1. The word “Marketing” is used as a synonym for selling, promotion, or marketing communications.
  2. Marketing and Sales are at odds… see each other as different departments or business units, exhibit power tussles and can be uncollaborative. Sales people are left to do all the selling.
  3. There s no Marketing qualified executive on the Board of Directors
  4. The CMO or head Marketing executive does NOT possess an MBA or actual Marketing degree.
  5. Marketing Planning is NOT a priority and routine in your organisation
  6. Client satisfaction levels are below 85%
  7. There is high animosity between the employees and management of the Company.
  8. Your brand actually disturbs a proportion of your market rather than attracts it.
  9. Trade partners and stakeholder hold you in low regard.
  10. Market share and/or profitability are falling or steady.

If any of these symptoms exist in YOUR Company, you AT LEAST should read and consider, “The Four Faces of Marketing”, free at … http://j.mp/ALLmktg

In the zenith of the years of excellence in advertising and marketing, the seller controlled the balance of power.

Taking the empirical science of “Marketing” revealed by diligent and breakthrough academic work, with open and dedicated support from industry, sellers were industrious about applying the newly discovered “Marketing Concept” – finding out what consumers wanted and delivering the combination of those wants to accurately identified market segments.

Those were the days were a segmentation study was an annual necessity, trend analysis was a routine discipline, conjoint analysis, decision tree analysis, qualitative and quantitative research were in balance and strategic marketing tools were respected and followed.

Now, in the years I consider the nadir of “Marketing”, the word “Marketing” is more often misunderstood than understood. It is rare to find someone who has conducted a segmentation study in the past seven years, and if they have. it is unlikely the research conducted can be, or is, compared to that of the past… so trends are hidden and management is uninformed.

Branding is confused with image, artwork, and name. Brand equity is not measured or considered in context, considered in brand portfolio planning (if that even exists) or future product design and planned innovation.

Consumers are left in a vacuum-like netherworld of me-too brands, and categories filled with homogenous offerings. They are thrown little to make judgement upon, with advertising drowning in the depths of weak marketing leadership from clients and vague briefs that offer no focus or direction.

Left to their own agenda, advertising agencies are forced to deliver anything they can, from gimmicks to creative excellence in advertising, which may or may not spark some level of unsustainable brand equity, only to be admonished by their clients when things ultimately go wrong.

Consumers are disarmed from having passion for their favourite brands… often helped by cost-cutting of those who should be the brand ambassadors, but fall victim to the inevitable urge to extend a brand, or worse, alter the product in such a way as to undermine it.
Abandoned by the brands they once loved, the consumer delegates their weary preferences to the household shopper, who is less involved in brand loyalty and more inclined to economic enticements.

Nowadays, caught in the vice-like grip of 50% off, or buy BOGOF, the preferred brand is dismissed as of secondary importance, and price-led brand switching, convenient shelf position, or accidental or ambivalent alternative brand selection, has become acceptable.

Responding in the most destructive of all ways, national brands who cost cut, abandon brand equity building, restrain innovation, decrease market research, and have, and continue to, lay a path to destruction: Fertilising the ground for the onset of premium house brands and private label brands that will choke the life our of the diminishing brand loyalty that marketers have allowed to proliferate over the past 20 years.

The question is, “Is this a ‘swings and roundabouts’ scenario?”

Will ‘Marketing’ skills and talent regain popularity and rebuild a world of heterogeneous and loved brands or has the era of beloved brands passed away?

I’d love to see innovative and profound marketing management rise again, mainly because I love the craft and believe the power and the responsibility that goes with it belongs solely to the seller.

It is easy to lose a fight when you are more willing give up than to employ some self defence and fighting skills.

TV could be saved and become the world’s leading mass market medium again – much more powerful than the Internet with a simple innovation.

Yes it would take a level of managerial preparedness and adoption of change, but only that necessary as has evolved in the face of needs of viewers and of advertisers…

Television stations and networks could again become volcanos of spectacular ROI and supernormal profits… flush with funds and dynamic, energetic, inspirational business organisations leading enterprise, not smarting in it.

How?

As detailed in a previous discussion, TV senior management have mismanaged product management: They have created the unnecessary demise of free to air TV as the ideal mass marketing medium for advertisers, and the medium of choice for entertainment for households.

With some ego-left-at-the-door collaboration and creative effort between strategists (like me) and industry specialists, shareholders and financiers, backed by dedicated support of the Board of Directors, TV could skyrocket in commercial influence, share of leisure time of consumers, and leadership of socio/cultural norms beyond the imaginations of the existing industry.

It never fails to amaze me that industries so closely reliant upon advanced marketing management, are so reluctant to utilise and apply the tools and science that they have so often observed to work miracles.
I’d be thrilled if someone could explain why Channel Ten has thrown out a tender to help it save it business? Corporate arrogance? Embarrassment? Shame? Ignorance? It defied rational and common sense to not call for help when you are in trouble… only the most stubborn of executives must captain their ship onto the rockets and refuse to call mayday…
The TV industry could very well end up alongside `horse and buggies as a quaint historical notion… such a shame when, turned NOW, could stand again as the unchallengeable number one choice for entertainment of the masses.

Ideally, of all industries, TV SHOULD be one that embraces ‘marketing’ with a passion… not only to best understand their clients, but it SHOULD be their business to understand the element of PROMOTION, which they are key to supplying,12.5% to 25 % of the marketing mix, and, in B2C marketing, sometimes over 25% of total expenditure.

However, TV management has been systematically destroying itself by overtly breaching every possible concept within the arsenal of strategic marketing managers’ armaments.

Is it no wonder that Channel Ten (sometimes called the Simpsons repeat channel) can hardly raise a rating?

Is any EDUCATED business strategist surprised that Chanel Nine has turned, in panic, to mass retrenchments?

Is there damning evidence that ABC executives are actually surprised that ABC is finding itself higher placed in ratings than ever before?

What free to air TV management in Australia has done wrong is ample content for a three year full time marketing course – on “How not the embrace the knowledge and methods of proven strategic marketing management”.

This could NOT have come at a worse time for marketers, particularly FMCG marketers, who desperately need a spearhead promotional medium that can reach big grabs of population awareness in a single investment decision.

In the old days, when TV was content first and cost-cutting last, when imagination and creativity led content decisions instead of revenue grabs, “me-too-ism” and short-term snatchers of high profit, HUT (homes using Television) was at 98% and high ratings were challenging high 40’s.

Even the highest ratings now rarely enter the 30’s.

“Oh, it not TV executives” is the cry, “Its the Internet”. BULL! If TV executive shad embraced 1% of strategic marketing expertise they would have been able to undermine the Internet becoming a medium of choice for leisure time, and significantly reduce households from developing new habits, and from web sites seducing a reluctantly disenfranchised population. Even now, they could turn this enemy into an ally, if they gave countenance to marketing strategy.

What on earth justified undermining the cultural norm of Australians joining together for their 8:30pm Sunday movie? Who actually believes that relying on one quality content show will satisfy a remote-loving viewer for a week.

What purpose did de-regulation serve but the permit such offensive and disruptive proportions of advertising that people reached for their i-phones or lap tops for respite? What self-deceptive denial allowed TV management to allow this terminal policy to perpetuate?
Anyone with formal marketing training can easily see senior management of free to air TV has no understanding of consumer behaviour, rudimentary life-cycle theory, the Boston Matrix, or product portfolio management, of segmentation, of brand management, of targeting and positioning, of modified vs straight re-buy buying behaviour, of new product development, of trending, and certainly no idea of the concept of blue-ocean strategy.

So fatally and fanatically arrogant that they ‘know better’, the free to air TV industry will most likely be regarded in history as laughable as Ken Olson, president, chairman & founder-Digital Equipment Corp., 1977, who said… “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home”.

In theory, of course, FTA TV is saveable. But, in practice, it would take a ferociously focused and determined Board of Management, with the support of shareholders, cooperation of middle management and budget to match, to turn things around at this late stage.