Campaign Traction Requires Time and Patience

The idea that less is more is the tie that largely binds most of the content I have produced in this blog and is truly at the heart of my idea that there is a better way for companies to think about their marketing practices.

The issue I want to discuss today is related to this theme in more of an abstract fashion than previous entries, but it's relevance to marketers is surely equal. It covers the necessary time in market needed for a campaign to succeed.

Before tackling specifics, I want to propose some common ground...

One: I believe all new campaigns generally deliver a few core functions:
1) They introduce a new product or service (or new company news of some kind)
2) They create a new vessel through which desired messaging can be introduced to customers
3) They provide a rallying point for vested parties

You can certainly argue that a new campaign has value beyond the aforementioned (or in some cases less), but to overtly simplify in an effort to keep on topic, I hope that all can find some common ground with the functions proposed.

Two: Pressure to demonstrate the success of new campaigns is significant (and gaining):
Whereas the scale of investment and number of stakeholders in the form of employees and investors generally increases with company size, small companies share a similar vested interest in the success of their marketing efforts. With this in mind it seems fair to say the introduction of a new campaign or marketing intiative generally carries a high degree of interest within any organization. With this interest comes the inherent pressure to demonstrate success; this pressure, gaining significantly in the "era of accountability" (the post-2001 period following the dot-com bubble burst: another topic I hope to tackle, but we'll save that one for another day).

Three: Success must be demonstrated in a timely manner:
When it comes to business time is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity. 13 week cycles drive processes for publicly traded companies. 9/5 is a term for previous generations, not the modern worker. Countless references link an organization's long-term potential to their ability to make smart decisions and act upon them quickly. Time is literally becoming more valueable than money.

So with robust objectives and pressures to deliver in a timely fashion mounting, those tasked with creating and delivering said campaign often feel their blood pressure rise as campaign launch dates approach. My advice to these parties is quite simple. Make yourself comfortable and wait (at least for a little bit).

I wrote in an earlier blog that marketers are competing for share of mind, the 10% (give or take) of the human brain dedicated to cognitive thought and choice. What further adds to the challenge for marketers is the reality that its getting harder to effectively reach large portions of a preferred audience in a timely manner. By effective reach, I mean the ability to reach and create a desired perception that in turn creates a desired behavior.

With all due respect to creatives around the world, I would suggest the ability to create effective reach in a manner consistent with the above definiton via a single ad (ala "1984" for Apple) is no longer doable. This has nothing do to with the creative product, rather the media consumption behavior and customer mindset that has resulted from the shift towards consumer controlled content. This shift accompanying prevalent advances in technology and the fragmentation of media that has been seen over the last 20 years. TV Viewership is actually up in the last 20 years, but the average rating for top rated shows has declined significantly (see Cosby ratings vs. American Idol or Superbowl 1986 vs. Superbowl 2005). The result, a decline in the ability to create effective reach as quickly.

Are there other ways to reach audiences than TV; the internet, viral, etc.? Absolutely. In fact, there are more ways for marketers to deliver their message than ever before, but I use TV as an example because in my observations of brand tracking monitors and product/service sales data, nothing drives sentiments and behavior as quickly. Furthermore, with TV's ability to do so (again, I caveat "quickly") marketers can expect a new campaign to take some time to seed despite increasing pressures to do so otherwise.

So how long? My educated guess is that any new campaign will require a minimum of 3 months to gain traction and in some cases longer. This estimate based on a handful of clients across a handful of categories that I have monitored in the last 3 years. From Telecom and Tech to Auto Inurance and Life Insurance; the average amount of time for a campaign to hit full stride is 14-18 weeks.

Why so long? Effective reach requires a campaign go through multiple stages (assuming it works):
1) Create Breakthrough
2) Establish Brand Association
3) Convey Messaging Association
4) Create Desired Perceptions
5) Create Desired Behavior

Bottom line: this process does not happen overnight.

Can the timetable be shortened with a greater investment? Probably not, but without a substantial investment in a new campaign, you can expect the timetable to lengthen. I've watched two major campaign launches with media dollars reaching into the hundreds of millions in the last two years and in each case, it took 3 months simply to establish brand association with their new campaign.

Is there risk in waiting 3 months to see if a campaign is working? Absolutely

Is there greater risk in making decisions prior to giving a campaign enough time to succeed? Yes.

How is this possible? Campaigns cost money and campaigns take time to seed no matter how good they might be. If the plug is pulled without giving a campaign adequate time (and investment) to seed, 1) you can kiss your marketing investment for that campaign goodbye 2) you can expect the new campaign to be a step backward in terms of breakthrough, brand association, messaging association, sentiments and action.

For example: On one occassion I watched clients pull the plug on two campaigns over a 5 month period (less than 3 months in each case) because "the new campaigns were not hitting benchmark norms". What was not addressed in the decision making to pull the plug in both cases was the fact benchmarks were established by previous campaigns that were in market for years. Clients compared a new campaign to benchmarks without giving thought to the amount of time they might need in market to achieve benchmark levels.

When reviewing projected growth of the two initial campaigns after they were cancelled it was determined that both campaigns were actually on pace to reach benchmarks at the 4 month window. Unfortunately by this point a third campaign was created and in-market. It achieved benchmark norms after 4 months (having the benefit of time in market only because production dollars for the year were exhaused). This campaign was supported for the better part of a year and was generally perceived as a success (even though it performed no better than the previous two efforts in initial months after launch).

The rub: we spent the better part of 10 months hovering below benchmark norms, when in hindsight it appears we only needed to do so for 4. We undermined our own marketing effectiveness for half a year by rushing to pass judgement on the success of new campaigns, the cost of which can be quantified by the hundreds of millions that were spent in media over this time period and the 3x production budget needed to launch an "effective campaign."

The lesson: Recognizing the pressures to demonstrate success of new campaigns in a timely manner are mounting, you can't make a marketing cycle fit to a financial cycle (i.e. 13 weeks). Marketers, be sure to judge your campaign success fairly, recognizing time in market is as crucial a variable to success as anything.