Category: Effectiveness

Truth, dogma, and slavery



What Keynes wrote in 1936 about economics is just as true of advertising: “So-called practical men, who have never knowingly been exposed to an intellectual influence in their lives, are invariably the slaves of some defunct economist”… It’s only by understanding the historical roots of the assumptions we make about advertising that we can begin to free ourselves from being Keynesian ‘slaves’ to those assumptions. It’s only when we realise that none of these theories, models or metaphors represents absolute truth, but is one of many ‘ways of seeing’… that we can make use of any of them as a source of inspiration rather than be confined by it.

Paul Feldwick, The Anatomy of Humbug: How To Think Differently About Advertising

Brand building in the age of immediacy



The challenge to effective, sustainable, and profitable marketing that our age of immediacy poses was the theme I addressed at this year’s Transition conference.

Curated and hosted by Peroclate, the conference turned out to be fascinating, and occasionally downright melting of the mind.

Rather than circle the drain of marketing’s fashionable obsessions, it was more about how the world is changing – and how our understanding of it is changing.

With just enough of a pragmatic thread back to our day jobs as marketers.

It certainly made all those keynote presentations at Cannes look like just so many empty calories.

If they continue to curate this thing carefully, I could see Transition taking on an awesome life of its own.

So if you get the opportunity to participate, I’d encourage you to do so.

Here’s a roundup of the talks.

And here’s a link to the slightly longer version of my talk, with the slightly snarkier title.

My thanks to @heyitsnoah and @James_Gross for a properly mind-expanding experience.

Marketing crack: Kicking the habit


“We’ve created a gambling culture in which we tune out everything except the most immediate outcomes.”

Laurence Fink, Chairman and CEO, BlackRock

“Addiction is a pathological attachment to something attractive in the short term, but destructive over time. Recovery is about looking where we’re going and choosing a path that can last.”

Dr. Chris Johnstone, addiction specialist


Would you rather receive $100 today or $125 a year from now? Although a 25% increase is an excellent one-year return on investment, the average decision-maker would choose the smaller immediate gain rather than the larger future gain.

This tendency to discount the value of future gains is what psychologists call “temporal discounting” and what economists term “rates of time preference.” It’s what you and I would call patience. And we live in impatient times.

The short-termism of the corporation has been well-documented:

While typically, between 70 and 90 percent of a company’s value is related to cash flow expected three or more years out, management tends to be preoccupied with what’s reported three months from now. And as Dominic Barton of McKinsey observes, “If the vast majority of most firms’ value depends on results more than three years from now, but management is preoccupied with what’s reportable three months from now, then capitalism has a problem.”

In the UK and US, cash-flows 5 years ahead are discounted at rates more appropriate 8 or more years hence; 10 year ahead cash-flows are valued as if 16 or more years ahead; and cash-flows more than 30 years ahead are scarcely valued at all.

In 1995, the mean duration of departing CEOs from the world’s largest 2,500 companies was just under 10 yrs. By 2009, it had fallen to around 6 years.

In the 1960s, 40% of US corporate earnings and borrowing used to go into investment. By the 1980s, that had fallen to 10%.

S&P companies spend 95% of their profits on share buy backs and dividends – $914 billion – rather than on long-term investment

Between 2004 and 2013, $3.4 trillion was spent on share buy backs at the expense of long-term investment

The long is, as Andrew Haldane, Chief Economist and the Executive Director of Monetary Analysis and Statistics at the Bank of England has put it, is short.

We can hold the gospel of shareholder value responsible for much of the short-termism that plagues so much of capitalism. First espoused by Milton Friedman in 1970 it holds that the singular goal of a company should be to maximize the return to shareholders. But in placing shareholder value before everything else, it encourages corporations and their management to focus on increasing the stock price, while doing little to encourage long-term investment.

To this, we’ve added the fuel of turbocharged data.

Information – and with it our capacity to acquire, disseminate, and respond to it – continues to accelerate at dizzying rate. Moore’s Law continues to make its rampage through our times, rewiring lives, markets, business, and expectations. It compresses everything it touches – distance, time, the feedback loop of the marketplace, our boredom threshold, our capacity for patience.

Consider that while news of Nelson’s victory in 1805 at the Battle of Trafalgar took 17 days to reach London (2.7mph), news of the Sichuan earthquake in 2008 took just 1 minute reach London (204,000mph).

Or that the average tenure of Premiership football managers has fallen by one month per year since 1994. If this trend continues, it will fall below one season by 2020.

Or that we’ve come to expect things so quickly that we can’t wait more than a few seconds for a video to load. Analysis of the viewing habits of 6.7 million internet users has revealed that after 2 seconds people start abandoning. After five seconds, the abandonment rate is 25 percent. When you get to 10 seconds, half are gone.

As the novelist and cultural observer Douglas Rushkoff has recently argued, immediacy is more and more the central defining characteristic of our culture:

Our society has reorientated itself to the present moment. Everything is live, real time, and always-on. It’s not a mere speeding up… It’s more of a diminishment of anything that isn’t happening right now. So much so that we are beginning to dismiss anything that is not happening right now – and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is.”

The forces that are transforming culture and capitalism run through our business too. For as capital and management have become increasingly impatient, we have inevitably (and in large part unwittingly) become both slave to and enabler of their agenda and rate of “time preference”.

We too have reorientated ourselves to the present moment.


Digital interactions have brought us a wealth of new data.  The lure of this data is not only that is it immediately available, but that much of is highly responsive to marketing activity. 

Under pressure to account for our activities and to show that they are having an effect (any effect) and hooked on the crack cocaine of the short-term, we seize on intermediate metrics such as likes, views, tweets, shares and so on, like crazed junkies desperate for the next fix.

This data might be exciting, it might be highly responsive to communications activity, it might be easy to measure, and it might give us impressive sounding numbers to use in case study videos, but it is short-term data that tells us nothing about the long-term business effects of our efforts.

Worse, our holding up of short-term metrics that simply measure the exposure of consumers to our ideas as evidence of our success relegates our contribution to the mere distribution of content. And so – such is our appetite for evidence that something happened in the short-term – we relentlessly conspire to render the creation of enduring ideas, the building of memories, the shaping of perceptions, preferences, and behaviours a trivial side-show. The very things which that are the source of our value as an industry, and the generators of sustainable value for brands and businesses. 

The short-term is invariably easier to manage and measure than the long-term. Yet as Binet and Field cautioned in their first round of analysis based upon the IPA’s DataBank what is important, and what is easy to measure, are not always the same thing. We forget the distinction between the important and the easy at our peril.


Such is the gravitational pull of the short-term that we can stand idly by, mute, uncomprehending, or complicit, when we’re told that the future lies in ever tighter targeting and the pursuit of ever greater relevance.

Central to the promise of programmatic media buying is greater efficiency through improved relevance – getting the right content in front of the right person. But it carries risks in equal measure to its rewards. The co-author of the celebrated Cluetrain Mainfesto Doc Searls unwittingly articulates the dangers of blindly pursuing efficiency and hyper-relevance perfectly: “The Intention Economy grows around buyers, not sellers. It leverages the simple fact that buyers are the first source of money, and that they come ready-made.”

Of course the better targeted any marketing programme is, the higher the response rate. The gain in efficiency comes from not trying to sell things to people who aren’t interested. Thus as one agency puts it: “with this type of automated advertising, you know your ad impressions will only be used on certain people who are already interested in your product or service.”

But once again we conflate effectiveness and efficiency. Response rates are proportional, as the marketing scientist Byron Sharp reminds us, and don’t say anything about total effect size. A 50% response from targeting 100 people  after all, is less than a 10% response from mailing to 1000 people. 

Tighter targeting delivers higher response rates, but the pursuit of efficiency cannot be allowed to drive out the pursuit of effectiveness.

Nor can the visibility of consumer interest and intent to the marketer allow us to shrink our horizons, and relocate our contribution down to the very last step in the path to purchase. The insistence that the task of modern marketing is demand fulfilment amongst the already interested is to give up on the very idea of brand-building.


There is perhaps no better barometer of our industry than what we choose to reward. And here the evidence is telling. Aside from effectiveness awards, there is no forum which celebrates the brand-building work of sustained creativity and succeeds in attracting both clients and creative agencies.

The Cannes Effectiveness Lion is a notable and welcome exception to this. But it proves the rule that – as John Hegarty noted at last year’s Cannes Lions Festival – creative awards are inherently about creative innovation.

Small wonder that that creatives juries are biased against work that forms part of a long-running campaign. It’s just “not new’.


As Lawrence Green has put it, this is marketing mission drift, “from an art practised for the longer-term health of a brand and business, to a science lopsidedly focused on the short term.”

It is addiction – a pathological attachment to something attractive in the short term, but destructive over time.

Adland is in much need of a reformation, and our first step to recovery should be to remind ourselves that brand-building is by its very nature, a long term business.

That would might seem to be so self-evident as to be redundant, and yet some extraordinarily misguided, inaccurate (or plain self-serving) claims for how advertising works continue to be peddled.

This, for example, is how some (otherwise respectable) folk have represented advertising – as a being fundamentally activity that only has a short-term effect:


Respectable or not, this is bullshit.

The fact of the matter is that most advertising simply does not pay back in the short term. And a succession of short-term effect activation or promotional effects will invariably fall far short of the gain that comes from pursuing long-term effects.

The effect is not just the driving up of volume or share, but pricing improvements. And as the analysis undertaken by Les Binet and Peter Field of thirty years’ of IPA Effectiveness Awards data demonstrates, the most profitable of all campaigns are those that drive both incremental volume and the strengthening of margins. And since pricing effects are slower to crystallise than volume effects this takes time.

So this is what long-term brand-building actually looks like: 


Over time, baselines sales (i.e the volume that is bought at full, not discounted price) are – along with pricing – nudged upwards.

And the means by which this is accomplished is through the intangible, the stirring of emotions, the creation and nurturing of what Bryon Sharp terms memory structures, what Judith Williamson called “empires of the mind”, and most of us would call brand-building.

This is not to argue that the short-term does not matter at all. After all there can be no ‘tomorrow’ for a business if there is no ‘today’. As Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE has said, “the job of a leader and his or her team is to deliver to commitments in the short term while investing in the long-term health of the business”. Brands do need to direct some of their investment towards short-term activations that leverage the brand’s equity and produce short-term sales while the brand builds momentum.

But the short-term cannot be the focus or priority.

For it is the curve that ultimately matters, not the blip.



We are an industry in the grip of an existential crisis, looking over with confusion at the powerhouse players in adjacent industries, and envying their apparent confidence and their power to disrupt. So I hesitate to suggest that we might look to others to remind us what we are about, for a new metaphor to create by, and perhaps, and a better standard to hold ourselves account to.

But the platform builders do were to remind us of the value of thinking big and thinking long.


Whether it is Google, Facebook, or iPhone, the business of platforms is inherently a long-term one.

Here for example, is Brin and Page’s first ever letter to shareholders in 2004:

As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same. In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations… If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take those opportunities… We recognize that our duty is to advance our shareholders’ interests, and we believe that artificially creating short term target numbers serves our shareholders poorly. We would prefer not to be asked to make such predictions, and if asked we will respectfully decline. A management team distracted by a series of short term targets is as pointless as a dieter stepping on a scale every half hour.”

And as Jeff Bezos remarked in an interview, taking the long view is a source of  competitive advantage:

If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that.”

The achievements of Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager of Manchester United from 1986 to 2013 show this in action.

The hallmark of his management of the club was that he took the long view. As he said in an interview for Harvard Business Review:

The first thought of 99% of newly appointed managers is to make sure they win—to survive. So they bring experienced players in. That’s simply because we’re in a results-driven industry. At some clubs, you need only to lose three games in a row, and you’re fired. In today’s football world, with a new breed of directors and owners, I am not sure any club would have the patience to wait for a manager to build a team over a four-year period. Winning a game is only a short-term gain—you can lose the next game. Building a club brings stability and consistency. You don’t ever want to take your eyes off the first team, but our youth development efforts ended up leading to our many successes in the 1990s and early 2000s. The young players really became the spirit of the club.”

His focus was always on building a successful club (the long view), not just a successful team (the short view).

Ferguson stood down as Manchester United boss at the end of his final season, having won 49 trophies in the most successful managerial career British football has ever known.


Joseph Jaffe has argued that:

Big ideas take too much time to find and we don’t have the time to find ’em (not on current accountability time). Big ideas are equated to expensive ideas…hence the word BIG. They’re meant to create a splash; secure buzz; enrapture the masses with pomp, grandeur and ceremony. Big ideas are similarly, full of hot air, fluff, inflated with self-importance, exaggeration and hyperbole.”

Oh yes, how much more prudent, agile, spendthrift, modest, humble, properly authentic, and just downright more au courant, to pursue a bunch of small ideas.

Except that you need a big, organising idea if you are to have something to navigate by over the long-term.

If you are to make the most efficient use of the finite resources available.

If you want activity to aggregate its effects.

If you are to have a rich source of inspiration for the long term.

If you are to recruit, galvanise, organise, and focus resources over the long-term.

If you are to have customers keep returning to you over the long-term (and recognize you when they look for you or come across you).

When big gets a bad name (and is often deliberately conflated with scale of production budget), we might want to recall the words of Peter Thiel:

Iteration without a bold plan won’t take you from 0 to 1.”


The wonderful thing about having a long-term direction is that it makes flexibility and responsiveness possible. As the military historian and management consultant Stephen Bungay puts it:

Strategy is essentially an intent rather than a plan, because the knowledge gap means we cannot plan an outcome but only express the will to achieve it, and the effects gap means that we cannot know for certain what the effects of our actions will be, and that we will probably have to modify our actions to achieve the outcome we want. We can only do that if we are clear about what outcome we desire.”

Laurence Freedman (also a military historian) too, makes the same point in his magnum opus Strategy: A History:

Strategy is much more than a plan. A plan supposes a sequence of events that allows one to move with confidence from one state of affairs to another… Strategy is required when others might frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing interests and concerns… The inherent unpredictability of human affairs, due to the chance events as well as the efforts of opponents and the missteps of friends, provides strategy with its challenge and drama… Strategy is often expected to start with a description of a desired end state, but in practice there is rarely an orderly movement to goals set in advance. Instead, the process evolves through a series of states, each one not quite what was anticipated or hoped for, requiring a reappraisal and modification of the original strategy, including ultimate objectives.”

Because they can distinguish between plans and strategy, they’re able to focus on the long-term game, and be able to respond to events and circumstances at the same time.

Facebook’s self-declared mission (aka big idea) is “to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected” gave it the flexibility to modify its actions, and start building value on what it had previously ignored. The one digital device set to dominate them all, namely mobile.

Much has being said and written about the need for corporations and marketers to increase the tempo of their efforts. That Facebook now makes 69% of its revenue from mobile illustrates the other advantage of long-term strategy. It makes speed purposeful. As Lawrence Green has sagely noted:

The faster you are going to execute, the more precise and commonly understood your direction of travel must be. Pace is only an asset, warned Arsene Wenger as he introduced Theo Walcott, if you know where to run. Hold the great Frenchman’s thoughts in mind as your answer the ever more urgent call to seize the day, to answer to now.”


Not everything of course is as malleable as software. If you’re running a business that is dependent on tangible assets and infrastructure, then ‘pivoting’ is probably going to be a far more challenging affair than if you’re running a business that’s built on lines of code.

However, what does characterise the successful platform builders is that they don’t change the platform every two years.

But they do build new things on it.

For example,’s boookingnow app represents another way of delivering the perfect accommodation solution – ‘the delight of right’ – to late or spontaneous bookers, making their arrangements on their phone. But the platform mission of delivery more delight of right moments to more travellers remains.

Rather than change the platform every three years, we’d be better off building new things on it.


Which brings me on to the next point. Many modern platforms are all about making themselves available for external application development.

The iPhone for example, would not be the generating the $47 billion it did in 2011 without the apps that have been created for it. From Facebook to Angry Birds, Uber to Candy Crush these have created immense value for Apple that they never would have realized on their own.

Opened last year, Nike’s Nike+ Fuellab is a collaborative work and testing space for selected partner companies to develop products that integrate the NikeFuel system for tracking and measuring activity.

Platforms provide the infrastructure others can create upon to build value.

And good brand platforms are little different.

The opportunity provided for example, by Old Spice’s Smell Like a Man platform has ensured that creatives clamour to work on the P&G business.

This isn’t an argument for selfish creative indulgence.

Brand platforms must be sustained over the long-term, so the importance of ensuring that creative minds (of all kinds) can sustain their creativity and enthusiasm over the long term cannot be underestimated.


If the new adjacent industries, and their digital products, services and platforms do anything, it is to remind us to build around the needs of the user/customer/consumer. As Peter Thiel argues “The best entrepreneurs know this: every great business is built around a secret that’s hidden from the outside. A great company is a conspiracy to change the world”.  And the best way to find secrets, is to look for the unsolved and unanswered problems in people’s lives.

It is time we all got back to properly building long term sustainable futures for our client businesses and brands – and time that businesses as Giles Hedger has put it, “seek to grow in step with human development not in an accelerated parallel universe.” This shift, Dominic Barton argues, is not just about managing for the long-term and how we manage and lead corporations. It’s also about changing what we believe is a business’s value and role in society.

Writing for Forbes, Steve Denning surveys the unforeseen consequences of the narrow and relentless pursuit of shareholder value:

Endemic short-termism

Combines of executives and shareholder

Executive cronyism

Widespread stock price manipulation

The undermining organisations, communities and whole industries

Dispirited employees

A failure to renew human capital

Short-changed customers

Obsolete management practices

Economic stagnation

International uncompetitiveness

Rampant income inequality

An unhealthy concentration of economic power

Successive economic crashes

An unhealthy concentration of economic power

And a corrupted society

The voices calling for a reformation of the corporation, a rethinking of its priorities, and an end to the the myopic pursuit of shareholder value above all else are impressive. And growing.

Vinci Group Chairman and CEO Xavier Huillard has called the  idea of maximising shareholder value “totally idiotic.”

Alibaba CEO Jack Ma has said that “customers are number one; employees are number two and shareholders are number three.”

Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever has denounced “the cult of shareholder value.”

John Mackey at Whole Foods has condemned businesses that “view their purpose as profit maximization and treat all participants in the system as means to that end.”

Marc Benioff, Chairman and CEO of Salesforce has declared in an article in the Huffington Post that “the business of business isn’t just about creating profits for shareholders – it’s also about improving the state of the world and driving stakeholder value.”

And Tim Cook, CEO of Apple when asked to disclose the costs of Apple’s energy sustainability programs, and make a commitment to doing only those things that were profitable, replied, “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” It was the same thing for environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas that don’t have an immediate profit. The company does “a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive. We want to leave the world better than we found it.”

Roger Martin dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, contrasts the agenda of shareholder capitalism and its focus on investor expectations, with the agenda of consumer capitalism, in which real factories are built, real products produced, real revenues are earned, and real dollars of profit show up on the bottom line:

The difference in outcomes between a real-market focused world and an expectation-market dominated world is stark and critically important for the economy. When the real market is dominant, customers are the focus and the central task of companies is to find ever better ways of serving them… When the expectations market is dominant, traders are the focus and gaming markets is the task…. the expectations game is beginning  to destroy the real game, slowly from within… Companies should place customers at the centre of the firm and focus on delighting them, while earning an acceptable return for shareholders.”

As those charged with understanding the real, day to day lives, needs and wants of ordinary people, we in the marketing community have a unique and privileged perspective that the majority of those in the C-suite  – far, far removed from the lives, concerns, dreams, struggles, aspirations and joys of the 99% – are not privy to. And we should recognise that with this perspective comes a responsibility.

We should be lending our voice in calling for a wholesale reformation of the corporation, for a refocusing of our efforts on long-term value creation not short-term value extraction, and for building long-term sustainable futures around the needs of the customer. 


“The untutored savage, like the child” wrote the nineteenth century economist William Jevons, “is wholly occupied with the pleasures and troubles of the moment; the morrow is dimly felt; the limit of his horizon is but a few days off.”

It’s time for a shift in our priorities.

In our perspectives.

In what we value.

And in what we build.

It’s time we all grew up.


This is the long copy version of a presentation given at the 2015 FutureFlash conference. My thanks to the gang at Contagious for the opportunity to participate, and to Canada’s Institute of Communications Agencies for being such welcoming hosts as well as a great audience.



Dominic Barton, ‘Capitalism for the long term’, Harvard Business Review, March 2011

Les Binet & Peter Field, Marketing in the era of accountability

Les Binet & Peter Field, The Long and the Short of it: Balancing Short and Long-Term Marketing Strategies

Bloomberg Business, ‘S&P 500 companies spend almost all profits on buybacks’, 6 October 2014

Sue Bridewater, ‘End of season football manager statistics for 2013-14

Stephen Bungay, The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps Between Plans, Actions and Results

Avi Dan, ‘The Kardashian effect: The short-lived client-agency romance’, Forbes, February 29th 2012

Steve Denning, ‘The unanticipated risks of maximizing shareholder value‘, Forbes, 14 October 2014 

Anita Elberse, ‘Ferguson’s forumla’, Harvard Business Review, October 2013

The Economist, ‘The repurchase revolution’, 13 September 2014

Larry Fink, letter sent to Fortune 500 CEOs, 21st March, 2014

Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History

Milton Friedman,  ‘The social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits‘, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970

Google, ‘Measure what happens most

Andrew Haldane, The Short Long, 29th Société Universitaire Européene de Recherches Financières Colloquium: New Paradigms in Money and Finance?, Brussels, May 2011

Andrew Haldane, ‘Growing, fast and slow’, speech at University if East Anglia, 17 February 2015

Andrew Haldane, ‘Patience and finance’, speech at Oxford China Business Forum, Beijing, 9 September 2010

Giles Hedger, ‘Marketing in the age of sustainability’, Admap January 2010

Joseph Jaffe, ‘A small idea (death of THE big idea)

The Kay review of UK equity markets and long-term decision making, final report, July 2012

S. Krishnan & R. Sitaraman, ‘Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior: Inferring Causality Using Quasi-Experimental Designs

Roger Martin, Fixing The Game: How Runaway Expectations Broke The Economy, And How To get Back To Reality

Roosevelt Institute, ‘The disconnect between corporate borrowing and investment’, 25 February, 2015

Douglas Rushkoff, Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now

strategy&, ‘CEO succession 2000-2009: A decade of convergence and compression’, 25 May 2010

Peter Thiel, Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future

John Tomlinson, The Culture Of Speed: The Coming Of Immediacy

The Wall Street Journal, ‘CEO tenure, stock gains often go hand-in-hand’, 6 July 2010

Beyond ‘ship and blip’: Why platform thinking is for everybody


I was invited to take part in Campaign’s ‘Adland in Amsterdam’ feature. “Write about anything you want,” they said. This is the slightly longer version. You’ll find all the contributed opinion pieces and a write up of a roundtable discussion with fellow friends and inmates from adland here. My thanks to Suzanne Bidlake and Philip Smith for the opportunity of taking part. 


Ours is an age of immediacy. Immediate communications. Immediate information. Immediate feedback. Immediate gratification. And the siren call of the short-term is seemingly inescapable in adland.

In such an environment, advertising could do worse than (re)learn some lessons from the product and platform builders.


Now amongst those involved in the development of digital products and solutions, the argument often goes that advertising, is a fire-and-forget solution. While building products and platforms is about building (and iterating) sustainable solutions. Campaigns come and go, platforms are “built to last”.

And indeed within the tiny world of adland, it’s easy to find evidence of a fixation with ‘ship and blip.’

Thanks to the immediate feedback loop of all things digital, our fixation with the short-term has been turbocharged. We ship. And then look for evidence of buzz. We count the views, likes, shares, +1s, pins, comments, tweets, retweets, downloads, links, follows, clicks and buys. And then we move on to the next bright shiny thing.

Our new fixation with so-called ‘real-time marketing’ with its promise of real-time optimisation is going to do nothing to encourage long-term thinking. As the novelist and cultural observer Douglas Rushkoff has argued, immediacy is more and more the central defining characteristic of our culture:

Our society has reorientated itself to the present moment. Everything is live, real time, and always-on. It’s not a mere speeding up… It’s more of a diminishment of anything that isn’t happening right now. So much so that we are beginning to dismiss anything that is not happening right now – and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is.”

Indeed so short is our collective horizon that work that forms part of a long-running campaign struggles to be rewarded by creative juries. They’re just “not new’.

Consider the Cannes Lions Festival. For all its undoubted prestige, it is patently not (with the exception of its recent effectiveness category) a festival of brand building, but of creative innovation.


So perhaps the product and platform builders have a point.

Except that those who believe advertising ipso facto to be a ship and blip, fire and forget business, fundamentally misunderstand how advertising creates profit.

For we know that sustainable value is built over the long term.

We know that pricing improvements are more likely to drive profit growth than volume  growth alone.

We know that pricing improvements take longer to effect than volume increases.

We know that the most profitable of all campaigns are those that drive both incremental volume and the strengthening of margins.

And while short term (i.e. temporary) volume effects can be achieved through discount pricing, offers, incentives, incentive, or new product features, we know that longer-term effects such as share growth or reduction of price sensitivity demand creating, sustaining, and strengthening long-term memory structures.

The data from the likes of the IPA’s DataBank is plentiful, and is there for inspection by anybody who cares to look. 

So while some will tell us that campaigns work like this:


We know from the work of Les Binet and Peter Field that effective campaigns actually work like this:

Screen Shot 2014-09-23 at 12.21.07

It is the curve that matters, not the blip.

If we cannot grasp the necessity of long-term thinking to profitable advertising, it is small wonder that agencies should stumble and fail to make the move into the development of products and platforms that have a real, enduring role in people’s lives.


So perhaps this suggests that rather than think in terms of campaigns, we should all be thinking more in terms in platforms and products. And perhaps the now-famous words of Jeff Bezos should be the ones we all create by: 

If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that.”


Rather than stop-start-start spurts, we should be thinking of sustained engagement with the consumer.

Rather than looking just for short-term spikes (in buzz, ‘conversation’, and sales), we should be looking for evidence that we’re driving sustained growth.

Rather than simply counting the mute evidence of exposure and interaction, we should be using interaction as an active, on-going source of genuine consumer understanding.

Rather than thinking in terms of temporary audiences that come and go, we should be thinking of accumulating audiences over time.

And rather than thinking of strategy as a one-off event, we should be treating it as something that is continuous. As Lawrence Freedman (Professor of War Studies at King’s College London) writes in his recent magnum opus:

Strategy is much more than a plan. A plan supposes a sequence of events that allows one to move with confidence from one state of affairs to another. Strategy is required when others might frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing interests and concerns… The inherent unpredictability of human affairs, due to the chance events as well as the efforts of opponents and the missteps of friends, provides strategy with its challenge and drama. Strategy is often expected to start with a description of a desired end state, but in practice there is rarely an orderly movement to goals set in advance. Instead, the process evolves through a series of states, each one not quite what was anticipated or hoped for, requiring a reappraisal and modification of the original strategy, including ultimate objectives. The picture of strategy… is one that is fluid and flexible, governed by the starting point and not the end point.”

Strategy, in other words, looks like this:


And like this:

netflix 3s.001


Much has been made of the (rather obvious) differences between the product and its advertising, and much silly nonsense – “advertising is what you do when you don’t have a good product” – peddled.

But when we look to what makes for effective, profitable advertising, we see that effective advertising is not so different, not so divorced from good products and platforms. For both are by necessity, long-term activities.

It is of course an inevitable feature of a world of finite budgets and an ever-expanding array of possibilities and disciplines that vested interest works to silo and set into competition all the disciplines, products and approaches we are now presented with.

But recognising the shared agenda of advertising and platforms serves to remind us that marketing is not a bolt-on to product, and that product or platform development and advertising need not be antithetical.

Indeed it reminds us that sustained mental (and with it, physical) availability is as useful and valuable to people as products that meet their needs or wants. Advertising in other words, is a fundamental and intrinsic part of a product’s manifestation and value in the real world.

Speaking at an event to mark the fortieth anniversary of the planning discipline, Jon Steel, made an impassioned plea for better, longer-term thinking:

We should be angered by the accountability mindset that means we’re making more and more decisions based on what can be measured, rather than what’s really important. How many companies today are setting “Big, Hairy Audacious Goals?” Certainly not enough, and we are also culpable in their failure to do this. We need to inject more ambition into our objectives…  the role for planning in the next forty years is to help clients once more to set the right objectives. The right objectives for brands and for business, not just for communications.”

It really is time for a more holistic perspective on marketing. For a more vigorous rejection of short-termism. And perhaps time that we gave up on the ‘campaign’ mindset with its attendant baggage, and adopted the perspective of long-term platform building.



Jeff Bezos, letter to shareholders, 1997

Les Binet & Peter Field, The Long And Short Of It: Balancing Short And Long-Term Marketing Strategies

Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History

Jon Steel, ‘Planning at 40: Solving the wrong problems

Brand building in a digital age: A compass for uncharted waters



“It is very difficult to study history-in-the making, but what is occurring right now is the most powerful influence on the economy, the consumer and brand marketing since the Industrial Revolution. We are witnessing The Great Marketing Revolution. Our job is to be aware of it, its pattern and its destination so we can take sure, methodical steps to capitalize on it”

William T. Moran, 1956


[You don’t have to read this. It is an edited and slightly improved version of an older and longer post, written for the 50th anniversary edition of Admap. I reproduce it here only in so much as this place is also my notebook. The anniversary edition of Admap by contrast, IS very much worth reading in its entirety]


Has everything changed? Have all the old lessons and practices been rendered obsolete? Is marketing as we knew it really dead? And is it possible to move beyond rhetoric and ground the necessary speculation in at least a semblance of empirical evidence?

Yes… and no. 




But let’s start with a simple framework for enquiry, something that gives us a starting point for thinking about how brands are built.


The levers of growth

It’s over a decade old, but that provided by the marketing consultant and former adman William Moran – a version of the 4Ps model – gives us a framework for evaluating marketing’s outputs, and for thinking about how marketing has changed, is changing, and must change. 

For Moran the two fundamental processes which can produce change in sales, are a change in perceived Value and a change in Presence.

Change in Value he argued, can come about from a change in perceived utilities (attributes), and a change in relative price.

Presence Moran regards as “the lubricator which simply facilitates sales by reducing the mental friction in the consumer’s decision-making process.”

Moran distinguished between physical presence (being visible and easily buyable) and mental presence (being easily thought of).

Thanks to the the work of Les Binet, Peter Field, and the IPA we can identify some vital multiplying factors, namely time, investment and creativity.

We know that advertising’s ability to create value is most keenly felt in the long-term. Time, in other words is vital to success.

We know that the most profitable campaigns are those that drive both volume and pricing. 

We know that campaigns require time for their effects to be felt, for while volume increases are relatively easy to achieve in the short-term, price increases take longer.

And we know that longer-term goals such as share growth or reduction of price sensitivity demand sustained brand building.

The creation of memory, brands, and sustainable business growth in other words takes time. And as such it is, like it or not, at odds with one of the defining characteristics of our age – immediacy.

This is not to deny the value of brands being responsive in the here and now. 

Nor is this to suggest that short-term activity is without value. As Binet and Field note, the data suggests that the optimum balance of long-term brand building and short-term activation expenditure is on average around 60:40.

But simply delivering short-term activity does not lead to success in the long term, and long-term effects are not simply an accumulation of short-term effects. They are different kinds of effects. 

Coupled with time, investment levels are a vital multiplying factor.

We know that the critical metric that determines the level of a brand’s market share growth is the degree to which its share of voice exceeds its market share (excess share of voice, or ESOV).

We know that an average of 0.5% points of share growth can be expected per 10% points of ESOV. 

We also know of course that new, ‘earned’ methods of distribution marketing content have allowed marketers to extract new efficiencies. 

But there is little evidence to suggest that the paid media investment and business results have been completely and irrevocably decoupled. 

As Binet and Field conclude: “It is often asserted that share of voice is irrelevant in the digital era: this is not true. The correlation of SOV with market share growth is getting stronger and the returns on investing in SOV are also increasing as the level of brand choice continues to grow and the internet becomes more crowded with commercial activity.”

So to some degree, market share can be bought. However, we know that the unfair advantage that any marketer can choose to leverage is the power of creativity.

We know this from the IPA’s analysis of the 257 IPA Effectiveness cases studies for which Gunn Report scores were all available.

Creatively-awarded campaigns generate on average 5.7 points of share growth per 10 points of ESOV, compared with just 0.5 points of share growth for non-awarded campaigns.

So if the levers of brand building have been utility, price, and presence, and their multipliers have been time, investment, and creativity, where do we find ourselves today, in this, our digital age?

New forms of utility

We are seeing the malleability of software allowing for marketers to evolve, iterate and improve the product experience in response to consumer interactions in the real world, not the laboratory.

In some markets we are seeing the emergence of new models of product ownership, in which access to goods and services is rented, rather than outright ownership of goods given over to consumers.

The access, interactivity and immediacy that technology now affords us means we are able to directly involve consumers in the creation, iteration, and indeed running, of products and services.

We are seeing utility being used as a vehicle for publicity and promotion. Whereas product development and publicity occupied very distinct silos, marketing is now being “baked into” products and services.

Of course more intangible utility has not gone away. We all live and work – skilfully and effortlessly – within two worlds; the world of objects and the world of meanings. And we need this imagined world to give our identities, lives and experiences depth, significance and meaning.

But we are also are seeing new forms of utility. We are seeing new business models, new businesses, and new brands. And we are seeing product functionality being used to build and sustain the meaning and emotional component of brands.

So perhaps this new world of utility is teaching us marketing to value the sausage as much as the sizzle. And in as much as what people really need from marketers is not communications, but better products and services, it suggests that far from being ‘dead’, marketing’s original mission is very much alive and well.

New avenues of availability

Sharp, like Moran, has rightly underscored the importance of physical availability: “Being easy to notice and buy is essential, because buyers do not have strong preferences even for the brands they are loyal to.”

There was a time of course when physical shelf space and availability was the crucial factor in the quest to make brands easy to buy. 

Today we are seeing digital availability being used to enhance physical availability, and we are seeing digital availability being used to replace or bypass physical availability. 

We are seeing brands responding to and anticipating people’s need or interest.

We are seeing brands connect directly with customers, rather than via third parties.

We are seeing brands exploiting the interconnectedness of all things digital to create shelf space and make it easy for people to buy.

We are an explosion in the ways in which brands can create memory and meaning. Creativity is now properly unbounded, no longer constrained by media formats.

We are of course, able to give consumers the opportunity to interact in all manner of ways from the undemanding and lightweight to the participative and immersive.

We are seeing brands customize their content for different consumer segments.

We are certainly seeing brands relentlessly stalk consumers as they travel across the internet

We are able to employ consumers as advocates, ambassadors, co-creators, publicists, and media channels.

And increasingly, we are able to customize the content, timing, and targeting of our content.

New models of pricing

The economics of digital goods are allowing brands to offer consumers goods and services for free. As Chris Anderson first wrote in Wired magazine: “It’s now clear that practically everything Web technology touches starts down the path to gratis, at least as far as we consumers are concerned.”

We’re seeing brands able to employ the minority of paying users to support the majority of non-paying users, because the cost of serving that majority is close enough to zero to call it nothing.

We’re seeing brands employ ‘freemium’ pricing models in which they offer free version of their product or service as a vehicle for recruiting users, and charging for advanced features, functionality, virtual goods, or an ad-free experience.

We’re seeing some brands test dynamic pricing.  

Mobile technology has of course liberated consumers from having their choice limited by what’s in front of them on shelf. Consumers are now able to treat physical stories as showrooms in which they search for a cheaper option online.


Back to the future

Even a cursory survey such as this brings home the scope depth, and velocity of change we are surrounded by. These are indeed exhilarating times. But viewed through the lens of Moran’s simple model, they remind us of two essential things. 

First, the fundamental brand building mechanics of value and presence, the subprocesses of utility, pricing, and the creation of physical and mental presence – together with the necessity of time, investment, and creativity – have not evaporated. Marketers struggling to keep up with and make sense of the blizzard of change, evolution, disruption, advice (good, self-serving, and idiotic) and opinion need not despair. Look beneath the veneer of rhetoric, and one sees that the old imperatives still hold true.

But this is not an excuse for complacency. While the fundamental outputs of marketing have not been rendered obsolete, how marketers deliver value and presence is most certainly being reworked.

Connectivity, interactivity, immediacy, sociability, transparency, collaboration, prediction, responsiveness, targeting, automation, disintermediation, customization, mobility… all of these phenomenon (and more) are fundamentally remaking how brands connect with consumers. Though our choice of how is, of course, always contingent. On the nature of the task, the competition, the audience, and the brand. 

There is then, as much to unlearn as there is to relearn. And as technology and code continue to remake our lives, there are inevitably, new abilities to acquire and add to the old ones. For both the individual, and the corporation.

But lest we take too much comfort from this, Moran’s model also provides us with another vital reminder. One might even call it a wakeup call. Namely that marketing is not, and has never been, synonymous with advertising. Its remit and output is far broader and more far-reaching than merely the development of communications.

So when publicity can be baked into the product, product design can be a means of meaning manufacture, distribution can be baked into the product, physical products are assuming a digital life, social channels are becoming means of delivering customer services, pricing models are being used as distribution mechanics, marketing content is no longer a dead end and is becoming just the beginning of a customer journey, the gap between publicity and purchase can be compressed, the consumer is a distribution channel, and the consumer can no longer be held at arm’s length, it really is time to let go of the antiquated (and ill-founded) notion that marketing is synonymous with ‘messaging’.

And it is high time that we blow up the mental and organisational silos that still bedevil us – story versus code, advertising versus product, utility versus image, etc.

Perhaps if we all thought of ourselves in the business of creating connections – in the mind, between people, companies and brands, and between people and other people – then we’d find ourselves better adapted to the new environments and possibilities of our age.

In an age defined by its connectedness – people to people, people to things, and things to other things – that seems a far more accurate and useful perspective on what we all do.

“Only connect”, as E.M. Forster wrote.