Why aren't marketer willing to take responsibility?

[Clinton]

Exactly my point.

I don't mind paying for results. I expect an advertiser to say something like:

Based on my experience in this field and your average cost of making your products (which he would have asked and got an answer from me), I suggest we focus on ___ amount of campaigns for _______ items (after he did some homework, but mainly based on his experience) and I can predict roughly a £X click cost and based on your website conversion rate and the focus of our campaigns I believe it will cost you £Y per conversion..​

As I've said before in this thread, I don't find the OP unreasonable at all. For too long marketers have been able to get away with not tying their payments to performance.

Today's news has an interesting story. McDonald's, one of the world's largest advertisers, took on a new creative agency. The agency's payment is tied to results.

That's a creative agency, mind you. So much for the argument about not being able to measure the contribution of such outside parties!

McDonalds end 35 years with the same agency to switch to someone willing to move with the times. Even WPP pulled out of bidding because of the client's "unusual financial demands".

I wonder for how long such demands will be called "unusual"​

 

[threenine]

Personally I think you may be reading too much into that article.

So yes the Agency will be reimbursed on performance, but MacDonalds are still going to cover costs.

So realistically speaking, that agency has been brought into to revive the marketing process.

So I would assume that agency is going to come in, and analyse the existing Marketing Plan & Strategy, due in part if they are going to improve and asked to deliver results. They will need to assess what, where and why is broken. This is will be covered by the initial cost breakdown.

There is going to have to be a lot of Brand Rejuvenation at Macdonalds,

So Yes, the marketers are paid on results, but costs are covered. However, if the MacDonalds does not implement what the Agency recommends, i.e. Process improvements, branding blah blah. Then I bet there will also be terms the agency has covered.

 

[Clinton]

Personally I think you may be reading too much into that article.

Possibly.

But with access to more and more data, an increasing ability to drill into granular information on touch points and the route a customer has taken to an action ...and massive advances in computer processing and storage, I wouldn't be surprised if agencies are, in the future, held more to account for the marketing spend.

 

[The Byre]

The dilemma is as follows -

You go into a company as an agency, consultant or other outside person or body, giving them the benefit of your expertise. So far, so good -

BUT

Then you begin to see other things and you realise that you are the sticking plaster over a wound. They may say that they want advertising, but the reality is, they need to take a long, hard look at what they are doing and the very structure of their company and everything that they do.

A good example is a PR company. You go to a manufacturer who says "Get me some trade mag coverage for our new product X!"

As a seasoned old bird, you see with one eye that X ain't going to work. It's a turkey!

You then (internally) ask yourself "How the hell did these people get themselves into the situation of launching a product that does not work as intended and nobody will buy?"

As a consultant of any sort, you are then faced with the problem - do I say something and annoy these people, or do I just shut up, go through the motions and take their money?

It is at that point that you realise that there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure of the company and the way that company management is going about its everyday tasks. If you want to see that process in action, look no further than Ramsey's 'Kitchen Nightmares' or 'Restaurant Impossible' on the Food Channel. Bad food, poor decor and lack of hygiene are just the symptoms of underlying problems. These places can only be made to work, if the owners address the fundamental problems FIRST!

So we have some ad agency trying to push out ads for a poor product. The reality is, one has to go all the way back to the head of the company and the way he or she is doing things, BEFORE you can even think about altering the product in question. THEN one can begin to ponder whether advertising is worth while.

Elsewhere on this forum, somebody is trying to find new and exciting ways to market his video service. Fine, except that the website is chaotic and the videos of low amateur standard. You can advertise the balls off that service and it will do nothing for the bottom line. If one person clicks through and then gives up and clicks away, a million people will click away.

Advertising can bring you clicks, footfall, telephone calls or whatever response you are looking for - but only you can convert -

- and you convert by having a product that people really, really WANT to buy!

 

[JamesM]

IMO the marketer should be split testing the copy and images..

 

[Mark T Jones]

I think Clinton's post on McD's is significant.

Any professional marketing organisation would consider working for McD's on a by results basis, because they know what marketing is, and they embrace it at the very core of their organisation - indeed arguably, McDonalds business plan is property, marketing and process (I bet burgers don't even get a mention).

In the wider context, the HUGE problem is that most people who operate under the marketing banner and pretty much everyone who comes on here looking for 'marketing' advice don't actually know what marketing is - the 'marketeers' are selling a single product (or 'solution'), the people looking for advice are hoping for a magic bullet, which create the key ingredients of snake oil.

For a marketer to operate effectively by results they need to be fully engaged and involved with the business itself, not just the web design, the SEO or the brochures.