I recently picked up Marketing Management, the latest and greatest in marketing textbooks by marketing gurus Philip Kotler and Keven Keller. The book has been the standard read for marketing students for over a decade. It’s now in it’s 13th print edition.
So why with the breadth of knowledge at my finger tips with the internet and blogs have I been browsing through a slow, clunky textbook? I was curious to see how the well the book has been able to keep up with this fast paced industry changes that have taken place in the last 3 years.
And what did I find? Well for the most part, I found a lot of great material. There was a definite focus put on the voice of consumers. Blogs, Social Media and other new mediums were present. I’d say that for a textbook, it was surprisingly up to date.
However I did find some discrepancy with the way that the concept of Brand Equity was presented in the book. Below is an illustration from the book of Integrating Marketing Communications to Build Brand Equity. Take a look and then I will express my concerns.
Integrating Marketing Communications
to Build Brand Equity
We as marketers seem to think the answer is always MORE. If we aren’t making the numbers then maybe we need “more ads” or “more sales reps” or “more direct marketing campaigns.” “If we could just get one more mention in that publication I’m just sure that it will we’ll finally break through.”
The problem with more is that there’s already a lot there. Consumers are overloaded with information as it is. So adding more may just muddy the waters even further and doing more of the wrong things isn’t going to get better results. In fact, in most cases you will be causing more harm than good. (See my modified version of the illustration below.)
Integrating Negative Marketing Communications
to Detract from Brand Equity
If you’re in all the channels already, maybe the answer isn’t more but BETTER. Maybe you need a better sales team, one that holistically understands the companies brand. Maybe you need to stop repetitively pounding the same message into consumers heads and think of better ways to show the value your brand can provide.
—-
What are your alternative to the more?
What a smart way to look at more vs. better. I love the graphic that you modified. This is what Seth Godin calls the Who (better) vs. How Many (more). Awesome!
I agree with your approach to building brand equity. A company that uses all of the channels shouldn’t try to create more of everything when they are failing. Clearly, there is a problem with the way that they are executing their marketing plan. But I also don’t think that a company would continue to add more advertisements when the ones they are using are failing.
I’m also not entirely sure if I agree with you that the original graphic is depicting that more is better. The graphic is just showing the different channels companies should use. I’m sure the text book is assuming that companies know to use quality of quantity with regrads to choices of channels.
Jennifer,
Thanks for adding to convo.
You’re right (or at least I hope you are right) in saying that you “don’t think that a company would continue to add more advertisements when the ones they are using are failing.” I don’t think they would either.
My point with that was that there is a tendency to believe that it takes MORE and MORE to get heard. “If we aren’t moving the needle, then maybe everyone hasn’t seen our ads.” Which isn’t always the case. It could be something as simple as a need to improve your product or service.
The point I was really trying to get across with the chart was how it’s not only a matter of using the channels to build brand equity, but it’s doing it the right way. I was also trying to show how just one touchpoint that is out of sync with the brand can decrease brand equity.
On it’s face the chart from the book is right, but it doesn’t consider detractors. Maybe they just needed an accompanying chart.