I recently participated in a new business pitch for a major branded sports property. The agency team pulled together and did a great job, developing a thorough presentation and exciting creative. It’d be a great account to have on agency roster, in any economic environment.
It struck me that we should approach more of our professional lives like a new biz pitch. For those in agency or consulting businesses, you are constantly in this mode so it may be old hat. But folks in other corporate roles who lead projects or have responsibility for matrix management, you too are pitching. Clearly, anyone in career transition, every interaction is a new biz pitch.
During an earlier fact finding conference call, the client commented on how other agencies had ‘missed the point’ and did not seem to be in synch. Given the tough markets, it’s hard to believe that they were not all over it. Now, more than ever you must be sure to absolutely nail the basics and pay attention to details, regardless of the business you are in.
Listen to the Client/Customer. Usually, they will provide you with the answers or at least the kernel of an idea. Read the brief and be sure you understand it, fully and thoroughly. Be sure to ask insightful questions about the business, organization, customers and environment. Observe everything in their offices, people and mood. Don’t forget to pay attention to all that is not written or spoken.
Do the bookwork. There is no excuse for not being fully versed in the client business and market. The internet provides so much information and affords access to ideas, people and input. Shame on anyone with huge gaps in their knowledge and command of it.
Prepare well and have your credentials ready. Your business case, creative, facts or presentation has to be well conceived, thought out and clearly communicated. Be sure to have summarized your experience, expertise and knowledge that provide your authority. Be sure to practice, especially when many folks are part of the presentation. The interaction of your team must seem natural, confident and genuine.
It may come down to chemistry equation – 1+1=3. Creating an appropriate emotional connection is generally the tie breaker between winning and losing a pitch. Credentials, client references and team experience all matter, but ultimately they will be adding you to their team. Both must be comfortable that style, approach and philosophy are a good match. There are no magic bullets for this; my advice is to be honest and true to your identity. A veneer front to win the business won’t last long.
Sell yourself. You cannot be shy about pointing out your skills and accomplishments; just don’t overdo it and assume your past will carry the day. You still have to close the deal based on what you can do in the future. Be sure you make the client know you sincerely want the business and will work hard on their behalf; but don’t fawn or sell past the close.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The END of Sponsorship Marketing?
Thankfully, we have seen the end of the populism trend of bashing every company that had a sponsorship, ran client hospitality or rewarded its employees for working hard. I understand the sentiment that people cannot walk away rich for failing or manipulating the markets. But, where accountability exists and results can be demonstrated, I support most any activity that makes solid business sense.
Clearly sponsorship took it on the chin for a while in 2009, with auto makers and financial services firms as leading sponsors, it is hardly a surprise. Other industries have been affected too, but in a less public way. Their shareholders and industry watchers are rightly asking about the contribution and investments in sponsorship.
Let’s be honest, spending in sports & sponsorship grew explosively from the late 1980’s until 2007. It was a great period to be in property and rights sales, as brands fell over themselves to match competitors and gain advantage. Look at the growth in sports, leagues, teams and networks, nearly uncontrolled. Yes, much of this is related to the growth of media and the need for content. It also reflects the increasing fractionalization of the market and niche interests.
But just like real estate and Wall Street, there was an extreme case of exuberant optimism running amok. I say this based on the continuing din in the industry regarding metrics and ROI. Given the noise, it is clear that many brands engaged in sponsorship are using a compass and sextant in a GPS world. To me it is not about the magical ‘black box’ everyone is waiting for. Rather, it is about sponsorship managers rolling up their sleeves and engaging with marketing peers to decipher what matters and how to account for it – as simple as that. (Clearly it is not THAT simple – but most make it far too complicated and hard)
Returning to my argument for the day; Sponsorship will continue to be a viable and important marketing tool. Why? Simply because when it is done well, there is no more effective way to reach, influence and move customers through the relationship cycle – faster and with more commitment. The intersection of a brand, a sport and consumer passions is hard to beat.
Now it will never be the same as the ‘90s, and thank goodness. We will see a more measured, strategic and smart application in marketing plans. Properties will be better prepared to aid partners in proving the value and may take on accountability, too.
If you were Saturn and looking for a way to convince the market of the engineering expertise, sophistication and durability of your cars, would you look to an ad campaign, viral web, social web or sponsorship of a racing team? Probably some of each, but only by taking your cars onto the track will demonstrate those qualities and truly bring the brand to life.
Clearly sponsorship took it on the chin for a while in 2009, with auto makers and financial services firms as leading sponsors, it is hardly a surprise. Other industries have been affected too, but in a less public way. Their shareholders and industry watchers are rightly asking about the contribution and investments in sponsorship.
Let’s be honest, spending in sports & sponsorship grew explosively from the late 1980’s until 2007. It was a great period to be in property and rights sales, as brands fell over themselves to match competitors and gain advantage. Look at the growth in sports, leagues, teams and networks, nearly uncontrolled. Yes, much of this is related to the growth of media and the need for content. It also reflects the increasing fractionalization of the market and niche interests.
But just like real estate and Wall Street, there was an extreme case of exuberant optimism running amok. I say this based on the continuing din in the industry regarding metrics and ROI. Given the noise, it is clear that many brands engaged in sponsorship are using a compass and sextant in a GPS world. To me it is not about the magical ‘black box’ everyone is waiting for. Rather, it is about sponsorship managers rolling up their sleeves and engaging with marketing peers to decipher what matters and how to account for it – as simple as that. (Clearly it is not THAT simple – but most make it far too complicated and hard)
Returning to my argument for the day; Sponsorship will continue to be a viable and important marketing tool. Why? Simply because when it is done well, there is no more effective way to reach, influence and move customers through the relationship cycle – faster and with more commitment. The intersection of a brand, a sport and consumer passions is hard to beat.
Now it will never be the same as the ‘90s, and thank goodness. We will see a more measured, strategic and smart application in marketing plans. Properties will be better prepared to aid partners in proving the value and may take on accountability, too.
If you were Saturn and looking for a way to convince the market of the engineering expertise, sophistication and durability of your cars, would you look to an ad campaign, viral web, social web or sponsorship of a racing team? Probably some of each, but only by taking your cars onto the track will demonstrate those qualities and truly bring the brand to life.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Moving Towards a True Integrated Marketing Philosophy
Raise the topic of integrated marketing among marketer and watch heads nod briskly. It is not so clear if it is in acknowledgment of the fundamental soundness and pragmatic value or in application. It seems that few brands and companies really understand and embrace the practice.
Why is this? Surely we have moved past the naive understanding that ‘integrated’ meant all creative executions looked similar and were delivered to the market around the same time. Despite the rational support for implementing integrated marketing, there are some institutional boundaries that restrict it.
I suspect that many CMOs grew up in business with TV as the pinnacle of brand marketing activities; just now are we seeing senior marketers who have been “digital” for most of their life. These factors are not easy to overcome, but will as the next generation of CMOs emerges. In addition, the advertising world still portrays the big general agency who does TV and Print with greater reverence and esteem. These factors, plus agency compensation models have made true integrated marketing difficult.
So what is wrong with this approach, you ask? Let’s examine a typical approach for a brand campaign.
1. The general agency (as the lead agency) participates in developing or tweaking the Brand Positioning, from which the Big Idea is established.
2. The general agency develops TV Story Boards and Executions, with CMO and Senior Marketing staff involvement.
3. Other media leads (digital, direct marketing, PR, shopper, sponsorship, etc.) are then tasked with adapting the TV idea; too often via awkward agency to agency briefings.
4. Media planners is left to stitch together a cohesive plan by sequencing buys.
Rather than the waterfall cascade from TV to other communication, would it not be a better use of resources to have all agencies and marketers participate in the brand positioning and big idea development? With today’s multi-touch media and multi-channel distribution model, it is necessary to include broader viewpoints than just that of the TV audience. This will also enable media centered ideas to emerge upfront; critical with the plethora of social web choices available.
By engaging broader agency and brand resources to participate in evolving the campaign ideas, a richer and more vibrant discussion will ensue. The potential of having smart creative people build upon each other and create synergistic and linked programs is significant. No one agency or media form has a lock on good thinking, if we are open the possibilities. And, given the new media horizon the traditional approach has to be scrapped, since niche to mass is becoming a more common pattern.
No doubt, this will require advertisers and brands to take a very clear and firm stance with their agencies that all planning will be done in a collaborative and integrated manner. (Not to mention the ego soothing and hand holding needed). But the biggest challenge may lie with agency structures and compensation.
An ideal scenario might be one where a brand works with an agency holding company and defines the types of resources desired. It is up to that holding company to provide a ‘virtual team’ of the best and proper people at any given time to meet the needs. This could involve a mish-mash of people from general, media planning, digital etc. across their organization. Many boutique agencies follow this pattern now – working with strategic partners to supply critical resources a project requires, but not charging the client when not needed.
I expect the agency issue is not easy to resolve, but when enough client’s demand that approach it will be. The most critical opportunity is for clients to make the move to true integrated marketing for it is a better approach in meeting customer needs and maximizing the relationship and ultimately shareholder value
Why is this? Surely we have moved past the naive understanding that ‘integrated’ meant all creative executions looked similar and were delivered to the market around the same time. Despite the rational support for implementing integrated marketing, there are some institutional boundaries that restrict it.
I suspect that many CMOs grew up in business with TV as the pinnacle of brand marketing activities; just now are we seeing senior marketers who have been “digital” for most of their life. These factors are not easy to overcome, but will as the next generation of CMOs emerges. In addition, the advertising world still portrays the big general agency who does TV and Print with greater reverence and esteem. These factors, plus agency compensation models have made true integrated marketing difficult.
So what is wrong with this approach, you ask? Let’s examine a typical approach for a brand campaign.
1. The general agency (as the lead agency) participates in developing or tweaking the Brand Positioning, from which the Big Idea is established.
2. The general agency develops TV Story Boards and Executions, with CMO and Senior Marketing staff involvement.
3. Other media leads (digital, direct marketing, PR, shopper, sponsorship, etc.) are then tasked with adapting the TV idea; too often via awkward agency to agency briefings.
4. Media planners is left to stitch together a cohesive plan by sequencing buys.
Rather than the waterfall cascade from TV to other communication, would it not be a better use of resources to have all agencies and marketers participate in the brand positioning and big idea development? With today’s multi-touch media and multi-channel distribution model, it is necessary to include broader viewpoints than just that of the TV audience. This will also enable media centered ideas to emerge upfront; critical with the plethora of social web choices available.
By engaging broader agency and brand resources to participate in evolving the campaign ideas, a richer and more vibrant discussion will ensue. The potential of having smart creative people build upon each other and create synergistic and linked programs is significant. No one agency or media form has a lock on good thinking, if we are open the possibilities. And, given the new media horizon the traditional approach has to be scrapped, since niche to mass is becoming a more common pattern.
No doubt, this will require advertisers and brands to take a very clear and firm stance with their agencies that all planning will be done in a collaborative and integrated manner. (Not to mention the ego soothing and hand holding needed). But the biggest challenge may lie with agency structures and compensation.
An ideal scenario might be one where a brand works with an agency holding company and defines the types of resources desired. It is up to that holding company to provide a ‘virtual team’ of the best and proper people at any given time to meet the needs. This could involve a mish-mash of people from general, media planning, digital etc. across their organization. Many boutique agencies follow this pattern now – working with strategic partners to supply critical resources a project requires, but not charging the client when not needed.
I expect the agency issue is not easy to resolve, but when enough client’s demand that approach it will be. The most critical opportunity is for clients to make the move to true integrated marketing for it is a better approach in meeting customer needs and maximizing the relationship and ultimately shareholder value
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)