Expertise Marketplace - Professional Service Firm Marketing Blog

PSF Marketing/Business Development Integration – Does it Benefit Clients?

I’m hoping you can help with the fourth and final one-minute survey for my upcoming book The Integration Imperative™: Erasing Marketing and Business Development Silos - Once and for All - in Professional Service Firms. The title of this survey is "PSF Marketing/Business Development Integration – Does it Benefit Clients?"

Our study findings, and those from others’ research, indicate that erasing the functional silos between Marketing and Business Development improves professional service firms’ (PSFs’) go-to-market effectiveness. 

But does erasing Marketing and Business Development functional silos make a positive difference for the clients? 

Take our one-minute survey to find out if other PSFs think the effort to break down Marketing and Business Development functional silos will benefit their clients – and how. 

The questionnaire will be open until May 6.  Once we have the results, we'll post them on this blog and my Marketplace Master™ newsletter.  If you have a blog of your own, you're welcome to post the results.

Take our short survey

P.S. Did you see the results of our first three surveys? Here are the links:

"Hiring fee-earners who WANT to Market and Sell" PDF report   blog post with analysis
“Are PSF Marketing and Business Development Functions Stuck in a Rut?"  PDF report   blog post with analysis
“How well do Marketing and Business Development work with other operations, like Finance, IT, HR, Legal and more?” PDF report  blog post with analysis

Are PSF Marketing and BD Functions Stuck in a Rut?

The findings from the second of our four mini-surveys dedicated to my upcoming book, The Integration Imperative^TM, are now available here. 

These findings highlight a critical concern for PSFs that are working to evolve their Marketing and Business Development functions: the need to better balance cultural initiatives with formal structural changes.  It appears -- at least for these respondents -- this isn't what's happening. 

Here's my take on the answers to the survey's 3 questions:

Q1: Is your PSF deliberately working to make its current staff-side (i.e., non-revenue generating) Marketers' and Business Developers' job positions more strategic, deeper, broader?

The idea behind this survey was simple:  to determine if PSFs were "stuck" in evolving the scope of their Marketing and Business Development functions.  Now, beyond anecdote, we can confirm most firms report they are indeed taking definitive steps to improve the effectiveness of these critical functions.

A clear majority of respondents - 65 percent – provided details on their firms’ very conscious efforts to increase the strategic imprint of Marketing and Business Development functions.  After you download the survey report here, even a quick glance at the comments will reveal the importance of these initiatives -- "fundamentally change," "actively engaging marketing to right the ship," "upgrading the skills," "engaged with senior leadership," and "strong change going on."  These remarks reflect positive intentions, forward-thinking cultures, and the kind of critical flexibility that successful professional service firms employ to capture and maintain market share.

This subset of survey participants described, in very positive terms, how their PSFs are managing these important changes.  Respondents remarked on new developments of their roles, redefining the scope of the marketing function, and making new or different allocations of staff in order to achieve new strategic goals.  This investment mentality bodes well for the eventual success of these organizational changes.

That's the good news.  For the other 35 percent, however, comments ranged from cautious optimism to outright bitterness and resentment.  For respondents in these firms, there is a distinct tone of frustration and marginalization.  One wonders how likely it will be for these firms to make bold marketplace gains. 

Q2: How is this evolution being done? (If Strongly Agree or Agree to Question 1)

For this question, we encouraged our respondents to tell us about as many of their initiatives as they have underway at their firms.  Clearly, many of them are deploying multiple programs.  (Download full report here)

The answers to this question reveal two very important issues, and they offer an early glimpse of the challenges -- and opportunities -- facing PSF leaders in their hopes to affect changes in their Marketing and Business Development functions.   

First, the positive news.  These PSF respondents report they are implementing a variety of internal change and restructuring programs, in a very deliberate manner.  Their answers and comments provide clear evidence of astute organizational thinking, careful planning and the management of changes that will benefit an entire enterprise, not just a few people. 

The two programs with the highest votes (43 percent for "changing Marketing & Business Development job descriptions” and 35 percent for "creating a pathway to a ‘seat at the table’" for marketers and business developers”) illustrate functional approaches to increasing Marketing and Business Development’s effectiveness.  Training marketers and business developers to increase their skills was cited by 32 percent.  It's clear that these PSFs are beginning to understand the interdependence between internal restructuring and training to reeducate people to deliver on the enterprise's new expectations. 

Also, it's notable that 30 percent of these firms are starting fresh, by bringing in entirely new staff members, or starting with a clean slate regarding the purview of the marketing and business development for the entire firm.  Twenty-seven percent of the respondents answered "Other."  Their widely variable answers illustrate the broad spectrum of perspectives on how to address the effectiveness of marketing and business development functions. 

But these findings left me with another question; they raise a second issue and a big concern.  Remember, in Question 1, 65 percent of this survey’s respondents said their organizations are “proactively working” to make Marketing and Business Development functions more strategic.  As much as we might celebrate the answers for this Question 2, and even if we give PSFs credit for undertaking multiple initiatives, none of the responses about specific programs even approached 50 percent!  Why didn't more of our respondents identify the specific initiatives that they have underway?  Why didn't more of them outline alternative formal processes in our "Other" option?

The simple answer?  Perhaps my definition of "proactively working" differs from our respondents’ definitions.  I had hoped to track well-defined programmatic initiatives, when in fact PSFs appear to be adopting more culturally diffuse and possibly softer set of processes to make their Marketing and Business Development functions broader, deeper and more strategic.  There appears to be less formality here than what I had hoped to see. 

It's important to recognize the level of sophistication that PSF leaders possess about making significant organization changes.  I'd wager that PSF leaders are in the early stages of their own learning curve about driving their firms’ internal evolutions.  Arguably, there is a place for cultural osmosis in evolving the functions of an enterprise.  Perhaps just the simple act of having a conversation about increasing the functional effectiveness of Marketing and Business Development feels like a proactive organizational change to many PSF leaders.  Our findings appear to corroborate this impression.

But PSFs will need to balance both informal and formal initiatives to ensure that they evolve the scope of the Marketing and BD functions.  If applied intentionally, and as an accompaniment to a defined set of formal initiatives that are deployed across the enterprise, a soft cultural-osmosis definition of “proactively working” can be effective. 

Otherwise, I fear PSF Marketing and BD functions will still be in danger of getting stuck in a rut.

Q3:  How’s the effort going? (If answered Question 2)

Only 14 percent labeled their PSFs’ efforts to increase the strategic effectiveness of Marketing and Business Development as "absolutely fantastic so far."  And little wonder.  As we saw in the responses to Question 2 (full report available here), there has yet to be a strong coalescence around well-identified functional restructuring initiatives.  Respondents once again remarked less about formal programs than they did about softer issues, including "focus," "support," and "pathways forward ... reveal themselves."  Some respondents commented about individuals having to work "unbelievable hours ... to do two jobs," "boundary issues," "resistance to change," “skills are all over the place.  Strategy is hard to teach and few really ‘get it,’" “some are adapting very well, some not so well," and "it's still a challenge with the ‘old school’ crowd." 

Clearly, PSF leaders are encountering classic change-management issues. 

Despite this rather depressing 14 percent, a solid 69 percent appear to have a strong sense of practicality and reason about the magnitude of the shifts underway.  There's a distinct sense of staying the course with determination to continue toward an optimal goal. 

As PSFs begin to see positive marketplace results from their decisions to evolve the scope and increase the strategic impact of their Marketing and Business Development functions, their perceptions of the value of these efforts will also increase.  And, the more they embrace and manage the balancing act of real internal change –- structurally and culturally -- the faster these positive perceptions will rise. 

Here's why marketers leave their professional firms

One of my consulting-firm senior Marketing friends has just lost another marketing director.  She asked me to put the word out to my network that her firm is looking to replace this person.  She attached the position description.   It asks for MBA-credentialed pros who have 10-12 years of experience. 

Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that the described role is boring as toast, limited to mostly sales support and marcom.

WORSE is that it's nowhere near a growth role.  Not on a partnership track.  The internal career path for this position screams DEAD END.  It's as if this firm WANTS to make its marketing function a revolving door! 

Now why would I refer any marketing pro to this firm?   

I'm tracking others' insights - on Marketing Roles

Here's a roundup of some important insights I've found on others' blogs, with my remarks about why you should read their posts.  These posts are about the evolving role of Marketing.

Check out Bruce MacEwen's blog about a McKinsey article on the evolving role of the CMO.  MacEwen adds his observations to a discussion I've been leading for a long time: the shift that's already underway (but that needs to be managed more carefully than it is now) in the role of Marketing and Sales in a professional firm.  Bruce recaps and makes his own astute observations about how this shift can be better conducted in a law firm. 

Gerry Riskin, in his Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices blog, offers his own thoughts. He writes "ask your Managing Partner to ... have a meeting with you to discuss the benefits the two of you can achieve from selectively implementing David Court’s suggestions.  I am well aware that many CMOs do not have the influence they deserve inside their law firms..."

Mark Beese offers his own insights, from his law firm's work in structuring a marketing/business development team.   

Bruce's, Gerry's and Mark's remarks touch on part of a deeper look I plan to take in my upcoming book on reinventing the marketing and sales function at professional service firms.  But why does it appear that only law firm observers and consultants are talking about this subject? 

In a snit: Are we getting stuck with the dirty work?

I'm having a tiff with Ford Harding, the rainmaker guru to professional service firms. 

He wrote a blog post, claiming that, especially in small professional service firms, marketers and business developers cannot succeed at fulfilling all the conflicting roles that are required of them, so they inevitably sink to performing the least strategic function -- doing the marketing and selling dirty-work, instead of growing into more strategic roles.   

Ford, go pop an antacid, for gawd's sake!  Take a look at my reply. 

Just Say No to limited CMO jobs

Yesterday I got a call from a recruiter from one of the Top 5 retained executive search firms.  She wanted to tell me about their Chief Marketing Officer search for a top tier management consulting firm.  It's a newly created position, she said, with eight pages describing the role and its scope.   

I asked her to summarize the position.  I heard some very good words:  "executive level," "strategic."  But sure enough, I heard one other phrase that still revealed the myopia of the hiring firm.  When I asked about the main focus of the role, she said "awareness building."  Damn, I thought.  This job is mostly about public relations and communications. 

I admit I spouted a bit about the critical importance of CMO roles that are TRULY strategic, that is, actually integrating the entire range of strategic marketing functions with the business development and sales functions to which they must connect in order for real competitive effectiveness to occur.

I think I even said "I'll be gad glad to review your client's CMO position spec, but I sure hope it's going to be deeper and more integrated with business development (and other internal functions of the firm) than what you've described to me."  I remember thinking,"Tell your client to re-do this job specification, or else they're wasting their money."  I don't think I said it but I may have strongly implied it.   

She hasn't replied.   

What should be expected of marketing "experts?" Part VI

What does a seasoned marketing expert do when he finds out that a new "name brand" marketing expert will be brought on board above him?  And when it's rumored that the probable pay package for this "name" marketer (based on common knowledge of the candidate's current pay package where he works now) will be a stunning new high for the firm?  And when the firm has never hired a marketer as seasoned before? 

What expertise does this new guy have?  What might the senior management of this firm expect him to do (walk on water?)?   

I've watched this happen before.  Ms. or Mr. Big Name Marketer comes on board, and miracles are expected.  Usually a listening tour is undertaken, where Mr. Big Name flies all over the world to meet the heads of practices and regions. 

What's really happening is the beginning of the influence game.  These Big Names are perceived to have political savvy that can move all-too-intractable firm leaders, many of whom need a heavy hitter to convince them that investing in marketing is the right thing to do.  My question:  besides their tenure in marketing and previous big-name firm experience, do these Big Name Marketers have any formal credentials in what they are really being hired to do, which is arguably closer to politics than marketing?  Or do they just have an instinct and talent for sniffing out internal influencers, or a special flare at relationship building?  Can one get a degree in "relationship building?"

There's something wondrous about professional firms intentionally hiring who they perceive to be seasoned experts to influence the positive direction of marketing.  If done well, we can assume that Ms. Big Name's already-in-place team will have a better working environment for marketing -- and will enjoy the rewards of getting a kick-#$% marketing program underway.  But I wonder if everybody really acknowledges that their goal is to hire an Influencer, and if they are really looking at the right credentials to fill the bill. 

And I wonder how this situation affects the high turnover among senior marketers...   

What should be expected of "marketing experts?" Part III

In the last two weeks, I've heard from two global professional service firms about their desire to rebuild their marketing function.  They've begun the process well:  selecting and interviewing a well-rounded group of senior leaders and influencers in order to determine what these internal clients want and need. 

In both cases I've been asked to provide some guidance after this step has been completed.  In both cases, though, I'm concerned about what appear to be potential potholes along their pathway to an effective marketing function. 

These potholes are all about unrealistic expectations.

Internal clients said they are skeptical of getting a good ROI from their investment in marketing.  This, despite their inexperience in defining what they mean by "good ROI" and what they mean by "investment."  (In these cases, their idea of "investment" was limited to a particular out-of-pocket dollar amount or budget percentage, and didn't include their own time and effort.)  On the flip side, in their interviews, the marketing leaders provided no guidance as to what might be an appropriate ROI and expected time-, effort- and talent-investment on the part of the revenue-generators. 

One can argue that the listening phase is not the time to set expectations.  It's only to gather input and to understand needs.  This is a valid point, but ends up being problematic, given the way these particular interviews were positioned (as most internal interviews of their kind are).  In this case, the desires expressed through "listening" become unrealistic expectations. 

When asked what they want from a marketing function, these fee-earners said, in essence, "build favorable awareness about the firm and its services."  They think that marketing communications (a.k.a promotion, publicity, visibility, or the amorphous term "messaging") is where the biggest bang for their marketing investment lies. 

I challenge that notion. This is like allowing the tail to wag the dog.

In both these cases, the marketing teams' listening exercises are in danger of boxing everyone into an outmoded idea: that marketing's only purview should be to promote the firm, and not to lead (and provide results in) other crucial functional areas including identifying optimal clients through market research, managing competitor intelligence, retaining clients through loyalty and relationship management programs or being involved in services innovation.  Or more.

The problem is two-sided:  On one side, many professional and business-to-business service practitioners have a limited understanding of what a full-fledged marketing function could look like.  Most of these people started their practices with an almost instinctual knowledge of their clients, competitors, service offerings and marketplace.  As soon as they could off-load promotional activities, they did so.  In most cases, therefore, marketing has been home-grown (even for these large companies), and is considered a support function.  Talk about expectations!

On the other side, part of the expectations problem is the way marketers themselves are viewed.  Many marketers don't appear to possess expertise in strategic areas besides marketing communications.  How about skills in qualitative and quantitative market research and analysis?  How about an understanding of corporate strategy?  How about economics?  Emerging markets? Service portfolio management? 

Finally, all too often, both sides don't insist on a robust evaluation phase that includes a review of the investments the firm has agreed to make in the first place.  Marketers marginalize themselves by not setting up their own performance parameters or acting like they are true partners in the firms' competitive success.  It's as if the revenue-generators have said: "We told you what we wanted, don't bother us anymore.  Just perform what we originally asked for."  This leaves no room for improvement or an appropriate evolution of the marketing function. 

The result is that no one is happy because everyone failed to define expectations appropriately before embarking on new marketing initiatives. 

And we all know the next step:  "That didn't work the last time we tried it, so let's not try it (or a variation of it) again ....."

Oy. 

What should be expected from a "marketing expert?" Part I

Last November 1, I blogged about the nature of marketing expertise.  I asked a provocative question:  "what makes one marketer more expert than the other?"

This post stimulated the largest number of comments and trackbacks of any of my 2006 posts on The Expertise Marketplace; it also stimulated extended conversations on several other blogs (here, here and here).  I'm still receiving comments more than two months later. 

Over the next few days (week?), I'll provide some observations on the discussion. Here's the first salvo.

There remains an opportunity for both fee-earners and marketers to better understand and to change each others' roles within their organizations.  Many of the comments about my original post were centered on a perceived "disconnect" that commenters said exists within many professional servce firms.  For example (paraphrased): "Marketers don't really understand client needs because they don't have direct client contact." The flip side was also expressed (also paraphrased): "Our internal clients don't understand how well we could understand their clients.  If only they'd let us show them!"

But changing roles (closing the "disconnect" gap) will require fee-earners to take a leap of faith that their marketers can add significant new value beyond what they already add.  And, whether marketers like it or not, the burden is on them to make the case that changing roles will be a great step.  Marketers themselves will have to change the expectations of their internal clients. 

And this brings me back to the nub of my original question:  what new areas of expertise do marketers need to gain in order to contribute in new ways than they already do?   Let's go back to the original premise of my post about what makes expertise:  Author K. Anders Ericsson's main point that experts are experts because they "do things differently," not because they are better than others.

In the past two months of blogosphere discussions about the nature of marketing expertise, no one commented on Ericsson's idea and its application to professional services marketing:  The idea that marketers can become experts (or I should say "more expert") by doing things differently than what they are expected to do.

I'll address this issue in future posts.   

What the future of the PSF Marketing function

For the September issue of my monthly newsletter, The Marketplace Master™, I’m going to focus on the future of the Marketing function in professional service firms.  Please weigh in here with a comment if you are willing to offer your thoughts.   

Here’s the question:  Ten (10) years from now, what will be different about the professional services Marketing function?