Maximizing the return on one of your most valuable investments.
In many firms, the marketing function is like a revolving door: a new director comes in; the coordinator resigns; the director stays for six months only to leave the AE industry. Two coordinators later, a new director is hired, doesn’t work well with the market sector leaders, and is asked to leave the firm. Pick up any “People on the Move” section in your local Business Times and there will inevitably be the smiling face of a new Marketing Manager or Director for some design firm in your town.
Why does the marketing role experience such a high churn rate in design firms? Over the past three decades, the marketing departments of many firms have been simmering away in maintenance mode based on some unsound thinking:
1. Begrudging acceptance of an unclear concept: In the ‘70s and early ‘80s, principals slowly ...and often begrudgingly ... bought into the idea that design firms needed marketing specialists. (My favorite aphorism on this subject is this: most designers regard marketing as the price they have to pay for not being famous). Once they realized that they could benefit from greater exposure and that a big load would be taken off their technical professionals, most firms over 20 people recognized that they needed help. But they didn’t know exactly what they needed. Was it publicity? Lead identification? Proposal preparation? Client development and maintenance? Strategy? Collateral material preparation? All of the above?
2. Fitting the job to the person: Because they were unfamiliar with exactly what marketing could do for their firm, many principals let the strengths and the interests of the individuals they hired dictate the direction of the marketing function. If the Marketing Manager wanted to represent the firm at events, that became the focus of marketing for that firm. If the person didn’t like cold calling, then prospecting focused on publicly-announced project opportunities or the person’s own established network. Often other important functions like public relations, database management, or presentation training received limited attention.
3. Accepting enthusiasm as a substitute for competence:The combination of an uncertain job description and relief that some odious tasks were removed from the shoulders of technical professionals caused many principals to think that an outgoing personality and a perky attitude nicely complemented the firm’s other staff. Satisfied that they their marketing needs were covered, design firm principals allowed their firms to evolve organically (rather than in response to a clear vision), looking to the marketing person to be the firm’s external voice.
This sequence is all the more interesting because there was so much promise in the ‘80s when the profession began to embrace marketing. Nationally recognized marketing leaders like Sandy D’Elia, Margaret Spaulding, Laurin McCracken and others paved the way for marketing to become an integral part of the practice of architecture. They were (and are) serious professionals, offering well organized, strategic and business-based ideas for creatively building the bridge between design professionals and a receptive client population. But the promise of a cadre of smart, tough, creative businesspeople helping to drive the direction of the business never quite materialized for most firms.
Meanwhile, businesses other than professional services increasingly depended on their marketing departments to position their brand in the minds of potential customers. They expected their sales departments to introduce their products and services to their customers in a compelling manner resulting in an advantageous financial exchange. Working in tandem, marketing and sales departments with significant budgets demonstrated that they could be instrumental in building a valuable enterprise. But in many design firms, the slim group of people known as “the marketing department” was expected to do it all.
To varying degrees, principals looked to their marketing groups to identify projects, create publicity, win awards, monitor client satisfaction, prepare proposals, develop new approaches to saturated markets, get speaking engagements, assemble teams of consultants, and know, somehow, exactly what the firm needed to do, be, and say to win each project as it surfaced. In design firms, the distinction between marketing and sales, two very different sets of activity requiring different competencies, was never made clear. In fact, the respective roles of the two were further muddied when they became hybridized into “business development.”
To this confusion between marketing and sales, add very tight budgets and the nearly impossible task of learning multiple market sectors and the relentless pressure of recurring deadlines: many firms set up the marketing department to fail.
There are two ways to look at it. In the eyes of the technical professionals, marketing people are chronic underperformers. They don’t bring in enough work, can’t seem to get the firm on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, never quite capture the essence of the firm in collateral, can’t provide the right images when they’re needed, always seem harried and, regardless of what their budgets are, to them, it is never enough.
But viewing the complex set of responsibilities from the inside captures a different picture. Many marketing people feel unsupported and undervalued. They often feel that they were hired to do something they didn’t sign up for or that is outside their realm of expertise. They know that their marketing colleagues outside professional services make more money, are relied on as vital members of their enterprise, and have sizable budgets to work with.
What happened in the last couple of decades among marketing professionals has been a process of slow demoralization, disintegration and defection of the people who take marketing seriously from the industry. The initial awakening of many firms to the promise of a well-executed marketing strategy and marketing participation in firm-wide direction has stalled out. There are some wonderful exceptions: anyone who has worked at HOK in the past 15 years can tell you that the firm “gets” marketing and incorporates it into the fabric of the firm. Other good news is that many technical professionals got the message (or innately understood the need) and focused their efforts on client development. Today, many firms are flourishing under the leadership of design-trained professionals who have happily embraced the sales side of the business as one of their executive responsibilities. John Atkins of O’Brien/Atkins, Joe Brown of EDAW, Bob Hillier of Hillier, Jim Wilson of Ewing Cole and Frank Duffy of DEGW all come to mind as substantive, serious and earnest masters of the art.
This is a good thing, but it is not sufficient. Firms need marketing leadership outside of the CEO’s office. The kind of energy and focused leadership provided by people like Bruce Lea of Gilbane who concentrates his efforts on brand management ... in all of its facets ... Ann Althoff who leads the corporate business development effort at HOK or Leo Daly’s Lucinda Ludwig who ensures the ongoing compatibility of strategy and resources, is remarkable. These are senior-level contributors who are valued...no, make that depended-on...by their firms for the facet of marketing they do best.
Moral of the story
For your marketing effort to be more successful, dig deeper into that gap between what you think marketing and business development should be and what they are. By knowing what you need for your firm, clarifying that for all involved, hiring right, and then developing an ongoing plan to value those who perform these functions, you’ll see a substantial return on your investment. Don’t hamper them by marginalizing them. If you’re embarrassed to bring them to the management table, you’ve succumbed to the “personality” school of marketing. Hire substantive, smart people to represent and strategize about your firm, and then trust them enough to let them succeed.
Over the next several decades, billions of square feet of new construction and renovations will take place worldwide. Is international practice right for your firm? Read full »
No one really likes to change the way they work. Change in seasons or scenery is good, change in trends keeps us from getting bored, but changing how we work is difficult, especially for... Read full »
Will WTC Study Create Code Revisions?
A report released this month by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers on the cause of the World Trade Center's September 11 collapse confirmed that fire, not the planes' impact, was what actually brought the towers down. According to Worcester Polytechnic Institute Professor Jonathan Barnett, of the study's investigators, the impact of the jets is believed to have blown off the fluffy fireproofing material on the trade center's steel columns, making them susceptible to the intense heat from the ensuing fire. One of the conclusions from the study is the fireproofing that sticks to steel beams and emergency stairwells "hardened" to withstand the catastrophic impact of a plan should be included in high-risk buildings. Another is that fireproofing and stairwell safety recommendations for buildings "evaluated or designed for extreme events" should apply to structures generally.
DI.net RSS Feeds
DI.net on twitter
- K-State Commencement Speech Delivered by James P. Cramer - DesignIntelligence http://t.co/OPltx0wg3t@dinet May 23 13:45 pm
- RT @wired: P.S.A. Don't anger The Onion. http://t.co/d7wKB1c0xS@dinet May 23 13:15 pm
- RT @archfeeds: Via @ArchDaily - Zaha Hadid Wins European Museum of the Year Award for Riverside http://t.co/3KSU7sLfqL #architecture@dinet May 23 13:15 pm