“Most marketers have heard competing claims around effectiveness,” he told the recent Future of Brands conference in Sydney. “Marketers want one version of the truth, and I don’t think we’re anywhere near close to that at this point in time.”
As marketers’ understanding of effectiveness strengthens, so does the argument for long- and short-term marketing efforts, he continued. (For more, read WARC’s report: AANA: Australia’s marketers need to focus on optimisation, effectiveness.)
“You have to draw the distinction between what is long-term effectiveness and short-term effectiveness. You’ve actually got to have both,” he said.
The work of Peter Field and Les Binet, endorsed by marketing professor Mark Ritson, suggests that brands need to invest 60% in long term and 40% short term.
“Whether that’s right for you, in your particular circumstances, that’s for you to decide,” said Broome (and recent research from Binet and Field indicates how their 60:40 rule can shift across verticals).
“But clearly effectiveness is the new metric in the boardroom,” he added. “It’s what justifies what we do to the rest of the leadership group,”
Effectiveness is high on the AANA’s agenda with the body’s three key focuses being return on investment, transparency and trust.
“It’s still an ongoing task to deliver around transparency throughout the ecosystem that we live in and I mention trust not so much in terms of trust within the marketing supply chain, but trust in brands,” Broome explained.
While marketers are happy to discuss purpose, authenticity and connecting authentically with consumers, there’s less emphasis on questioning the culture of their organisation, he pointed out.
“It’s not just about coming up with a campaign and putting it out there to tell customers, because if you’re not actually acting like that within your business, with your people, then, you’re doing one thing and saying another.”
Sourced from WARC