According to experts, brands should not frame advertising as an expense. Director of Brand, Marketing and Corporate Affairs at Nationwide.
Richard Warren, Nationwide CEO said today that the use of the term investment in advertising is “problematic”. Richard Warren claimed that the word investment is “problematic” when discussing advertising in boardrooms.Many boards and xcos in businesses do not see advertising as an expense, but rather as one of their running costs.
While we [marketers] “They might find it clever to disguise advertising with the term investment. But they think that’s just a bunch of bollocks,” Warren said.
In the past, he recalled hearing CFOs mention that the easiest thing to cut is “training and advertisement”, with the brand equity long-term paying off as the key reason.
“Just don’t bullshit. Warren said, “Don’t call this an investment because people will not see it that way.”
While we [marketers] They might find it clever to disguise advertising with the term investment. [the exco/board] Just think of it as bollocks.
Richard Warren, Nationwide
He added that the key argument for marketers to convince boards to invest in advertising is to “water the garden” and to play the long-term game.
Matt Chappell from Gain Theory agreed that marketers shouldn’t “try to bullshit”, because “a CFO will see right through it”. He advised that marketers should speak in terms of risk.
Chappell said, “Show them the risks of doing nothing,” and that this would show the executive committee what could be lost by not spending money on marketing.
Warren said that the benefits of marketing were clear. He cited internal advantages of creating “strong campaigns” for brands. Nationwide brand revamp The impact on the internal environment has been “enormous”.
Warren said that “when you have 18,000 co-workers on the Internet commenting about how they like the ads, this is as convincing as any ROI argument.”
Hurdles on the face
Laurence Green, IPA’s director of effectiveness is well aware of the risks involved in not committing fully to a new idea. He discussed in an earlier presentation the potential financial penalties of “boring work”, citing evidence that brands could lose “millions” of pounds.
Green also listed three key challenges facing the industry. The first was finding time to “set up effectiveness in the right manner.”
He said, “That is the driving force behind our business. It’s not an afterthought.”
Green also argued that not enough was being done to encourage sustainability. He called on brands to go further, using the GiffGaff pre-loved campaign and Ebay’s as examples.
Does the golden trinity represent the best way to evaluate marketing performance?
I want to hear more stories like that because they are both great stories for sustainability and great stories to tell. Say Green
We must continue to push to change our work practices and the quality of the work that we produce.
Third hurdle identified by him is the fallibility of marketers and their incorrect assumptions about audienceTheir advertising, and their behavior.
He added: “Effectiveness is improved when we use the mantra ‘Tell Me What You Know, Tell Me What You Don’t Know and Then Tell me Your Thoughts’.”
The debate over performance and brand was also a key topic of discussion. The debate over performance vs brand is becoming outdated.Wavemaker UK’s aging Director of Audience Intelligence and Marketing Science Dom Charles claimed that the phrase “performance vs. brand” is one of the least helpful phrases in the industry when it comes media optimization.
The industry would be better off focusing instead on “three dimensions” of efficiency, which includes scale, time and efficiency.
Charles explains that scale refers to the impact of the advertising on business. Efficiency is a ratio of cost versus payback. Time is the duration of the advertising payback.
He added that “partly, performance vs. brands isn’t helpful because it undermines advertising.” It starts to seem distant and fluffy.