A recent ANA study on marketing re-organizations demonstrates that all that activity might reflect a lot of busy work.

Centralization and integration seemed to be the main pursuit, most probably for cost savings and messaging consistency. However, only 13% of senior marketers say they're "very satisfied" with their companies' marketing structures. Here are some key stats from it:

• 29% of marketers are undergoing reorganization and another 39% having done so within the past two years (sample size 132)


• Fewer than half (48%) of respondents said structural changes to marketing had actually improved their companies' marketing abilities during the past two years. Another 17% said restructuring had worsened abilities, and 36% saw no change


• 49% of respondents believe marketing has become more centralized the past two years, and 52% described their companies as centralized vs. 30% decentralized and 18% as a hybrid

I have a theory on the lack of payback. Having consulted to dozens of businesses on their brand, marketing and sales effectiveness, I often saw re-organizations initiated for the wrong reasons and/or done too often, and mostly with no change in measurement. All three are individually killers but much of the time, businesses are guilty of all three in unison. The best reason to re-organize is based on market performance and customer responsiveness. Re-organizing every 2-3 years is analogous to the life span of a CMO and that frequency of disruption does not allow customers intimacy with the brand. Finally, if new metrics are not applied to organizational change, you are simply shuffling the deck to play the same game.

The more successful re-organizations are initiated and driven by customer demands both present and future.

Posted on March 11, 2008 2:42 PM | Permalink