The advent of Customer Engagement Marketing

We went through a recession, and while we weren’t looking, the world of marketing changed. We discovered as an industry that making certain that marketing governance is based on sound principles is critical in a recession. Digital marketing, with its granular tracking and ability to follow a customer from first contact, means you can observe his or her behaviour while they consider their first purchase and beyond. When digital marketing is joined up correctly, you should be able to establish precisely how much value you generate for every pound that you spend. And this accountability, during the recession, meant a degree of comfort that marketing actually was working. In other words, we gave credence to – and then priority to – marketing which has built into it a chain of custody.

The traditional view of brand marketing was centred around the way the business wanted to engage customers. To some extent, in the early days of internet-based marketing, this notion of brands built around customers’ needs was lost, at least temporarily. It became ‘build it and they will come’ – a conceit founded on the novelty of the medium: indeed, when I set up my first digital agency there were around 250 servers on the World Wide Web. Attendance and engagement could be reliably assumed.

The idea of a brand built around what the customer wants has of course changed as a result of the mediation of the internet. The customer is still at the centre of the business’s universe, but this position has evolved. Marketing, once predicated on understanding demographics, motivation and behaviour, can now be said to pivot about which channel the consumer is (or may be) consuming at that precise given point in the customer lifecycle when they are considering a step in their dialogue with the brand.

In simple terms, where once we considered marketing to be about mapping the progression from one medium to the next (TV followed press and PR, followed by Direct Marketing) this new age means we map the customer as she travels from mobile to Facebook, email to website and via SMS to shop.

In turn, this must be mapped against the decision-making cycle: first contact to second, peer review then press review, comparison sites, reminder banner, examination of features, emailed offer then shopping basket. We end up with a two-track series of events, joined at critical touchpoints which define the medium in which we pass on a specific, perfectly-timed message.

This form of marketing planning is necessarily going to be slightly different from segment to segment (a young mum’s media consumption is going to be radically different to that of a Baby Boomer), and from product to product. But the framework is sound, and applies as much to a high-value B2B proposition as to an FMCG brand – in fact we’ve used it for products as diverse as McCain oven chips, ASICS sportswear, Travelodge and the FT. What it delivers is a rational, measurable chain of custody from first contact to value. From this continuous sequence comes your brief for the messaging at each touchpoint, a detailed resource requirements list, indeed a foundation for micro and macro KPIs.

This new post-recession type of marketing is called Customer Engagement Marketing. It takes the power of the brand, dethroned by a combination of recession and digital renaissance, and refocuses it on the customer. In essence, it recognises that the customer is now the centre of everything, and that our job as businesses is not just to design our products around them but to design our marketing around them too.

Evidence-based marketing: myth or reality?

Apparently a Facebook ‘Like’ is worth £7. Isn’t that brilliant? If you have a hundred thousand followers that makes your social media strategy absolutely rocking news. The question is, says Felix Velarde of digital CRM agency Underwired, how many of you really believe it?

We ran a campaign for an FMCG client a while ago, in which we emailed a segment in the customer database using very specific messaging – it was relevant, timely and well-designed. The click-through rate (CTR) of 88% was staggering in anyone’s book. I’d like to say every campaign we run gets that kind of result, but occasionally we crash and burn too. Anyway, wow, what a great result. But what does it mean?

The digital marketing industry seems to be founded on metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) of variable – if not downright dubious – quality. If you judge any of the industry awards you will know that half the entries benchmark against industry standards which in a lot of cases appear to have been made up on the spot: “Campaign X achieved a CTR of 12.3%, beating the industry standard 8% and therefore deserving of a Gold.”

This is where I have the first of my issues: even if there *is* an industry standard click-through rate, does it really apply to your campaign? Our campaign got an 88% CTR because it was highly targeted to a known audience expecting the email with a fantastic proposition. If it had achieved 12.3% or even 24.6% it would have been a failure. The truth is that no matter what the CTR is, one thing it is not is evidence of anything that isn’t either subjective (“I say, that’s awfully good isn’t it?”) or comparative (“Blimey, did much better than last time!”).

The second of my issues is that all these benchmarks aren’t evidence of sales. And hard revenue really is the only figure that ever matters (and before you ask about brand consideration or sentiment, these are both abstractions of sales – higher brand consideration may imply higher resulting sales, though you’d have to test it to find out if it’s really useful). So what is the *evidence* behind the assertion of success? How do you track from the planning phase through the campaign, to the reality of the effect on sales?

Well, it’s pretty easy in e-commerce. Straight-through processing (which is what the financial industry calls tracking the customer from first contact to order) in digital is quite simple these days. Ad tracking (display, affiliate, PPC and natural SEO) is relatively easily linked to website analytics, thence to email service providers (ESP), back to websites and even passing through couponing and promotion systems. It’s been done plenty of times by the big brands, and even small brands can buy integrated services. So if you’re an online retailer it’s pretty straightforward.

If you’re an FMCG brand you can still do it, although you may need to be a little more sophisticated about it. For example, this might mean matching your customer segments to commercially available purchase data and running regular surveys to track buying patterns in your base and cross-checking them against buying behaviour. If you’re a retailer you can find mechanisms to collect customer data and purchase behaviour at Point of Sale and match this data back to the single customer view.

The trick here is to get real data about whether your campaign actually worked, as opposed to seeing floating KPIs that may or may not indicate the same thing – but which provide no scientific basis for decision-making. How many times have you seen “successful” campaigns stopped? There’s a simple reason: there was no evidence to show they generated a profit. If there had been and they had produced £26 for every £1 spent, nobody in their right mind would stop them. Evidence is critical. Myth or reality? Evidence-based marketing is the only thing you should be *allowed* to do!

Innovative marketing thinking shows results

FMCG marketing is hard isn’t it? As brands you don’t even aim your marketing to the people who buy your products from you – you’re doing the work you might argue you want the retailer to do. In addition, you’re also competing with retailers’ aspirations to become brand owners themselves, with Tesco recently launching its own non-Tesco branded ice cream and pet food.

The indirect path to sales means that traditionally it has been difficult to gauge the success of marketing activity. Because you spend three hundred thousand on a television commercial and your sales are three million, it would be useful to think your ROI was ten to one. But there are so many other factors (and costs) - PoS, real estate, press, sales promotion and so on. Attribution is nigh-on impossible.

In the age of digital, it has been frustrating that Brand Consideration, the old advertising-oriented KPI, has remained the principal yardstick for marketers. Why so disappointing?

Digital provides the ability to track everything in a communication journey - or to be more accurate, it provides the means to track every movement a consumer makes online. So we can see when they clicked on a listing in Google, visited the brand website, opted in to emails, opened, clicked and selected a voucher, redeemed it... it’s what in the finance industry is called “straight-through processing”. It means you can keep custody of a customer all the way through their journey along your online marketing process. In marketing terms this is pure eCRM.

Now, if you’re a retailer the end of this journey is a sale. You can then say with utter confidence “I put in £1, and £26 came out. People with kids are highly responsive, 19 year-olds are a waste of marketing money, so let’s stop spending money acquiring them.” But if you’re an FMCG brand and the grocer is your customer and consumers theirs, to get attribution you need to exercise a bit of creative thinking.

First you need a benchmark. You need a database of your consumers, you don’t need many, ten thousand is plenty. And you need to have some real general population sales data, segmented into meaningful customer groups. You can buy this from Nectar or Dunnhumby. You then need to segment your own customer data exactly the same way so it’s comparable. On day one you look at purchase behaviour in your base versus that in the same segment in the general population. Run your eCRM marketing campaign. Then ask the same people about their behaviour. If the behaviour in your base has changed and that of the population hasn’t, then you have effectively isolated the results of your marketing activity - you actually know what effect you have made on sales.

We’ve successfully done this for a number of major brands. If you could increase footfall by 11% or purchase frequency by 3% imagine how much extra revenue you would be generating. FMCG marketing may be indirect, but with a little creative thinking it sure can be lucrative.

Making sense of the marketing maze

FMCG Magazine, issue 11 volume 13

Why is – and why should it be that – FMCG marketing feels so vague? Everyone thinks the be-all and end-all is the big TV campaign. It takes six months to write, three months to edit, a whole bunch of illustrators, animators, storyboardists and directors’ assistants, a hundred grand in production and a hundred more grand for a slot in Corrie. This elephantine effort would be fine, were it not for one tiny flaw: you know fifty per cent of it works, but you don’t know which fifty per cent. The elephant in the room is accountability, and in today’s climate marketers must, must be accountable, as must their marketing.

We’ve come out of a recession, and are wobbling around the edge of a second iteration. Consumer confidence is low, partly driven by what people see in the financial sections of the TV news and partly driven by the doom mongers in the red tops. Businesses like yours aren’t bonkers so there is close scrutiny of every budget from procurement to overheads to manufacturing to marketing. The days of the “Let’s do TV, it works for the big brands” being sufficient justification for the board are over.

There is a second driver at work here: FMCG brands don’t sell to consumers, you sell to intermediaries – Nisa, Bookers, Asda, Tesco. You might argue that they should be doing your marketing for you (in fact, perhaps you should argue; if you spent your TV budget on selling more lines into Tesco they would have a vested interest in pushing your products hard, and yet we have devised ourselves an effective if expensive pull-oriented strategy, presumably because such tactics are too much like hard work). Yet we compete for shelf-space, PoS, the (very) occasional appearance in a promotion or an ad. FMCG brands focus their marketing towards the end consumer, essentially cutting out the middle man and appealing for share of basket. Works beautifully for the supermarkets.

So, two drivers: bypassing the supermarkets to get straight to influencing the consumer, and a terrible lack of clarity about whether this consumer focus can become more focused. Oh, and a third factor: the supermarkets sneakily deciding to launch their own brands (as distinct from own-brand) competing directly with yours. Anyone would think you were in trouble.

Over the past sixteen years – in fact ever since the Snickers® MegaBite online community was created for the brand’s Euro96 sponsorship – digital has become a valid and very useful channel for reaching and engaging consumers. Multi-brand FMCG companies have created websites, communities, games, multimedia, email and mobile campaigns very successfully, if success is measured in awards, media exposure and word of mouth. Over the past ten years, online channels have become properly measurable. The rise of analytics, and analytics specialists, has allowed marketers to track users’ online behaviour in great detail. Marketers are familiar with terms like UX (User Experience), IA (Information Architecture) and User Journeys (a term we appropriated from the supermarkets as it happens). We can drive people to websites, deliver appropriate experiences that support the brand architecture (brand onion, pyramid, pretzel... your ad agency will have its own version), and increase dwell time (the amount of time a consumer spends wandering around, through engagement or confusion, your website).

Digital can track absolutely everything. So it’s slightly surprising that most FMCG brands have not, because they believe they cannot, tracked the value they get from it. In the days when nobody knows which fifty per cent of the advertising works, you would think that having such an auditable medium would be a lifeline.

Digital means a consumer’s activity can be tracked all the way through to a sale. For example, if you sell a tin of beans on your website, we can track a visitor from before they get to the site (their first click on a Google Adword or a banner) through the site, around the site, to the basket and to a successfully concluded sale. We can attribute sales value to visits, which in turn means we can optimise campaigns, spend more on the sources which produce the highest sales, and generally be pleased that you know which fifty per cent is which. We can distinguish good from bad and make commercial decisions based on evidence. And evidence-based marketing is what your board wants.

FMCG doesn’t trust digital in the same way. It’s why, for example, most brand campaigns have a limited shelf-life online, and why websites get replaced with alarming frequency. You’re marketing to the end consumer, but you’re selling indirectly. This perception is common among FMCG marketers: indirect means indistinct. Decision making is therefore down to gut instinct – and how many awards the campaign wins. For me, that makes online marketing for FMCG brands a hopeless case. I want to know how to attribute value, no matter how indirect the sale is.

So let’s discuss a method which means that indirect doesn’t necessarily make it quite so hopeless. We’ve used it over the last four years for McCain Foods.

We started with a database of customers, acquired from a number of sources: bought lists, competition entries, newsletter opt-ins; in fact anywhere we could find data. We cleaned it up, got rid of the stale, unidentifiable, lapsed and suspect data, and created a robust base of legally opted-in people. We put together an email programme. This was pretty simple, consisting of product descriptions, recipe ideas, offers and simple calls to action. This gave us a backbone we could measure, and measure we did.

You will be familiar with the normal email marketing metrics: Open Rates, Click Through Rates and dwell time. We benchmarked the programme, making sure we had some consistency to start off with, so we could run some experiments. The first experiment: when should we send these emails? We sent the same email every couple of hours to a different section of the database to establish which time of day got the best open rates. At this best time of day we sent an email every day of the week to see which day of the week got the best open rates. Inside eight days we had the optimum send time.

The second experiment involved benchmarking against the real world. The assumption was that anyone in the database would be more engaged with the McCain brand than the general population (for obvious reasons: these people have opted in to regular emails, and they are getting regular brand exposure). What we wanted to do was to see if we could affect behaviour over time. Working alongside the brand tracking studies already being performed by Hall & Partners, Underwired created a comparable set of questions to mirror the study, in effect asking the same questions of the database so we could compare database versus general population at start, then after six months.

The results at the start were entirely predictable: 61% of people in the base loved the brand versus 20% in the general population. By the end, after the email marketing programme had been in action for six months, that score had risen to 64%, and in fact the gap had widened to 11%. The programme was clearly driving changes in perceptions of the brand, against a general fall in the advertising-only scores. But still, indirect and indistinct. How do we change this?

The next step for the campaign was to find a value benchmark. This consisted of two distinct phases: first find the comparison data, and second find a way to accurately measure any changes wrought by the digital activity. By using email only, the customer journey was kept very simple, and there was a built-in mechanism for running surveys so we could establish consumers’ shopping behaviour.

First we sourced a chunk of useful data. This came by way of Dunnhumby providing real-world shopper behaviour from Tesco customers; we sought out product choice, average purchase value and purchase frequency.

We continued this stage of the journey into attribution by refining the segmentation of the McCain database. The segmentation was fairly simple: brand engagers, brand resistors, category resistors, neutrals. This was also split demographically. The segmentation was tweaked to exactly match the Tesco shopper profiles so we could accurately compare one with the other.

So what have we found? We have discovered that when we put a person into the eCRM programme, in the first six months their purchase frequency goes up by 3%. Knowing what we know about average purchase value (in £s) and frequency for each segment, we can therefore easily find out not only how much the change is worth within the base, but also how much we should invest in acquiring more people into the database in order to drive ever-increasing incremental profit.

So what does this mean? Well, for one it means we know precisely which segments are worth investing in, how much to invest, and what the sales volumes we drive will be. This makes TV seem vague indeed – we do, now, know how to attribute value even when we’re marketing directly yet selling indirectly. We can justify every penny of the digital marketing budget (or at least that portion that’s spent on auditable campaigns) and, in a recession or in a post-recession world, that means we can be certain that what is being done is being done right.

Measuring the value of FMCG brand marketing

FMCG marketing is a peculiar art. Brand marketing using consumer channels only incidentally targets the people who buy their products from them (the retailer's buyers) – so marketers are doing the work they might argue they want the retailer to do. In essence, the FMCG brand bypasses the intermediary and reaches out to influence the end consumer, hoping their demand will motivate retailers to decide to stock their products. By way of persuasion, brands use the consumer marketing they do to convince retail buyers that their product will be in demand, so to buy ahead of demand. There's a little inference, quite a bit of assumption, and a sprinkling of hope and magic dust. But perhaps not that much measurement, except well after the fact once the sales figures have come in at the end of the quarter.

This has in fact always been a problem for traditional marketing channels. Advertising has to date been measured using wonderfully vague but industry standard "brand consideration" scores. The numbers in themselves are relatively meaningless, because at bottom it's a benchmarking score, not a value attribution. But it does give us a means of comparing before and after and this with that, provided we can survey a sufficiently representative sample size.

Until the advent of digital, the assumption was that brand consideration and eventual total sales was as much as could be done. With the coming of the web, for e-commerce brands, suddenly it all became very joined up, and we could see the direct results of a call to action on a customer. Once this had been established for campaign-based marketing, marketers moved on to incorporating eCRM - long-term engagement strategies - into the list of activities whose value could be attributed to a tangible commercial result.

For non-ecommerce situations however it has been frustrating that nothing substantially better than brand consideration, the old advertising-oriented KPI, has taken over as the principal yardstick for marketers. The new digital standard metrics that have been added are once again comparative: dwell time on site, page impressions, open rates, click-through rates and recall. They allow some kind of industry and ‘before-and-after’ benchmarking, but contribute little by way of showing us what value a campaign has contributed.

In 2008 McCain Foods, the dominant (read: most successful) frozen potato products manufacturer, started an eCRM programme. The company used segmented email campaigns to try and drive changes in attitude that could be measured over time.

Quite sensibly, they started with brand engagement indicators, improving open rates, click-through rates and dwell time. One of its segments, brand resistors (typified by people who felt the category was unappealing due to perceived wellbeing issues or the brand unappealing due to perceived premium pricing), went from a 14% engagement rate to 63% over the course of ten months - great indicators. But no indication of what this meant in terms of commercial value.

Brand consideration was measured within each segment, and compared to the same scores in the general population. McCain quite quickly proved that engaging people in timely, relevant and meaningful dialogue over time could have a direct effect on brand consideration. The gap between those in the eCRM programme and those not in the programme widened by 11% in ten months. If this kind of marketing was judged in the same way as TV, it was a screaming success. But McCain wanted to go one step further and find a way of attributing actual commercial value to its online marketing. With limited budgets, and a new recession, being able to state that spending £1 generated £26 in incremental sales would be marketing nirvana.

So McCain set about devising a way to measure changes in value driven by its eCRM campaigns. The segmentation was tweaked so it exactly matched the commercially available Tesco segmentation. A Golden Questions Survey benchmarked eCRM programme participants' purchase behaviour (frequency, product choices, average spend per month), and this was compared with the Tesco data corresponding to the same segment. The eCRM programme was rolled out for each segment with relevant, engaging content and offers. And over time the survey was repeated, comparing the eCRM customers' behaviour with their Tesco analogues. In the most engaged segment of around 50,000 people, average purchase frequency went up by 3.1% in six months. Multiplying this rise in frequency by average transaction value showed a staggering rise in incremental revenue over the year. And because it can tell you precisely how much money it makes for every £1 it spends, McCain has invested hugely in expanding its eCRM programme, developing sophisticated new websites and online campaigns. By using some lateral thinking to provide a means to attribute commercial value to FMCG marketing, this peculiar art has finally come of age.

High ground for brands in a W-shaped recession

This is my first blog post for a few weeks, because I've been busy. I've actually been busier with pitches than I've been for more than a year. And quite evidently I am not alone. There's something in the water I think.

It's generally at this time of year that the pitches for the new year are well out of the way. We used to win our big accounts either just before Christmas or just before the other financial year starts in April. This year is different for us, and we've seen a surge in pitch work for eCRM actually happening in January. We think there's a logical explanation for this, and it comes down to the great typographical recession debate that's been going on for the past few months: is this a U, V or W-shaped recession?

If you are a marketer, then the past year of austerity has probably been quite trying. Selection for auditable marketing – eCRM and DM while a no brainer for some, has been held up by (respectively) lack of experience and expense. ECRM is cheap and responsive, works beautifully for retail and FMCG, and generates monetary returns, but very few companies have done it so in times of restriction and risk aversion new forays were rare. DM is proven and runs on the same principles as eCRM, but it's extremely expensive and lumberingly slow (not to mention impossible to port directly to digital because it requires native digital community experience). The most logical path for marketers has therefore been difficult to take.

But a year without engaging consumers with either big budget media or small budget retention marketing is dangerous. Smaller nimbler brands can operate with startup mentality and gain a disproportionate step up. A year after budgets stopped, a year during which eCRM has proven itself with spectacular achievements for foresightful adopters, marketing budget holders are facing a situation where we're either in recovery having reached the other side of the V or U, or at the very least on a temporary island in the middle of the W.

It's time to re-engage with customers and at the very least reinvigorate relationships with them. If it's the W then there's a window of opportunity. If we're out of recession (and personally I find it difficult to believe there won't be a backwash from the debt that's been stacked up to facilitate quantitative easing – let alone the poke in the eye that repairing the country's potholes is about to deliver), then it's time to spend. And clients are doing just that. Cautiously to be sure, and only on things that can be proven to work.

Marketers have been dabbling in eCRM. It's now time to take the plunge. The worst that can happen is that it does turn out to be W-shaped, but brands will have reconnected with customers at a critical time to ensure they stay brand loyal during the next leg of hardship. The best that can happen is that the process of spinning up extraordinary loyalty early means a spectacular resurgence in sales.