At least 8 in 10 marketers at the global level agree that they support the global strategy of the brand they are working for, per results from the Marketing2020 study released by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and EffectiveBrands. But those figures begin to drop as the respondent sample becomes more local: a comparatively smaller 72-75% of marketers at the regional level support their brand’s global strategy, and only 56-66% of marketers at the local level concur. Problems with the clarity – and communication – of global strategies could be to blame.
According to the study results, only 70% of “overperformers” believe that it’s clear what the strategy is for the brand they’re working on. Intuitively, that number drops among “underperformers,” to just 56%.
It’s obviously difficult to understand what isn’t clear, and the numbers bear that out: only 59% of overperformers feel that local marketing understands the global strategy, with just 49% of underperformers agreeing.
The results are more positive when it comes to pride in purpose: 84% of overperformers report that they’re proud of their brand’s purpose, as do 72% of underperformers. There’s a lot more disparity when it comes to engaging employees and consumers in that purpose, though. While 60% of overperformers believe that their company ensures that all employees are fully engaged with the brand’s purpose, that number drops to 43% among underperformers. Similarly, while 63% of overperformers continuously engage their consumers and customers around their brands’ purpose, only 47% of underperformers can lay claim to doing so.
In announcing the study findings, the ANA and EffectiveBrands put forth a couple of recommendations for marketers:
- That they build brands “to support overarching business goals and brand integrity,” with “no confusion about individual responsibilities and organizational goals that support the brand;” and
- That “global marketing departments should allow specialization and regions to lead key initiatives rather than relying on far-reaching ‘global’ directives.”
The researchers also note that differentiators between over- and under-performing organizations include training to build marketing capability and partnering with outside partners and agencies to fuel creativity.
About the Data: The data is based on the responses of 250 CMOs and more than 10,000 marketers across 92 countries.
Participants were asked if their company was over-performing or under-performing relative to their competition. Revenue growth was used as the key metric.
To validate the findings, the researchers employed a team from NYU to look at the actual performance of a random sample of 49 of the actual companies (approximately 10% of all the participating companies). The findings correlated along the same trend line as the survey results with statistical significance.
