Data, we need more data

In a recent post, I commented on Suzanne Lowe's seventh post in her series on "Marketing Experts."  I've gone back and read parts 1 - 6 and have found them to be interesting.  She focuses on quantitative skills as both vital and personally differentiating for PSF marketers and I agree with her. 

Suzanne even gave me the "honesty award" in part 5 when I stated in an earlier post on this blog:

"We all give lip service to positioning and differentiating but precious few of us know how to make it happen."

She agrees with me and then asks "why?".  She has a few ideas, one of them being:

"There are precious few sources of cogent work on differentiation and positioning for service businesses."

That's true.  It's also true that many of us are focused on the tactical rather than the strategic.  In addition, many PSF marketers are more creative than quantitative by personality (for an example of why it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than to speak and remove all doubt, see here).  Much of this comes from not focusing on the quantitative.

HOWEVER, what I haven't seen in her series is the acknowledgment that many small and mid-size firms don't have the internal systems to easily extract the needed data for analysis. 

If you're one of the big boys, you should have these systems and the skill-set to take advantage of the data.  There is no disputing that.  But for smaller firms whose systems have grown as the firm has grown, access to helpful data is not always easy to get.

I'm one of those "more creative" than "quantitative" folks but I understand the importance of the numbers (I work in a financial services business, for heavens sake).    Yet, our systems are not adequate to extract the data we need.  So, that means it's a herculean task every time we pull data for analysis.  That also means that we don't pull it as often as we need to.  Also, we never get exactly what we need.

I know, I know.  You're saying: If you don't have the systems, get the systems. 

I agree with that too but it is easier to say it than to do it.   It's on our to-do list but won't be implemented tomorrow because of the investment and time involved. 

So, in the meantime, we continue to rely upon what I call our "band-aid approach" - which is to squeeze all the info we can out of our existing systems, and to rely upon individual experience, initiative, and memory (scary, I realize) to keep us in the game.  It's a benefit to Mercer Capital that I've been here for over twenty years so I understand much more about what we do, why we do it, who we do it for, than most marketers in our industry.  Yet, let me say it before Suzanne says it, I know it's not remotely sufficient.

So, how about a little help from the peanut gallery ... what type of systems does your firm use to track clients, prospects, engagements, industries, etc.?  Any help would be much appreciated. 

Then maybe I can become a real marketing expert.  In the meantime, I'm going to go back and re-read Suzanne's book so we'll be ready to go when we're ready to go.

Comments

[Debra Helwig]

Barbara, VERY interesting post.

I freely admit I hate numbers and number crunching - probably because I know I'm not very good at it. My boss jokes that our company will be just fine as long as no-one gives Debra a spreadsheet to manage (!) and he's only partially kidding. I wouldn't call myself a strict mar-com brochure generation flunky, just because I'm very interested in corporate strategy and how marketing needs to play into that strategy. But numbers? HA! At the same time, I also understand our desperate need for data and often grow tired of relying on my nearly 15 years of industry marketing experience to give me the "gut push" to do this, that, or the other.

Here's the big rub, though. Any system is only as good as the person using it. Buy me a $750 stand mixer, and I will make cakes that look exactly like they did when I was using a $15 Wal-Mart special. Give the same equipment to Wolfgang Puck, and you'll have a masterpiece. How is a data collection & analysis system really any different?

I wonder if this an area where you suck it up and not only invest in a system, but make the even more significant investment in a PERSON to manage the system. Let's face it, you're a creative type like me. Even if you get the system in place, is your first instinct going to be to run and crunch data? Will you even know the best questions to ask? And is it really a good use of your time, the high level strategist and creative guru, to go head-down in piles of database code to extract the 2% of your potential client base that might be interested in X?

I read a post yesterday (and darn it, I can't find it now) that lamented the fractioning of the marketing function between analytics and creative, saying that the creative types were gutted shells of real marketers and that only a person who can do it all is a REAL marketing expert. I personally think holistic expertise is overrated. Do what YOU do best and find someone to help you do the things you don't do well. The key there is to find the right person, one who can help you understand what you need and how to go about getting it without feeling like they have to be the CMO. After all, you are still in charge and you are still the person who understands the industry - the analytics guy is the one you pay to build and play the database like a Stradivarius for you.

Investment? Oh, yes. A super huge one. But if your firm is big enough now that trend data and customer data need more intensive tending and managing, and if you are serious about getting the most out of that data, maybe that staff investment is the "pay to play" for a massively higher return later on, combined with greater job satisfaction all around.