“Can’t get no (marketing measurement) satisfaction”
A new survey, Accountable Marketing Through Metrics, reveals that a majority (86%) of marketing-executive respondents are more dissatisfied than ever with their inability to track and measure marketing performance, a figure that is up 9% compared to last year.
Why the increase in dissatisfaction at a time when ROI is such a hot topic? Because processes apparently are not in place to help executives measure the very business and marketing goals they are charged with meeting.
As reported in Business-to-Business Online, the fifth annual marketing metrics survey conducted by Vision Edge Marketing shows a huge gap between what marketing executives consider important and what they can actually track with their existing marketing measurement processes.
For example, nearly half (48%) of respondents who are required to track a metric do not have a process in place to do so.
Specifically, a majority of respondents (71%) said increasing share in existing markets is a priority in 2006, but only 50% of respondents have a process in place to actually track that key metric to achieve that business goal.
Additionally, almost 40% of respondents say that increasing share of business with existing customers is a priority for marketing in 2006, while only 9% actually have a process in place to track that key metric.
It comes as no surprise then, according to the survey discussion, that only 1% of respondents are completely satisfied with their ability to track marketing performance. Reasons cited in the survey press release include under-funding for processes and training, key ingredients to improve the state of marketing metrics.
“Improving marketing performance is more than tracking numbers,” says VisionEdge president Laura Patterson in a survey press release. “It’s about having the right skills, tools and processes. We need a little less talk and a lot more action if we’re serious about improving metrics proficiency and competency in our discipline.”
Comments
Ron,
I think the problem is that there are too many “old school” marketing heads out there that don’t understand the science side of marketing. Either that, or they may be afraid ROI will show how poor their old, tried-and-true approaches really are.
I think those that don’t get this stuff in the future will be culled from the herd.
JJ
JJ, thanks for your comments and I agree…the move to marketing accountability and ROI has exposed marketing efforts and executives to more scrutiny than ever before. Some are fighting it, and their tenure may be short-lived; others are seeing a great opportunity to refocus their efforts, teams and budgets with a foundation built on marketing ROI.
Ron,
Thought you would enjoy the post I wrote on the state of Marketing measurement following the IDC MPM conference
Eric
http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/kintz/archive/2006/04/20/924.html
Eric, thanks for your comments and preview of your IDC MPM conference talk. I agree: while Marketing Performance Management as a topic is hot, the reasons for implemting MPM as are sometimes being done out of fear—and those who do implement it are probably fearful of what they may find out. At the same time, we’ve suggested (as you do) that MPM is all about accountability, the results of which could actually lead to better decisions, increased sales and expanded budgets. Nothing to fear there! Thanks again.
I would love to be able to come back and write a post about how we are developing, or have picked up a show based on a comment posted to the blog.
Leave A Comment