±±¾©Èü³µpk10

Jane Simm’s recent article in Marketing, entitled ’Does Marketing

Need a New Name?’ (June 3), highlighted the confusion caused by using

one word to describe two different things - both the marketing approach

to business (where every employee is customer focused), and the

marketing department.

Her question is symptomatic of broader issues - lack of clarity about

the role of marketers and concern about their future. In the piece, I

suggested that the marketing approach be broadened to ’demand

management’, while retaining the name ’marketing’ for the functional

department.

Today marketers sit on only a minority of boards, tend not to control

customer service, have often fallen behind in the use of IT, and are so

burdened by day-to-day routine that they have little time for analysis,

innovation and customer development. Yet, with a new approach, their

future could be bright, since every company seeks profitable growth, and

most would like to be ’marketing-oriented’.

On the supply side, many companies have already consolidated operations,

logistics and aspects of customer service into a supply chain, with a

director.

The demand chain, however, is more fragmented internally, with

marketing, sales, R&D/technology, and customer service the key drivers

of demand, often reporting to different heads. The result of such

departmental silos, on the demand side, can be poor customer value and

slow response. To compete, business needs to move to simpler, more

focused structures.

It is suggested that future boards should average five executive

directors (versus 4.5 at present), comprising the CEO and directors of

demand, supply, finance, and perhaps human resources.

Depending on the size and type of company, the director of demand might

have only three direct reports, covering the existing roles of

marketing, sales and R&D/technology. The head of marketing is likely to

be responsible for market selection and prioritisation, brand and

product category development, co-ordination of the corporate plan, range

management, pricing, presentation and management of marketing investment

funds.

Sales would be responsible for channel selection and prioritisation, key

account management and customer development. The placement of customer

service would vary by company.

The main role of the director of demand would be to achieve profitable

growth, ensuring close alignment between the internal generators of

demand, and close coordination with the director of supply.

How would marketers fit this new model?

The director of demand could have a marketing, sales, technology or

customer service background, but the skills of complete marketers would

suit the role. More rotation across the demand generators, and time

spent within supply management or HR would be beneficial.

The benefits of a new structure are: meaning of demand and supply would

be clear to all; generators of demand would be closely integrated across

departments; clear accountability; it would be representative of

customers, and intangible assets (which account for over 70% of the

average company’s value) on all boards.

Hugh Davidson is Visiting Professor of Marketing at Cranfield University

School of Management and a fellow of the Marketing Society.