Re: [projectvrm] What is speculative marketing budget "worthy"?

[Iain Henderson < >]

Yes, lot’s to agree with in there Graham, but also a reminder about the 
‘lexicon’ issue.

I would not agree with the limitations you place on MeCommerce (‘MeCommerce = 
customers telling them what they want’’), which is at least in part because 
your definition is not the same as mine (which, needless to say, won’t be the 
same as Katherine’s, or Doc’s, or anyone one else’s on the list). 

So those poor Edinburgh CMO’s won’t know which way to turn, me telling them 
one version, and you another…..

We won’t resolve that without digging down into the detail - precisely which 
process is affected, precisely how, with what impact. That would then enable 
an enlightened Edinburgh CMO to take a punt on a specific process, in the 
full knowledge that they are not breaking business as usual in doing so. Keep 
your eyes peeled to the West and you’ll see something emerge along those 
lines in the next month or two ;)

Cheers

Iain


On 22 May 2014, at 15:41, Doc Searls 
<
 >
 wrote:

> Great explanation, Graham. Much appreciated.
> 
> I would add (as I tend to do) that I would not take as our limitations what 
> today's CMOs would and would not countenance. 
> 
> Invention counts too.
> 
> Doc
> 
> On May 22, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Graham Reginald Hill 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Katherine
>>  
>> You ask some good questions. As you know from your Leo Burnett days there 
>> are no hard and fast guidelines for 'what works'. Individual CMOs have 
>> their own marketing mix preferences based on their experience and 
>> marketing metrics. Response rates such as conversion, quotes and sales are 
>> important, but so are a whole host of other measures. Although CMOs are 
>> often swamped with response data they often have a relatively poor 
>> understanding of customers, competitors and (complex adaptive) market 
>> dynamics. The net result is they go with the marketing mix they know works 
>> and test new mix components to learn what works, how well they work and 
>> how to operate them. 
>>  
>> As marketers have moved from branded marketing in the 1950, to direct 
>> marketing in the 80s, to digital marketing in the 00s and now to 
>> contextual marketing, the volume and quality of data has significantly 
>> increased. Whereas branded marketers typically only had whole market data, 
>> contextual marketers increasingly have individual, real-time, 
>> location-based, behavioural data. Marketers are now more able to imply 
>> customer intent than at any time in the past and to act on it. Whereas 
>> branded marketers tried to create markets for new products, contextual 
>> marketers try to influence customers through highly personalised 
>> micro-marketing interactions (see Dan Saffer's new UX design book on 
>> 'Microinteractions' http://microinteractions.com to see where this is 
>> going) whilst they are in the middle of doing something. 
>>  
>> The CMOs I have talked to about MeCommerce all share the same concerns. 
>> They recognise that customers telling them what they want is better than 
>> trying to work out what they want. That is the fundamental difference 
>> between sales and marketing. But they are not willing to trade-off any of 
>> their market-making, implied-content driven, marketing activities for 
>> speculative market-responding, directed-intent, MeCommerce activities. At 
>> least not at the moment and not for anything other than occasional, 
>> high-involvement categories. MeCommerce(-lite) may be viable for energy, 
>> insurance and credit-card categories, but largely because intermediaries 
>> have facilitated the complicated purchasing process. But it is 
>> facilitation not true MeCommerce. It might even work for complicated, 
>> event-driven categories such as foreign family holidays, where travel 
>> portals can now be used to facilitate some of the end-to-end travel 
>> experience. But I don't see it working for the majority of continuous, 
>> low-involvment categories that make up the majority of average household 
>> spending 
>> (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-spending/family-spending/2013-edition/sum-headlines.html).
>>  An RFP for your weekly groceries? I don't think so.
>>  
>> As the line in the Dirty Harry film goes, "a man's gotta know his 
>> limitations!". The same applies for MeCommerce.
>>  
>> Best regards from Edinburgh, Graham
>> -- 
>> Dr. Graham Hill
>> 
 
>> UK +44 7564 122 633
>> DE +49 170 487 6192
>> http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
>> http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill
>> 
>> Partner
>> Optima Partners
>> http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
>> 
>> Senior Associate
>> Nyras Capital
>> http://www.nyras.co.uk
>>  
>>  
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2014 um 21:54 Uhr
>> Von: "Katherine Kern" 
>> <
 >
>> An: "Graham Reginald Hill" 
>> <
 >
>> Cc: "ProjectVRM list" 
>> <
 >
>> Betreff: [projectvrm] What is speculative marketing budget "worthy"?
>> Hi Graham,
>>  
>> "That generally involves a lot of the marketing they know works” 
>> What is the benchmark for  “works” – response rate of 1%, 5%, 10% ?
>>  
>> "plus a small amount of speculative marketing development.”
>> How much is a small amount? 
>>  
>> "As the speculative developments show their worth,”
>> What does it take to “show their worth?” - payout the investment, return 
>> profits after marketing investment?
>>  
>> "CMOs invest in them further until they become part of the marketing they 
>> know works. This is what happened to direct marketing in the 90s, content 
>> marketing in the 00s and is happening to contextual marketing now. Each 
>> new type of marketing is based on order of magnitude increases in the 
>> amount of information collected about customers and increased accuracy of 
>> implied customer intention.”
>> What about increasing accuracy by aiming for better that “implied customer 
>> intention”? 
>>  
>> I’d bet, if we had a benchmark to beat, a budget amount, a financial goal, 
>> we could come up with an event specific VRM tactic for a specific market 
>> that delivers better than “implied customer intent” and proves to be 
>> worthy of additional investment and broader applications.
>>  
>> K-
>>  
> 


e-mail: 

 
blog: www.iainhenderson.info
twitter: @iainh1

This email and any attachment contains information which is private and 
confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an 
addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any 
attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the 
sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.

<a href="http://miicard.me/b0F1Jsy5";>Identity assured by miiCard : Click to 
Verify</a>