johnporcaro: mktg@large: Reengineering Marketing

Last week, Robert asked if anyone was going to blog the changes he cites from a CMO Magazine article called "The Ultimate Bug Fix." I haven't searched around for a response (Robert, gotta get trackbacks!), but I thought I'd add my two cents.

First, I need to point out that I don't work for the CMG (Central Marketing Group). Most product teams have their own marketing orgs, who leverage the work done by the CMG. In our case, our business is unique enough that we often end up doing things differently than a central team might prescribe.

However, the article hits on some good points that really have changed the way we manage our marketing cycles. Particularly that there was a disconnect between the customer research that was being done, and the product engineers who were building the product.

Almost two years ago, we had a "Marketing Symposium" (sponsored by the CMG team) where Steve Ballmer made a comment about "selling what we build, AND building what we can sell." His point was that often we spend a lot of time building amazing features into products, only to see the features (or products) being ignored. In my own personal case, it took me years to figure out the potential of Pivot Tables in Excel...

Blame it on "disruptive technologies" or "The Innovator's Dilemma" or difficulty "Crossing the Chasm." Or better, blame it on marketers who don't talk to developers (or for that matter, marketers who don't talk to customers).

Of course, marketers need a good story to tell when approaching developers. Some marketers dwell firmly in the land of intuition and "street smarts", which in-and-of-itself might not be a bad thing, but most developers I know expect plans to be backed by logic, measurement, and a well-positioned framework. Enter CMG.

About a year ago, after a lot of work by the CMG in advance, they rolled out a "Positioning Framework" template that forced some discipline into thinking about the customer, the product, and the message.

There is a concerted effort to create this framework months (sometimes years) in advance. Xbox 360 was one of the products they used as a test case of the new process, and I saw the new Positioning Framework almost a year ago. The need for "customer connection" is woven into almost everything we do--if you don't know what the customer wants, and how the product uniquely fills customer requirements, you're sent back to the drawing board. Every marketer I know appreciates the role this methodology plays, and program managers appreciate knowing how the product will be positioned as they work to create its feature set. Training accompanied the new process, and lots of marketers refer to these documents regularly.

On a different note, one of the problems some groups faced (some continue to face) is a "Wild West" mentality. The article mentions that it sometimes made it easy to execute without a lot of discipline. Someone with a good idea and some funding could launch a product without understanding how customers would react.

The idea of centralizing our marketing efforts, or enforcing centralized processes or templates was like asking folks to leave their Lexus at home and take the bus. On one hand, different products need to be marketed to different customers, all with unique needs. On the other hand, a lot of marketing comes down to methodical project management, and a lot of time and money can be saved by doing things the same way over and over.

For a long time, we fought to maintain balance between autonomy and duplication of effort. But the bottom line is that discipline in marketing actually allows for greater flexibility and better results. With a consistent framework backed by disciplined research, novice marketers don't have to worry about missing something they didn't think of. Experienced marketers can share best practices with the rest of the division. And customers don't get left out of the equation.

Effective marketing (IMHO) really does come down to listening to customers, discovering unmet needs (or wants), working with dev so they understand those needs, and communicating with those customers--in a way that resonates--so they know how our products or services effectively fulfill those needs. Without any of those pieces done well, there's a huge risk that everything begins to break down.

For what it's worth, I think Mitch is a very smart marketer. And I have a lot of respect for what she is trying to do. The end result should be better products marketed with more interesting campaigns. Not a bad thing.

4 Comments

Blogs must be helping Microsoft to really understand your customers.

John, I think blogs are helping marketing people to really build strong brands.

By giving marketing people real access to customers, and building a community.

You really have a customer when they believe they have designed the product.

Posted by: john cass | Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 08:46 PM

I couldn't agree with you more - as a consumer and as a marketer.
I guess that is why I have tailored my career to be in mobile event marketing.
This way you can connect with the masses and have actual developers interact
with customers. (Not sure how good of an idea that is but...). As a Microsoft
user, there are so many features on programs that I have no idea about. I dont
want to take a class to learn either, I just dont have the time. With mobile event
marketing, you can target people like me who are interested in the products and give
them a quick overview. Let the consumer experience the power of your programs with
someone who knows them intimately. People will then feel more comfortable with the
software and use it to its full potential. I guess that is why they call it experiential
marketing.

Rick Mitchell, CGSPremier

Posted by: Rick Mitchell | Friday, November 04, 2005 at 12:32 PM