Marketing in a recession

Today newspaper speaks to three marketers about whether and how to market in a recession. The marketers are Professor John Quelch (Harvard Business School), Mr Frank van den Driest and Ms Roxanne Aquino (both EffectBrands). We analyse their comments.

Source: Today, 28/4/9, p.B5
Headline: Don't be penny wise, pound foolish
Writer: Shermaine Wong

Quote1:
It is one of the biggest and one of the worst mistakes companies make during a recession. The blunder in point, according to three experts: Panicking and slashing marketing budgets to cut costs. ...

Comment1:
This sets the scene. We must resist the temptation to discount everything on the basis of "marketers will surely defend their turf". This commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial), or appealing to the person's circumstances. Instead, we must consider their arguments on their own merits.

Quote2:
Mr van den Driest cautioned: "The returns on marketing spending take time to show. Gaining market share is as big a KPI as generating sales. If companies trim marketing budgets to cut costs, they'll suffer in the long term."

Comment2:
Here is the argument:

Premiss1: Either (spend on marketing) or (cut marketing spend) [suppressed]
Premiss2: If (spend on marketing), then (gain market share)
Premiss3: If (cut marketing spend), then (lose market share) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (spend on marketing)

This is a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument, where we choose the most beneficial (or least harmful) of available options.

Quote3:
Mr van den Driest said companies should focus on their most important marketing projects instead of funding a bevy of them.

Comment3:
Given that not all projects can be funded (this is self-evident), the most important by definition should be retained. The problem here is that the word "important" is vague. We do not know what makes a project important. Further elaboration is needed.

Quote4:
Ms Aquino added: "Spend smart -- do fewer things well instead of trying to do many things simultaneously." ...

Comment4:
What if the "fewer things" are not the important things?

Quote5:
Mr van den Driest feels the recession might be a "blessing in disguise" as it forces marketers to return to basics to satisfy customers' needs. Mr van den Driest added: "Back to basics means solving customers' problems rather than just talking about your own brand."

Comment5:
Are "return to basics" and "satisfy customers' needs" elaborations of "important" in Quote3? If not, then which should companies focus on? Note that these are all assertions, not supported by any argument. It is up to the reader simply to agree or disagree with the assertions.

Quote6:
While marketers might be tempted to solely use new media like the Internet as it may be cheaper than TV or print, all three experts caution against abandoning traditional media completely. Prof Quelch maintains there needs to be a good mix between traditional and non-traditional forms of advertising.

Comment6:
The word "good" automatically implies adoption. This "true by definition" argument is called a petitio (pronounced "per-ti-shi-o"). It is not informative. Note the observation that using the Internet is cheap.

Quote7:
One advantage of advertising in print that the Internet cannot offer, according to Prof Quelch, is that advertisers can associate their product with the publication's strong brand image. Similarly, TV advertising will continue to appeal to luxury goods retailers, said Mr van den Driest, as the medium can "create that world of sensory emotions".

Comment7:
Again, there is an appeal to consequences:

1. If Internet, cheap.
2. If print, publication image.
3. If TV, emotions.

... and the relative costs.

Quote8:
Ms Aquino said: ... "Marketing is an investment and those who spend smartly with a medium term outlook will reap benefits."

Comment8:
Here is a conditional statement in the vein of the argument in Comment2:

If (spend on marketing), then (medium term benefits)

When combined with that argument, (spend on marketing) becomes clearly the option with the most beneficial consequences -- and hence should be chosen.

Summary & Conclusion:
We have a teleological argument in favour of continued marketing spending (Comments 2, 8), some idea of which projects to undertake (but no supporting argument) (Comments 3, 4, 5), and an idea of the benefits of respective media (Comments 6, 7).

END