It seemed that no sooner had I posted this blog on Big “M” Marketing that I received an email asking: does this mean that I’m wasting my time working on an online advertising and social media strategy?
Hmmm. Fair question. The answer is: no – as long as online advertising and social media are central to the organization’s marketing strategy. The proviso is not trivial.
Let me explain.
But First … a Refresher on Marketing Strategy
Marketing strategy involves making two decisions:
Choosing a target market
Choosing a corresponding value proposition, i.e. aligning every function, department and activity in the firm to design, create and deliver uniquely competitive value to customers.
The blog also went on to explain what marketing tactics are, and suggested the D-C-D Framework as a nice summary of the broad tactical areas – product, service, brand, price, incentives, communications, and distribution.
The Short Explanation
Online advertising and social media are, pure and simple, tactics. Calling them tactics does not make them of lesser importance. It simply means that they are actions that support the organization’s strategy. Strategies and tactics go hand-in-hand: one without the other is not much good.
So, to the extent that advertising and social media are integral to the overall strategy, it is reasonable to talk about them strategically, i.e. the plan would not be effective without them. For example, a clothing manufacturer that promotes its goods exclusively online, connecting to its demographic via social networks, has a strategy that relies dominantly on these tactics for success.
So, one could rightly say they manage the online advertising and social media (part of the) strategy.
Here’s the Rub
How many managers do you come across who don’t have some form of strategy in play? I’ll wager it’s in the minority. Strategy has become the word du jour. The past fifty years have reinforced the belief that strategy is so important to one’s value to the firm (and managerial self-worth) that managers are reluctant not to list it as one of their primary duties.
There are engineering, manufacturing, purchasing, HR, distribution, major account, corporate social responsibility, pay grade and employee benefit strategies.
Fly a group of marketing or sales managers from different countries into town for a meeting, and each is apt to present his or her individualized strategy for France, China, Canada or Kazakhstan – you name it. Each of these strategies inevitably is accompanied by its own local strategies for pricing, customer relations, promotion, and the like.
Personally, I never minded when a manager did this, but with one condition: that what the manager described as a local – or departmental – strategy had to be consistent with the firm’s strategy. Sometimes, though, this is not the case.
It’s obvious when managers start re-designing corporate logos, or drop an entire product offering from the local price list. It’s not so obvious when local managers take actions that are not immediately evident – like choosing a different target market altogether.
The Peril of Multiple Strategies
Strategy can be adapted, debated, tested and re-visited. But there is no room for conscientious objectors. Straying from a firm’s strategy only serves to dilute its effectiveness, no matter what the intent. Customers can become confused (imagine if McDonald’s golden arches became Lee’s green pagoda in China) and performance measurement lacks validity.
Moral
It’s fine to apply the term strategy to your undertakings; but take care not to view it as license to create your own version if you don’t like what’s on the standing menu.
Sam Bronfman, founder of Seagram’s Distillers, elevated a senior manager to the role of general manager, only to fire him a few months later. When asked why he did so, Bronfman responded, “I didn’t mind calling him a general manager. But I had to let him go when he started acting like one.”
Leave a Reply