Failed icon. Sounds like dismal hook to hang one’s hat on doesn’t it? Especially given that most of us have such an aversion to failure in life and business—or even being associated to failure in any way. 

When you think of failure, would you consider someone who: 

• has spent a large amount of their career on educating and helping corporations and marketers to become customer-centric;
• is a Professor Emeritus at a well-known university that has a graduate program to educate students in being data-driven to ensure that customers’ needs and wants are met;
• has written over 10 books on subjects like driving and determining brand value and measuring ROI; and
• was named one of the 80 Most Influential People in sales and marketing a failure? 

No, I wouldn’t either. 

And yet, that’s exactly how Don Schultz, one of the founding fathers of integrated marketing communications referred to himself at Blur (‘The Conference that Erases Lines’), the recent PMA Annual Integrated Marketing Conference.  

Schultz stated, “…that after 20 years of integration, IMC, IM and all the other versions and visions that we’re no closer to developing a holistic, customer-focused, marketing and communication system than before.” 

20 years have gone by and companies are still no closer to putting the customer first? Seems odd that a company wouldn’t put the people who willing to part with their hard-earned cash to buy their products and services first, doesn’t it? But that is reality for the majority of businesses out there. 

Integrated Marketing Communications: It Isn’t What You May Think It Is 

When IMC was first introduced, the mission was simple: “One sight and one sound.” Because then the challenge revolved around multiple, siloed departments reaching out to customers in accordance with their revenue generation or communications plans. On the receiving end were the customers, who were left to analyze and pull together all of the assorted messages in order to make sense of what it was the advertiser, marketer, publicist, and sales person wanted them to do. As we know today, that simply doesn’t work (and it most likely didn’t work then either). 

According to Schultz all of these years later, “…it only added value to the marketers, not the consumers. It was all “outbound” where we were trying to influence and persuade the customer to buy/try our product/service…” 

And yet, most companies that practice integrated marketing communications today are still in this phase of “one sight and one sound.” That’s where, unfortunately, the notion of what IMC is has come to rest in most marketers’ minds. 

Barriers Are More Dangerous than Silos to your Business 

It’s rare to see a company organized completely around its customers and it will probably be another 15 years before we are even close to that being the norm. As in the past, there are still many silos today. But at least the silos are seemingly working together (branding and marketing communications; marketing and PR; or customer services and sales, for example) to achieve one sight and one sound. It’s not enough, but it’s a good start. 

Barriers to becoming customer-centric include: 

• Resistance to change
• Organizational structures
• Functional separations and budgets
• Capabilities and control
• Marketing planning systems 

Whether as customers or employees, we have all seen these barriers. And they are as smart as putting a concrete barrier in front of your corporate headquarters. 

The good news? The world has indeed changed. 

Schultz went on to say that “…when he and the rest of the marketing “icons” weren’t looking, the world changed. Today’s information technology has given consumers control.” 

If IMC is So Good, Why Isn’t It Being Implemented? 

This very question was asked by Loyd Pettegrew, Ph.D. in his 2000 article of the same name. Dr. Pettegrew points out eight conditions that a company must adhered to accurately reflect the practice of IMC: 

1. Must speak to all stakeholders with a single, consistent voice
2. Must assume the consumers’/customers’ point of view
3. Strategic communications disciplines must be internally integrated
4. It must have a clear and consistent message that is more effective and efficient than competing messages
5. Messages must cut through the increasingly cluttered commercial landscape
6. Must foster two-way dialogue between consumers and itself
7. Must build bonds that lead to long-term, consumer-to-brand relationships
8. Must not place excellent marketing ahead of corporate reputation 

I’d like to add a number nine: Top-down management buy-in for becoming customer-centric. 

Sounds familiar doesn’t it? I hope you are making the natural bridge to social media. As Don Schultz has stated, consumers [and customers] now have control. As such, it will be hard for companies to not start adhering to these 9 conditions if they want to be successful socially. If not, we will begin to see a lot of failed icons in the social media space. 

Failed Icon or Visionary? 

I am going with the latter. Let’s just hope that this time around, we all get it right. Because in the age of social media I don’t think consumers and customers will give us a second chance (as we’ve seen evidence of already).

[Image Source: The Gig Girl]

I have the honor of being a part of the new Social Media Council of Advisors for the Marketing Executive Networking Group (MENG) and last Thursday we had our first Q&A webinar with MENG members. Other council members include: Amber Naslund, Mack Collier, Drew McLellan, Joe Pulizzi and Paul Dunay.

Last Thursday we had a Q&A webinar with MENG members. There were a lot of great questions, but one question really struck me and I wanted to share it here because it speaks to why integrated marketing and communications is critical. 

“All of the panelists agree that social media are exciting new ways to listen and communicate, but they are basically new tools. So how do we get across to the marketing community that boring old marketing disciplines still apply and how do we get rid of this silly dichotomy between social media marketing and classic marketing.”  

My basic response was that social media tools are not new and some have been around for ten years or more. And second, there isn’t a dichotomy because social media needs to be integrated. 

I think this is a serious discussion that needs to take place because there marketers and marketing executives who have been given the wrong impression or direction when it comes to social media. 

Integrating Social Media 

First, I am not a fan of the term ‘social media marketing’ because a) it silos social media from other marketing communications tactics and other marketing disciplines and b) because a lot of folks out there are implementing social media tools without understanding the nature (or theory) of marketing as a whole. Second, as an integrated marketing practitioner, I totally disagree that ‘social media marketing’ is replacing classic marketing (or the theory that comes with it). 

What’s new and important is how these tools are being used in business; how we have a window into what our customers are really thinking, where they interact, how to engage with them, etc.; and how we now have data to serve our customers BETTER. 

But this notion of knowing our customers isn’t anything new…that’s basic marketing (and I mean ALL of marketing here, not just the promotional aspect of marketing), public relations and communications.

While CRM systems have been the tool of choice for keeping track of customers and extracting data  they never really allowed marketers to put faces to names (unless there’s some stealth way to take a photo and add it to your CRM), to listen to conversations or to actively engage in a two-way manner. The only tool that allows that is social media. 

The key to integration today is simple. Marketers need to be flexible, able to adjust, and most importantly able to provide pertinent AND timely information when, where and how customers/potential customers need/want it. Social media allows for that across all areas of marketing (product, pricing, promotion and distribution). 

Who/What Is Creating the Dichotomy?  

I think the most important issue here, however, is who/what is creating the dichotomy? Who or what is causing marketers to think that it’s an either/or situation? 

Is it that we’ve been siloed for so long and that there hasn’t been a good job with integration to begin with? We only need to look at E-Mail Marketing, Search Engine Marketing, and Direct Marketing to get a sense of the answer. 

As social media evangelists and practitioners we need to truly understand what is going on in our industry. Otherwise, we are doing a disservice to our customers and future as marketers. 

Your thoughts?

This year I re-launched my blog focusing on Integrated Marketing Communications because it’s the only thing I know as a marketer. Fortunately, I have been part of integrated departments and teams for the past 15 years. Anyone who has experience with IMC knows that the reward of a strategically executed and successful campaign is, well, marketing nirvana. 

As I have said, social media isn’t drastically changing marketing, communications or PR… it is just forcing us, as practitioners, back to our roots. For me, it’s about being true to all three, while consistently challenging myself, moving forward with new best practices, continuing to perfect my skills and sticking to my passion for IMC. 

While I know a lot of you will be surprised to hear that I will be leaving MarketingProfs (February 28 will be my last day) and the role of community manager; I don’t think you’ll be surprised to learn that I will be moving into a role with Serengeti Communications, that focuses on digital integrated marketing communications (search, social, web, and more) for Serengeti as well as for some of our clients. 

Who is Serengeti Communications? Serengeti is a digital marketing consultancy that helps clients understand their market and customers; implement search and social strategies and tools; measure ROI; and learn the skills required to create and sustain successful digital marketing programs. Basing smart, strategic marketing and communications on data in a way that adds value to the bottom line and helps to meet corporate goals is the definition of IMC. 

I have loved working with the team at MarketingProfs and our members – both are truly fantastic! The good news is I won’t really be leaving Marketing Profs, as I’ll always be a member. I’ll also be speaking at the upcoming B2B Forum (May 4-5) in Boston, so I’ll get to reunite with everyone.

I am really looking forward to this next phase of my career as I dive into a position that allows me to prove, once again, that social media is a viable part of a sound digital marketing strategy. If you don’t know Serengeti Communications, be sure to get to know us!

[Image: iStock]

Tonight on #IMCchat (the Integrated Marketing Communications chat on Twitter) we discussed the definition  and focus of sales-oriented and market-oriented companies and the advantages/disadvantages of both. Typically  when people hear “sales” and “market” they equate it to sales and marketing…and the unfortunate contention that often seems to exist between the two. Before we go down the path of sales versus marketing, let’s take a look at the characteristics of each type of orientation.  

Sales-Oriented Characteristics: 

• Heavy reliance on promotion activity to sell products/services the company wanted to make;
• Aggressive selling tactics;
• Promotion consumes a large share of the company’s overall budget;
• Inside-out thinking (If we build it they will come); and
• Short-term vs. long-term planning. 

Market-Oriented Characteristics: 

• Consumers/Customers less willing to be persuaded;
• Consumers/customers are knowledgeable about the market and the products/services available;
• Companies identify what customers want and tailor all business towards those wants/needs (in an efficient manner);
• Marketing vs. just selling (i.e. management of the 4 Ps, not just promotions);
• Offers mass customization;
• Product input before selling (Alpha testing, beta testing, trials, etc); and
• Long-term vs. short-term planning. 

See? We aren’t talking about sales versus marketing at all. We are talking about corporate culture and how the determination is made for producing products and services.    

Some of the companies that we talked about included Apple, Zappos, Southwest, Comcast, Ford, DuPont, Delta, SC Johnson. We also discussed companies that were once sales-oriented, but then were driven, by customer response to be more market-oriented, like Dell. 

If we are to consider integrated marketing communications and its core being customer-focused, is that even a possibility for a sales-oriented company? If you are a marketer that believes in being market-oriented how do you get management buy-in when the corporate culture they created is internally focused? 

More importantly, is it possible to be a little bit country and a little bit rock & roll (Yep, that would be a hat tip to the Osmonds!) That is can a company be both sales- and market-oriented? If they are both, where does innovation fall? And what are the advantages/disavantages? From and IMC advantage perspective, I often think about Fiskars, which is a great example of devoted and loyal customers—known as Fiskateers— helping a company to innovate products. 

After taking a look at the characteristics, what kind of company do you work for? What have been your challenges/successes?

[Image: wburnettllc]

There are a lot of marketers out there that understand that integrated marketing and communications (IMC) is a preferred way to do business because it is an outside-in approach. If an organization isn’t integrated, what are the best approaches to getting management buy-in? Anna Barcelos and I wanted to share nine key ways to provide management with the value of IMC.

Sales-Oriented Vs. Market-Oriented – Which Are You?

It’s often been said that the mindset of “If we build it, they will come” is not viable for long term business. To understand why, let’s look at the difference between a sales-oriented and market-oriented organization.

Sales-oriented organizations have a heavy reliance on promotional tactics to sell whatever products/services the organization has selected to produce. Sales teams, not marketers lead the pack and have the burden of performance (i.e. revenue generation).

In the short-run, markets can be created with aggressive campaigns and sales work; however, the lifetime value of a customer is minimal. The organization mindset is focused on ‘the next big thing,’ hungry and aggressive sales teams, and sales beating up marketing for not dishing up qualified leads or customers ready to spend.

Market-oriented organizations identify what markets need/want first and tailor their operations to deliver products/services that meet those demands as efficiently as possible. Within a market-oriented organization, marketing takes the lead not sales.

Because the market-oriented company has its complete focus on the customer, the end result is often brand loyalty, sales, and strong customer lifetime values.

Getting Management Buy-In

If you are in a sales-oriented organization, how then can you get management to understand the benefits of customer-focused integrated marketing and communications? Here are five areas to focus on:

1. Execute long-term customer acquisition programs across channels instead of short-term lead generation to feed the sales funnel. While the former may take a little longer, the end results produce longer term customers with much higher life-time values. Demonstrate this with metrics and show management. They are always interested in seeing results tied to revenue generation. 
2. Emphasize that a customer for life is a much more cost-effective model versus solely focusing on new customer acquisition.
3. Communicate the benefits of how integrated marketing communications delivers a consistent message to both existing and prospective customers.
4. Involve key players from “silos” within the organization in planning process. If you can’t beat them— join them. Realistically, sales-oriented organizations will always have silos due to individual department goals/quotas.  If sales and marketing work together, both are vested in acquiring/retaining customers.
5. Build incentives around existing and new business initiatives to not only motivate sales, but customer service and marketing as well.

You would think that a market-oriented organization would have a leg-up on getting management buy-in, but a lot of times there are still silos and separate budgets in place that affect true IMC. But by demonstrating the value of IMC, chances are you’ll have an easier time convincing management of its inherent benefits. Here are four ways to show value:

1. Do an A/B test of an integrated campaign versus a non-integrated campaign (suggested by Valeria Maltoni, Conversation Agent) Testing is a risk-free, quick way to prove the value of IMC. Large companies shy away from radically changing their current marketing efforts. Testing gets them interested without any disruption in day to day. If tests delivers expected ROI, then scale.
2. Leverage/collect behavioral data and analytics for follow up IMC campaigns with existing customers and build profiles on potential untapped new markets. It’s astonishing how companies have amazing databases that they are not exploiting as much as they could.
3. Survey/talk to customers for the best insight on what works with them and what doesn’t. (“How can we be better?” “ Where do you want to find information?”) Management is always interested in seeing results of these efforts!
4. Maintain communication across all departments. Market-oriented organizations are more customer-centric than sales-oriented organizations. Goals are aligned across the organization from top to bottom. Everyone plays a part in the customer experience. IMC works well within these organizations, but communication is key.

Whether an organization is sales- or market-focused, and the latter may be more beneficial, the reality is that unless upper management encourages a customer-centric culture, self-contained silos and status quo will continue to be the norm.  The benefits of outside-in planning that IMC offers will bring you closer to the customer and social media has really helped put that into perspective.  The voice of the customer is louder than ever, which is forcing traditional organizations to rethink their marketing communications strategies and encouraging customer-centric organizations to develop deeper relationships with their customers.  Both take time, but small efforts across an entire organization will deliver what’s most important—a happy, loyal customer.

Share your expertise with us! Have you encouraged management to implement IMC? Have you broken down or bridged silos in your organization? What worked best? What didn’t work? What would you add here?

[Image]