Your recent news story “Cadbury questions need for ads” (MW May 29) seems to me to be much more an indictment of the marketing fraternity than of advertising itself.
Dominic Cadbury is president of the Chartered Institute of Marketing. If, with all its influence and training, it has not and does not instil in its members and the profession in general the need for “identifying the effectiveness of marketing” it only has itself to blame.
Of course one exaggerates when trying to make a point but certainly a lot of advertising is not “froth” and good marketing directors have the facts to prove it.
Almost any marketing director who wants the “evidence that marketing and sales expenditures are contributing (or not) to market share and volume” can have it. It is up to them to demand it and to commission the specialist analysis that can provide it.
We have been doing this successfully for many years, and perversely in the early Eighties we even showed Cadbury the success of its advertising.
Making decisions without this information can be costly. Cadbury believes “many brands don’t even need advertising”. Before deciding if a brand is one of the “many”, get the “hard data” or it could be a very expensive mistake for the shareholders.
Sales and marketing director