Earlier this week, the Credit Union Journal published the article “Growth Opportunities Abound, But Old, Weak Messages Won’t Get the Job Done.”
At first read, I agreed with the headline, then I started thinking more about it.
Today’s marketplace is full of opportunity. For many, the challenge is recognizing those opportunities. For others, the challenge is figuring out how to take advantage of them. Still, the greatest challenge may be the fact that many executives and marketers don’t recognize that their messages are old and weak.
Recent shifts in markets across the country have resulted in a series of new challenges and new opportunities for today’s financial institutions. In most cases, these new challenges and new opportunities need to be approached differently than those we’ve been presented with in the past.
So after reading the headline the first time, I was in agreement: old, weak messages won’t get the job done.
But after giving it some thought, I realize that I only completely agree with the fact that weak messages won’t get the job done. This is something I’m sure we can all agree with. Anything that can be described as ‘weak’ isn’t going to get us very far: weak messages, marketing, products, people; the list goes on and on.
On the other hand, while many old messagesare ineffective and aren’t likely to support an institution’s efforts in taking advantage of today’s market opportunities, we can’t equate old with bad – just as we can’t equate new with good. Consider Inc. Magazine’s Top Ten Slogans of All Time published last year. Most of the messages included here would be considered old by anybody’s standards. At the same time, these old messages are among some of the most memorable, long-standing and effective.
Rather than focusing on whether or not their messages are old and weak, executives and marketers looking to take advantage of available growth opportunities should be thinking in terms of relevance and differentiation. These ideas are more specific and offer a stronger direction for institutions looking to position themselves for growth. That said, I’d tweak the headline:
“Growth Opportunities Abound, But Irrelevant, Undifferentiated Messages Won’t Get the Job Done”
As evidenced in the Inc. Magazine Top 10 Slogans, old messages can be relevant; and as a result don’t need to be changed at all. Rather than updating messages simply because they’re old, we should be evaluating messages in terms of relevance: are our messages relevant to our customers/members? to our target customers/members? to our communities and markets served? to our brand and brand promise?
But in today’s competitive marketplace, we can’t rely completely on relevant messages. Messages must also work to differentiate your institution from the competition. Consumers have a seemingly endless number of choices when it comes to where they do their banking, why should they chose you? A relevant and differentiated message begins to help make that choice easier.
As markets across the country continue to experience change, tending to the issues of relevance and differentiation becomes more important – and must be an ongoing process. Players are changing, consumer behaviors are changing, competing messages are changing – and there are growth opportunities embedded in all of these changes.
Good observation and edit/fix to the headline.
Thanks Jeffry
Brady-great points here. Relevant and differentiated marketing should be a core competency of EVERY community bank and credit union. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be. There are still a lot of “spray and pray” efforts and unfocused spending taking place. I can’t help but wonder if it’s because the marketing executive doesn’t have a “seat at the big table” and therefore can’t get the support to do relevant and differentiated marketing, the marketing executive has no interest in doing things differently from the way they’ve always been done, or the CEO doesn’t hold marketing accountable for getting a return on their investment. Methinks it may be a combination of all three.
Mike, thanks for your comment.
I’ve seen examples of all three points you raise here:
- Many marketing executives don’t have a seat at the table. But even when they do, they’re usually fighting an uphill battle with others in the group who view marketing as a low priority, as easy, or somehow unimportant. At the same time, many marketing executives are faced with the added challenge of others around the table who like to think of themselves as ‘marketing experts’ – when in reality, they’re anything but.
- It’s easier to continue doing things the same way than it is to change. As I said in my post, the issues of relevance and differentiation require ongoing attention. There are certainly marketers out there that aren’t willing to adapt to changing market conditions or consumer behaviors. New challenges will require that many marketers do things differently.
- Accountability is always an issue. There’s always room for improvement when it comes to establishing goals, and measuring and evaluating results. At the same time, marketers looking to secure their ‘place at the table’ should be focusing on these pieces. Numbers are more difficult to argue with than ‘lofty’ ideas.
You’re right, it’s often times a combination of all three.