Marketing Silos

In the fields of marketing communications and organizational behavior, there is nothing more sinister than the silo.

Silos prevent cooperation and coordination. Silos signify self-interest and turf battles. Silos are a comfortable place to hide while we practice our specialties, oblivious to opportunities for working with others.

The Truth About Silos

The silo metaphor borrows equally from the Agricultural Revolution and the Information Age. The agricultural reference is a structure for storing bulk materials, usually grain harvested on a farm. An information silo, according to Wikipedia, “is a management system incapable of reciprocal operation with other, related management systems.”

Silos can be dangerous. “It may be fun,” advises an OSU fact sheet, “to jump in the grain or even bury yourself, but this kind of play is very dangerous. Flowing grain acts like quicksand. Once you start to sink it is impossible for you to dig your way to the top. As you dig, the grain keeps shifting under your feet, pushing you deeper towards the bottom.” Shudder.

Marketing Silos are Surrounded by a Barnyard Full of Manure

One of our clients recently ran a program in a medium we do not handle. Our creative director, always passionate about the client’s business, called me this morning to say “it’s not consistent with the brand voice,” and “it’s not relevant to our consumer.” He was right, because this work was done in a silo.

Silos are surrounded by a barnyard full of manure. That barnyard actually reinforces the silo mentality. We can stay in our silos instead of venturing out of comfort zones into something messy and complicated like interpersonal communication. Or a big pile of…. manure.

Connecting the Silos

Last year Evan Rosen wrote a column with good, practical advice for encouraging collaboration. My only quibble was with the title, “Smashing Silos”. The revolutionary tone is appropriate, but the prescription to me is more like “Connecting Silos”. We’ll always need specialists, and they’ll always need a place to put their grain.

Silos aren’t inherently bad unless we stay inside them. As modern marketers, we not only need to know our specialties, but get out of them and see the bigger picture.

(If you liked this post you may also like this one or that one.)

We will always need Specialists

One of my four major agenda items, any given day of my career, is people development. In recent times the main task of people development has been to develop Renaissance Practitioners. Said differently, my task is to turn great specialists into great generalists.

Are you a Specialist or a Generalist?

Great specialists only see their own part of the marketing plan. Great generalists can play their position well and see how their work fits into the overall marketing solution we provide to a client. This way we provide business solutions, not just “digital solutions” or “retail solutions”.

SoMe specialist vs. SoMe generalist

Today I read two articles that show how Social Media, the industry specialty of the moment, is evolving in ways that should interest specialists and generalists alike:

A blogger at Sysomos, a business software company, opined today that while SoMe is a small slice of overall advertising investment, it will someday “rule the advertising roost”, eclipsing all known media except outdoor. Maybe so. Veteran ad people know that the #1 advertising medium cited by consumers as “most reliable” has always been “word of mouth”. SoMe is word of mouth in a publishable form.

Meanwhile, a “social media strategist” at Digitas Health laments her job title because it makes her sound too much like a specialist. “Social media,” says Sarah Larcker, “should really be viewed as an integrated part of the holistic strategy for a brand, not its own independent realm.” Sarah is an excellent example of a specialist-generalist.

We will always need Specialists

There’s no doubt that what we currently call SoMe will continue to be a major force in modern marketing. Everyone’s challenge is exactly what Sarah Larcker proposes, to make SoMe a strategic tool rather than a tactical silo.

We will always need specialists, however. Technology continues to develop daily and someone has to be on top of the changes – it’s a full-time job. New media will continue to evolve and we need specialists to show us how it can work.

The question is how much of a generalist do you aspire to be? You may always have your specialty, but having a big-picture perspective will keep your skills relevant.

More from the Draftfcb global meeting

MIAMI -- Our global managers' meeting continued today with presentations by the agency's leadership.

Here were some of the thoughts they expressed, with my own perspectives on them.

Ideas. Before Draftfcb and before FCB there was Lord & Thomas and one of that agency's pillars was Albert Lasker (1880-1952). In remarks today, Howard Draft pointed out that Lasker was a man who understood ideas. Lasker suggested advertising orange juice so Sunkist Growers could sell more oranges, naming rights on a baseball stadium so William Wrigley could promote chewing gum, and radio program sponsorship -- he invented the soap opera.

These are Ideas. In our industry we often confuse Ideas with Creative. All creative comes from an idea but Ideas should be bigger than the creative they inspire.

Touchpoints. Jonathan Harries has told me many times "there are many touchpoints but only certain points of persuasion." In other words we gain nothing by promulgating our messages in as many channels as possible. We must choose only the relevant ones.

Most of you know that IMC moved past spider charts (the more legs the better) and matching luggage (everything must look exactly alike) a long time ago.

Celebrate. You may not have noticed but Draftfcb is doing well right now. Laurence Boschetto encouraged us to stop and take a moment -- 3 years, 11 months and 18 days into the Draftfcb merger -- and celebrate what we've accomplished. We got into advertising because it's supposed to be fun.

Oddly, this morning while Laurence was talking, I got an e-mail from the guy who first hired me at Leo Burnett some years ago. It was a short, personal, encouraging note, completely out of the blue, that ended with this exhortation: "Have fun!"

Thank you, Hank! I will.

Draftfcb's global managers' meeting

MIAMI – Draftfcb’s top executives from around the world are gathered here for a global managers’ meeting. The event began with an informal dinner tonight and continues with presentations and meetings tomorrow.

Given my work with global accounts, these are great-to-see-you-again, how’s-business-in-your-country, abrazos fuertes kind of affairs. It’s a blessing to have friends from many countries and the chance to catch up with them.

At the same time, there are new relationships and new business topics. This evening I got acquainted with some newer leaders from around the network. There was also the opportunity to connect two people who can now collaborate across agency subsidiaries.

“Ideas” will be a consistent theme over the next few days. Reading the ad industry blogosphere, you can see a lot about how “Ideas” are a common language across disciplines, as in: “A good idea transcends a TV storyboard and should work in other channels as well.”

True enough. Increasingly, though, we’ll also see “Ideas” as a common language across borders, as in: “A good idea transcends language and should work in many countries as well.” The close working relationships among my global colleagues makes this possible.

Media is the sexy part

NEW YORK -- Today we had the pleasure of meeting with our IPG partner Richard Beaven, who has done amazing things as head of Initiative the past three years. We work with Initiative in service of several shared clients.

Media is sexy

It was a stimulating conversation because, as I've told many colleagues, "Media is the sexy part of what we do today." To be truly media-neutral one must consider an incredible array of choices to engage consumers. We all know that.

Shake those paradigms!

The more interesting part of our meeting today was having my paradigms challenged. Richard brought some perspectives from the front lines of media strategy that made me stop and think. Here were three of them.

Content, not "Creative". Content is a media-neutral term describing messages about brands and products. Content includes not only creative, but user-generated content, crowdsourcing and content developed by the media companies with which we collaborate.

Collaboration is survival. The incredible array of choices to engage consumers changes all the time, which means that nobody has all the answers. We depend on a rich culture of specialists who help us maximize the opportunity in each channel.

Control is dead. This is true not only in the sense that we can't control what messages consumers will accept. As well, no one discipline can control everything. "Control should be taken out of the dictionary," Richard maintained, "because it doesn't exist in our business anymore."

Lots to think about on my way back to Chicago. Please add your thoughts below.

Wow! Now THAT was fast!

Headline, 28 April 2010: "Study: Marketing Departments To Reorganize."

Headline, 5 May 2010: "Mixed-Up Marketers: Execs Struggle With New Roles."

OK, ha ha. These two headlines are coincidental to one another, but both are really signs of the times. All of us struggle with continual changes in the media landscape (including retail), changes in our business models, and changes in how consumers choose to engage with our brands and products.

Here are the most interesting points from the two articles cited above.

• Three-quarters of global marketing leaders expect to reorganize their departments by the end of 2011, according to a new Forrester study.
• Why? The rise of digital and social media, plus "maladaptive" org charts that are slow to react to consumer needs, among other factors.
• Marketers share only half their data with Sales, and assume that Sales shares only half their data with Marketing.
• Among 500 marketers surveyed by Genius.com, 50% don't blog, 49% don't tweet, 25% don't use LinkedIn.

I wonder where they will be after the re-org? Readers?

None of us are "media agnostic"

You’ve heard the word “agnostic” at work, in the trade press or in the marketing classroom, as in “media agnostic” or “channel agnostic”.

These terms refer to communications planning that favors no medium, channel or discipline over another – until a proper analysis or strategic exercise helps determine the best ways to engage the right consumer.

The above definition is a common-sense way to decide your marketing budget, but common sense rarely prevails. It is insane that in the 21st Century marketing budgets are artificially siloed or pre-allocated to trade spending, deal-making, promotion or advertising. None of us wants to be seen as insane so we use terms like “media agnostic” to signal that we would never pre-assign the budget to TV or sales promotion or whatever.

“Agnostic” is the wrong term to use, not only because it’s inaccurate but because it distracts us from an opportunity to stop the insanity described above.

It’s the wrong word

“Agnostic” in modern English usage connotes a doubt or skepticism about the existence of God. This dictionary definition is pretty close to the actual etymology of the word. “Agnostic” was coined in 1860 by English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley to define his own disbelief and disagreement with all things spiritual. This would be counter to the Gnostics, an early 1st Century religious group that to Huxley represented any and all claims to spiritual knowledge. There is a continuing scholarly debate about the Gnostics and their beliefs, but we won’t go into that here.

Simply put, agnosticism is not the opposite of Gnosticism, but the opposite of spiritual belief. The opposite of belief is doubt. Agnosticism is doubt.

So, all you “media agnostics” out there: Do you doubt the existence of media? Of course not, but you may doubt the relevance of my argument so far. Everyone knows what I mean by “agnostic”, so what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that words can lead us astray

This is a practical concern, not an academic pursuit. A vaguely philosophical-sounding term covers up a vital planning discipline. Some may think if their philosophy is “agnostic” then they need not do the strategic heavy lifting to find the right mix of channels for each particular assignment. In other words, if we are open to any and all media, we’ll never find the right one(s) for any given assignment. Thus we sound smarter but we miss the opportunity to describe and do something truly revolutionary.

In the words of Ahmad Islam: “I am definitely not agnostic. I have no doubt that there is a best fit media or media mix to address most client challenges and ensure business objectives are met.”

Try “channel neutral”

So if not “agnostic”, what word would capture the opportunity we have to do something truly revolutionary? My own usual phrase is “channel-neutral” but perhaps you can suggest others.

Is Emerald Nuts?

Last week's Super Bowl advertising disappointed many of us. You can watch all the ads here and see a roundup of industry reaction here.

Emerald Nuts "Awesomer"

One of my personal disappointments was Emerald Nuts. It's a great brand that did some great advertising in past Super Bowls, notably the Robert Goulet ad. This year, however, their message was "Awesomer" but their strategy was not: Use the Super Bowl to tell people they can enjoy two kinds of snacks, Emerald Nuts and Pop Secret Popcorn.

The strategy was nuts

So why was this wrong strategically?

Two different brand names. A typical measure of effectiveness for a :30 TV ad is brand linkage, or the ability of a consumer to remember the brand name to buy. Most Super Bowl ads struggle to communicate just one brand; two is doubly difficult. All the more so when they are...

Two different products. Someone online wrote that these are peanuts and popcorn, not diapers and chainsaws. They're both snack foods so what's the big deal? It's a fair point. But while you can expect people to eat them at the same time, will a :30 TV spot convince them to buy them at the same time? No, because they offer...

No clear selling proposition. Let's face it, most food advertising literally says "this tastes good". (In this case they at least put an acrobatic twist on the usual bite and smile.) The Robert Goulet ad was much more specific, selling Emerald Nuts as a mid-afternoon, energy-boosting snack.

So what were they trying to do?

Taking a closer look, it's important to note for the umpteenth time that marketing does not live by TV alone.

As one blogger observed, Emerald spends about a fifth of their marketing budget on thirty seconds of Super Bowl advertising. To judge based on this investment alone would suggest a flawed strategy.

It appears their strategy is much more balanced, however. According to various published reports, they built a lot of other activity around the Super Bowl. FSI coupon. Trade circulars like the one above. Consumer promotion. Online activity. Working with their agency they appear to have built a through-the-line program around the Super Bowl as an event. No brain surgery there.

Did they succeed?

They claim to have succeeded: check out this press release issued on 8 February 2010, the day after the game. They cite sales results through the period ending 23 January and lots of other results. The only point we might dispute is whether the "Awesomer" commercial was "groundbreaking".

We can't dispute, however, the importance of all the other channels utilized. I still don't think the TV commercial was very good. By the time it ran, however, it appears Emerald had driven all the sales they needed. That's never crazy.

An award that we will polish with Windex

Draftfcb won first place for Innovative Marketing Communications at the Chicago Creative Club "No Show" Awards this past fall. The winning program was an experiential street demonstration for Windex. You can see it here on YouTube or just watch it below. We were praised at the time for doing something interesting with the most ordinary of household products.

Last week we received the actual award. In a nice little irony to close out the year, the award came in the form of... a block of glass.

Yes, we will polish it with Windex.

How TV fits into IMC

My two previous posts about a successful TV commercial and the broad reach of Radio generated some commentary on LinkedIn and Twitter. Some of the chatter was skeptical: TV? Radio? Really?

Yes, really. That's why I posted. There seems to be an unhealthy skepticism toward broadcast media. To be sure their business models are in question. The ground is shifting underneath them just like it is for all of us. (Over the weekend there were a couple of more articles on this subject: The Wall Street Journal examined the Comcast-NBC Universal deal and the self-proclaimed Newspaper of Record pondered "An Unsteady Future for Broadcast".)

Even so, TV and Radio were never the best or only media an advertiser could use. They each have their own strengths: For example TV reaches large audiences very quickly, which is important if you're launching a new CPG product. That's powerful but an advertiser must close the sale at the shelf, so it's advisable to complement broadcast media with an FSI or a shopper marketing program.

With that, it's time to check in on our two IMC projects, one where we handled all media for a client, and another where we worked with multiple agencies.

Agency + Client = Great IMC

You may recall that we were in the process of getting to a channel-neutral plan. We ultimately decided that TV was necessary to build awareness quickly, but in this case we built the TV plan around a strong retail plan that invites consumers to see and try the product. Likewise we used Radio to build awareness of retailer events ("shopper marketing" in some dictionaries). We can summarize the role of TV as less like a megaphone and more like the flute played by the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

Agency + Agency + Agency = Great IMC

We left off with this project also on the verge of a channel-neutral plan. In this case TV will played a more traditional awareness-building role, but the magic of working together with all of our client's agencies is that we had good peripheral vision on what everyone else recommended and did. It's only a small part of the deal that our messages were consistent across all media. The real benefit is that each medium played off the others in real time, like on a basketball court. TV, then, was planned in conjunction with all other activity.

What's the right role for broadcast?

My point is that TV and Radio should never be the default position for a marketer; nor should they be eschewed. The right role for all media -- broadcast, retail, digital, social -- should derive from insightful consumer and business analysis. Then, figure out how they all work best together.

TV + IMC = Marketplace Success

The above headline may be kind of a "duh" for most of you, but parts of the blogosphere seem to regard TV and IMC as completely incompatible, where TV is ancient history and IMC is the path to a glorious, channel-neutral future. (Read: "TV is dead.")

No less a source than Ad Age reports today that our team here at Draftfcb helped make OFF! Clip-On one of "America's Hottest Brands" with... a 30-second TV ad.

This project also entailed a cross-agency IMC effort that any marketer would envy. TV was merely part of the glorious, channel-neutral plan.

Congratulations to the entire team at SCJ and all of their agencies.

Is "Agency" a bad word?

There was a nice roundup in yesterday's New York Times on the various agency start-ups in the Big Apple these days.

Wait. Did I say "agency"? That might have been a bad word.

The article quotes NY adman Brett Shevack as saying: "What's important is to lose the mentality of 'agency of record' and adopt the mentality of 'catalyst of record'." The article helpfully clarifies that this means "serve marketers as a force for change rather than as a supplier of the status quo".

Here we see the pervasive stereotype of today's ad agencies as backward, traditional, almost Luddite institutions, robotically producing 30-second TV commercials. (Sadly, there are some people and places in the industry where this stereotype is true.)

The word "agency" seems to be out of fashion. Last year a university professor told a large conference that the word "agency" means "the state of serving as an official and authorized delegate or agent". He helpfully clarified that "all agencies did was place the media for a commission and then provide the creative for free." This is factual, but incomplete.

If you check this definition of the word "agency", you will see not only the professor's definition but this one: "a business that serves other businesses". I like this definition better because it applies to agency models old, new and evolving.

To live up to this particular definition -- and Shevack's "catalyst of record" -- an agency of any model must learn the client's business, identify the consumer insight, set a clear business objective, and then help the client achieve it with strong creative in a channel-neutral plan.

If we all do that, "agency" will be a good word again.

A peek inside Draftfcb

Today on DRAFTFCBlog, my thoughts on the essential departments any agency needs.

Agency + Client = great IMC

My previous post explained how Agency + Agency + Agency = great IMC. Today's formula is Agency + Client = great IMC.

It's a pretty simple formula, unlike the sampling of IMC processes featured in the image to the right!

One of our clients allowed us to handle a "through the line" assignment. In other words we are handling all channels including digital, shopper marketing, traditional advertising, etc. (We don't offer public relations so the client's usual agency is helping us out there.) This makes it a pure agency/client partnership since we must manage everything together.

It's been a fun yet demanding project, only in part because of the full range of channels involved. The heaviest lift has been the strategic part, just as it is on any project. If you get the strategy right, the execution should flow pretty well. This principle applies even more on a full IMC program.

Here were some of the steps involved.

What does success look like? The client gave us a sales goal, but it's not practical to simply declare "we will sell x million dollars in Year I." We must leverage what's exciting and relevant about the product. In this particular case we realized from the start that consumers would need to be able to pick up the product and try it - just driving awareness with :30 TV spots or explaining the product in longer-form communication wouldn't suffice.

How will we measure success? Here again the sales goal wasn't enough. We needed to project how many people we could incite via product experience and how much we could rely on simple awareness methods. Here I must point out something about Draftfcb: much of the press coverage discusses the fact that we offer all services under one roof, but our real power is in the marriage of creativity and accountability. Our Customer Intelligence (analytics) department played a key role here.

What's the strategy? Let's face it, many of us write our strategies according to the disciplines we know best. A TV brief, a promo brief, a digital brief -- they all focus on their own discipline. We had to write a channel-neutral strategy if we wanted a channel-neutral creative platform and a channel-neutral communications plan. To that point, every stage of this journey I'm describing was managed together by a core team: a creative, a strategic planner, a media planner, a data analyst and an account person. We kept each other honest along the way. Experts in the various channels joined us later.

What's the creative platform? Or, to use a common term you read about, what's the Big Idea? We dedicated a team of creatives with experiences in different channels to work exclusively on this project for a full week. They created a dozen ideas, three of which we presented to the client, and one of which we all agreed was the most powerful.

What channels should we use? Another way to ask this might be: "We have a Big Idea but where do we put it?" We couldn't create a TV ad or even a shelf talker until we had established the right channels and the roles for each. Similar to our cross-agency project, it was critical to have a budget that was completely open with no percentages pre-assigned to ads, promos, etc. We had one big pile to allocate in the way we thought would have the most impact.

What happened next? It's still happening. The channel plan was 90% agreed upon in the past few weeks, enough that we could finish executing creative work. This afternoon we'll finalize the shopper marketing plan in a meeting with the brand manager and the sales director.

One last thing: thanks to my client for their strong participation in each of the steps described above. They and we loved the sense of partnership that came from creating something together.