I’m always intrigued to understand the strategic reasons why marketers turn to digital channels. In my role, it’s important to understand this to try and come up with ideas that meet the challenge … ideas that we can analyse post activity and come up with meaningful insights and results.
How often are we, in the publisher world, given true – meaningful – access to these strategic reasons. Rarely, if ever.
Why is this? Doesn’t it defeat the purpose of investing large sums of money into media channels. How can these investments yield the best results if the media channels have a limited, or worse – no idea – what you are trying to achieve?
I sort of liken this to someone walking into a restaurant – expecting a dish completely tailored to their tastes, at a low cost, delivered quickly – without actually telling the waiter what they want. And then not returning to the restaurant because the dish didn’t meet their objectives.
My feeling is publishers deserve two things – things they’re generally not really seeing.
1/ They deserve a thorough brief and a reasonable amount of time to respond. As an old colleague of mine said ‘Shit in. Shit out.’ The response can only be as good as the direction
2/ Sound rationale as to why they were successful/unsuccessful – by sound rationale I don’t mean ‘Client changed their mind’ I mean actual feedback that can translate to a better outcome for the client.
Ultimately, we are all accountable to the client. Our duty is to deliver them the absolute best ideas with the best execution. For this to happen shouldn’t all parts of the marketing chain have as much information as possible?
Can we work better together to achieve this? Absolutely.