March 9, 2005

Moore on Ries

John Moore (the US one) says What Al Ries doesn't get about marketing

I can’t blame anyone for jumping all over him when he writes such blanketed statements like, “Marketing is 90% strategy and 10% execution. With the right name, the right target audience, the right position and the right timing, most marketing programs are bound to work. The difficult part is the 90%. The easy part is the 10%.”

Has Ries undervalued the importance of people (employees) executing a marketing program? Oh yes ... he has grossly undervalued the importance of people making marketing happen.

I just don’t buy his argument that most marketing programs are bound to work if the right name, right audience, right positioning, and right timing are in all place. I also disagree with his statement that the easiest part to a marketing program is the execution.

My experience at Starbucks Coffee and Whole Foods Market tells me marketing is more like 35% strategy and 65% execution. A so-so marketing strategy can deliver exceptional results if those responsible for executing it are informed and inspired to make retail magic happen. The real trick is how best to solve for informing and inspiring customer-facing employees to make retail magic happen.

Force me to choose and I'll side with John on this any day. I think the Ries and Trout school of marketing has an arrogant belief in the power of a small cadre of frightfully clever people who invent strategy. This is classic consultant thinking, used to justify whopping hourly rates.

That's my punch-and-judy stance.

At a (slightly) more philosphical level, I think the debate about strategy or execution gets boring quite fast. Most "strategy" is written after the event and rationalises what actually happens. Good strategists (I think) try stuff out and see what happens, and adapt. This sort of strategy emerges from the execution, without the intellectual conceit of pretending otherwise.

The trouble is that at the moment there are still big bucks to me made out of pretending that high powered discussions of strategy are the key to success. (I think the authors of The Knowing Doing Gap argued that there's too much credit given to those who can talk impressively, and too little to the quiet types who just get on with it. Of course, you may think this link is a bit rich coming from a blogger, but there you go.)

No wonder Ries' partner Jack Trout wants the ad industry to rise up against amateurs who do ads. Good grief, these people may not have read and sworn allegiance to the Grand Design...

Posted by Johnnie Moore at 10:25 in Branding
Bookmark and Share Permalink
Trackbacks
URL for Trackbacks: http://www.johnniemoore.com/mt/minotaur.cgi/767.

Comments (2)

Comment feed (Site comment feed)

Take the Ries opinion from whence it comes: from an an ad guy - "Positioning" was written to promote his and Trout's US agency - to an ad audience - Ad Age.

I think the classic dichotamy (where's a spell checker when you need one?) is that of strategy as plan (as Ries suggests) or strategy as an emergent position rationalised post hoc. Fundamentally I agree that strategy as experiment should be the way forward however doesn't it pre-suppose that you have the kind of organisation that can react 'that' quickly? Stimulus response is easier for smaller nimble amateurs than big 'I've got a method and I'm going to use it' consultancies? Of course what do I know about advertising? :)

Post a comment