After reading the June 18, 2007 article “Blame CMO Turnover on Metrics Mania” by Lloyd Trufelman, I felt another view is warranted.

Frankly, I disagree with Mr. Trufelman’s notion in which metrics are the cause of CMO turnover and that “if CMO’s want to hold onto their jobs, they need to re-orient toward creative instincts and the kind of knowledge that goes beyond numbers….. you ultimately have to trust your gut and let your instinct guide you.”

C’mon isn’t that “gut instinct” and those “creative instincts” the exact things which caused executive management to frown upon and question the investment in marketing in the first place.

Look, CMO’s and other members of marketing management are now being judged based on sound financial and analytical decision making. Creativity is important, but being a CMO is a lot more than being creative. CMO’s are helping to shape service, product design, channel strategies, product portfolios,

Shame on the CMO that today tells his CEO or shareholders “hey trust me, my gut tells me we ought to do this.” CMO’s and marketing managers working for companies are charged with a financial responsibility to INVEST financial and human capital to drive sales and profitability on behalf of shareholders. Great agencies (which frankly in my opinion HP has the best) understand this as well and embrace the use of metrics in the process. This ain’t Monopoly money we’re all playing with.

Having solid metrics that determine what works and what doesn’t allows us to make decisions on where to invest to garner the highest return. Metrics allow the creative’s to better determine the characteristics of the target audience so the creative is compelling.

It’s a 50/50 balance – but if I have information which shows me something isn’t going to work vs. my almighty creative gut which tells me it will…. I’ll take the data.

Scott

HP Hewlett-Packard Scott Berg CMO

Lloyd Trufelman Advertising Age