NEW YORK: Formal marketing accountability programs are becoming an accepted business practice among marketers, reports the US Association of National Advertisers in a report to be presented at its Marketing Accountability Forum in Palm Beach, Florida next week.
Almost all the companies surveyed (92%) have set-up a marketing accountability process of some kind. But, warns the report, dissatisfaction about marketing measurement and internal marketing accountability processes is "rampant".
The survey, conducted among 200 senior-level marketers by Marketing Management Analytics, reveals a lack of consistency as to how accountability processes are managed and which departments are responsible:
- Informal / grass roots efforts (24%)
- Marketing department exclusively (31%)
- Cross functional management - marketing, IT, finance (20%)
- Marketing and finance only (17%).
Moreover, over half of all respondents expressed unhappiness with the methodology employed to establish accountability:
- Dissatisfaction with marketing ROI measurements (42% - up 7 percentage points)
- Lack of marketing ROI definitions (45% - up 20 percentage points).
- Poor organizational response to marketing ROI data (48% - up 16 percentage points).
The study found that the relationship between marketing and finance still lacks strength and consistency - particularly when attempting to establish metrics and methodologies for measuring marketing return on investment (ROI).
Most marketers (61%) indicated "some" cooperation between marketing and finance, while only 22% indicated full cooperation. In about one-half of the companies, respondents said that the marketing and finance departments don't speak with one voice or share common metrics.
Only 55% said their marketing ROI goals were closely aligned with their company's overall corporate goals while half (51%) said there were no written goals for marketing ROI in their organizations.
The most commonly used metrics to measure marketing effectiveness are …
- Changes in brand awareness (81%)
- Changes in market share (79%)
- Changes in consumer attitude toward the brand (73%)
- Changes in purchase intent (59%)
- Return on objective (36%)
- Lifetime customer value (23%)
- Changes in the financial value of brand equity (20%).
There is also evidence a a chasm between what companies are measuring and what they feel is most important to measure.
For example, 70% of respondents said "return on objective" was an important measure, although only 36% were using that as a measurement tool.
Comments ANA president/ceo Bob Liodice
: "A company's ability to make effective marketing decisions requires relevant and targeted metrics and measurements.
"It is incumbent upon marketing to work cohesively with all cross-functional teams to establish common goals and processes to determine if those goals have been reached.
"It is clear from this study that although progress has been made, there is a substantial gap that still needs to be bridged."
Data sourced from ANA (USA); additional content by WARC staff