March 09, 2005
Ries and Moore: Both right, both wrong
UPDATE (March 17, 2005): I'm always happy when I stumble upon things that keep me thinking about previous posts. And today is no exception. Marketing Playbook provides some more fuel for the "strategy over tactics" argument. And, luckily, that great post references some other great posts. Susan Getgood over at Marketing Roadmaps highlights the confusion between "marketing" and "marketing communications." They are not one and the same. And Bruce DeBoer over at Synthesis takes some more time with Ries nod to the company's leadership and marketing. All of these are well worth the read (and much more succinct than my ramblings).ORIGINAL POST
So, just to let you peek behind the curtain a bit, one of my regular habits is blogging a link and saving it as a draft. Then I desperately struggle to return to all the links that I've blogged, attempting to create something pithy and well written for your enjoyment. It's much better than adding them to favorites, which I can never seem to keep organized, despite my best efforts.
That said, one of the links I blogged this week was Al Ries' column "What CEOs just don't get about marketing." I blogged it, because something seemed to ring true to me. Now, I discover that I'm in the distinct minority. As those statements which seemed to ring true to me seem to have set off a wave of disagreement in the world of blogs. Strange. Ries ruffling feathers. I know, breaking news.
Anyway, I caught one of the retorts on Brand Autopsy (which you'll also see down there in my blogroll, because it's a great blog), entitled "What Ries Doesn't Get About Execution," and after reading it, I decided I should probably blog this sooner rather than later. (UPDATE: Thank you to John Moore of Brand Autopsy for stopping by, reading, and taking the time to comment.) Motivation behind me, I begin...
So which passage, you ask, was the one that rang true? Well for me it was "Marketing is 90% strategy and 10% execution." Although I think that it should probably read "Marketing should be 90% strategy and 10% execution," but I'm willing to overlook that.
What caught my attention was the intent. I think Ries makes an incredibly valid point. Perhaps a tad overstated, but valid nonetheless. And it's a point that is generally lost in the world of business today: We are working so hard so fast to stay out in the market with the latest clever ploy, that we're losing a great deal of ground by not doing our homework. We need to do the research. We need to do a better job of understanding our market. (Oy. And I need to do a better job of collecting my thoughts before I start banging on the keyboard.) We need to understand what they want. Because when it comes right down to it, that is marketing folks. Big "M" marketing. The rest is communications.
Today, with access to information and the Web and blogs and all of it, however, we tend to get all wrapped around the axle on the communications. Not that I necessarily think that's all a bad thing. I don't. I spend 90% of my day working on the communications and execution of strategy. I happen to enjoy that aspect of the business. Communications should have some power in the equation, but it's not the majority of the equation. We still need to do the marketing. The understanding the market.
Allow me a bit of tangent here, just for the sake of tangenting. Marketing. The word marketing. I know I get all uptight these days whenever anyone tries to make a verb out of noun. See "tangenting" at the beginning of this paragraph. It was for effect. Jeez. Anyway, I know a number of people who get perturbed at this little practice. So, I don't feel silly when it draws my ire. But I do feel a bit silly every time I use the word "marketing" as a verb when it, in fact, is a verb created from a noun. Just like tangenting. Hypocritical. That's me. And just to get it out there, this is the same kind of hypocritical argument as the one people try to make about stadiums and sporting venues being named after corporations, like Safeco Field, and then in the next breath they're wishing things were more like the old days, with great names like Wrigley Field. Um. That's a company that makes gum. Hello?
But I digress. We now return to our previously scheduled diatribe, already in progress.
I think Ries has a point. We need to put more energy into marketing. Because it will ultimately make our execution better. Which will make our knowledge of our market better. Which will make our execution better. And so on. And so on.
Now, he does throw in some other hyperbolic statements about how, with the right strategy, practically any lame-brain execution can succeed. This is a little off. And this draws John Moore's wrath.
Now, Moore grabs the wheel and sends us screaming from the gutter over into the barrow pit with the claim that it's more like 35% strategy and 65% execution. And then the worm starts to turn. I begin to think, "Maybe he has a point. Maybe the worst strategy in the world can be executed successfully with good communications."
And then two things dawn on me:
1) Moore references "Blended Beverage Bingo," a campaign he helped formulate for Starbucks. Great campaign. No qualms there. What I do have a problem with, however, is the fact that the description of the program that Moore provides does a great deal to validate Ries' claim. The description reads as the extremely strategic, well planned marketing strategy behind the execution of the campaign. Really, really good strategy. In fact, the majority of the case study, 90% or so, is about the marketing, brainstorming, strategy, and decisions for the campaign. There is very little about the execution. Maybe not even 10%. What did the promos look like? What did the bingo card look like? What colors did you use? What fonts? Nothing.
2) The dotcom days. Now, I don't know about you, but in my mind, execution gets a great deal easier when there's a lot of money changing hands. And strategy, bless its little heart, seems to flow in an inverse proportion to money. Now, back in the day, there was money. And there was execution. Lots of it. Some good. Some bad. But lots of it. More execution, we all know, than at which one could shake a proverbial stick. And most all of it failed, miserably. Why? Because there was no strategy driving the execution. "Look cool," while a desperate mantra for my teenage years, is not a strategy. And execution overwhelming strategy doth not a success make, not matter how well executed.
So Ries, you make a good point. You may have a future in this marketing game. Moore, you make an excellent point, and call Ries out where you should. I just don't think that execution can ever outweigh the strategy. It can, but it won't be successful.
You're both right. You're both wrong. And I have no doubt that I am, as well. What do you think? Post your comments or just come right out and rip me a new one, but in either case, please return.
Ries and Moore: Both right, both wrong
| | Subscribe:
RSS, Bloglines
