My Boss Punched Me in the Face…

(or "How I learned the difference between Sales and Marketing")

[The following blog was written by a client of mine in direct response to last Friday's blog: Please Punch Me in the Face.  This is unedited.  See the comments section for my further remarks.]

I was ready.  I had memorized the research. Crunched the numbers.  Crunched ‘em again.  I had a “bulletproof” product marketing proposal. 

I was a young Product Manager working in the Marketing Department of a large, publicly-traded Company in a dynamic, high-growth industry.  My product line’s growth had slowed in one of our regions and we were losing share to a competitor.  This couldn’t continue.  Not on my watch.  I put on my best navy suit and power tie and was “armed to the teeth” when I scheduled the meeting where I would present my brilliant plan to my boss, who was the Corporate Officer responsible for Marketing.  I was barely 5 minutes into my presentation and I’d just finished the “Situation Analysis” part of the plan and I was ready to “hit” him with a one-two punch of revised (i.e., reduced) pricing and increased promotion.  You see, I am a classically trained marketer who grew up believing in the “Four P’s of Marketing [Product, Price, Promotion and Place] and every good plan had to focus on one or all of those areas.  My boss interrupted me and said…

“It sounds to me like you’re trying to solve sales problems with marketing solutions”.

 Gulp.  Suddenly there was less air in the room and I was having trouble breathing.  I felt like I’d been punched in the face… 

After he took me back through the situational analysis and reminded me of a valuable difference between our product that our competitor didn’t have and couldn’t easily match.  So, our competitor had simply changed tactics and we were getting “outsold”. 

We discussed a few different options that involved additional sales training, increased sales activity and more accountable sales management. 

60 days later and the story changed.  Our losses subsided and we were back on track with our growth plan.  All of that with no changes to the Product, Price or Promotion components of the marketing mix.  We simply changed the way we handled the Place (i.e., Sales, or where the “rubber meets the road”, as Sarah mentioned).

In the interest of full disclosure, my example featured a direct sales channel where the Marketing Department could physically (or virtually) communicate directly with the people who delivered our “Product” to the “Market”.  I realize this isn’t always the case with an indirect or online sales channel and additional pieces of the marketing mix have to be considered. 

Here’s how I see it:

1.       Start with the 4 P’s of Marketing:  Product, Price, Promotion and finally, Place.
2.       The first 3 P’s (Product, Price and Promotion) are traditionally known as marketing functions.    Clearly, there are significant differences between each of these areas. 
3.       The last P is the “engine” that drives the growth you’re looking for in your Marketing plan.  Think of Marketing as the car and Sales as the engine.  Even the best designed, hottest looking car won’t go anywhere without an engine.  
4.       You can have a “drop dead” Marketing Plan and if your distribution channel(s) don’t line up with your target market or if your salespeople aren’t as effective as they could or should be, then you won’t see the difference you’re looking for in your marketing plan. 
5.       Try to sharpen/improve the sales function before making any significant changes in product, price or promotion.  Remember, nothing sells like lower prices and it takes very little skill to spend more money to “outshout” your competitor.  This can be a “slippery slope” on the race to the bottom. 

I (mostly) view Sales and Marketing and different functions. 

However, I’ve seen Sales and Marketing integrated and used interchangeably most often in independent, mostly entrepreneurial professional services.  Think about it:   if you, your experience, knowledge and capabilities ARE the product and you set/negotiate the price and you promote yourself and your work online and offline, then you’re definitely engaged in the sales process in every step. 

Remember:  nothing happens until (or unless) somebody sells something.

-Randy B.

It's called a MIX for a reason

If you follow Emogen on Facebook (FB) you might have caught the blog we posted from Craig Daitch, “Why Facebook Can’t Be Trusted.” That post came amid some discussion (both internally and on FB) about the value of FB and other social media venues.

The main issue we’ve been gnawing at is the value of traditional media in light of social media.

It’s easy to think social media is “all that.” It’s nimble. It’s cheap. It meets people where they are. But it’s not perfect.

One of the biggest issues I have with social media is control… or lack of it, to be more precise. A good portion of control lies in the hands of the venue… FB, twitter, whatever; so a marketer is at the mercy of the platform as to what can and cannot be done.

Another reason that it can’t be the end-all-be-all is that, believe it or not, there are still people out there who don’t utilize social media. Traditional media is still the most effective way to reach those guys way back on the tail end of the distribution curve.

In no way am I implying that social media isn’t valuable. I’m also not saying traditional media reigns king. Both have limitations, and because of that they must both be a part of the marketing mix.

-Sarah, Emogen marketer

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Ah, the Prisoner’s Dilemma… the granddaddy of all economic game theories.

Game theory is a way of predicting behavior in strategic situations. The Prisoner’s Dilemma applies to simultaneous decision making and helps explain why individuals/businesses don’t cooperate even if it’s in everyone’s best interest to do so.

It’s really best explained by the illustration for which it’s named:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. (wikipedia)

Obviously the best outcome would occur if both suspects keep their mouths shut, but for all the reasons that make people people—namely self-preservation—the most likely outcome is that both will betray the other and get a 5-year sentence.

So how does this apply to marketing?

Take advertising for example. Holding everything else constant, two competitors are financially better off if neither one advertises. Here’s why:

Say two companies split their market 50/50. Realizing that advertising will allow it to acquire more customers than Company B, Company A begins to promote its services. One of two things is going to happen:

1) B will more than likely come to the same realization and make the exact same decision concurrently. Holding all things equal, A and B remain at a 50/50 split.

2) If for some reason B didn’t make the same move at the same time, A may briefly gain market share; but B will quickly follow suit to keep from losing its share to A. Again, holding all things equal, A and B are likely back to a 50/50 split.

In either situation, advertising causes both companies to lose profit because they are spending money to keep their original 50/50 split. The clincher is that neither can stop advertising unless both do.

Now, of course, that “holding everything else constant” is a big catchall and nothing is ever constant or perfect; however, it’s fair to say that if one company begins to advertise a competitor really has no option but to do the same. And really that statement applies to all strategic decisions… product line additions, service improvements, staffing changes, facility openings, social media participation, and so on. If one company in an industry does something, everyone in the industry will have to do the same or risk losing market share.

Before we wrap up today’s blog, I want you to take a quick look back at scenario #2 from above. The quiet lesson there is that it’s better to make the first move because of the possibility of incremental market share gain; but, as that gets us into a “first to market” discussion, more on that will have to wait for another day.

Until then, consider what “prisoners’ dilemmas” face your industry and you’ll likely discover areas of weakness and opportunity. If you need help addressing what you find, give Emogen a call and we’ll be happy to talk you though your options.

-Sarah, Emogen marketer

Google No Longer Satan?

In certain circles, Brian is famous for his opinion that Google is Satan… or at least the Antichrist.

Even though we jokingly chide him about it, Brian’s criticism isn’t all that uncommon. Many have expressed concerns about privacy issues related to the incredible volume of data Google warehouses on its users’ searches. Couple that data with the personal information streaming through gmail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Android, etc. and the issue becomes clear: Google could practically know everything about everybody.

Don’t get me wrong, we’re fans of behavioral profiling; but the Google knowledge base—or more specifically who has access to it and what they choose to do with it—is a little scary.

But move over Google…

As widely reported in the news yesterday and today, Facebook is launching a universal “like” button that can be used anywhere on the internet. Sounds cool at face value, but in an AdAge article Ian Schafer of Deep Focus calls it for what it is: “Facebook potentially could power an all-knowing behavioral targeting platform the likes of which we’ve never seen before.”

Hmm… sorry, Google, looks like there’s a new frontrunner for “Way Too Powerful Corporation of The Year.”

-Sarah, Emogen marketer

Have Plan, Will Grow

Some of you who jumped on the Emogen wagon back in the early days might agree that it’s a far cry today from the company it was then. But fear not… we meant for this to happen!

Emogen was at first "Emogen Printing" and Brian ran it solo as a printing brokerage with the assistance of a freelance designer. Realizing a need in the Ruston market for more complete marketing services, “the plan” was born.

The idea was to add specialized talent (i.e. me/Sarah + in-house designers) and grow into a full-service marketing company on a 5 year timeline. The first step was transitioning to “Emogen Printing and Marketing”, which would later be swapped around to be “Emogen Marketing and Printing” and finally end up “Emogen Marketing Group.”

The catch, we found, was that the market needed it sooner; so our timeline got scrapped, and here we are at 3 years old well beyond our 5 year plan.

But the well-advanced timeline doesn’t mean that we’re in unexpected territory without a map. On the contrary, we have simply revised and kept on.

Having an idea of what you’re doing, where you’re going and how you’re getting there is completely necessary; but the key is to treat your plan as a guide, not scripture. Everything changes: your staff and their talents, your customers, your industry, the world… it all changes.

So have a plan, yes; but be flexible enough to respond to the changes and opportunities that will certainly pop up.

Sarah, Emogen marketer