the entire population of a target group cannot be audited, so it is imperative that the correct sample is used. When sampling is statistically rigorous, it accurately represents the behavior of the entire target population. The sample needs to include representative populations with factors necessary to segment or stratify the data. These factors typically include gender, age, income level, and location (residence zip code or similar). Special factors such as hair color, heritage, or number of children may be relevant for specific products/ services. The total sample must include a sufficient sub-sample of respondents to assure statistical validity. The MCA process assures data completeness, containing all communication contacts for the category and significant brands (of the enterprise and competition) with proper sampling to allow stratification and segmentation. 5.3. Internal Data – Activity Based Costing There is a cost associated with each communication activity – this cost should be tracked by the corresponding activity using the discipline called Activity Based Costing (ABC) (Kaplan & Cooper 1998) shown schematically in Figure 5. The cost data completes the picture of effectiveness (outside) and efficiency (inside). 24
  • The Right Data Figure 5. Activity Based Costing Explained Schematically. While traditional methods aggregate cost by “cost center” or function for financial reporting, ABC represents a “90-degree shift” to capture costs of activities such as marketing communications contacts shown here. Marketing spend is fragmented among many cost centers. This is because Marketing is a local endeavor. While brand & marketing strategy can be global or regional, its execution is local. It is in every market that the various creative, media, sponsorship, digital and point of sales experts conceive and implement a mix of brand marketing and communications activities. They maximize interactions that engage with consumers and convert these interactions into profitable transactions. The MCA System provides standard practices that enable automatic capturing of cost items within the enterprise system. Sufficient granularity exists to discern allocation to contacts and activities over time, all within the security of your enterprise’s firewall. The MCA System meets all requirements to assure that data represents the business conditions. Rigorous procedures assure appropriate sampling methods, provide reliability over time and consistency independent of location. Measurement variation and sensitivity to outcome changes are reliably known. Best practices in auditing are rigorously applied. MCA provides quality data.
  • Section 2 6. Data Compatibility All quantitative data is to a certain extent discretionary and relative. To a European a 25 degree day is very pleasant, to an American it’s freezing. The difference of course is that 25 degrees measured on a Fahrenheit scale in the US is equivalent to minus four degrees Celsius in Europe. So it is with all measurement systems where agreed-upon units represent the condition to be measured. Temperature, dimensions, and time are physical units, currencies are economic units, and Brand Experience Points are units used to measure marketing outcomes. In an anecdote by Oscar Jamhouri four salesmen meet for lunch. They pool their money to see where they can afford to eat. The American has $100 US Dollars, the Belgian 120 Euros, the Russian 1,000 Rubles, and the Indonesian 40,000 Rupiahs. So can they afford a high-end restaurant? Unless you can convert these to a common currency, you have no idea how much money they have. They have less than $300 USD, because 1000 Rubles is only $33 and 40,000 Rupiahs is only $4. In marketing it is the same: measuring factors of influence by different systems does not provide usable information as comparisons are not possible. This is why the MCA System provides actionable information. 6.1. Compatibility Among Outcomes Compatible data in the context of market research means that all of your contacts, your touch points, your channels need to have common units and common scale. The outcome indicator for TV Advertising, and Social Media, and Flags/Banners, and Branded Uniforms has to be in the “same currency”. This indicator needs to unambiguously tell you how much each touch point contributes (on the “outside”) and how much it costs. When you have common units and costs, simple ratios determine contribution efficiency – which contact brings you most consumer engagement per dollar. Contact compatibility is only the start. For the enterprise to see the system-level of its marketing effectiveness, compatibility has to encompass all brands and all markets. The MCA System uses the same 26
  • The Right Data methodology regardless of product, service, or global location. It delivers all outcomes in common units derived from the common, reproducible audit method. The controlled, repeated process provides solid, common marketing fundamentals to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of: • • • • Contact Activities Enterprise Brands Competitive Brands Markets/Regions 6.2. Compatibility in Time It is impossible to spot trends, and difficult to see changes if you get different data at different times. The outcome results quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year, have to be in the same units, measured by the same process if you hope to see any trends early. It is possible that you use some modeling system using “leading indicators” to develop “predictive metrics”. These predictive model algorithms must be compatible with real outcome indicators such as those delivered by MCA. Statistical predictive capability (confidence limits) then becomes possible. As explained above they must be quantified. It is likely that predictive power of these models is quite low, but it is better to know the risk before making a decision than crossing your fingers and hoping that it’s right. The MCA System is the only method that is compatible on all four dimensions: contacts, brand, and market over time. 7. Timeliness Outcome results are a snapshot in time at the time of the measurement. The sooner results are available, the more responsive the business can be. MCA data is very near real time. Results are available immediately after assessment, and – when that assessment occurs on a regular basis – provide a clear indication of consumer movement as it happens. MCA is the earliest of “early warning indicators” signaling effective communication gains and also loss of efficiency.
  • Section 2 7.1. Leading Indicators Early warning indicators are not to be confused with “leading indicators”. These purport to predict future from past events or from presumed behaviors. To be sure some simplistic leading indicators exist, especially in the process-oriented situations: If my machine is down, I won’t deliver on time. In marketing, which is an influencing process, “leading” indicators can be interesting, but do not represent the state of the business. Most predictive “leading indicator” models cannot quote you a statistical confidence level of prediction, because it is unknown. Modelers don’t like to talk about it for the same reason weathermen don’t like to talk about next month’s weather prediction accuracy. Models are not well suited to making accountable business decisions. 7.2. Early Outcome Indicators True outcome indicators are results, thus are not modeled or predicted – they represent the business condition. The timing of data gathering must be synchronized to decision making process in the enterprise. Fresh results must be in hand at the time next decisions are contemplated. The data must be on time, and it must be current. If such “course corrections” are done quarterly, outcome results should be delivered four times per year. Outcome data collection needs to be integrated into the business cycle so the same, simple, fundamental marketing data is available to marketing decision makers and business leaders. These sets of data should include all of the enterprise’s brands, markets, and regions. The MCA System is based on outcomes, as early as is scientifically possible for it to be an outcome. These outcomes are real and their early knowledge is an advantage in evidence-based management. 28
  • The Right Data 8. Cost of Data The right data is not expensive. It costs money to be sure, but just as you don’t launch a rocket without telemetry, you cannot afford to run the most important function of your company – your connection with consumers – on hunches and instinct. You may be reluctant to spend more money on data, but it is likely that you already measure too much irrelevant, incomplete, and irreconcilable information without getting the hard business information to guide your decisions. In an eloquent treatise on business effectiveness, Jim Collins (1999) describes Catalytic Mechanisms: simple feedback mechanisms that enforce desired behaviors. He observes them to be a link between business objective and business performance. Many mechanisms exist for this purpose, but a key feature of catalytic ones is that they do not create any additional bureaucracy. This is important, he argues, not just to save resources, but more importantly, because bureaucracies are inherently mediocre. Data costs money: Money to measure, money to transform raw data into information, money to transform the information into persuasive presentations, and money to run the “data factory” bureaucracy. Only the first is necessary. Only raw data gathering should cost money. The transformation of data to information, its presentation, and its distribution is (or should be) inexpensive and nearly instantaneous. No bureaucracy is required for decision makers to interpret the results. MCA System can be a “catalytic mechanism” for your enterprise. Performance data are sourced from the outside by Voice of the Customer, and financial inputs are automated. Once set up, processing, presentation, and posting (or distribution) is without delay. You get accountable outcomes and business performance at times when you need it.
  • Section 2 9. Presentation of Data Presentation is not part of the data, technically. Nevertheless, it is as much a part of the communication chain as the data itself. Presentation of data to business leaders and decision makers is part of the business process. In an excellent textbook on Website design, Steve Krug (2006) states his first law of usability: “Don’t make me think.” It means that as far as it is humanly possible, the Web page should be self-evident. Obvious. Selfexplanatory. Data presentation is like that. Krug states that “there is a continuum from ‘Obvious to Everybody’ to ‘Truly Obscure’.” The data sets that shape decision making must be as close to obvious as possible. The right data can be distilled into a coherent, simple, and easy to understand presentation. Simple and easy is not to be confused with slick and polished. Junk data that is nicely edited and well-presented takes on disproportionate authority by virtue of its appearance. It is the responsibility of the user to verify that fundamental scientific principles are followed. On her website, Sara Bundy (2013) makes much the same points as I do here. She counsels three levels of dashboards: Executive (Decision Making), Operational (Managing Activities), and Tactical (“Hands-on” staff); and eight to 20 metrics maximum per dashboard. I would counsel the lower number. Although she insists on alignment with business outcomes, she offers no guidance on how to measure these “outcomes”. We do. MCA System data is presented to you automatically in a consistent, understandable- at-a-glance format. All dashboards are created from source data without intervention, or possibility of rearrangement to produce a specific result. 30
  • The Right Data 9.1. Executive Dashboard Metrics Top level executives have much to evaluate so marketing data must be sparse and clear. You need these three fundamentals: - How well are we engaging our customers? - How well are we converting engagement into sales? - How cost efficient is the Marketing function? The metrics need to answer these and allow observation to evaluate changes over time. Most importantly they enable accountable decision making. The table below outlines the usability of the executive metrics. Table 1. Metrics for the Executive Dashboard
  • Section 2 9.2. Performance Indicator Dashboard The following three graphs provide an example of an executive dashboard output. Figure 6. Example of Outcome Performance Indicators for Compact Cars in Asian Market. Thick blue lines denote the category norms. Figure 6 shows 10 brands’ performance at a glance. Let us examine what it tells us. • • • • 32 Car D is best in class – consumer engagement is above average and the brand converts this engagement into sales best of competing brands. Car B engages consumers very well but has a poor conversion rate. This brand will not benefit from additional marketing spend; problems lie in the product, price, or distribution domains. Car J has one of the best conversion rates, but suffers from anonymity. Sales of this brand can benefit by increased or improved marketing communications. Car I is worst in class – poor interaction with consumers combined with poor conversion into sales spells danger.
  • The Right Data 9.3. Efficiency Indicator Dashboard Figure 7. Example of Efficiency Indicator Cost per BEP over two years. Lower Cost per BEP is better. Cost per Brand Experience Point is a simple, understandable indicator that tracks dollars spent to produce the marketing outcome. The cost is calculated as the total marketing spend for the past twelve months from the time of the audit. Performance outcome is measured by MCA in Brand Experience Points – an accountable performance metric sourced from Voice of the Customer. The Cost per BEP indicator will tend to trend down over time in a wellmanaged marketing program. Lower Cost per BEP is accomplished by reductions and redirections of non-contributing communications and by growth of brand experience through managed excellence of execution of contributing creative communications. In Q3 2011, the Client spent $0.95 per BEP. This amount was 35% over average. In Q4 2011, the overspend in the previous quarter was recognized and corrected to $0.68 per BEP. The Client was able to adjust and improve efficiency.
  • Section 2 9.4. Return in Brand Experience Dashboard Figure 8. Example of Efficiency Indicator: Return in Brand Experience. The overspend in Q3 2011 reduced cumulative efficiency, but recognition and adjustment in Q4 2011 returned RBE above 1.0 and effective management continued efficiency gains. Return in Brand Experience (RBE) is an accountable proxy measure for Marketing ROI. RBE is a ratio of Brand Experience Share to Cost per Brand Experience Point. This indicator always starts at 1.0 that defines the starting (or calibration) baseline. Subsequent points are compared to the baseline. Ratio greater than one defines improvement in efficiency (increased BES and/or decreased Cost per BEP). Well managed marketing should exhibit a RBE greater than one, signifying increased efficiency of the overall marketing program. 34
  • The Right Data 9.5. Operational Dashboard Metrics Operational dashboards are a level down from executive dashboards and contain information on causes (factors) that determine the outcomes. Full treatment of these indicators is beyond the scope of this document and can be found in detail in the MCA Handbook (Jamhouri 2013). The main indicators from MCA data are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Main Metrics for Marketing Operations Dashboard.
  • Section 2 9.6. Tactical Indicators For the staff on the “front line”, those who are actively engaged in activating marketing communications, detailed understanding of contact behavior is needed. A few critical behaviors are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Essential Metrics for the Tactical Dashboard. 9.7. Other Metrics Tables 1, 2, and 3 describe the essential, fundamental outcomes that the enterprise needs to track to establish control of marketing performance. We are not implying that this is all the data that is needed to run an effective organization to the exclusion of others: other data is key as well. Evaluations of product/service quality, price competitiveness, and distribution effectiveness are as important now as they have always been. And not all advertising is created equal - quality of creative and its execution is paramount to success. 36
  • Section 3 Management Must Manage
  • Section 3 1. Managing Accountability In the chapter of the same name as this section, Harold Geneen (1985) states matter-of-factly: “Few things to my mind were more important in managing than checking the facts.” It is the understanding of facts that is both the great enabler and a pitfall of the CEO. Checking facts, Geneen writes, is easy for the auditor – he has the time necessary to dig as deeply as needed to ascertain his fact. Ascending the corporate ladder dictates knowing more facts in less time, for more consequential decisions. A manager cannot afford to act on no information or on incorrect information. Yet Marketing decisions are frequently made on information that has little or nothing to do with marketing basics. Sound business fundamentals are unrelated to “big data” and millions of bits of information in the weeds. The basic understanding of your interaction with your customers, your conversion success, and the resources spent on those activities are what you need to judge marketing performance. It is your responsibility as the CEO to establish an accountable process so that you, the decision maker, understand how your demand generation is performing. An effective manager directs his team to provide him the information that he needs to judge performance and make decisions. Regularly, consulting firms conduct research among CEOs who complain about the lack of accountability in marketing – latest by Fournaise (WARC 2012). More than 70% of top global CEOs complain about it, but... what are they doing about it? As a CEO you must direct management resources toward marketing accountability, otherwise you abdicate this responsibility. Unless you demand “crisp” results you will “get continuation of vague, general statements and reports that indicate no clear position or basis for any”. Geneen, 1985 38
  • Management Must Manage It is your responsibility to ascertain that information upon which you authorize substantial sums of money is relevant, consistent, and based on valid data. Marketing accountability is not difficult so long as the process includes marketing accountability essentials summarized here. 2. Marketing Accountability Essentials All functions of the enterprise have an obligation to be accountable to management. Marketing is no exception. It is the responsibility of the Management to define the requisite data set needed and enforce its delivery. Seven aspects of accountable systems are outlined below. 2.1. System Thinking To optimize the whole, the data must indicate the whole. All data must be in the context of the business. Organizational performance outcomes must be unambiguously connected to the dollars, while technical direction requires diagnostic tools. All groups and divisions must provide comparable data. In order to get a grip on (already existing) massive data, all data streams must be included and evaluated for usefulness to decision making. Their associated costs must be included as no stream is free. Eliminate those whose validity is questionable, that look at only specific aspects to the exclusion of others, that provide redundant information, or that do not contribute to decision making. Use Lean techniques to eliminate clutter and assure that fundamentals are consistently reported. At Integration we have done this job: the MCA System encapsulates all that is needed to make Marketing accountable. The MCA System reports the fundamentals metrics on a system level: equal performance indicators for all contacts, markets and brands.
  • Section 3 2.2. Measurement is Compulsory Spontaneous accountability is unlikely. The easy street is no accountability. But monitoring of fundamentals is essential to accountability, and it is the best practice. No control system is possible without feedback data. A defined set of fundamental data that directly relates to marketing budgets and resources must be demanded by the CEO. The CEO must manage this one. It is the right thing to do. 2.3. Measurement is Comprehensive Assure that you measure your performance in context of the business and of the customer. All marketing communications activities need to be comparably evaluated on their effectiveness and their efficiency (effectiveness per dollar). The data structure must be based on the upward communication of understandable metrics derived from your performance at the consumer interface by the voice of the consumer. Management´s opinion of our product Customer opinion of our product Figure 9. Voice of the Consumer is the Only One that Matters. 40
  • Management Must Manage 2.4. Measurement is an On-Going Practice Instilling any behavior means practicing it continuously. A single point in time may be useful to establish the baseline condition, but real insights come later – after observing system behavior for some time. Familiarity and sample size increase with each new data set, increasing confidence in the measurements. The MCA System can start streaming data to you in a matter of weeks providing you with clarity and depth of understanding. 2.5. Universal Practice In the 1990’s I was one of Jack Welch’s “Black Belts”2 – a cadre of professionals tasked with rooting out inefficiencies, eliminating business defects, and implementing excellence throughout the enterprise. We were “customer focused and data driven”. We crossed functional, geographic, and business group lines – we implemented the same process globally. I remember once a visiting manager from India, marveling at his presentation. Not that it was spectacular in any way, rather that it was the same “dashboard” that we used half the world away in California. It was simple, free of color, yet all data was arranged logically and understandably. We understood his state of business, even as we were never even aware of it before. Jack Welch believed in Universal Practice. He had no time for frills. His business was too big. Simple, fundamental metrics, in a prescribed format allowed him to see the entire business and performance of any individual component at whatever granularity he needed. It did not matter whether you manufactured locomotives or provided financial services – all understood each others’ presentations. 2 Jack Welch was the CEO of GE Company from 1981 to 2001. He is known for legendary business performance improvement using Six Sigma – a business improvement discipline using data to eliminate poor performance and achieve excellence. Under his management the company had gone from a market value of $14 billion to more than $410 billion.
  • Section 3 If you hope to understand the Marketing performance for the enterprise as well as for each unit (brand, market, function), all need to provide you comparable data. Accountability is about uniform practice – practice based upon uniform data. To our knowledge the MCA System is the only fully accountable system. We serve you to achieve accountability of your Marketing organization. The MCA System is scalable and delivers clarity everywhere, fast. 90 80 70 Turkey 60 CCF 50 40 30 South Africa 20 10 10 20 30 Contact Number for Global Mobile Telephone Category Figure 10. Finding Market Similarities in a Global Data Set. By comparing data on the same scale we can clearly see that Turkey and South Africa have similar market characteristics. 42
  • Management Must Manage 2.6. Operational Process To implement a universal practice, you need a clearly articulated system that is simple and reduces work load on the data chain bureaucracy. This system must contain: • • • Metrics and data requirements – Specific measures, specific formats, same for all respondents. • Outcomes and financials to management. • Outcomes and diagnostics to marketing teams. Process and procedures – What will be delivered, where, and when. Enablers – Durable, catalytic mechanisms to drive enterprise acceptance and manage using metrics. The MCA System includes these components: all are compliant with the best practices of system management: Six Sigma and Balanced Score Card. MCA System is ready to plug in and improve marketing in your enterprise right now. 2.7. Technical and Empirical Process At core of Six Sigma is the concept of Continuous Improvement. This concept states that incremental improvements over time achieve excellence by quickly correcting failures and uniformly applying best practices. You must develop the technical knowledge empirically - through experience and observation. Fundamental performance data provides you functional indicators so you don’t have to manage by theories or “fads”.
  • Conclusion Marketing must be accountable to management in the same way as all other functional organizations are: by consistently tracking fundamental performance data over time. The outcome data must be sourced from the outside, using unbiased voice of the customer to understand how your enterprise engages your target groups, and how well this engagement translates to transactions. Rigorous data collection of costs by activity completes the picture of marketing effectiveness. This really is an innovative approach, but I´m afraid we can´t consider it. It´s never been done before. Figure 11. Change Management You must collect comparable data for all your brands, all your marketing communications contacts, in all your markets. You must do it continuously, synchronizing data acquisition to your business decision making intervals, to assure most current knowledge is available when needed. 44
  • Do not get distracted by the explosion of data streams. You can’t know everything so make sure you track your marketing fundamentals: • • • Brand Interaction: How your target groups engage with your brands. Brand Transaction: How well this interaction converts into sales. Cost of Brand Experience: How efficiently you accomplish your marketing outcomes. As a CEO of an enterprise you have an obligation to know how they your consumers experience your enterprise. Marketing performance comes only from the Voice of the Customer and you must demand this data – it is the CEO’s mandate to dictate what data to receive about Marketing and when, not the other way around. Consistent tracking will enable you to optimize and improve your system over time. The MCA System delivers all that is needed to make Marketing accountable. It is deployable quickly everywhere, combining the outcomes from the Voice of the Customer with resources expanded expended by your enterprise. Our rigorous processes, automated cost collection, and streamlined reporting provide you with reliable, up-todate intelligence to make informed business decisions.
  • Appendix 1 Marketing Accountability Data Checklist To be used in evaluating usefulness of marketing data used in management. Fill out for each measurement set collected by the enterprise. Shaded boxes represent best practice. DATA SET Total Annual Cost to obtain (including collection, processing, and presentation): DATA RELEVANCE • Is the data actively used in management decisions? • Does outcome data measure brand engagement from VOC? • Does outcome data measure conversion of engagement to market share? • Does marketing cost data correspond directly to marketing activities? • Is current data available at decision-making times? • Does data show return on the dollar in marketing effectiveness? DATA QUANTITY • Do you have comparable data for effectiveness of each communication activity? • Do you have comparable data for all your markets? • Do you have comparable data for all your brands? • Do you have redundant data by different systems? • Do you collect data that you don’t actively use for management? • Do you have so much data that you feel overwhelmed? DATA QUALITY • Do you know your error limits (confidence intervals) for your data? • Is your auditing process uniformly applied? Documented? • Are your outcome results from consumers (VOC)? • Are your sampling methods statistically robust to allow segmentation and stratification of subgroups? • Do you capture costs by activity? • 46 Is your data statistically validated by an independent source? • Is your data based on models or predictions? YES NO ??
  • DATA COMPATIBILITY • Is outcome data in same units for all contacts? • Is outcome data in same units for all markets? • Is outcome data in same units for all brands? • Is outcome data in same units for your brands and your competition? • Is outcome data comparable and consistent over time? TIMELINESS • Is current data available at decision-making times? • Does your data collection cycle correspond to management decision cycles? COST OF DATA • Do your data collection efforts require a “data factory”? • Do you expend resources to transform “data” into information? • Is collection of your internal cost data automated? • Do you collect and process data that is not used in management decisions? • Is report preparation and distribution automated? PRESENTATION OF DATA • Are your metrics obvious to all levels and functions? • Do your dashboards communicate results at-a-glance? • Is there a line-of-sight from executive dashboards to operational dashboards? • Is there a line-of-sight from operational dashboards to tactical dashboards? • Are your sampling methods statistically robust to allow segmentation and stratification of subgroups? YES NO ??
  • Appendix 2 Marketing Accountability Process Checklist To be used in evaluating the process within your enterprise. Shaded boxes represent best practice. SYSTEM THINKING • Are you evaluating the entire enterprise by comparable indicators? • Do all your markets provide comparable information? • Do all your brands provide comparable information? • Do you evaluate your competition by comparable information? MEASUREMENT IS COMPULSORY • Does your enterprise have a mandate to provide comparable data? • Does your enterprise have a mandate to provide timely data? MEASUREMENT IS COMPREHENSIVE • Are all communications evaluated equally? • Are all markets and locations included? • Can outcome results be rolled up by brand? • Are costs available for all activities? MEASUREMENT IS AN ON-GOING PRACTICE • Do you measure periodically and consistently? • Are your measurements in synchronicity with business decision making? • Do you have a mechanism for detecting changes and spotting trends early? MEASUREMENT IS A UNIVERSAL PRACTICE • Are all your functions required to provide the same information? • Are all your functions required to provide the information in the same format? OPERATIONAL PROCESS • Do you have operational definitions so that all interpret the same meaning? • Do you have enforceable procedures of what is delivered and when? • Do you mandate specific metrics and formats for delivery • Is data preparation and distribution automated to eliminate “data factory” costs? TECHNICAL AND EMPIRICAL PROCESS • • 48 Does the information communicate the state of marketing? Does the information allow you to gain knowledge empirically over time? YES NO ??
  • References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Bundy, Sarah (2013). “Marketing Alignment with Business Outcomes: Keys to a Solid Dashboard”, http://www.sarahbundy.com Chattopadhyay, Amitava and Banerjee, Sumitro (August 2001). “Results of the Validation Study Undertaken for Integration and Young & Rubicam,” INSEAD. Collins, Jim (1999). “Turning Goals into Results: The Power of Catalytic Mechanisms”, Harvard Business Review. Cook, William A., (2007).“An ARF Research Review of Integration Marketing & Communications Limited’s Market ContactAudit TM Methodology”, Advertising Research Foundation – The Research Authority. Drucker, Peter (2001). The Essential Drucker, Mobipocket Reader edition v 1. ISBN: 0-0607-7132-1 Geneen, Harold (1985). Managing, First Avon Books, ISBN: 0-380-69986-9. IBM Global Business Services (2011). “From Stretched to Strengthened, Insights form the Global Chief Marketing Officer Study” Integration-IMC (2013). The Market ContactAudit (MCA) is a proprietary method to audit and track all marketing and communications activities from the consumers’ perspective. Jamhouri, Oscar (2012). “The Seven Principles of Accountability,” Integration Marketing and Communication. Jamhouri, Oscar et al., (2013.) MCA Handbook, Integration Marketing and Communications. Kaplan, Robert S, and Cooper, Robin (1998). Cost & Effect: Using Integrated Cost Systems to Drive Profitability and Performance, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 0-87584-788-9. Kelly, Colleen, (2005). “Bootstrapped Confidence Intervals of Contact Clout Factors” Final Report, Statistical Consulting Center, San Diego State University. Krug, Steve (2006). Don’t Make Me Think, A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability, New Riders Publishing, Berkeley CA. Montgomery, Douglas C., (1991). Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0-471-51988-X Roberts, S. W. (1958). “Control Chart Tests Based on Geometric Moving Averages,” Technometrics, Vol. 1. Sharp, Byron (2010). How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don’t Know, Oxford University Press, Australia and New Zealand. Steffey, Duane (2007). “Calculation of Confidence bounds for Brand Experience Shares,” Exponent Failure Analysis Associates. WARC News (2012). “CEOs Question Value of Marketing”, Data sourced from Fournaise Marketing Group. Wikipedia (2013). W. Edwards Deming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_ Deming Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and Sharp, Byron (2009). “What We Know About Advertising: 21 Watertight Laws for Intelligent Advertising Decisions,” Journal of Advertising Research, June 2009 Volume 49, No. 2. Winiarz, Marek (2005). “On Marketing ROI”, Method Marketing and Communications. Winiarz, Marek (2006). “Brand Experience Share/Market Share Correlation Data Analysis”, Method Marketing and Communications.
  • Author’s Notes In the past I have always used “data” in the plural as I prefer traditional accuracy and the word “data” is the Latin plural for “datum”. It is now accepted, however, that “data” has become an English word that loosely means “information”. As such it is considered singular in popular usage. It’s been remarked to me that use of plural “these data are old...” sounds stuffy and old fashioned, so in this paper I use singular verbs only to conform to modern, less formal style. Consumer and Customer are used interchangeably here to reduce monotony. I understand that not every customer is a consumer, but I chose the words on context and the right “sound”. Marketing is sometimes capitalized in the text. This is to imply an entity – an organizational division within an enterprise – and to differentiate lower case marketing as a branch of knowledge. Your comments and observations are welcome. Please let me know of any errors whether substantive or stylistic, or simply to comment by writing me at: mwiniarz@method-mc.com Marek L. Winiarz, Managing Director. MeTHOD Marketing and Communications Inc . 50
  • Acknowledgements Thank you! I am grateful to many individuals and organizations who for decades have contributed to inventing, developing, and making the MCA technology what it is today. First, I thank the MCA users: they are the managers at advertisers and agencies around the world. They are committed to doing better marketing, and they all know that “management must manage.” We continuously learn from MCA users, especially when they ask difficult questions. Just as important are the partners of Integration: forty of the most courageous, visionary, skillful, and innovative experts in consumer research, systems and process engineering, mathematics and statistics, software development, as well as brand and enterprise marketing management. Finally, thanks to the friends who encouraged us to write down the key concepts and ideas that shape our work. Marketing is a place where “Actions Speak Louder than Words”, so most of the time we are too busy taking action on the practical stuff to find time to put pen to paper. Eventually we couldn’t refuse any longer so here are the words that form the “Condensed Guide to Accountability in Marketing”. Oscar Jamhouri, CEO. Integration Marketing and Communications.
  • Since 1994, our single focus at Integration has been to make the contribution of Marketing transparent and accountable. As we progressed, we brought in consumer researchers, system engineers, process managers, statisticians and software developers to complement the founding partners’ expertise in brand and marketing management. We are confident that we deliver a comprehensive and global solution to make marketing accountable. And, as far as we know, the MCA System is the only one available. To date, more than 170 companies have successfully used the MCA System around the world, with global brands deploying it across their networks. Get more info and connect with your local specialist at www.integration-imc.com Markgravelei, 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Printed on Recycled Paper Effective. Efficient. Accountable.