What’s the ROI of strategy?

Years ago, in a post entitled Strategy Versus Tactics, I the somewhat controversial claim that “most companies don’t want strategies. Most companies want tactics.” In it, I argued that strategic planning is often viewed as a cost centre, or a necessary evil in a series of steps where the payoff is in the tactical executions that drive revenue.

Well, here we are almost fifteen years later, and sadly, this is more true than ever. We’re seeing companies slashing long and even mid-term planning, firing their entire strategy and insights teams, and pushing for faster, quicker, lower-funnel tactical executions with no vision beyond the immediate results.

Why is this? Is it because they’re against strategic planning at a fundamental level? Hardly. But it is understandable that, with marketing budgets more strained than ever, the fast-moving pace of the business cycle, and companies trying to maximize ROI, strategy often gets the short shrift.

And it’s not hard to understand why.

Strategy is not a performance channel

You can’t measure strategy in tactical metrics like return on ad spend, cost per conversion, impressions, sessions, or sales. Not directly, anyhow.

That makes it often seem like the dollars invested in strategy are not performing. And it tempts businesses to move money out of strategy and into low-funnel tactics that are much closer to that conversion point.

A house without a foundation will crumble

But this is a mistake in so many ways.

See, a good strategy is like a solid foundation of a house. You dig it, you pour it, and it holds up the entire structure, yet it remains invisible. Ideally, you’ll never see it again. Unless cracks start to appear, in which case you’re in a world of trouble as the house above ground starts to wobble.

Strategy, when done well, is invisible. It will never be publicly launched, or air on TV, or go live on social media. It usually lives in the form of confidential documents, briefs, brand guidelines, or internal presentations that inspire and power every single execution. If it’s done right, it will never be seen. But it will breathe life into everything that is.

(In fact, strategy is sometimes so invisible that it becomes a real challenge for those of us who build them to demonstrate our chops, since we usually can’t share confidential strategy documents in a portfolio. But I digress.)

Pulling dollars out of strategic planning and shifting them into execution is messy. It leads to substandard work that lacks cohesion, vision, or insight. It leads to duplication, to money wasted on trial and error, and to confused customers who don’t understand the brand and what it stands for. Without a solid strategy, every single one of those executions will cost more to produce and generate less revenue, both individually and — more crucially — collectively.

So how do you measure the ROI of strategy?

Strategy can and should be measured in terms of return on investment. The key is to shift the metrics you’re using. Strategy saves money by NOT spending money on:

  • duplication due to work being done in silos;
  • media targeting the wrong audiences;
  • production of sub-standard or ineffective creative;
  • campaigns that are not true to your brand;
  • time spent playing competitive catch-up rather than forging your own leadership path.

And strategy generates revenue by improving the performance of your tactical executions:

  • reaching the right people
  • at the right time and place
  • with the right message
  • using powerful, impactful creative
  • and following through with a seamless conversion journey

So rather than asking if you can afford to invest in strategy, ask yourself this: Can you afford not to?

 

A portfolio approach to digital planning

How much money should you be allocating to each channel in your marketing mix?

One simple answer is that you should calculate the ROI of each channel and then shift your budget from the less profitable channels into the more profitable ones. But, even leaving aside various challenges with measuring ROI across a multitude of digital and offline channels, this approach is problematic even assuming you could get accurate numbers. It fails to take all sorts of factors into account, such as the value of emerging channels versus established ones, the difference between awareness marketing and lead generation, and the impact of one channel on another to create a sum greater than its parts.

But the opposite approach — not measuring at all, but simply planning budgets by instinct or by what “feels” right, is even worse. If you have no idea how your various tactics are performing, then you’re flying blind. And as demonstrating ROI becomes increasingly important for marketers, there’s no way that such a laissez-faire way of planning is going to work for very long.

It occurs to me that we need a different approach — one that takes a holistic view of multiple channels and tactics, and drives towards a common goal, but which allows for different performance objectives for each tactic.

Such an approach exists. Our friends in the financial planning industry have been using it for years. They call it portfolio planning.

Continue reading “A portfolio approach to digital planning”

Why does digital measurement lag behind traditional?

In digital marketing, we like to claim that we have a huge measurement advantage over traditional marketing. After all, we can measure everything, right? Every click, every interaction, every tracking parameter, every bounce, every goal conversion. The technology that we have takes the guesswork out of measurement and allows us an unprecedented amount of insight into exactly how each and every person is interacting with our brand.

The traditional marketers are at a disadvantage, or so the theory goes. The television and broadcast guys parrot the value of eyeballs and impressions, but can only guess wildly at what impact all those impressions actually have on sales. Even the direct marketing guys – the traditional measurement gurus – have to add codes to their pieces, and even then, they only have data for the small percentage that come back. They make sweeping generalizations about things like demographics, geographics, pass-along rates, and more, in lieu of more solid data. They run expensive market research surveys to try to correlate the data. Measurement in traditional marketing has always been a bit like decorating a grain of rice with a paint roller – effective, but not very precise.

Digital marketing ought to be better at measurement. Miles better. Instead, however, we're still lagging behind. According to eMarketer, as recently as last year, 50% of marketers cited "achieving measurable ROI on my marketing efforts" as their leading priority, but only 16% were measuring ROI for their social media efforts. When asked to describe in one word how they felt about online measurement, the words that marketing professionals came up with most frequently were "confused", "nascent", and "stalled".

Clearly, the potential for measurement in digital is enormous, but we have a way to go before we get there. There's a gap, in other words, that exists between the vision and the reality.

Here are a few reasons why this might be so:

Continue reading “Why does digital measurement lag behind traditional?”