As a marketer I read and that makes me belong to a minority amongst fellow professionals. I do not only read, I try to bring evidence based marketing into practice and be a true partner in growth. But if you experiment you make mistakes, most of the times by good faith. Reach is the third driver for growth with marcom, say Les Binet and Peter Field in Media in Focus (2017) and they have done their research well. Byron Sharp in How Brands Grow (2010) too claimed the scientifically underpinned importance of reach: target the market. However there is more to marcom as I learned by trial and error.


 

The idea to find the flower and not having to water the whole garden was reversed, by watering the whole garden, more flowers would florish.

 


In the early teens I was partnering at a media agency as a strategist and nothing more welcome was Sharp’s message of targeting the market. Finally we could counter the nitty gritty digital segment approach and the promise of growth with last clicks and later attribution modelling (in short: the digital first and later digital only evangelists). The idea to find the flower and not having to water the whole garden was reversed, by watering the whole garden, more flowers would florish. This idea then became a pass to claim that all campaign budget should be allocated to reach the whole market – and only that.

So we were trapped in a frame of mind, with many not looking for evidence or reading the relevant publications closely. Many marketers of global brands did not. Sharp became synonymous for TV advertising and indeed many marketers found the results of such an approach not meeting their needs for growth.

There came another professor, Mark Ritson. Reach is less important for growth: Segmenting, targeting and positioning form the condition for a proper marketing strategy and execution. So, not hyper targeting nor targeting the market but market segmentation is the solution for brand growth. A comfortable position in the middle. However this approach was only backed with evidence by cases that were succesful. Ritson is offering a marketing method and is not aiming to find patterns in growth as Sharp actually does with his ‘marketing laws’.


 

Applied well the campaign layers of the Marcom Matrix work in synergy in a marcom year calendar, generating more growth combined together over time.

 


Inspired by the iPhone of Apple it did not take me long to wonder: would it be possible to combine the best of three worlds in one marcom design that accelerates brand growth? Backed by the brand-response campaign design of Les Binet and Peter Field in The Long and  the Short of it (2013) and years of marcom practice I came up with the Marcom Matrix. The power of the Marcom Matrix is that campaign layers and (paid) media are unraveled. Applied well the campaign layers of the Marcom Matrix work in synergy in a marcom year calendar, generating more growth combined together over time. In stead of showing you the Marcom Matrix, I will first show you the application of it on the growth curve.

Take a look at the two growth curves below. Orange Brand A is not applying any (paid) campaign layers, blue Brand B is indeed. From right to left there are direct effects from Always on, Activation and Continuous Reach (branding) campaigns, all in green (1, 2 and 4). However, also indirect effects occur from Activation campaigns, enhancing the Always on results (3). Indirect effects are even doubled with brand campaigns, enhancing Always on (5) and Activation campaigns (6). If we were to put names of great marketing minds on these building blocks I would suggest, from left to right: Byron Sharp (target the market), Mark Ritson (segment, target, position), team Google and Eric Ries (product market fit).

 

Consequently, media types fit in these campaign layers. That would look somewhat like this:

 

Finally, the Marcom Matrix still in a simple Excel table. I split the former Activation (above) in two and added Product campaigns to the equation. Some ideas are worth spreading pure for their content.