In many organisations, restructuring is an unexpectedly common event, often occurring as a semi-annual effort to manage expenses. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, this feels like coordinated action as most companies grapple with finding adequate growth to elevate their share prices sustainably. We find ourselves in an environment where the demand is to achieve more with fewer resources, much to the delight of large accounting firms and consultants. The contemporary business climate, marked by regular restructuring and budget reductions, presents significant challenges for marketing professionals. The question frequently posed is: How can marketers shield themselves from the wave of cost-cutting? But a more pertinent question would be, how can marketers generate lasting value harmonious with business objectives?
Not all brands have the financial capacity to invest in both brand building and direct response marketing simultaneously. This is a strategic decision. At this point, it’s too late to stress over it. The decisions have been made, and we must make the best of the situation. Looking ahead, safeguarding marketing budgets and brand-building efforts begin long before restructuring becomes a serious consideration for the CFO. Clarifying business objectives and the brand’s role in achieving them is crucial. Recently, I listened to a series of podcast lectures by Professor Emma Smith, a renowned Shakespearean scholar at Oxford University. In her analysis of the themes in Henry V, Professor Smith introduces an ornithological analogy that intriguingly applies to marketing. She might ask whether our marketing plan resembles a rabbit or a duck if discussing marketing. The core message is that it should not be a hybrid—a ‘dabbit’ or a ‘ruck’—a trap many marketers fall into by trying to combine elements of both.
There is a well-known psychological experiment where individuals are shown a line drawing. This drawing can be perceived either as a rabbit or a duck. It is strictly one or the other. We do not see a creature— mostly a rabbit with a beak or a duck with floppy ears. It is a binary perception: rabbit or duck. Similarly, we must decide whether our campaigns focus on long-term brand building or short-term direct marketing.
Frequently, marketers make a fatal compromise by adopting a ‘dabbit’ strategy. This approach dilutes the effectiveness of direct marketing by incorporating non-responsive elements like emotional appeal and purpose-driven messages, which can detract from a clear call to action. Conversely, brand-building campaigns are often weakened by overemphasising product features and attributes at the expense of creating an emotionally resonant and memorable narrative.
For those fortunate enough to afford both strategies, having a rabbit and a duck is ideal—an idyllic scenario. However, for brands unable to simultaneously run both types of campaigns with distinctively branded assets, the solution is to choose one and avoid any hybrid strategies. Not every brand can invest in brand building and direct response marketing simultaneously. It is a strategic choice.
Understanding this distinction helps marketers protect their functions during inevitable cost-cutting cycles. The rabbit/duck analogy serves as a crucial tool within commercial marketing. Are we building a future brand that provides pricing power, greater market share, and more loyal customers? Or are we striving to meet short-term sales targets, continuously optimising and improving efficiency to generate immediate revenue?
From a theoretical standpoint, brand building and direct response marketing serve distinct purposes. Brand building aims to create long-term value through emotional connections, storytelling, and brand equity enhancement. It seeks to establish a sustainable competitive advantage by differentiating the brand in consumers’ minds, with key metrics including brand awareness, recall, and sentiment. Direct response marketing, in contrast, focuses on immediate outcomes such as quick sales, leads, or conversions through targeted campaigns with clear calls to action, measured by metrics like conversion rates, cost per acquisition (CPA), and return on ad spend (ROAS).
The decision between brand building and direct response marketing is not merely tactical but strategic, requiring a deep understanding of the business lifecycle, market conditions, competitive landscape, and available resources. For startups, direct response marketing may be essential for gaining quick traction and validating the business model. At the same time, established brands with loyal customer bases might prioritise brand building to ensure long-term growth and sustainability.
Consider the tale of two brands: Brand A and Brand B. Brand A focused solely on direct response marketing, heavily investing in online ads, promotions, and discounts. Initially, they saw a surge in sales and new customer acquisitions. However, over time, they struggled with customer retention and faced increasing price competition, which eroded their margins. Brand B, conversely, adopted a balanced approach. They invested in a strong brand identity, engaging storytelling, and building emotional connections with their audience while running targeted direct-response campaigns. Over time, Brand B built a loyal customer base, achieved premium pricing, and enjoyed sustainable growth. This anecdote underscores that while immediate results are important, a strong brand foundation is crucial for long-term success. By understanding the distinct roles of brand building and direct response marketing, and avoiding the trap of a hybrid strategy, marketers can create enduring value through the inevitable cycles of cost-cutting and restructuring. As the landscape evolves, the ability to distinguish between rabbits and ducks will be vital for marketers striving to protect and grow their brands in an increasingly competitive environment.
Theoretical Foundations of Brand Building vs. Direct Response Marketing
Brand building is about creating long-term value by establishing an emotional connection with consumers through storytelling and consistent brand messaging. This process helps create a strong brand identity that differentiates a company from its competitors. The key metrics for brand building include brand awareness, recall, and sentiment. These metrics are indicators of how well a brand is recognised and remembered by its target audience and the overall perception of the brand. Direct response marketing, on the other hand, is focused on achieving immediate results. It aims to drive quick sales, generate leads, or prompt conversions through highly targeted campaigns with clear and compelling calls to action. The effectiveness of direct response marketing is measured by metrics such as conversion rates, cost per acquisition (CPA), and return on ad spend (ROAS). These metrics indicate the campaign’s immediate impact on the company’s revenue and customer acquisition efforts.
The decision between focusing on brand building or direct response marketing is strategic. It should be based on a thorough understanding of the company’s lifecycle stage, market conditions, competitive landscape, and available resources. Startups and new market entrants may prioritise direct response marketing to gain quick traction and validate their business model. However, established brands with a loyal customer base may focus more on brand building to ensure long-term growth and sustainability. A balanced approach that integrates both strategies can also be effective, leveraging the strengths of each to achieve both immediate and long-term goals.
Strategic Decision-Making in Marketing
Making strategic marketing decisions involves more than choosing between brand building and direct response marketing. It requires a comprehensive understanding of the market environment, consumer behaviour, and the company’s strategic goals. Marketers need to evaluate the potential impact of their campaigns on both short-term and long-term business objectives. This involves assessing the potential return on investment (ROI) of different marketing activities and understanding how they contribute to the company’s overall growth strategy.
A key aspect of strategic decision-making is resource allocation. Marketers need to allocate their budget and resources to maximise the impact of their campaigns. This may involve investing more heavily in brand building during periods of stability and growth and shifting focus to direct response marketing during economic uncertainty or when immediate revenue generation is needed. By balancing these investments, marketers can ensure their efforts contribute to short-term and long-term business success.
Marketers must be strategic and deliberate to ensure their departments survive future restructuring and cost-cutting measures. Developing clear and measurable objectives for brand building and direct response marketing is essential. These objectives should be aligned with the company’s overall business goals and provide a clear framework for measuring the success of marketing efforts.
Understanding the target audience is also crucial. Marketers must deeply understand their audience’s needs, preferences, and behaviours. This involves leveraging data and insights to tailor messaging and campaigns that resonate with the target audience and drive engagement. Marketers can create more effective campaigns that drive immediate and long-term results by understanding what motivates their audience. Integrating brand building and direct response marketing efforts can also be beneficial. For example, brand storytelling in direct response ads can create a deeper connection with the audience and enhance the campaign’s effectiveness. This integrated approach allows marketers to leverage the strengths of both strategies and create campaigns that achieve multiple objectives. Continuous measurement and optimisation are also keys to success. Marketers need to regularly assess the performance of their campaigns and use data to identify areas for improvement. This involves tracking key metrics, analysing results, and making data-driven decisions to optimise future campaigns. Marketers can ensure their campaigns remain effective and contribute to the company’s overall business goals by continuously measuring and optimising their efforts.
In the ever-evolving marketing world, choosing between being a rabbit or a duck is not just a whimsical analogy but a strategic decision that can determine a brand’s long-term success. By understanding the distinct roles of brand building and direct response marketing, and avoiding the trap of a hybrid strategy, marketers can create enduring value through the inevitable cycles of cost-cutting and restructuring. As the landscape continues to change, the ability to distinguish between rabbits and ducks will be crucial for marketers striving to protect and grow their brands in an increasingly competitive environment.
