This week I learned that willpower is like a muscle. If you train it, you can use it for longer.
But like a muscle, when it’s tired, you might not be able to put it to much use.
Apparently, that is why most extramarital affairs at work start after long nights of work. The point being, I couldn’t write last week. And I’ve been inconsistent for a while. But it stops here (hopefully).
00:00 - 10:00 The difference between responding and reacting by Rob Estreitinho
Salmon Theory is one of my favourite substacks. Some nuggets that I dug from this article:
Good planning simplifies, then dramatises
Wisdom is seeds. Seeds don’t grow without water. Practice is water.
Job of a planner is not to know more than others. Same way that the job of an account manager is not to write e-mails
Responding takes putting in a little more time understanding where the question is coming from. Reacting doesn’t. (guilty)
10:01 - 20:00 The Greatest Hits of Binet and Field by thetomroach
I don’t think Les Binet and Peter Field are at that point in their careers where they put out a ‘Greatest Hits’ record. The fathers of marketing effectiveness need to be heard more. It’s a shame that there is an entire generation of marketers who have not heard of this duo and their work.
Despite the title, I think this article lists down some of their best work.
Share of voice drives market share
60:40 split between long-term brand building and short term sales activations show the best effectiveness
Broader the reach, broader the effects (a.k.a. your digital agency has been bullshitting you)
Penetration is the driver of very large business effects
Short term campaigns don’t drive profits, just ROMI
Emotional campaigns are more effective on almost all business metrics
Fame-driving campaigns outperform others on all metrics
There are more references to their work on the article. I’m thinking of breaking down Binet’s “Long and short of it” next week. Let me know if you would like it (I’m doing it anyway).
20:01 - 40:00 The seven things marketers need to know in order to answer The Question by Mark Ritson
If you read the last article and went “I knew this!”, then this article by Mr. Ritson tells you how to convince your non-marketing executives that they need to sacrifice the aggressive sales growth that short-termism will lead to, for a plan that balances brand building and sales activations.
I get aggravated when I have to speak to ‘marketers’ who haven’t read the long and short of it. So, I imagine it to be worse for marketers who have to sell it to non-marketing people.
If you’re not familiar with Binet and Peter’s research, and don’t plan on doing so (a) consider other careers or (b) take this one piece of evidence with you:
“The short company would peak at 18 months and then flatline. The long/short version would eventually grow more and, by the five-year mark, all other things being equal, generate significantly more profits in total.”
40:01 - 55:00 How Porsche Impacted Sales by 28% by Confronting Sales Floor Biases - Case study by InsideBe
“Brand”, “communications”. Executives think of these words like colourful frosting that hides a shitty cake.
Even while they can bring the customers in through the door, how your employees rally behind the brand, and how you communicate to them will determine whether a customer will buy.
MIDA consultancy identified and intervened in confronting the stereotyping, optimism-bias and self-service bias in Porche showrooms to achieve 28% increment in sales.
Warm down (5 min)
From this week’s Stratscraps.
Stay kinky, folks.