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.

Advertisements

The academic study of Marketing was initially undertaken to make business decision-making easy… and it worked! Marketing decisions that religiously, if not fanatically, followed the technical revelations of academic marketing teachings, have worked, and worked, and worked.
In my career, every single marketing plan based upon the teachings of my studies, and implemented accordingly, has “hit-the-ball-out-of-the-park”, so to speak.
In my 3rd year at Uni, a recent graduate guest lectured on the launch of Moove & & Good One in the 70’s, explaining how they simply applied text-book marketing theory and would up with the most successful marketing outcome in the history of milk marketing. It was text-book theory that was used to save and re-launch My Dog & in the 80’s.
With reverence to the KISS principle, after 13 years of studying marketing, 38 years of applying it, 7 years of teaching marketing at University, I can confidently suggest that the core to successful marketing comes from knowing the segments in the market place and targeting and positioning to attract preferred segments.
So, with segmentation being the virtual “road to riches”, you would think all marketing executives would scramble for any segmentation market research above all else, and covert the opportunity to get as much as possible to empower them and simplify their whole function.
Alas, few good marketers stand in the ranks of business, and many of these are constrained by superiors whose limitations create the black holes into which fall opportunity and money.
Reality slapped me in teh face recently, when my firm decided to systemise a method of empowering clients with segmenatation knwoledge, and offfered a promotion… 2 (ideally sequential, not mandatory) segmentation studies, worth around $160,000 for just $60,000 – with an $11,000 social media marketing promotion thrown in. This offer was sent to a select 60 key individuals I know needed a market segmentation study.
Can you guess the response?
Now these guys KNOW that “the segmentation studies they get now” – are likely (at best) to be performed by the guys that taught market research to their current suppliers of market research, so its not a matter of quality.
Loyalty? OK… is that loyalty well advise in the light of the best interests of shareholders? Is it in their own best interests to miss out on more frequent, timely and recent information? Given that fresh segmentation information could make the difference between growth or deletion, between profit and loss, between market dominance and market share erosion, wouldn’t it be worth the effort?
To a great marketer – this would be a great opportunity… there are just too few of them about.

What is the Marketing Concept? What is the basis of all marketing management?

Is it not meet the customers’ needs with available resources?

Is pushing an imperfect satisfaction of needs, via advertising, personal selling, tricky copy and negative options, give-aways and incentives, going to imbed success in a brand?

Is a badly thought-out product or brand extension, timed well or not, a failure because of insufficient advertising?

Not necessarily.

Looking at the purpose of a marketing expert’s being: For all exponents of the marketing profession, there is one focus… The needs and wants of the markets (or the targeted segments in which you are interested).

IF the market NEEDS advertising, if the ACTUAL product (as opposed to CORE product) includes imagery and positioning, then the marketer’s responsibility is to deliver those needs. In delivering the needs of the target audience, a marketer maintains brand equity, and thus, the life of the brand/product.

If the marketer just invests in advertising without understanding the customer, life cycle is bound to prematurely terminate, brand decay will set in, and brands will die…. in response, of course to substitutability, imitability, comparative value and rarity.

This turns focus not to the science of marketing but the skills abilities and talent of marketing management personnel.

Does management “get it”? Do they really UNDERSTAND ‘marketing’ or do they perceive it hype, advertising, or selling? Are they CAPABLE of embracing and applying marketing science, or simply charismatic diplomats, climbing the corporate ladder? Are they EMPOWERED with funds, autonomy, flexibility and leadership support to implement? Do they have the ACUMEN to pull it all together and planning skills to imbed the direction for years to come?

[The answer, by the way, is that ego and corporate arrogance, stop people like us helping people like them 😦 ]

There are no specific strategic models for FMCG brands to manage lifecycle because any generalisation would be fictitious nonsense.

The secret for ALL marketers is market segmentation.

Until decision makers recognise that there is no singular ‘market’, but a unique combination of segments that make up an individual market, we are unimpowered.

“Markets’ are as unique as people, segments as unique as human characteristics. Noses vary, size, hair, eyes, teeth, skin… just as segments are different. Individual products must be made to fit the attractive/targeted segments.
Just as nose drops may be useless as skin moisturisers, some products or brands may not appeal to some segments.

Brands can and do survive anticipated life cycles as a result of disciplined marketing strategies based upon trend analysis and rational strategic response to changes in segments.

Brands fail when companies choose to deliver what is easiest for them rather than what is demanded by the market. You can’t maintain a brand without market satisfaction. You can’t go wrong if you achieve market satisfaction.

But we can delve deeper into brands than that… For example, several years ago “Marlborough” was the 7th most valued brand in the world. Tobacco giants could have brought out new products to extend the life of the brand… not cigarettes, but other “Marlborough man” themed products… capitalising upon this brand equity and developing it according the changes in the market at a core product level – where the core product for growing segments was not ‘tobacco smoke for inhalation’, but (as a result of long term brand positioning) became ‘virile and manly country & western masculine image’. [For more on “Core Product see: http://www.launchengineering.com/ModelsLawsRules.htm, for more on “Market Segmentation see: http://www.launchengineering.com/Market_Segmentation.htm%5D

In summary, the commercial reality is that lifecycle is almost completely a function of competency of management rather than some ‘cosmic inevitability’. If management can identify and respond the change, a brand can live forever.

Ultimately, it is the 5th “P” of Marketing, PEOPLE, (in this case executive acumen) that make the difference between brand immortality and brand decay.