Kieran Flanagan’s Post

Duplicate teams would only make tasks across teams redundant and inefficient—something we should be avoiding. One of the things that I picked up here: "𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯." Inefficient marketing operations with duplicate teams across regions lead to wasted resources and inconsistencies in quality. Replicating tasks across regions such as market research and campaign execution not only inflates costs, but also results in varying messaging and branding standards. Same goes to having many departments handling different tasks and phases. Getting everyone involved in every phase of a project may not be a good idea as it would only cause inefficient operations 😅

Agree with Kieran Flanagan and Shafqat Islam and others. Would add one more potential iceberg in this decentralization of marketing leadership, and that is Culture. Marketing organizations need a team culture just as any other function for growth and innovation at a company. Taking pride and learning from each other, talent growing and transforming across functions, and a shared narrative about the wins and learnings will be challenging. Marketing teams will all have a more difficult time publishing their value to the company and shareholders, in a regionally “firewalled” structure. #culture #evolution #marketing

Kieran Flanagan, NOPE NOPE NOPE! All the problems you mentioned are not marketing problems and have nothing to do with domain and region. They are brand guideline problems and creative problem-solving problems. There is some truth to the statement that some regions will perform better than others, given the demographics and most importantly the psychographics. But overall, regional marketing will always perform better than corporate-level marketing - why? One simple answer -higher relatability! Let me explain: If Nike makes a campaign with awesome graphics and art and a tagline, "... because I'm a New-Yorker!" Where will the ad campaign perform the best? In NY or Utah or Austin, Texas or Miami? Especially if the ad is made by the people in NY who understand the culture and live it every day. I disagree with your evaluation of the situation. Brady Brewer, Make sure you set up strict brand guidelines and a budget for every region, and let people be as creative as possible within those brand guidelines.

Insightful analysis of the elimination of Global CMO role at Starbucks - especially around domain expertise and regional expertise.

Starbucks just made a bold move. But is it the right one? Many global giants thrive on their unified marketing strategies. Starbucks, however, is taking a different path – transitioning from a global to a regional marketing structure. Kieran and I are on the same page on this one. We think it's a misstep. A major one. Why? 1. **Consistency is key** in branding. Regional models can dilute this. 2. **Efficiency is at stake.** Tailoring strategies for each region is resource-intensive. 3. **Long-term vision could blur.** Focusing too narrowly on regional demands may sidetrack from the grander brand mission. In a world where the digital landscape blurs geographical lines, is localizing to this extent wise? Or does it risk fragmenting the brand's voice and vision? Read more about the potential pitfalls of Starbucks' strategy shift and why it might be a cautionary tale for global businesses looking to regionalize their marketing efforts. [Read the full article here](https://lnkd.in/g39fsSdu) Innovation or a step back? Let's discuss. Check this out: https://lnkd.in/g39fsSdu

Starbucks is just one of the companies recognising the change in the CMO's role and embracing the wider, deeper remit of the role. https://lnkd.in/duS494RJ Smart CMOs regardless of the actual title they carry (variations of CMO like Chief Customer Officer or Chief Growth Officer or Chief or Chief Transformation/Digital Officer), recognise that their real value comes from taking a company-wide (horizontal) strategic view, rather than the conventional erstwhile functional (vertical) orientation. And are moving from a brand-first and company-out approach to a customer-centred one. Such an approach helps them to drive acquisition, product , experience, growth & even brand and business.valuation. In fact, even in my own consulting experience of the last 10 years, the role I play has evolved from a digital/marketing-centred one to a more wholesome business advisory one... Where I'm involved with advising on product, pricing, retail strategy, packaging innovation, uncovering new customer cohorts and segments and more... stuff related to campaigns, communication, social media and day-to-day marketing requirements are secondary. My focus is on helping devise and evolve significant growth drivers for clients' brands, rather than just routine (often vanity) metrics. And therefore get a place for marketing in the boardroom and make it worth the CEO's time, attention and money. If you need little things done next Monday, call your agency. If you want to change your brand's fortunes through smarter, strategic marketing hire someone like me, even in an advisory, fractional capacity (as my clients usually do). What do you want from marketing for your brands and business?

Pull up a chair cause Steve O has a lot of thoughts on this piece boys and girls. First, what a brilliantly penned piece by Kristina Monllos Having written more articles than prescribed by law during my time at Forbes, I have massive respect for those who it well and Kristina does it very well. So, kudos to you, Kristina. Ok, as for my thoughts... ➡️ Massive shoutout to Jay Pattisall from Forrester for calling Starbucks' decision to eliminate the Global CMO role for what it is, or in this case IS not: It is NOT a canary in the coal mine. There ain't no canary and there ain't no coal mine. Translation: It's much ado about nothing, at least not when it comes to the demise of the CMO role bullshit (pardon my French) we need to hear and read about every 6-12 months. Add my name to the list of marketers, brand executives, trade group leaders and consultants who see it as a reflection of the current reality for CMOs, as Kristina writes. ➡️ Love what Marla Kaplowitz, CEO of 4A's had to say about the challenges CMOs of today face being two told. One, the need to speak finance, data and tech and two, ensuring others in the c-suite "get the value of marketing." I would argue the latter challenge is significantly harder than the former. I would also add, and presumably this was implied by Marla, there is of course the third challenge of meeting consumer demands. ➡️ My man Nick Primola of the Association of National Advertisers nailed it when asked about the fact that while some companies are eliminating the title CMO, it doesn't mean these companies are "not necessarily doing less marketing." Of course they're not! At least they better not be. I love this one because every time a CMO role gets eliminated I hear the anti-marketers proclaim: See, we don't need marketing to be its own department or role!" For the love of... ➡️ Adrian Fung, eBay Global CMO referenced the "different definitions and expectations of what a CMO does" and to me therein lies a massive problem. Now he was speaking in the context of global brands, but what he said is applicable to ANY brand because the differences in definition and expectations cause too many problems -- problems that are easily avoided. What I am referring to is the fact that far too many CEOs, CFOs and all others not named CMO, all look at marketing through the same lens. I will say this til I am blue in the face but all CMOs are not the same! The CMO a given brand needs should be aligned with the overall goals of the brand. For example some brands may need a performance CMO where others need a brand CMO and so on. I will stop here, although I have lots more thoughts on the matter and am more than happy to share with you 😀 Bruce Jeanniey Jeff Monique Digiday Jessica Billee Kyle Bill Doug Doug Lou Remi Seth Gretchen Julie #cmo #cmos #chiefmarketingofficers

The new Starbucks CEO is about to make a terrible marketing mistake and eliminate the CMO role. Here's why. First, congrats to Brady Brewer, going from CMO to CEO of International Starbucks. Yes, to more marketers becoming CEOs! As part of the change, Brady is eliminating the role of CMO and instead going for regional CMOs. This model creates a bunch of challenges for your international expansion. Some of the worst: - You create a lot of inefficiency in your marketing engine. You create duplicate teams doing duplicate work across regions, and worse still, the quality of that work varies from region to region. - You create the wrong incentives. A regional CMO will be incentivized to make their region seem 'special' and 'different' so they get more budget and resources. - The 'go local' marketing strategy results in a disjointed global brand experience as regional CMOs all try to put their spin on it. Here's the thing with international marketing and expansion: - Domain expertise vs. Regional expertise: You should centralize all roles where domain expertise outweighs regional expertise. That means the expertise of the job is more important than the knowledge of that region. Those teams should serve all regions. It means quality is consistent. It means duplicative work is reduced. - Centres of excellence: Collapsing all domain expertise roles into single teams creates centers of excellence where individuals can learn from each other. - A good marketing strategy is a good marketing strategy everywhere. The world is much more the same than we think. In nearly all my experience, > 80% of a marketing strategy can be copied across most regions with a couple of exceptions, e.g., Japan. Some years back, Uber laid off 400 marketers because they went 'local' with 'local' marketing teams all responsible for their region. It created all the problems I listed above. Even the simple technique of considering the critical part of each role, domain expertise, or regional expertise to structure your team will create a much more efficient outcome. Technology will continue to make the world smaller and smaller. #marketing #growth

A brilliant read this for marketers and peers on the evolution of chief marketing roles: ⬇️ “Marketing today is far more complicated, and less about the CMO not being an important role and more that there’s just so much of it that it has to be split across many different people.” By Digiday - Kristina Monllos • March 26, 2024 #marketing #cmo #digiday #advertising

Thanks for sharing the article Amie Hansen, it was very thought provoking. I think there is a lot to unpack here: 1/ Marketing certainly got complicated over time. Articulating the incremental value has never been more important. 2/ CMOs from different pedigree - brand / growth / pmm being a few - are adapting differently to the changing reality. I bet the CMO tenure and the collab at the c-suite varies a lot by the pedigree and the CMOs ability to speak to investments and returns. 3/ There are always going to be intangibles in marketing - especially in an ever changing world - that are hard to quantify. The rest of the c-suite understanding and accepting that is an important factor in leadership being aligned. 4/ The fact that CMO roles getting eliminated or that their tenure is getting shortened over time or that fractional CMOs are a real thing (there are no fractional COOs or CFOs) can’t be good for the future of the CMO role. Obviously I disagree with the generalization that it is a testament to the role getting complicated - latter is true but former is a result of a combination of above factors. Cc: Pranav Piyush Ben Dutter who always have really good takes on the value of marketing