Reactionary Behavior: The Mark of an Immature Marketer
The other day, Dan Obregon of Intelliworks posted a great piece on strategy versus tactics:
However, like in all wars (and marketing is indeed a battle for mind share), a sound strategy will always beat out a series of clever tactics in the long run (assuming those clever tactics are not founded in solid strategy). To use another analogy, a good tactic could give you a burst of energy much like a caffeine or energy drink will before a race, but its effects may not be long lasting. Winning the race takes training and discipline, not just a burst of enery that could wear off in a short amount of time.
I think that Dan 1000% hit the nail on the head and is analogy is perfect in defining why it is so important to have a solid strategy in place. I want to take it one step further by hypothesizing that organizations who proactively plan their marketing tactics are usually more strategic in nature whereas an organization that deals mostly in reactive marketing typically just deals in tactics. It’s easier to be reactionary in a tactical organization, since there’s no over-arching strategy guiding your way. You create it as you go, coming up with things on a whim and executing them with little to no thought to the big picture.
Based on this hypothesis, I’m going to make a bold declaration: Reactionary behavior is the mark of an immature marketer.
I’ve often said that goal-setting, which is fundamental to creating a strategy, is the most-overlooked part of the marketing process. This step is most-often overlooked by those who consider themselves to be marketers but have little formal training or experience in the area (typically communicators who get communications confused with marketing). They’ve never learned the impact having an overarching strategy can make on a marketing plan because they’ve never executed a plan that was strategic and goal-driven. To them, marketing is nothing more than execution of communications tactics. No goal-setting. Little to no evaluation. You execute the tactic and then move onto the next one and execute that.
Immature marketers = Lack of knowledge + lack of experience. Get a bunch of immature “marketers” together and you have a perfect recipe for a tactical organization.
Tactics are easy. It’s strategy that’s the hard part. That’s way an organization that relies on tactics alone will never achieve as much as they could - they haven’t done the work required to achieve true success.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like what you read here? Subscribe to this blog through RSS or sign up to receive email updates when new content is posted.
Hire Karlyn: Karlyn is the President & Principal Consultant of DoJo Web Strategy, a consultancy dedicated to helping colleges and universities to utilize the web in their marketing efforts. Find out how she can help your institution by requesting a proposal today »






February 20th, 2009
My institution seems to behave very tactically. Your post, as well as
Don’s, makes me wonder what a mid-leveler such as me can realistically do to combat this?
I can come up with a sound strategic plan for my area of responsibility, but if the rest of the institution doesn’t have a plan or doesn’t understand the need for one, my plan isn’t going to be very effective.
I think the biggest problem that my university faces with this is that our marketing efforts are scattered. Many colleges/departments/offices do their own “marketing” that may or may not be in line with the rest of the university. Establishing a “unity of command” in marketing would be the first change I’d make around here.
Good post, as usual.
February 20th, 2009
I’m struggling with something really similar Jason - just when I think that we’ve got a strategic plan that we’re sticking to someone decides to change their mind at the last minute and do something completely different, throwing the whole office into a frenzy. I haven’t been able to come up with anything that *I* can do to prevent it, because once someone sticks their heels into the ground, no amount of logic or data will be able to show them that they’re wrong.
February 20th, 2009
Great point, Karlyn.
Something I don’t get though is why communicators would be strategy-averse. Setting strategic goals can also be (and is often) done by good communicators (aren’t all those labels, anyway?)as long as they don’t believe in communicating for the sake of communicating.
Don’t you think?
February 20th, 2009
Great question Karine - I’m at a loss for how to answer it as well. I think it probably goes back to the ramped confusion between what marketing and communications are. The tactics are the fun part, so people WANT to work on those more than they do the boring strategy part. It’s the same reason why people don’t get into analytics as much - analytics can tell them almost anything they want to know but it’s not sexy so its often overlooked.
February 20th, 2009
We get that here too, Karlyn. The administration will see initial applicant numbers in mid-Spring and freak out. They then want to throw money at the problem and make a big push for extra billboards, ads, etc.. in hopes of driving that applicant pool back up. Throws everything off.
February 20th, 2009
Hi Steve -
Not only does it throw everything that you’ve spent time (money) planning for, but I’m sure it doesn’t really get you anything significant. I think one of the primary questions people have to ask themselves before they get into a tizzy is how much of a different is this last minute tactical change really going to make? I think that discipline is so important in these areas - give your strategies a chance to work. I think I commented on Dan’s blog that doing otherwise was very childish behavior - you want what you want and you want it now…and if you don’t get it you’re going to throw a temper tantrum. If that’s not an immature mentality, I just don’t know what is!
/rant
Karlyn
February 20th, 2009
Yes, tactical actions are the fun things but I also think that some people are strategy-adverse because they simply don’t know what they’re doing. They see a billboard in Smithville for University XYZ and think, “hey, we need one there too.” The big picture is the last thing their mind.
When the opportunity presents itself, I try to educate others about what [I think] we should be doing. At this point, that’s the best thing I can come up with. I’m only one guy and I have work to do, like keeping up with University XYZ’s cool new “Web 2.0″ stuff.
February 20th, 2009
Related to what Jason says in the first comment:
An institution can have a good strategic plan and a excellent strategic marketing plan to go with it, but if the implementation of the strategic plan gets ignored by other units on campus, the marketing plan won’t work no matter how un-reactionary it is.
February 20th, 2009
Karlyn - A thought provoking article and a great characterization of the challenges in trying to bring a strategic perspective to business. Relative to some of the comments/questions, here are links to several posts that might be helpful:
No matter what someone’s level in an organization, they can take some fairly simple steps to introduce a more strategic perspective. It might not create the overall strategic view for an organization, but it can help others get more focused on aligning efforts.
Also, amid rapid changes, here are some ideas for helping the organization (and yourself) to stay focused on what’s important.
Finally, one of the best ways to head off a binge on ungrounded tactics is to bring people back to the fundamental question: “What are we trying to achieve?” Again, it may be a small step, but it can at least get people to take a quick pause and see that some really great sounding tactics might make no sense when held up to the real objective.
Hope those help, and thanks for getting the conversation started!
Mike Brown
February 23rd, 2009
Great post, Karlyn and an excellent discussion. Full disclosure: I work at a company, not an institution, but we grapple with these same issues. Clearly there are no silver bullets in connection to the “strategy vs. tactics vs. consistency of execution” issue, particularly when operating within a siloed organization.
However, I tend to agree with Mike Brown’s points above; and wanted to try to expand on them with one relatively simple measure that seems to help. Specifically, it is critical to get clarity up-front about the definitions for the terms used when discussing a Strategic Plan (e.g. “strategy,” “tactics,” “objectives,” etc.). Too often these terms blur into one another, and the result is a shaky foundation for what is typically already a challenging and politically-charged topic. Conversely, getting clarification in this relatively innocuous area can help get everyone on the same page and even lead to greater cooperation on the more substantive issues. One (but not the only) example of this might be:
1. Mission: This is the reason behind everything we do.
2. Vision: This is impact we hope our mission has on the world.
3. Objectives: These are metrics by which we evaluate success in achieving our mission.
4. Strategy: This is the general, consistent, and philosophical approach that we take to pursuing the mission.
5. Tactics: The cohesive set of tasks / activities that we undertake to support the strategy.
Clearly, this is just the beginning of the hard work, and even this is easier said than done. Still, if you can get agreement here, it becomes a solid base. That base is more easily translated into a framework that can be used by everyone to consistently and dispassionately assess those tactical suggestions which will inevitably continue to come flowing over-the-transom.
Hope this helps, and please add my thanks for spurring the great discussion.
February 24th, 2009
[...] their context will allow you to more meaningful improvements to your e-mail marketing, as well as avoid reactionary behavior when you don’t think a message has performed as well as it [...]
March 1st, 2009
Be bold! Love it! As my grandmother used to say, “It’s the God’s Honest Truth!”
January 12th, 2010
[...] article on reactionary marketing appeared one day when I was ranting on this topic several times. Maybe that’s why it struck [...]