How CEOs Can Drop The Ball With Marketing

Originally Posted by Bald Dog That fact that most B2B businesses under $30 million in annual revenues don't even have a marketing department is pretty shocking. Not even a minimum wage kid.

Is that really true?

Originally Posted by Marcus Is that really true?

True? Who knows? I've read it on a reputable B2B blog and I have no reason to doubt it.

My experience confirms it too. What's the reason that these same companies maintain an oversized sales department?

Look at McKessen Corp., a market leader in health care supplies. A 500-person company. Personal revenue is $12 million per employee (not per salesperson). And I don't believe that all 500 people are salespeople. A company needs a kick-a.r.s.e marketing programme to sell this amount of stuff. A motivated, super aggressive sales force is not enough.

Michael Schumacher can be the best F1 driver but if his tank is empty, he’s dead meat on the track. None of his skills can save him. Salespeople are needed to drive home the message and close the deals but marketing, is the fuel to help them to access the decisions-makers’ offices without pavement-pounding and dialling for dollars.



And least this is what I think about it.

Thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Dog
That fact that most B2B businesses under $30 million in annual revenues don't even have a marketing department is pretty shocking. Not even a minimum wage kid.

Is that really true?

Marcus if your company is making $30 Million in Annual Revenue without even a minimum wage kid in the marketing department then I would say keep up the good work!

Originally Posted by Houston Marcus if your company is making $30 Million in Annual Revenue without even a minimum wage kid in the marketing department then I would say keep up the good work!

Houston,

In my view it's not the total revenue that counts, but the net profit per employee. As a mentor of mine says: Sales are vanity, profits are sanity. That is, it's not what you make but what you actually keep that counts.

If it takes 500 people to make $30 million, then there is a problem. Wal-mark is the largest retailer in terms of revenue. It's a nobody in terms of profits.

Harrods in London is one of the largest in terms of profits. And pretty insignificant in terms of revenue.

Peter Drucker On Marketing... "Foreign managers take marketing seriously. In most American companies marketing still means no more than systematic selling. Foreigners today have absorbed more fully the true meaning of marketing: Showing what is value to the customer."

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Bald Dog Peter Drucker On Marketing... "Foreign managers take marketing seriously. In most American companies marketing still means no more than systematic selling. Foreigners today have absorbed more fully the true meaning of marketing: Showing what is value to the customer." Thoughts?

Does anyone else think that paragraph is one enormous generalization? Peter Drucker said that? Citations please.

Originally Posted by AZBroker Does anyone else think that paragraph is one enormous generalization? Peter Drucker said that? Citations please.

Yes, he said that in Practice of Management (1953). General comment. Yes. Since business ought to be built (although most are not) on general principles, not ad-hoc fads, practices, academic theories, tactics and methodologies.

The principle of the farm is that as you sow so you reap. Yes, some genius can say to that you can have great harvest without planting. And you may believe him. It doesn't mean that the genius has found a way to shortcut a universal principle.

If you read Drcuker's books, you'll see that they are based on observations and applying universal principles to business.

Thoughts?

Do you think these companies that reached annual revenues between $20M and $30M did so without identifying and fulfilling the needs of their customers?

Do you think these companies could have sustained those revenues over time if they were not providing value to their customers?

Do you think these companies would have been able to compete in their markets if they had turned a blind eye to pricing, promotion and distribution?

Originally Posted by AZBroker Do you think these companies that reached annual revenues between $20M and $30M did so without identifying and fulfilling the needs of their customers?

Not at all. I think they kept a balance of listening to clients and innovating regardless of what clients wanted. Let's remember, no one has ever wanted aor needed the web. It was marketed and sold to us.

Originally Posted by AZBroker Do you think these companies could have sustained those revenues over time if they were not providing value to their customers?

No way.

Originally Posted by AZBroker Do you think these companies would have been able to compete in their markets if they had turned a blind eye to pricing, promotion and distribution?

Not at all. Although this coin has two sides. One side is competing with the rest and the other side is to invent a brand new "battlefield." FedEx doesn't compete with the mail service. It's totally different.

Originally Posted by Bald Dog Not at all. I think they kept a balance of listening to clients and innovating regardless of what clients wanted. Let's remember, no one has ever wanted aor needed the web. It was marketed and sold to us. No way. Not at all. Although this coin has two sides. One side is competing with the rest and the other side is to invent a brand new "battlefield." FedEx doesn't compete with the mail service. It's totally different.

So the CEOs didn't drop the ball after all.

Originally Posted by AZBroker So the CEOs didn't drop the ball after all.

Not per se. But they do by trying to acieve certain ends using the wrong means.

Systematic marketing is just an easier way to achieve the fulfilment of your three questions.

I've read somewhere that marketing is bringing people to the door, and sales is bringing people through the door.

So, marketing is really to communicate with people and discover wheteher or not they want to come to the door.

Thoughts?