Scoring Your Firm on the Metrics Maturity Model
Marketing has taken the first steps toward accountability, but the journey is long, and most of it lies ahead, not behind.
That’s the overarching message from the Association of National Advertisers (ANA).
When the ANA launched its Marketing Accountability Task Force in October 2005, it identified four key elements needed for successful measurement: data, analytics, culture and process embedment. A firm’s maturity in each of these categories falls within one of four places: It can be Aware, Practicing, Established or Leading.
As of today, organizations tend to be somewhere between “aware” and “practicing” for each of the four elements. The following descriptions offer insight into where readers’ own firms may be—and what could be ahead for them, according to the ANA.
Companies that are aware of data’s potential employ executives who have access to information that is limited by type or function. When the organization moves to practicing, business units have depth of information in a few key areas, although it is not available through an integrated platform.
Those organizations that are established in their data practices use a partly integrated system, with access to a broad spectrum of time-series data that includes geography, customers and functions.
At the top of the pyramid, those firms with leading data practices have fully integrated systems that allow them to look at a rich trove of data. They also have the ability to perform rapid cross-functional analytics, and take advantage of a variety of cutting-edge online analytical processing tools.
In terms of metrics and analytics, those firms that are aware of these functions primarily use accounting-oriented, backward-looking systems with primitive capabilities.
The danger here is that metrics are cherry-picked by each business unit, and used to avoid responsibility, rather than to give insight.
On the next rung, they use limited mix modeling that is primarily oriented toward specific campaigns or expenditures, but they don’t have any integration throughout the organization.
Those that are established have identified predictive success factors and rely on a core group of systems and metrics tied to a larger, overarching strategy.
And those that are leading use predictive and integrated tools capable of generating real-time response. These tools and systems are continuously in use, and continuously influence both marketing campaigns and operations.
The culture factor reflects how ingrained metrics are throughout the entire organization. In companies that are aware, metrics are primarily a function of finance, with a few competing metrics established by other business units.
Those that are practicing have a management mandate to use metrics, with a dedicated multi-department team having responsibility for coordinating analysis for the entire company.
Meanwhile, established organizations rely on sophisticated dashboards to share information, and important metrics are broadly understood. “Leading” firms use metrics and ROI calculations in every product and plan.
The final criteria is process: how deeply embedded metrics and analytics are within the fabric of the organization.
Those in the aware stage use metrics only within discrete that are practicing have an appointed team coordinating them, and review and modify them annually.
In firms where metrics processes are established, ultimate responsibility for them resides at a high level within the company, and a stable and accepted set of them are used in planning exercises. And in leading firms marketing metrics are incorporated into planning, and they drive end-to-end marketing processes.
This article is based on a presentation given at the 2006 ANA Marketing Accountability Forum by Gordon Wade, founding partner of the EMM Group Inc. and a leader of the ANA Marketing Accountability Task Force.
