Symptoms-Structure-Software-Solutions!

By Glen S. Petersen

Most CMOs (Chief Marketing Officers) are under considerable pressure to leverage demand generation, justify spending, and provide leadership relative to innovation in a rapidly changing and complex world. These pressures increase tensions among functional peers that cascade to subordinates who must do more with less staff. Either a lack of perceived action or a lack of perceived results (or value add) are likely to shorten a CMO’s tenure. So what is the right strategy? Sales is claiming that they do not receive enough leads, while it is obvious that they are not following up on the leads they receive. The CFO is constantly demanding to see a ROI for each segment of the budget. Peers are openly wondering why Marketing has a fat budget while they are forced to continually cut spending. Meanwhile, Marketing staff is showing signs of fatigue while at the same insisting on developing a capability for social networking.

So what are the options? Typically, the options boil down to either keeping up the pressure or seeking a technology remedy in the form of (MA) Marketing Automation which promises faster processes, better decision making, ROI, and improved insight/governance. Both options represent risks. Working harder is noble but there is the old adage about doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes. The MA promise is tempting in that it represents an investment in areas that need improvement but what happens if these improvements do not occur? Many companies have made the investment with marginal results. Is this a bet the farm kind of decision? It could be, if one approaches MA as a silver bullet. The following bullet points outline the type of conditions that place the investment at risk:

A senior executive has not articulated a strategy for the use of MA and outlined the consequences (to the company) of the marketing organization not being successful with its deployment and use. Without clear leadership and a definition of how this system fits with future plans, stakeholders may view the implementation as optional versus essential. Everyone must be on board that success will require a personal commitment and make said commitment. All system technologies are dependent on defined processes, business rules, and common terminology. If a company lacks definition or consistency in this area the initiative costs will spiral out of control due to unnecessary customization or stakeholders will acquiesce to a consultant’s view and then blame these decisions relative to why the system does not work. Poor data quality (e.g. duplicate records, missing detail, wrong codes, etc.) implies reports that have minimal credibility which begs the question of why generate them in the first place? Flashy formats and displays cannot compensate for issues of credibility.

Systems integration implies the ability of the MA application to efficiently access corporate and syndicated data to support analysis. One of the objectives of the investment is to be able to manage the customer experience. Such analysis requires quality data and data integration. If the MA application requires extensive front-end and on-going costs and/or generates reports that are not timely; the cost/benefit may come into question. Lack of analytical skills within marketing. Although some customer behaviors may be very apparent, others may require more sophisticated analysis to detect. If the Marketing department does not possess the necessary skills, this capability will be lost to the company. User commitment to effectively leverage the tools provided by the system is the mechanism that generates benefits from the investment. There must be an investment in training, support, and learning time. The system must provide value to the user; otherwise it will become credenza ware and collect dust.

These issues are not meant to suggest that MA is a bad investment. MA vendors, consultants, specialists, and the client have the same objective, a functioning and productive system. However, the client must be responsible for leadership, creating the right climate, setting realistic expectations, and making the necessary investment. This leaves the CMO in a tough spot, given that few companies have high quality data and integrated systems. Neither option is particularly appealing, pushing people who are already stressed is not going to work for long and installing MA in an environment that is not ready for it, yields questionable results. Is there an alternative?

What if the CMO considered making structural changes to the Marketing function? Consider the following symptoms of organization overload:

• Meetings
  Endless meetings are a symptom of something else being broken. The suspects include authority, structure, priorities, process, and personalities. Meetings can represent productive consensus building but more often, they can be replaced by business rules and communication.
• Structure
  Most organizational structures basically morph based on needs, critical situations, power, and skill sets of the stakeholders at a given point in time. It is common for several people to be doing the same basic task while reporting to separate bosses. If, there is redundancy of purpose across the marketing function, then perhaps there is an opportunity to consolidate effort and leverage functional utilization and specialization.
• Processes and Taxonomy
  If there are countless meetings and redundancies of responsibility there are most likely many ways of getting work done and terminology is loosely used to mean different things to each individual.
• Proliferation of Vendors
  Excessive meetings, redundancy of tasks, and a lack of process are correlated with poor utilization of vendors and widely varying controls on cost and performance.
• Budgeting and Planning
  A lack of objective data or commonality in approach, budgeting gravitates to using last year’s budget as criteria versus anything that approaches optimization. Defense of the budget with the CFO revolves around anecdotes and trends. Meanwhile, the sales function is lobbying for more sales people supported by a rationale that promises incremental revenue.

All of these symptoms point to wasted energy and diluted results. In most respects, these are the same conditions that will derail a MA application. Though it appears that the presence of MA would organize these conditions, this linkage of cause and effect is exactly backwards. In order to get buy-in to an automation system, it is necessary to demonstrate that the system enables the existing infrastructure. Otherwise the automation is superimposing discipline on an undisciplined situation and people will resist this imposition even when the system offers great benefits.

The answer to this dilemma is to create a Marketing Operations function within Marketing. An example of how this works is likely present within your Sales organization. Sales operations acts as a buffer to the field sales force controlling input, communicating priorities, and in general seeking to minimize administrate work load. Within the Marketing, the operations group consolidates administrative tasks, clarifies process and terminology and consolidates vendor/agency relations and performance criteria. The results are gains in productivity and accountability. Marketing Operations can be an effective liaison with purchasing and the CFO thereby freeing the CMO to concentrate on strategy execution. Similarly, Marketing Operations can forge a productive relationship with Sales Operations, bridging the gap regarding lead quality, collateral, and value propositions. Taking action regarding structural issues can lead to near term benefits that reflect accountability and leadership in building bridges across functional boundaries. This structure should also accelerate positioning the company for a productive installation of MA.

No one can deny the pressures that companies face today. These pressures have spawned a demand for a marketing presence at the executive level (CMO). Few marketing executives are ready for this challenge. To simultaneously lead at the executive level and morph the marketing function to effectively meet the needs of the competitive environment is a prescription for burn out. The CMO must have a chief of staff who can manage internal and external relationships. This role is best fit by the head of Marketing Operations who is empowered to achieve operational benefits while creating an infrastructure that will complement the use of MA and thereby establish the capabilities necessary to support the role of the CMO.