I just received a forwarded email that was sent by local ad agency to their opt-in list, and was moved to write about it.

The ad agency distributed the email to their opt-in to self-promote the creation of a series of TV commercial spots for a healthcare insurer.  Rather than focus on how the agency helped the client generate sales leads, it instead used four paragraphs of text copy to showcase the agency’s “vision” — naming the Creative Director, production Director, production house, and concluded by only briefly mentioning the impact on client lead generation before naming the awards won as a result of the client funded commercial(s).  It was unclear to us how much “vision” is required to interrupt people in the age of social media marketing and struck us as a squandered opportunity to demonstrate thought leadership to a captive audience.

From the information available, it appears that the healthcare insurer wanted to communicate a wellness and prevention message to potential enrollees to create inbound leads for their Medicare Advantage health plan.  Predictably, the agency’s diagnosis was to produce a series of commercials and buy broadcast media.  There’s only one problem — according to research broadcast media has shown little influence on consumer choice of healthcare providers.  Similar research documents factors influencing consumer selection of healthcare plans — here again, peer referral is key (not ads).

So how did this happen?

Because companies continue to confuse advertising for marketing and hire the former instead of the latter (see our 2009 posts on selecting/rating ad agencies).  Advertising creates awareness — but awareness is only one of three steps in the Sales Funnel (the others being Consideration & Purchase).   Ironically, among “awareness” options — advertising continues to rank low in terms of its impact in influencing consumer decisions to select a product or brand.

In another example, our team became aware last week of a local physician group planning to spend over $100,000 on outdoor billboards despite less than 4% of consumers using such mediums as an information source for physician selection.

We’re going to reach out to these medical providers to offer a research-based diagnosis and begin their rehab back to good health.

Earlier today I met a colleague for a business lunch meeting at a new restaurant that has just opened.  This restaurant is part of a well-known chain in the city and enjoys steady customer traffic. On the menu is a delicious 1/2 pound burger that is advertised as “cooked medium” and so I ordered the $8.00 protein brick with much anticipation.

When the burger arrived, I could tell by its shape and texture it had been frozen 15 minutes ago, but I wanted to reserve judgment until the taste test.  Upon biting into the burger, I noticed it was well-done — but being too hungry to complain, I ate it anyway (as did my friend).

The conversation with my colleague covered many marketing topics and concluded with service marketing and the importance of customer touch points and how they communicate cues about a brand (see Harry Beckwith’s book “Selling the Invisible” for a more in-depth discussion).   The over-cooked burger provided a timely illustration of the importance of a brand experience living up to the brand promise.

When the waitress delivered the lunch check, I kindly asked her if I could share some constructive feedback to help the restaurant delight customers.  She looked surprised and hesitantly said “yes.”  I shared with her that the menu boards promote delicious “cooked Medium” burgers, but ours were well done.  I suggested that perhaps she might pass this information back to the kitchen in the interest of ensuring food quality and keeping customers happy.  The waitress responded “I don’t cook the burgers.”  I smiled and replied “I realize that, but most customers never share constructive feedback with restaurant management — preferring instead to trash the brand to friends and on the social web.”

As the waitress left our table, my colleague was amazed at the waitress’ indifference and commented how she was not interested in customer service.  My response was that while I agree with indifference, its was really management’s fault for not enrolling the waitress in the brand vision and helping her understand how she’s part of the brand experience.  Whereas the waitress thought she was serving lunch, she was really building (or killing) a brand.

I took a break from the office over lunch hour to run an errand to Whole Foods with my wife.  Upon our arrival, the parking lot was packed with shoppers and corporate types enjoying an organic lunch in the restaurant section.  On our way into the store there were two new Subaru cars display parked on the sidewalk near the entry doors and 2-3 field marketing staff literally blocking the entry doors while asking customers entering the store to take a test drive.  On our way out of the store with a cart half-full of groceries, we were asked if we wanted to test drive a 2010 SUV, to which I politely replied “… and what would I do with my refrigerated grocery items? Ah – no thank you.”

On the way back to my office I thought to myself that Subaru had this field marketing idea half-right.  That is, if prospects aren’t coming to the dealership for a test drive, then take the test drive to the prospects.  So far, so good.  But where the tactics seemed to miss the mark included:

(1) Poor Location – a busy shopping center with a full parking lot whereby a “test drive” is virtually impossible (not counting the busy intersection where this Whole Foods sits)

(2) Inconvenient Time of Day - lunch hour when people need to eat and return to work; or mom’s don’t have time to juggle melting groceries and screaming kids to take a test drive

(3) No Engagement Strategy – there was no engagement strategy or integration with an in-store or online experience.   No lead generation mechanisms for Subaru, no fun/learning interaction for the customer, no call-to-action after they leave Whole Foods to engage the brand, no motivation to visit a unique microsite, etc.   There was simply nothing “in it for the prospect” to engage the brand — and the first rule of engagement is (as marketers) we have to “give to get” in terms of offering something of true value in exchange for someone’s attention span (Seth Godin agrees).

OK, so those spending money on organic food are probably a good fit for Subaru’s “green” corporate position — but here’s the real irony, there was no mention of Subaru’s 100% clean manufacturing plant, corporate green initiatives, etc. that could have really made an emotional connection with Whole Foods shoppers.

As a former marathon runner and current cyclist, I remember being at the “Hotter than Hell 100″ ride in Wichita Falls, Texas in 2005 whereby among the Cannondale and Trek bike demo’s, thousands of cyclists could sit in (or demo) Subaru display cars — complete with bike racks, and camping gear.   This week in San Antonio was the rock-n-roll marathon, and although I neither attended or ran this year, I couldn’t help but think if perhaps that venue would have been better fit.  What’s more, how about using Subaru cars for “Sag wagons” (bail-out cars for runners who cannot make the full 26.2 miles).  What about an expo demonstration, links to an online Subaru learn & earn site with free running gear and a chance to win a Forrester, etc?  What about a social media component to post pic’s and video of Subaru in action?

It just seems to me that Subaru (a usually hip company) really stubbed their toe today.  Not only did I not take a test drive, but I lost a little respect for the brand given the shotty field marketing agency they apparently used to plan/execute the debacle in front of the store.

I’m not writing to slam Subaru — rather, to remind all of us (me included) of the need to take our time when planning our marketing and to really think about what the customer wants (getting home before the groceries melt) — not what we want (forcing a test drive).   Had the agency thought this through a bit more, I’m sure Subaru’s field marketing dollars could have produced a much better ROI.

There have been a lot of books, conferences, blogs, and other commentaries all touting the value of transitioning your marketing strategy from “interruption” to “interaction” with customers and prospects.  Count this website as one more that heartily promotes this approach and we strive to help companies (and ad agencies) make the transition.  However, despite consuming millions of Seth Godin books and attending all the right conferences, many marketers continue to “interrupt many hoping to connect with a few.”

Why does this happen?  Part of it lies in “old habits being difficult to break” but there’s another influence — the marketer’s ad agency.  Specifically, ad agencies produce advertisements — and advertisements are viewed as interruptions by consumers.

I realize the controversy of this statement, but you should also also realize the truth in it.  While marketers initially hire an ad agency to create advertisements, over time they tend to relinquish their marketing strategy and execution to their agency.  While this is a great revenue opportunity for the agency, it is bad for the brand marketer for three reasons: (1) outsourcing strategic marketing functions results in loss of internal marketing competency, (2) ad agencies are structured around tactics: creative design, production, and media buys to deliver ads — not CRM-based, integrated marketing, and (3) ad agencies are compensated based on executing tasks — not producing sales/profits results (try to find an ad with a lead generation link).

At this point, there may be some agency AE’s or marketers saying “…. come on Steve, aren’t your comments a bit over the top?” I don’t think so and here are some data points to illustrate my point and to use as a screener for determining whether you have the right agency:

(1) STAFF EXPERIENCE – read the Linked In profile(s) and resume(s) of the Account Executive & Account Director assigned to your account — have they ever worked a job in your industry or area of specific need?  Do they have sufficient years of experience to be credible in their recommendations? (this will rule out many 25 year old AE’s).  Do the agency partners or senior leadership have any “client side” experience actually performing the work you are paying them to do? (P&L responsibility is preferred so that they understand YOUR pain in needing to grow sales).

(2) ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE – is the agency structured around deliverables such as “creative”, “production”, “print”, “web development”, etc. — or is the agency structured around the steps of the Sales Funnel (awareness, consideration, purchase).  The former won’t help you if you’re counting on the agency for integrated marketing.

(3) METRICS – what does the agency consider to be KPI’s of success at each stage of the sales funnel and do they measure/report it for you?   In other words, beyond “impressions” does the agency actually measure prospect behavior through the entire sales funnel and demonstrate pedigree in interpreting the data and making recommendations?

(4) PLANNING – if you’re hiring an agency to execute beyond ads, do they layout an annual marketing calendar, spend your money to develop/deliver campaigns in quarterly increments, and then consider the “job done” when the campaigns are delivered on time?  Or, does the agency realize that you cannot plan Q4’s holiday promotions in Q1 when there are nine months of unknowns out there — thus, the agency has a real-time market response model based upon unfolding social/political/economic events?

(5) CRM – does the agency have a defined process for lead generation as part of their ad strategy?  Does the agency view lead generation as one of the primary reason for advertising as to fill the sales funnel?

(6) SUCCESS FOCUS – does the agency have a culture (office, website, PR) that celebrates awards for creative work — or celebrates sales charts for growing client sales?   Ryan Kelly suggests that a sure fire way to judge whether you’re about to hire the right agency is what you see highlighted in their office waiting area.   If you see awards and trophies for creative execution, then beware that you’re marketing budget will likely be used to finance the creative portfolio of another Art Director.  However, if you see case studies and data reports showing increased client sales, reduction in customer churn, improvement in customer retention, etc. — then you’ve likely arrived at the right agency.

At the end of the day, I’m really only suggesting that your marketing budget be used to grow your business — and after all, isn’t that why you pay a retainer in the first place?

Happy hunting

It’s a great time to be a bank in the US right now.  Sure, the increasing Federal regulation and decreased lending activity has changed the profitability profile for most banks, but it has also created an opportunity for smart banks to create an enduring brand.  Let me explain.

With the exception of their “party like its 1999″ lending practices of a couple years ago, banks have generally been conservative in their marketing approach, often using 1980’s interruption tactics such as repetitive TV commercials, telemarketing, statement stuffers, and direct mail.  This is largely because a majority of their senior leadership got their corporate training in the 1980’s and they’ve seemingly hung onto to what works — except one thing, this stuff doesn’t work anymore.   With the current bank failures, re-organizations, and general fear in the market — the national banks appear to being continuing their practices of interrupting people while the regional banks are cutting their under-funded marketing efforts even more.  I can hear Seth Godin, Mark Stevens, and Dave Evans cringe as another VP of Marketing at a bank somewhere approves another ad buy for boring commercial touting their bank as trustworthy and focused on customer service — as if other banks don’t strive for the same?   Let’s face it — bank marketing is viewed by some as an oxymoron.

Nearly a decade ago I was asked during an interview for a financial publication what the key challenge would be for banks and financial institutions that were facing new competition from agile firms such as Schwab (brokerage), eTrade (online trading), credit unions, online lenders, etc.   I replied “putting a face on their brand” — specifically, ditching the stodgy practices of indifference and learning how to connect/engage/retain customers in an authentic relationship.  In other words, exchange the Brooks Brothers suit for a comfortable pair of Levi’s and make people feel welcome/comfortable.   That was 2000 and so now on the eve of moving into a new decade of 2010 — banks have an opportunity to respond to a different threat: economic uncertainty.

Consumers are looking for brand(s) to emerge and “hold their hand” through these troubled times.  The economic turmoil of the past year has many consumers confused as to which banks are financially healthy, which are lending (residential or commercial), changes in loan qualification requirements, and other factors.   This time around, we have social media tools and a widespread acceptance of peer-to-peer sharing that didn’t exist in 2000.   The tools and access to customers have never been better or cheaper (compare the cost of deploying Jive Software vs. a $2MM ad buy).  So the question is — will bank marketers embrace the opportunity to trade their interruption marketing for CRM-driven permission marketing, or will they continue to “market to the herd?”

I believe this is a great time to be a bank, as smart banks can leverage fear and uncertainty by reaching out and connecting with customers, providing tools (workshops, web app’s, advice, peer networks, feedback, etc.) to “put a face on their brand” and to court customers in a whole new way.   However, this will require a new way of thinking — which may require (like the auto industry) some wholesale staffing changes at the senior levels.

Will we see innovation in bank marketing?  Time will tell.

OK, so the title of the post has captured your attention — now I hope the contents will keep it.

As marketers struggle to find new customers and keep those that they already have, they seem to be overwhelmed with their tactical options (social media, promotions, advertising, events, grassroots, etc.)  However, that’s because many marketers (like many people) struggle with strategy and gravitate straight to tactics — and getting the sequence wrong produces results that fail to meet expectations.

To think about the strategy marketers should follow, we need to look no further than the fisherman.  Fishermen realize that catching fish is dependent upon several factors, but the first is to define the type of fish you want to catch.  Why?  Because every tactical decision that follows (location, bait, technique) is dependent upon the answer to this first question.

Next, the fisherman must deciden where (stream, lake, ocean) to focus his search in order to find the fish he seeks to catch.   Third, the fisherman must map within the stream, lake, etc. the specific locations where the fish are biting as to not scare them off with the sound of his boat.  Fourth, the fisherman must know something about what type of bait will attract the fish and the casting technique required to get the fish to bite.   So before the rod, tackle box, and beverages ever hit the bed of the pick up truck — the fisherman has had to analyze the target, location, and “offer” that will get the fish to bite.   Failure to pinpoint these factors means the fisherman could waste days motoring around the lake, scaring off the fish, or even arriving at a good fishing hole but with the wrong bait — thus, no catch.

So if Bubba can do it, why can’t a marketing MBA?  Because the fisherman gets up at 5am and sweats the details — simply put, the marketer doesn’t invest the time/effort.  It’s simply easier to buy ad reach and interrupt everyone (motoring around the lake dragging a fishing line and hoping the fish will bite).

It takes rigor to do what the fisherman does, and it requires equal rigor for good marketers to do their homework.   Not everyone is a prospect for your product or service — in fact, assume nobody is and you have to win them over.   This flies in the face of the “advertise to everyone and measure nothing” approach that many marketers pursue.  Oh sure, their ad agency says the ad reach is targeted, but what’s targeting — a demographic slice of 1 million people?   How about a target of one!   This would require CRM data and relationship exchanges to built intelligent profiles so that communication can be targeted to an audience of one.

Does the fisherman try to catch a school of fish at once?   Does he try to throw 50 lines in the water and “advertise his offer (bait) to every fish in the lake?

Let’s review the fisherman’s routine and see if we can learn from it:

(1) Know your target

(2) Know where your target resides/congregates

(3) Know how your target behaves and their tendencies so that your can construct the right offer (bait)

(4) Target your offer (bait) to individual recipients — not the masses

(5) Apply the appropriate technique to engage the target so that they approach you and accept the offer (bite the hook)

OK, so I’m not trying to reduce customers to fish or marketing value propositions to bait — but you get the point.

Think about it.

We posted a blog comment earlier this year raising the point that new customers always get the best deals and loyal customers (those who’ve actually been paying the bills for a company) have to fight to be noticed.  We think this theme bears repeating with a global economy showing no signs of recovery and head count reductions resulting from a systemic problem inside most companies today: they “talk the talk” about valuing their customers (retention), but are culturally geared to hunt for new ones (acquisition).

Need proof?  Examine new customer offers for wireless, cable, credit cards, new cars, etc. and then notice the fine print that existing customers are prohibited from taking advantage of the offers.   Still not convinced?  OK, examine your company’s marketing budget — how much is allocated to acquisition (advertising, promotions, sponsorship, etc.) and how much is allocated to retention (rewards, CRM-driven conversation, recognition, feedback)?  Chances are your company may not have any formal retention strategy, let alone allocated budget.  The reason is likely that some executive somewhere treats customers like his/her spouse — once you land them you don’t have to work on keeping the relationship vibrant.  Wrong!   Customers divorce brands every day when feeling neglected.

Depending on the studies (e.g. McKinsey & Co.) claiming that it costs 8X-10X more to acquire a new customer than retain an existing customer, you would think that a lousy economy would have companies scrutinizing their expensive (and often unmeasured) acquisition tactics.  What’s more, the smart companies would be re-allocating marketing funds to retention strategies that not only seek to keep existing customers, but turn them into brand promoters to woo their friends/colleagues (thus, creating a “virtual sales force” that is cheaper than the company’s own channels.)  Unfortunately, most brands are simply reducing their acquisition-heavy marketing budget by 20% and continuing to engage in the madness of acquisition first.

So why does this happen?  Because acquisition marketing is easy in that marketers don’t have to invest in a customer relationship.  A relationship means two-way communication, listening, empathizing, putting the other person’s interests ahead of your own, etc. and this sounds like too much work for most marketers, so it’s easier for them to simply accept “churn” (loss of customers) and spend 10X to replace them with customers who will experience the same apathy months later, and again exit the relationship.  In short — marketing insanity.

Given that every marketing dollar is precious, we suggest the following three priorities for 2009 and beyond:

(1) Engagement - make a cognitive decision to show your appreciation to customers and engage them in a dialog.  Be authentic, transparent, and learn how to listen.  Involve them in your product & channel decisions, give them a platform to provide feedback, make them feel important, and personalize the brand experience (via CRM data).  Do it now, before your competitors do.  

(2) Increase LTV - grow the lifetime value of the existing customer base via (i) increasing average order size, (ii) increasing purchase frequency, (iii) reducing churn/defection, and (iv) re-activating dormant accounts.

(3) Referral Sales – give your loyal customers reasons (and financial incentives) to promote your brand to their friends/colleagues to drive new sources of sales.  Make them hero’s and give them a platform to tell their story — you’ll be surprised how easily they’ll oblige.

Be sure to identify the key performance indicators (KPI’s) so that you can demonstrate the ROI to your skeptics.  As always, we’re here to help with the strategy, testing, and execution.

Think about it.

Twitter buzz is reaching epidemic proportion as I write this post and many of us are experimenting with using it for a variety of marketing purposes.  But what about online retailing — do we simply blurt out great deals, or are there more appropriate ways to use Twitter in the Awareness phase of the sales funnel?

Here are a few ways Twitter is being used by online retailers:

• Selling: announce arrival or “end of line” on inventory items
• Selling: broadcast “did you know?” tweets that remind people of savings opportunities such as “Clearance” sections or discount codes
• Selling: broadcast tweets with exclusive deals (this requires tact as to not be perceived as spam); using unique URL’s for track back validates Twitter as the traffic source
• Research: post questions to Followers for comment (on Twitter) or direct them to poll on main website 
• Branding: tweet about topics that the brand is passionate about to emotionally connect with Followers
• Trust Building: offer helpful advice/tips in areas where the merchant is trying to establish thought leadership
• Product Awareness: post tweets about useful product features or new ways to solve old problems  

Internet Retailer magazine notes that merchants using Twitter find it still a small percentage of their overall website traffic source, but that the conversion rates can be 15% higher and the average order size can be 20% or more than other website traffic sources (organic, PPC, affiliate, etc.)

Tools like TweetLater can be used to schedule tweets in advance and stage the communications for distribution.  Using Search.Twitter.com enables retailers to track references to their brand or to products they carry.  Here’s an even bigger list of cool Twitter tools.

So, while “the jury is out” on exactly how well Twitter will perform over the long-term as a marketing communications channel– it might just be one more low-cost way to create Awareness, establish Consideration, and convert interest to Purchase that doesn’t require a big advertising budget!

I couldn’t resist the opportunity this week to comment on something I’ve been following for years: the declining correlation between ad expenditures and sales results.  

In 2008, the auto industry spent an estimated $9.5 billion on advertising alone — not including incentives, rebates, and all other forms of marketing.   This expenditure comes in the face of an average 30%+ decline in unit sales thereby increasing the advertising cost per car beyond $500.  There’s a case study here for those thinking that they continue their interruption marketing practices:  YOU CAN’T ADVERTISE YOUR WAY TO SALES BECAUSE PRODUCT AWARENESS IS ONLY ONE PART OF THE SALES FUNNEL.

While the US Treasury and GM are throwing billions of dollars at addressing excess plant capacity and lack of sales (symptom) perhaps they should focus on solving why there is no car demand (cause).   It is frustrating to watch a struggling GM spend $3.5B in advertising alone to interrupt America every night during prime time television with “Truck Month” and “cash back” offers on vehicles that buyers didn’t want in the first place.  They pump out patriotic ads with John Mellancamp or Bob Segar music, but ignore the American consumer when it comes to listening to what we want.

Advertising creates brand/product awareness (first stage of sales funnel) but does not draw a prospective buyer into a brand dialogue or convince them to purchase (see my previous blog posts on effective sales funnel marketing).

LACK OF CUSTOMER PARTICIPATION MEANS WEARING A MARKETING BLINDFOLD

GM’s product missteps are a symptom of a bigger problem: lack of customer participation to guide design and marketing. After watching Ford boldly re-energize the modern muscle car with the 2005 introduction of the Mustang and 2007 Shelby GT350H and GT500 models, it took GM until 2009 to warm-over their ‘69 Camaro design into a car that has now arrived just in time for President Obama’s proposed carbon tax.  As it relates to green energy, an Indiana man is able to convert a Ford Escort to electric power for a total investment of $13,000 (including car) while GM has been years in the making to release the Chevy Volt at an estimated price of $40,000 — as compared to $25,000 for a base Toyota Prius.

The problem with GM is not merely needing a $50B capital infusion or shedding loser brands like Saab, Saturn, Hummer, and Pontiac (although this should have been done 20 years ago) — the problem is that GM marketers need to enter the 21st century and realize they have an opportunity to engage in a 24 x 7 x 365 relationship with their customers.   Truly connecting with customers, listening, and feeding their input into product design means delivering cars people will buy, at the right time, and at the right price point.  Connecting with customers to map individual buying cycles for the tens of millions of GM customers, means saving $1B or more each year in wasted advertising and the ability to deliver relevant and timely offers that exactly match when a customer is entering the market for a vehicle.  

The real opportunity GM has squandered is generations of customer purchase loyalty that could have produced the greatest CRM database and marketing asset of all time.  No need for Twitter, Facebook, or the social web revolution — just doing what automotive dealer legend Carl Sewell and other customer service champions have done for decades … sincerely engaging with customers, listening, and responding to their needs.

Cutting costs and shedding brands will please Wall Street in 2010 — but connecting with customers will please GM shareholders for decades to come.  Let’s hope they get it correct this time around.

I’ve had several very interesting conversations with business leaders this week.   The subject?   The irony that while companies are laying off millions of people and the shareholders are demanding better ROI from marketing activity — CMO’s are doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

My first conversation was with a CEO of a Houston-based digital agency who is a Harvard MBA with more than a decade of experience helping companies move from interruption offline advertising to measurable online engagement.   As he described the frustrations his firm has endured with multi-national energy companies, national retailers, and regional hospital systems — the theme was the same.   In each case, a C-level executive complained of declining sales results from their existing marketing and the need for improving financial visibility through metrics.  However, when presented with a strategy to accomplish these demands, these same C-level executives retreated to doing what they always do: (i) allocating most of their marketing budget to brand/image advertising, (ii) measuring nothing, and (iii) sitting back and expecting prospects to walk in their doors.  In other words, while the sales funnel has three stages (Awareness, Consideration, Purchase), these guys are focusing largely on one:  Awareness.

The second conversation was with a bank VP of Marketing who told me his bank wanted to ” … get involved in social media ..” When I asked what the bank was doing today to engage prospects, capture leads, and build relationships with small/medium businesses, the answer was “… quarterly breakfast meetings to talk about the state of the economy.”   I pointed out that as a small business owner, if I want to know what’s going on with the economy I am a browser click away from real-time information, so why would I drive across town?   Here’s the real kicker — these guys are actually achieving good attendance to their events but are squandering an incredibly valuable asset (attention span of prospects) that could be used to engage, empower, and assist business leaders with tools to help them grow their business.   If the bank has no real permission-based engagement strategy for prospects in a live setting, how can it hope to engage people across the social web?  

I won’t bore you with the other conversations (including former Omnicom marketers in Dallas), but the stories were similar:  when presented with a new way to do things, marketers won’t venture out of the box to execute.  Sure, they buy lots of Seth Godin books, attend all the right SEM conferences, and can repeat the buzzwords — but they won’t actually put their head knowledge into practice.   One theory a marketing consultant shared with me is that they believe today’s marketers are afraid to try new things for fear of losing their jobs.   My response is that this is precisely the best approach TO losing your job — as companies are looking for the “creme to rise” in organizations.  

Unless marketers get off the sofa and start practicing what they preach — guys like Godin, Reichheld, Beckwith, Hall, Silverstein, Kotler, and others will continue to sell books — but the opportunity to actually reinvent businesses will be lost.   Call if fear, apathy, laziness, or just plain cowardice — the mirror may be the CMO’s best metric for why organizations are failing to deliver.

As Jim Collins said a decade ago in his best-seller Good to Great when people reach the level of “good” with anything in life, they stop striving to be great.   Sad but true, perhaps Collins should note that in today’s marketing culture, many have stopped striving for “good” and have focused on simply surviving to the next payroll period.