Comments

If they're NOT getting the job done maybe 23.2 is about the time it takes for HR to figure out "it's not working."

If they ARE getting the job done maybe it takes 23.2 months for the recruiters to figure out it IS working.

Posted by Gerald Buckley at June 20, 2006 10:52 AM

I've done a lot of work over the years trying to understand why sales and marketing don't work well with each other, and what people believe marketing and sales departments should actually be doing in the first place.

Even though I had an epiphany about this recently (which I can share with you if you get in touch directly), I still believe most companies have unfair expectations of what marketing should be doing.

I'm also sure most 'marketing' departments have become 'marcoms' departments and as such are not performing activities that are as directly trackable and measurable, making it hard for CMOs to state their case effectively.

Posted by Stewart Rogers at June 20, 2006 10:58 AM

There's only so much growth to be had within mature industries. All companies plan to exceed the growth rate of their industry (after all, who plans to be below average) but naturally at least half will come in below that rate. As long as these firms are confined to growing within an industry, rather than creating wholly new markets, at least half must fail to meet growth targets every quarter. With half of all Chief Marketing Officers thus failing to meet expectations, high turnover rates are to be expected. So why the CMOs and not other leaders within the firm? I agree with Stewart's point about accountability/measurability. Public relations and other communications efforts aside, the job of the CMO ought to be more easily measured against expectations laid out in advance than other senior positions.

Posted by Ryan Petersen at June 20, 2006 11:41 AM

The problem with many CMOs (not to mention the sorry (national) ad agencies they contract), is that so many of them do not 'get' branding. If you started there, you could make better progress and skew the numbers far higher. However, the person(s) hiring the CMO would have to get branding as well...which leaves said companies in such a quandry.

So, here's my suggestion to all newly hired - or soon-to-be-hired - CMOs. Have the guts to tell the company you're about to work for that as a part of your new position, you are going to deliberately hire a small, out of market ad agency so that you can work with fresh blood that 'gets' it and will fight tooth and nail to perform. There is just too much red-tape at the big firms and unless you're Nike or Coke, you're not at the top of the big firms' priority list for servicing - whereas you would be with a small shop...like ours.

Posted by tango5 at June 20, 2006 11:53 AM

Perhaps old-school marcom executives are also less responsive to adoption of newer disruptive marketing methodologies that are rapidly going mainstream,
i.e. RSS, Blogs, social networks, buzzcraft, solutions focus, tagging systems, search engine optimization/marketing, etc. etc. etc.
This is not your father's marketing world......

Posted by Ray Schraff at June 20, 2006 11:55 AM

Amen, amen and amen, Ray.

Posted by tango5 at June 20, 2006 11:59 AM

I'll pose an alternative position. Has anyone ever encountered a situation in which they've been pursued and courted by an employer--maybe even an employer seemingly offering the "position of a lifetime?" They hang on your every word. They tell you how much they need what you have to offer. The job offer would seem to confirm their hunger for you and the skills you bring. You take the position and what do you find? "Well yeah, that's a great idea but let's hold off on that a while." "Fabulous idea but I'm not sure our market will respond to it; why don't we just build on what we've been doing?" The good guys--those who believe in what they do as much as the money they get paid--walk away quickly. My guess is there's a big number that either think they can change this (ultimately finding out they can't)or just sell-out for the money, the perks, the benefits, the status before they walk away in 23.3 months.

Posted by Ed Di Gangi at June 20, 2006 12:09 PM

I would look at it another way. The disconnect between Operations and Sales/Marketing occurs within the role. Operations fulfills a product request and manufactures. However, the customer does not recognize the value that the Operations department places on it (we will only pay X). It's Marketing's job to raise the perceived value of the product such that Operations can recover more of the value that is created. While this can be done through Marcom, it frequently requires major surgery (from time to time) to create a unique value proposition or "offer". The problem is that Operations must deliver on the offer in order to get the value. But, since most investment is in the form of fixed assets, Operations can carry the day that "this is too difficult to pull off" and suggest that rather than meet the challenges of the market by delivering a compelling case, it is all too easy to fall back on the adage that "operations is fine, what we need is new marketing". Marketing is replaced more often because it can be.

Bob

Posted by Bob M at June 20, 2006 12:11 PM

CMO's are like Energizer bunnies - they hop fast to the next cool opportunity - especially if it is a HIGHER COMPENSATION package.

AND/OR THEY SEE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL EARLY - and bail before getting fired - like Trevor - hid out for 30+ years in socialist system - then bailed to real world [alas poverty] ... :>}

Posted by Sean at June 20, 2006 12:27 PM

Slow and steady wins the race. Marketing cannot be replaced. (Why do I suddenly feel like Dr. Seuss?)

Seriously, though. Marketing should not be viewed as being so easily replaced as a janitorial vendor. "Well Bob, the toilets aren't as clean as they used to be. Get a new cleaning crew." Sorry, Operations people...it doesn't work like that. You hired the agency or marketing executive for a reason. Sit down and work out why it's not gelling instead of getting through another 23.2 months and replacing another person or agency. What you don't seem to realize is that the more you do that...the more people in business view your company as a place NOT to go work as you turn people/agencies over too frequently.

There must be some people reading the post that are in one of those positions. Might be good to have some remarks from that position rather than just us marketing geniuses.

Regardless, from my position, the point that Ed proposed is likely the exception rather than the rule. If every CMO we encountered let me know that they wholeheartedly agree with me but their hands are tied...I'd be more inclined to buy that argument. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

It sounds harsh to say it this way, but most of those CMOs need to grow a set, push their superiors and say 'listen, if it doesn't work, you won't need to fire me - I'll quit. Fair enough?' Then, those companies might actually see some positive changes and forward progress.

Posted by tango5 at June 20, 2006 12:38 PM

On your note, Sean...considering that, CMOs should probably only pursue brands that they would want to ride with for 48-60 months (or more) in an effort to not deal with learning curves every 2 yrs.

Posted by tango5 at June 20, 2006 12:40 PM

Hey Sean - I was not gonna get fired! - I had tried very hard for 35 years to get fired and they kept refusing to fire me for some reason :-)

By then I had of course 'served my time' in;

• learning how to watch paint dry
• learning how to invent systems that no one understands.
• learning how to write reports that no one reads
• learning how to speak a language that normal humans beings don’t understand

Sometimes we reach a point in our career when we ask;

*What the hell am I doing here?
*Surely there has to be a better way?
*Why am I so unhappy at work and at home?
*Why am I doing something I don't enjoy?
*Why am I working for someone who knows less than me?
*Why do I feel what I am doing is not helping our customers (patients)?

That is the time to get out my friend and never ever look back! Don't crow about it, just smile quietly when you compare how you feel now with how you felt then :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 20, 2006 12:50 PM

tango - reads like you favor longer tenure - I imagine at Nike - Starbucks - Microsoft - CMO's last longer [since they are in the Emerald city perhaps] whereas Mad Avenue probably eats most alive ... and what's with MS stock - still killing me ... so low :>}

Trevor - they hounded you for 35 years and drained your brain - and now you are reborn - still a socialist though in free enterprise world?

Posted by Sean at June 20, 2006 12:58 PM

I think the cause is structural. My hunch is most CMOs are good at dealing with traditional media such as TV and newspaper, which are basically declining and not any longer effective. With the new media like social media and blogging, the traditional CMOs probably need to change thier minds sets 180 degrees. But I, for one, don't know yet how to do with it.

Posted by kenji mori at June 20, 2006 1:00 PM

Always a socialist Sean :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 20, 2006 1:15 PM

Yes, I favor longer tenure...strange though that 5 years is considered long tenure. :) Mad. Ave. drives most people MAD. That's one reason why we're in ATL. Shoot, you could work for a skate company like Vans and log 5 years in a heartbeat especially if you were involved in the development of something like the Vans Warped Tour - not something that exactly fits in Oz. :) Of course, with the flying monkeys there...maybe I'm wrong.

Kenji - yes things are changing and always will, but traditional still works...you just have to know what the heck you're doing...and 'get' branding...and actually come up with creative that people give a rip about.

Posted by tango5 at June 20, 2006 1:15 PM

We'll keep praying for you, Trev. :)

Posted by tango5 at June 20, 2006 1:16 PM

Pray for England tonight Tango :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 20, 2006 1:17 PM

Ha ha ha. I will, brother. :)

Posted by tango5 at June 20, 2006 1:21 PM

And an Aussie won the USA Open Trevor - a golfworld gift from USA's Mr. Phil - England in football - yes I can see it.

Posted by Sean at June 20, 2006 1:22 PM

Thanks Tango :-)

Sean - As usual the Brit Colin Montgomery blew it in the US open! :-(

30 minutes to go before kick off versus Sweden!

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 20, 2006 1:27 PM

Colin - the best there is to NOT win a MAJOR! The intense heat didn't phase superfit Ogilvy - Phil & Colin = too much Crispy Creme perhaps - poor Steve - some have made a mockery of the CMO thread :>}

Posted by Sean at June 20, 2006 1:36 PM

Oooops!!! sorry Steve - we have been very anarchic ...but then Tom will approve of that :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 20, 2006 1:40 PM

My theory. These are highly creative people who innovate quickly. Large organizations typically don't do well with rapid change. It would be interesting to see whether the higher performing companies had longer tenure because they were more willing to adapt.

Posted by Dave at June 20, 2006 2:48 PM

Oustanding marketing of poor products or services doesn't work any more. You are either outstanding or you're not! No amount of marketing will change this. The sooner companies decide to be outstanding, the sooner they can quit blaming the marketing guys and reduce the high turn over in the marketing departments. Example: Mcdonalds - Poor Performer Panera Bread - Outstanding Performer

Posted by Johnny B. at June 20, 2006 5:06 PM

Great points from Ed and Stewart above. Here's another take: if the average tenure is less than 2 years, what are these organisations doing about their lousy recruitment record? It looks to me like they're either recruiting the wrong people or (more likely) they haven't really defined what Marketing means to them, they haven't properly figured out how it fits into the way their business executes and they haven't thought realistically about what it can and should deliver, never mind how to measure it.

You can argue that a good CMO will recognise and overcome these problems but - hey - the real world doesn't always work that way... The HR head and CEO should look at themselves first.

Posted by Mark JF at June 21, 2006 3:21 AM

I have a good friend and senior healthcare manager who succeeded a ‘bright young thing’ in a management position. The previous post holder had been in the job around two years. My friend told me every filing cabinet draw he opened an ‘unfulfilled promise’ from his predecessor jumped out. In those circumstances the cynic in me has to wonder if two years is a ‘rule of thumb guide’ when your ‘unfulfilled promises’ catch up with you and people see the ‘shallowness.’

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 21, 2006 3:32 AM

When did Marketing become nothing but marcom? What makes anyone think that a new coat of paint brings more true value to the end user? When PRSA professes that marketing is an element of PR it screams to me that the focus has become so internally ego-driven that it is no wonder the customer isn't considered...and the business fails.

When CMO/s are expected to overcome whole-busines shortfalls with just a shiny finish and inevitably fall short, by those rules they will get fired...and the smart ones will 'run, Forest, run!'

Posted by Neil Arthur at June 21, 2006 5:58 AM

Neil Arthur - yes, marketing is a part of PR. However, marketing...as a business category...would not at all be considered under the overall umbrella of PR. A huge part of what occurs in the world of PR IS marketing/branding. In that world, PR is nothing but being all about the brand's image...but that has nothing to do with driving consumer decisions for purchases - only the brand's image.

After having worked with a major entertainment PR firm, I can say that with absolute confidence. PR efforts don't (directly) translate to additional CD sales or movie tickets sold - just maintaining or improving the client's public image. The marketing department for their projects/products is designed for that purpose.

Back on the train of the Short-lived CMO - a (good/great) CMO that actually wants to make a difference MUST go into that new job insisting (by getting it in writing) that he/she will be making some very specific changes (ex. small ad agency with big ideas, replacing dead-weight staff, etc.) and that they get absolute autonomy in doing so. Otherwise, yes...the big companies are not quick enough to adapt to change.

Great CMOs are like big bursts of ideas, energy, etc. especially when they first join their new team. The burnout or departure (23.2 months) comes as a result of the following:
#1-Not a good hire to begin with
*Not qualified
*Not psyched about the brand
*Qualified, but at odds w/ that corp.'s philosphy

#2-Bad Company
*CEO doesn't 'get' branding and isn't willing to hire someone who does...and let them do their job
*Will hire an underqualified CMO...ultimately resulting in the burnout of said CMO
*Great brand but bad philosophy on taking care of employees first, then clients (see Starbuck's, West Paces Hotels and other companies that care about their employees first) which causes the CMO (as well as plenty of other employees) to depart and find a better organization

Notice I said better organization...not brand. If, as I mentioned in another thread, people lived below their means they could even better afford the luxury of quitting a job and being patient in finding one that they were qualified for, would pay well and was a brand they could truly be excited about representing.

But that might be simplifying this too much. (Trevor?)

Posted by tango5 at June 21, 2006 6:54 AM

Hi Tango - the greatest truth is in the simplest form. I can never remember my late Dad saying to me - 'Please make that more complicated son, I understand it far too easily.' :-) india canada viagra

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 21, 2006 7:31 AM

Awesome comments ... great stuff has been said.

Companies don't know what they're looking for ... they think "marketing person" is a generic term. Then, they think ad experience is necessarily good expereience. (Before I started my own business, I interviewed for the CMO position of Orbitz, before they had opened for business. The recruiter said that the key criterion was experience with big media buys. They didn't even have their business model at that point!)

Then there are the marcom myopia issues, which have been described above.

And then, there are the obstacles from the rest of senior management.

And, as Trevor points out, 2 years is enough for unfilled promises to catch up with a CMO.

buy cheap viagra on line What's ironic, is that a new CMO will spend his time focused on external customers and competition, when his biggest obstacles are inside the company.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at June 21, 2006 8:45 AM

"Lived below their means" - ahhh ... yes - reads like awesome poetry - simple - MINIMALIST = maximal freedom from le race de la RAT as they say in France when they TAKE all of August off.

Maybe that is a key CMO thread here - 2 years & move on - SURF the next wave because you live well on LESS - HAVE More - "Do Less Have More" ... has been on my screen saver for a decade ... AND I'LL WORK 20/hrs/day to make it happen.

[Trevor as socialist/COMMUNIST knows this well - he owns nothing - even rents his shoes - laps up the welfare & wine [WW] life of merry olde England - while those with money pay his way in taxes :>}]

Posted by Sean at June 21, 2006 8:53 AM

..."inside the company." examples?

Posted by Sean at June 21, 2006 8:56 AM

Many executives think that "marketing" is some magic pill that will make up for other things that might be lacking in the company's infrastructure. They expect miracles to happen and fast. The tenure for marketing professionals is short because it is NOT an exact science and people want to measure it like "accounting". Marketing is a tool, that even when done well must be used properly (a hammer is a tool, but no matter who good of a hammer, if you try to use it as a screwdriver your results will not be stellar). Marketing is not a magic bullet.

Marketing professionals (even the GREAT ones) are always being second guessed. Many ad campaigns are "artistic" and art is subjective...so a print ad or commercial can be effective, but not liked by some executive or board member because of the photos or colors. Thus the CMO is no longer liked. In addition, in today's corporate enviornmeent, people who make big salaries (and many CMOs make HUGE money) must show immediate results or they are gone. (same is true for CEOs) Marketing often takes more time than some are given.

On the other side, some folks are just not good marketers and are in over their heads. Either way, the runway is short these days.

viagra uk prescription

Too often companies say "let's DO some marketing". Marketing is not just something you go "do" for a few months, the go "do" something else. It needs to be part of the long term business strategy. Longer than 23 months.

Posted by Thom Singer at June 21, 2006 10:36 AM

A great piece of advice that I saw on a road construction site in London. Pretty much applies here or anywhere really: "See The Light Before The Warning"

So at 23.2, is it them seeing the light or the warning???

Posted by Dave Guerra at June 21, 2006 10:46 AM

Sean - I wish you would not flatter me so much - and how did you work out the secret of my exoctic lifestyle when I though it was a secret? :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 21, 2006 10:56 AM

“Because it is its purpose to create a customer, any business has two – and only these two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing is the distinguishing and unique function of a business.”

Who said this? (the father of best business practices)...
The better question is does everyone at a company, in addition to the CMO, know this is their collective job? Marketing, Sales, Operations must all be alligned, and must have the measurement metrics in place, and yes, can all be fired if the plan or execution of the plan to Innovate and Market fails.

Posted by Kevin at June 21, 2006 12:46 PM

Wine women song football - all free to Trevor - CMO of the simple-minimalist domain :>} ...

Posted by Sean at June 21, 2006 1:15 PM

I'd like to see a report on the hard costs of CMO changeover. Imagine how much time and money are killed when they:

1) Build a new marketing team full of "their" people (3 months)

2) Immediately hold a massive pitch to find a new agency that is "theirs" (3 months)

3) Go through a full force research and brand positioning study, (6-10 months)

3) Re-invent the campaign, messaging and communications planning. (CMOs need new stuff on their reels too.) (6-9 months)

My guess is that it costs a company hundreds of thousands (billions if you're AT&T/Cingular) to finally get the whole shebang up and running (20-24 months?). By then the CMO is moving to the next gig, and all that investment gets flushed down the toilet for a new regime.

Posted by Paul Davidson at June 21, 2006 2:03 PM

Paul - you highlight, with this example, one of my pet Rants the inability of management to understand and work with inteangible costs.

Posted by PaulH at June 22, 2006 8:25 AM

An incredible string of comments! Compliments to Steve for initiating it.

Bottom line is that there's alot of effort being applied to (re)branding, (re)packaging and (re)promoting same old, same old products. In Texas, it's called "powdering the pig." In spite of the grandest promises and/or the loftiest expectations, after 2.3 years, the powder's washing away and you've got what you've always got: the same ole pig. It's not the marketing, it's the product.

Posted by Ed Di Gangi at June 22, 2006 9:52 AM

Paul - great perspective. 23.2 months goes by in a hurry, doesn't it? :)

Posted by tango5 at June 22, 2006 8:22 PM

I wonder what the average would be if we only looked at companies whose CEO had a marketing background? I would predict that the average duration would be significantly longer. My reasoning... ...I assume that CEOs with a marketing background would understand the value and costs associated with marketing strategies… …even those strategies that can not show a ROI quantitatively (as is the case with many marketing strategies).

Posted by Michael Warner at June 23, 2006 8:31 AM