I have just been reading the latest copy of "Marketing Week" (May 15 2008) in the UK. There was something in there that was very topical and relevant that struck me this week, especially as we are doing our latest 2008 and 2009 sales and budget updates....There is both an Editor Comment ("Mayor Boris gives marcoms the boot") and an article ("An uncomfortable silence") about how the newly elected London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has just slashed the advertising budget by up to £20 million that the previous mayor had to fund some of the electoral promises (more community police, transport police). The funds had been used to promote campaigns around safety, teen pregnancy, life style etc.
It reminds me so much of the process that we see time and time again. When there is pressure on the sales numbers, or more profit or funds are need, the first and almost exclusive port of call are advertising and promotion budgets. This is in part because they are usually large, easy to access and cancel and then also because in the short term it can feel painless (with small to no short term effects on sales or share often).
As many studies show, and the point in the articles in Marketing Week is making, is that in the short term there will probably be little effect - and if anything maybe Londoners will feel this is a good redistribution of money. But is it? Over time what effect will it have?
As we see with brands, cutting support and communication over time weakens you. It leaves you more vulnerable, and less strong.
I think that cutting support budgets is far too easy. It means you don't have to tackle the harder issues like organization structure or other cost areas. Is it the choice of those who lack strong stomachs. It is the choice of "brand caretakers" not "brand builders"....
No comments:
Post a Comment