Strategy Has Assimilated Many Aspects of Marketing, and That's Not Necessarily Bad

"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

Over the past half century, strategy has become the primary mechanism senior company leaders use to make decisions about the future of their business and design their gameplan for success. During that period, the strategy discipline has assimilated many marketing principles, methods, and tools into the strategy development process. 

This post discusses why the assimilation occurred and why it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Just over five years ago, Roger L. Martin, the co-author of Playing to Win:  How Strategy Really Works, wrote that marketing and strategy have become one discipline. He reiterated his position earlier this year. 

Martin argued that, during its formative years, the marketing discipline was primarily focused on the interactions between a company and customers. Competitors weren't completely absent from marketing, but they weren't a primary focus.

Meanwhile, during its early years, the business strategy discipline was primarily focused on the interactions between a company and its competitors, with little attention being given to customers.

Martin gives Michael Porter credit for triggering the intellectual convergence of marketing and strategy. In his two seminal books, Competitive Strategy (1980) and Competitive Advantage (1985), Porter identified differentiation as one of his three generic strategies. 

To successfully implement a differentiation strategy, company leaders must deeply understand their customers, and that requirement, Martin wrote, "brought customers formally into the strategy equation."

Martin argued that the evolution of both disciplines has made marketing and strategy virtually "indistinguishable." He wrote:

"The full addition of competitors to the marketer's focus and of customers to the strategist's focus has caused the jobs of marketers and strategists to converge on the same thing . . . They now have the same job - just with different titles."

Overlapping Issues, Principles, Tools, and Processes

I don't think marketing and strategy have converged quite as much as Martin suggests - at least not yet. But, there is no doubt that both disciplines now deal with many of the same issues and use many of the same principles, tools, and processes, as the following diagram illustrates.

This diagram shows that several consequential business issues, decisions, and actions now reside in both disciplines. But, the diagram doesn't tell the whole story.

Strategy Has Assimilated Many Aspects of Marketing

As I noted earlier, the seminal work of Michael Porter in the early 1980's made customer-related issues an integral part of the strategy discipline. Over the ensuing four decades, the strategy discipline has assimilated many marketing principles and methods and incorporated them into the strategy development process. Think of the Borg in "Star Trek."

As a result, many core marketing concepts and practices, such as market segmentation, targeting, and customer needs analysis, are now widely seen as essential elements of the strategy development/strategic management process. In essence, the evolution of the strategy discipline over the past 40-plus years has transformed  numerous important marketing concepts and actions into strategy concepts and actions.

Several marketing scholars have expressed views about the relationship between strategy and marketing that aren't too dissimilar from Roger Martin's.

For example, in an article appearing in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, George S. Day, now the Geoffrey T. Boisi Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, wrote:

"Paradoxically, the deeper marketing is embedded within an organization and becomes the defining theme for shaping competitive strategy, the more likely is the role of marketing as a distinct function to be diminished . . . Perhaps marketing and strategic planning will merge into a single core function responsible for keeping the firm focused on the changing marketplace . . . In this scenario, the responsibility for understanding customers and making sure the firm delivers superior value to them will become part of everyone's job description."

Ironically, this is close to the outcome Peter Drucker had in mind in 1973 when he wrote:

"Marketing is so basic that it cannot be considered a separate function . . . it is, first, a central dimension of the entire business . . . Concern and responsibility for marketing must, therefore, permeate all areas of the enterprise."[1]

Assimilation Isn't Necessarily Bad

The assimilation of marketing principles and methods into the strategy discipline isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can, in fact, be a net positive for a  company if the "assimilated" marketing concepts and methods are used correctly. Here's why.

First, when a company's strategy-makers incorporate marketing principles and methods into their strategy development process, the resulting business strategy is more likely to embody a sound market and customer orientation.

And second, business strategy is usually formulated by the CEO and other members of a company's top management team, and these senior executives will typically make a concerted effort to ensure their chosen strategy is instilled in all parts of their organization. Therefore, when a market and customer orientation is embedded in a company's business strategy, there is a greater likelihood such an orientation will, in Drucker's words, "permeate all areas of the enterprise."

Top image courtesy of JamesinOregon via Flickr (CC).

[1] Drucker, Peter F., Management Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1973).

Why You Shouldn't Rely Too Much on Best Practices

Many marketing leaders and frontline marketers have a "thing" for marketing best practices. And, it's easy to understand why.

Marketing success is difficult to achieve and even harder to sustain because the marketing environment is always changing and because it's incredibly hard to predict what marketing methods and messages will resonate with potential buyers.

Under these circumstances, it can feel immanently reasonable to identify the marketing tactics successful, high-performing companies are using and then emulate those practices. So, it shouldn't be surprising that many marketers are enamored with "proven" best practices.

Marketers often see best practices as effective and reliable tools for achieving marketing success, but the reality is more complicated.

Best practices can be helpful when they're understood correctly and used appropriately, but it's easy for marketers to become enthralled by their benefits and forget about their limitations. Two of those limitations are particularly important.

They Don't Tell the Whole Story 

Most marketing best practices come with an explicit or implicit promise:  Use this practice and your marketing performance will improve significantly. However, the reality is rarely that simple.

A marketing best practice typically describes a single aspect of marketing or a small set of related marketing activities. But, marketing success usually results from the combined effects of numerous factors, many of which the best practice doesn't address. Therefore, a best practice rarely provides a complete "formula" that will guarantee a large-scale improvement in marketing performance.

Francois Bazini discussed this issue in a column published last month in Marketing Week. Bazini wrote:

"One of marketing's most persistent habits is to turn successful outcomes into portable principles. We see a company win, a brand grow or a challenger break through, and immediately begin asking what others can learn from it . . .

More often, the useful question is not whether the example is impressive, but what exactly made it work.

This is how many best practices are born. We look at successful companies, list what they did, and start connecting the winning dots . . . Each observation may be true. The mistake is to assume that each one explains the success or think it will produce the same results somewhere else."

Our tendency to treat best practices as "portable principles" and all-inclusive formulas for success is what Phil Rosenzweig called "The Delusion of Single Explanations" in The Halo Effect . . . and the Eight Other Business Delusions That Deceive Managers. 

These days, many of the products we buy come with warning labels highlighting the bad things that can happen if we don't use the product correctly. Most marketing best practices should come with this warning label:

WARNING:  Marketing success results from the interplay of numerous activities and conditions, not all of which are addressed in this practice. Therefore, the use of this practice may produce less-than-expected results if other factors required for success are absent.

Widespread Use Reduces Effectiveness

One of the most paradoxical characteristics of marketing best practices is that the more widely they are used, the less effective they tend to become.

Marketing best practices can derive their effectiveness from several sources. A practice can be effective because it is based on sound business principles, or because it resonates with how potential customers make decisions, or because it leverages the capabilities of a particular medium of communication.

But, best practices are also often effective because they are exceptional. When a best practice is new, it tends to be used by only a few companies. Therefore, the practice stands out in the marketplace and more effectively captures the attention of potential customers. The distinctiveness also serves to differentiate the company using the practice from its competitors.

Unfortunately, though, as more and more companies adopt and use a best practice, it will lose some of the distinctiveness that made it highly effective.

Image courtesy of James Whatley via Flickr (CC).

Why Your Marketing Tactics May Be Out-of-Sync with How Your Customers Actually Buy

Marketing WITHOUT Market Research

The results of several recent surveys of business buyers suggest that many of the marketing tactics currently used by B2B companies are based on an inaccurate picture of how business buyers actually make purchase decisions.

Here are four of the most noteworthy surveys:

• The 2025 B2B Buyer Experience Study by 6sense

• The "buyability" research by LinkedIn and Bain & Company[1]

• A 2022 survey by Bain & Company and Google

• A 2021 survey by WSJ Intelligence and B2B International

Taken together, these surveys paint a picture of B2B buyer behavior that differs significantly from the model used by most B2B marketers. For example, they suggest that:

• Most of a company's potential customers are not actively evaluating the kinds of products or services the company offers at any given time. A trigger of some kind is usually required to motivate a potential customer to begin an active buying process, and marketing programs alone are rarely sufficient to cause a potential customer to initiate a buying process.

• At or near the beginning of a buying process, most buying groups create a list of potential vendors they believe are worth considering, i.e. an initial consideration set. The initial consideration set is created before most members of the buying group have conducted any research and is based on the mental impressions they've formed from a variety of touchpoints such as their prior first-hand experiences, marketing messages, news reports, and conversations with colleagues and peers.

• When a buying process begins, most members of the buying group are likely to be familiar with the product or service category involved in the prospective purchase. Many will have already been involved in several buying processes involving the same category.

• Many buying groups not only create an initial consideration set, they also rank the potential vendors in their consideration set in order of preference before they engage with any of the potential vendors.

• Most buying groups make almost all of their purchases from vendors in their initial consideration set, and most buy from the vendor they ranked at the top of their shortlist.

These survey results indicate that many of the marketing tactics used by B2B companies are out-of-sync with real-world B2B buyer behaviors. For example:

• B2B marketers frequently run marketing programs designed to persuade potential buyers to begin a buying process, but the research suggests that such programs are largely ineffective.

• Most B2B marketers assume that most members of the buying group are not familiar with potential solutions when the buying process begins, and therefore they create a significant amount of "educational" content. However, the research suggests that most buyers are already familiar with most potential solutions at the beginning of the buying process.

• Most B2B marketing efforts are focused on buyers who are engaged in an active buying process. But, the research suggests that most business buyers identify a shortlist of preferred vendors at the beginning of their buying process and almost always purchase from one of those vendors. Therefore, most B2B marketers are largely ignoring potential future buyers when they are forming their opinions about vendors.

If these survey results are accurate, it's clear that many B2B marketers need to make significant changes in their strategies and tactics. But, there's a catch.

None of the surveys described above claimed to use a representative sample of all B2B buyers. Therefore, the findings of these surveys cannot legitimately be "projected" to all business buyers. This explains why market research is vital for all B2B companies.

To develop effective marketing programs, a marketing leader must have an accurate view of how their company's potential customers make purchase decisions, and primary research is usually the only way to obtain this critical information. While data on this issue is scarce, it appears that most B2B companies are not investing sufficiently in this type of research.

In a column for Marketing Week, Mark Ritson made a compelling argument that companies should invest 5% of their marketing budget on market research.

Ritson argued that spending 5% of the budget on research is essential to ensure that the remaining 95% of the budget is invested appropriately. He wrote, "If you cannot invest 5% of your marketing budget on research you do not know what you are doing and you will not be able to make the right moves."

Image courtesy of Jeff via Flickr (CC).

[1]  The LinkedIn/Bain & Company research is described in two LinkedIn articles by Mimi Turner, the Head of Marketplace Innovation at LinkedIn. Those articles can be found here and here.

How to Win With Buyers Before They Become Buyers

In my last post, I introduced the concept of opportunistic learning. I wrote that information has become so abundant and easily accessible that business people are routinely consuming information about business issues long before they become involved in an active buying process.

As a result, most business buyers don't begin a buying process with a "clean slate." In fact, most buyers bring strong opinions about vendors to the process.

Several recent research studies have shown that most business buyers have a small number of potential vendors in mind when they begin a buying process and that they almost always buy from one of the vendors on their "Day One" shortlist.

These research findings demonstrate that reaching opportunistic learners is critical because the opinions they form while engaged in opportunistic learning have a major impact on buying decisions.

To accomplish this goal, B2B marketers need to understand the mindset of opportunistic learners and then use marketing tactics and content that are specifically designed for these potential future buyers.

The Opportunistic Learning Mindset

When business people engage in opportunistic learning, they have different objectives and a different mindset than when they are seeking information relating to an ongoing buying process.

Opportunistic learners are not performing focused research, and they aren't looking for information about a particular topic.

They are scanning trusted sources of information for ideas that are relevant to their business or job or beneficial for their career development. When they encounter content that appears to fit this description, they will pause to read, watch, or listen to it.

Antonia Wade, the Global Chief Marketing Officer of PwC, provided a compelling perspective on the mindset of opportunistic learners in her recent book, Transforming the B2B Buyer Journey.

In her book, Ms. Wade proposed a new B2B buyer journey framework that has five phases - Horizon Scanner, Explorer, Hunter, Active Buyer, and Client. Her names for these phases symbolize the buyer's needs and thought processes that are important during each phase of the buying journey.

Ms. Wade's Horizon Scanner phase is similar to my concept of opportunistic learning. She wrote that Horizon Scanners are people in strategic roles who are always assessing how big market trends and/or innovations will impact their business. Horizon Scanners, Wade wrote, ". . . aren't looking for answers and they're certainly not looking for  a sales message: they're looking for ideas."

In the Wade framework, Horizon Scanners are usually senior-level executives. However, people at all business levels engage in opportunistic learning in some form.

Connecting with opportunistic learners is important because the impressions they form about companies or brands during opportunistic learning remain influential when they become active buyers. Therefore, if marketers can nurture positive impressions in the minds of opportunistic learners, they will have a competitive head start when those opportunistic learners become true buyers.

The Overall Goal Is Mental Availability

So, what kinds of marketing tactics can B2B marketers use to connect with opportunistic learners?

In marketing terms, your primary goal with opportunistic learners is to create and then enhance your company's mental availability.

The mental availability concept was popularized by Byron Sharp and his colleagues at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science. In How Brands Grow, Sharp provided a simple definition of mental availability:  "Mental availability/brand salience is the propensity for a brand to be noticed or thought of in buying situations."

Marketing content must meet three basic requirements to create mental availability with opportunistic learners.

Address Appealing Topics

As simplistic as it sounds, the first requirement is that your content must be about topics that opportunistic learners will find appealing. It's vital to remember that opportunistic learners are not looking for information relating to an active buying process. They are seeking ideas that will help them improve their business or perform their job better or easier.

This means most content intended for opportunistic learners should focus on business or job-related problems, challenges, or opportunities for improvement.

Be Memorable

Marketing content must also be memorable to create mental availability with opportunistic learners.

By definition, opportunistic learners are not engaged in an active buying process. You make content available to opportunistic learners at a given point in time, and you hope they consume the content. But equally important, you hope they will remember your content and your company at a future point in time when they are ready to begin a buying process.

There are several techniques you can use to make your content more memorable to opportunistic learners. To learn more about these techniques, I recommend that you read Impossible to Ignore by Dr. Carmen Simon.

Be Easy to Consume

The third basic requirement for content that will effectively create mental availability with opportunistic learners is that it must be easy to consume. By "easy to consume," I mean content that doesn't require the people in your audience to expend a lot of cognitive energy.

As I've indicated, opportunistic learners are not engaged in an active buying process and therefore won't be inclined to expend much effort consuming content that (at the moment) isn't a high priority.

As a practical matter, this means most content intended for opportunistic learners should be relatively brief. In B2B, we have the leeway to use somewhat longer content because opportunistic learners believe acquiring information about industry trends and innovative business practices is important for their career progression.

Two Additional Considerations

In addition to the basic content requirements just discussed, there are two other issues you should keep in mind when marketing to opportunistic learners.

First, when business people engage in opportunistic learning, they usually turn to trusted sources of information. These often include respected general business publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the Harvard Business Review, and publications focusing on specific industries or business functions.

While some of these publications don't accept content from "outside" contributors, some do, and you should look for opportunities to create content that will appear in those publications.

Second, opportunistic learners tend to pay more attention to content created by journalists and other third parties than to content created by your company or by someone related to your company. Therefore, you should aggressively pursue opportunities to have your company leaders and subject matter experts interviewed for content being developed by professional journalists and other third-party creators.

 Top image courtesy of John Donges via Flickr (CC).

Why B2B Marketers Need to Know About "Opportunistic Learning"

One of the most profound developments in B2B marketing of the last quarter century has been the emergence of empowered and independent business buyers.

The proliferation of readily available online information has been the driving force behind the increased power of business buyers. Easy access to a wealth of information about almost any conceivable topic has enabled business decision-makers to find most of the information they want or need on their terms. And now, artificial intelligence is making it even easier for buyers to access information.

Information abundance has fundamentally changed how business buyers engage with potential vendors and how they make buying decisions. Overall, B2B marketers have done a reasonably good job of adapting their methods and practices to address most of these changes.

However, there is growing evidence of an important change in B2B buyer behavior that marketers have only recently begun to appreciate and focus on.

A Flawed Model of B2B Buyer Behavior

For most of the past twenty-five years, the accepted paradigm  of B2B buying has assumed that a buying process begins when a company's leaders or managers recognize that a need or problem exists and decide to address the issue in some way.

These "buyers" then gather information about the need or problem, evaluate the available options, and may or may not decide to purchase a product or service to address the situation. So, the conventional paradigm of B2B buying behavior holds that most information gathering and buyer "learning" occurs after an intentional buying process has started.

Several recent research studies have shown that this widely-accepted paradigm is not accurate in many instances.

The 2025 B2B Buyer Experience Report by 6sense describes one of the most recent studies regarding B2B buyer behavior. This study consisted of two surveys of business buyers that together generated nearly 4,800 responses. The survey respondents were located in North America (46%), Continental Europe (20%), Asia-Pacific (14%), and the UK and Ireland (20%).

The respondents to the 6sense surveys evaluated an average of five vendors per purchase, and they filled four spots on their vendor shortlist at the very start ("Day One") of their buying process. They also said they purchased from one of the four vendors on their Day One shortlist 95% of the time. In addition, 97% of the respondents said they had prior experience with at least one of the vendors on their Day One shortlist.

Earlier studies have produced similar findings. For example, in a 2022 survey of business buyers by Bain & Co. and Google, 80% - 90% of the respondents said they had a set of vendors in mind before they did any research, and 90% of the respondents said they ultimately chose a vendor that was in their initial consideration set.

A 2021 survey of business buyers by WSJ Intelligence and B2B International also illustrated the importance of the vendor preferences that B2B buyers bring into a buying process.

In this study, the survey contained several questions about a recent purchase and asked the participants to reflect on the vendor they ultimately selected (the "winning vendor") and on a vendor they considered but did not select (the "losing vendor").

The researchers divided the purchase journey into three stages and defined the "Pre-Decision stage" as ". . . the time between when they had selected a supplier (for a given product/service category) and when the 'trigger' occurred that prompted them to actively begin searching for and deciding on a new supplier."

The survey findings revealed that the mental impressions of vendors held by buyers during the Pre-Decision stage exerted significant influence on purchase decisions. For example, survey respondents were more then twice as likely to say they were very familiar with the winning vendor versus the losing vendor before their active buying process began. Respondents also said that during the Pre-Decision stage, they had a higher level of pre-existing trust and confidence in the winning vendor than in the losing vendor.

Enter Opportunistic Learning

These results clearly demonstrate that most business buyers do not begin a buying process with a "blank slate." In fact, most buyers bring strong opinions about vendors to the process.

These pre-existing opinions develop because information has become so abundant and readily available that business people are routinely consuming information about business issues long before they have formed anything close to "buying intent" or started an intentional buying process.

I call this type of information consumption opportunistic learning, and it occurs because humans are naturally programmed to seek rewards. We all have a mental radar system that is constantly scanning our environment to identify reward opportunities.

In a business setting, our radar system is always scanning our environment to identify information that may help us improve our company's performance and/or advance our career.

Opportunistic learning has important implications for B2B marketing, and some marketers have started to recognize its significance. The research findings discussed above show that reaching opportunistic learners is important because the impressions they form during opportunistic learning remain influential when they become involved in a buying process.

Making an impact on opportunistic learners requires marketers to use a particular approach to marketing messaging, and in my next post, I'll discuss the kind of messaging that's needed to connect with opportunistic learners.

Image courtesy of onewaystock.com via Flckr (CC).

NetLine's Latest Data Reveals How Business Professionals Actually Consume Content

Source:  NetLine Corporation

NetLine Corporation recently published its "2026 State of B2B Content Consumption & Demand Report." NetLine has been conducting this research for ten years, and its annual reports have consistently provided a wealth of real-world insights about how business professionals actually consume marketing content. 

NetLine operates a content syndication platform, and the 2026 report is based on data from 7.2 million content registrations on the platform in 2025. The NetLine research is particularly valuable for two reasons.

First, it captures the real-world content consumption behaviors of business professionals. The data used for the NetLine report was not derived from surveys or interviews, but rather from actual engagements with B2B marketing content.

And second, the report is based on first-party data. The business professionals who use the NetLine platform voluntarily share information about themselves and the organizations they work for in exchange for access to the content resources available on the platform.

For these reasons, the NetLine report provides detailed information about the business professionals who are consuming B2B marketing content and the actual consumption behaviors of those professionals. I encourage you to review the full 35-page report.

Content Consumption Declined in 2025

Overall B2B content consumption fell 8.6% in 2025 compared to 2024, as measured by registrations on the NetLine platform. However, NetLine's data shows that total demand for B2B gated marketing content has grown 57.6% since 2021.

Content consumption by C-level executives increased in 2025, up 4% year-over-year. In 2025, C-level executives accounted for 14.5% of the total demand on the NetLine platform.

Demand for content about artificial intelligence continued its dramatic growth in 2025. The explosive growth began in 2023 when demand for AI-related content increased 6.6x compared to 2022. In 2025, demand for such content grew 28.5% year-over-year.

Most Popular Content Formats

The ten most requested content formats in 2025 were:

1. eBooks
2. Cheat Sheets
3. Guides
4. White Papers
5. Research Reports
6. Articles
7. Tips and Tricks Guides
8. On-Demand Webinars
9. Live Webinars
10. Playbooks

NetLine noted in its report that six of the ten most popular content formats saw year-over-year declines in registration volume in 2025. Registrations for eBooks, the most popular format, fell 16.7% last year, but they still accounted for nearly half (48.8%) of all 2025 content registrations.

Among the ten most popular formats, on-demand webinars had the largest increase in demand in 2025, with the number of registrations growing by 46.2%

The Consumption Gap Widens

One of the most useful insights provided by the NetLine report relates to the consumption gap, which is defined as the time between the moment a content resource is requested and the moment it's opened for consumption. This data point is important because it provides a guide for timing follow-up contact with potential buyers.

In 2025, the average consumption gap was 47.7 hours, up from 38.5 hours in 2024. The consumption gap has varied over the years. Before 2024, the largest gap recorded by NetLine was 33.3 hours in 2021, and the smallest was 27.1 hours in 2018. The lesson here is that you should wait at least two days before you try to follow up with people who have requested your content via NetLine. 

Purchase Timing

Overall, the B2B professionals using the Netline platform in 2025 were 17.7% more likely to indicate they would probably make a purchase within the next 12 months, compared to 2024. The purchase time frame that saw the largest year-over-year increase was 6 - 12 months, which grew 78.6% in 2025.

Content Consumption and Buyer Purchase Intent

For the past few years, NetLine's research has revealed correlations between the content format a potential buyer chooses to consume and purchase timing. In the 2025 report, NetLine identified five content formats that are more likely to be associated with a buying decision within the next 12 months - trend reports, playbooks, case studies, newsletters, and infographics.

One format that is notably absent from this list is eBooks. Despite being the most frequently requested type of content in 2025, eBooks were not strongly associated with shorter-term purchase intent. This shouldn't be surprising because most eBooks are designed to appeal to potential buyers who are in the earlier stages of their buying journey.

Why CMO Candidates Should Uncover and Confront Mismatched Expectations

A recent post at LinkedIn described a situation that occurs far more that it should. The post author wrote that he had been contacted by a CEO who was planning to replace his CMO because "marketing isn't working." The CEO asked if the post author could recommend someone for the job.

By asking a few questions, the post author identified several circumstances that were contributing to the CMO's perceived underperformance. While all these circumstances were important, one was particularly significant. The post author wrote:

"She [the current CMO] had made smart budget calls six months ago, killed low-performing channels, and shifted spend. But pipeline from these decisions won't land for two more quarters. And she's being judged on the lagging output of a strategy she already replaced."

After his conversation with the post author, the CEO decided to address the problematic circumstances and stick with the current CMO, but this isn't the typical outcome. More often, CEOs decide to "fix" their "marketing" problem by replacing their senior marketing leader, which usually leaves the real problems unresolved.

A Revolving Door of Senior Marketing Leaders

The short tenure of chief marketing officers has been well documented. According to the most recent research by Spencer Stuart, the average tenure of CMOs at S&P 500 companies in 2025 was 4.1 years, down from 4.3 years in 2024. CMO tenure is even shorter if we include a wider range of companies.

Marketing academics have attributed the high level of churn among senior marketing leaders to a variety of factors, but most of the "involuntary" churn ultimately results from mismatched expectations.

When the CEO and the senior marketing leader have mismatched expectations regarding the role or performance of marketing, the odds of developing a long, mutually-satisfactory relationship are not good.

Dealing With Mismatched Expectations

The story recounted at the beginning of this post illustrates what can happen when a CEO and a senior marketing leader have different expectations regarding when marketing programs will produce desired results.

Making these mismatched expectations visible before accepting a marketing leadership position with a new company can help a marketer avoid beginning a relationship that has little chance of long-term success.

So, if you're a candidate for a senior marketing leadership role, there are four questions you need to answer before you accept a job offer.

• What are the most important results your prospective CEO expects to see from marketing within the first 12 months that you're in the job?

• When does your prospective CEO expect to begin seeing those results?

• Are your prospective CEO's expectations for beginning to see those results realistic given the economic and competitive conditions in the market(s) the company serves and the resources (budget, people, technology, etc.) you will have available to conduct marketing programs?

• If you determine that those expectations aren't realistic, can you persuade your prospective CEO to modify his or her expectations to make them more realistic?

The answers to some of these questions can be obtained during the interview process, while others will require you to perform some research. The amount of research needed won't always be trivial, but neither is it out-of-line with the importance of the career decision you're making.

If you're a candidate for a senior marketing leadership role, you probably have several years of marketing experience. Therefore, you should be able to use your experience, combined with a moderate amount of research, to come up with a reasonable approximation of how long it will take sound marketing programs to deliver various kinds of results.

For example, suppose that your prospective CEO says that pipeline contribution is the marketing result he deems most important and that he would expect increases in pipeline contribution to begin within 3 or 4 months after you start work.

If you're confident that you can deliver increases in pipeline contribution within 4 or 5 months, this would not be a huge mismatch of expectations. On the other hand, if you judge that it will take 6 to 8 months for your marketing programs to begin having a meaningful impact on the pipeline, this would be a significant mismatch of expectations that should be addressed during the interview process.

There are several other issues where mismatched expectations can undermine the relationship between a CEO and a senior marketing leader. I'll cover some of those issues in a future post.

Top image courtesy of Heather Paul via Flickr (CC).

"Buyability" Isn't Really New, But It Is Really Important

For the past several months, I've been following developments relating to a research and thought leadership initiative launched by LinkedIn in collaboration with Bain & Company. The goal of the initiative is to identify what causes a B2B buying group to purchase a particular company's offering.

This initiative has been led primarily by Jann Schwarz, the Senior Director, Marketplace Innovation & Strategy at LinkedIn, Mimi Turner, the Head of Marketplace Innovation at LinkedIn, and Jamie Cleghorn and colleagues at Bain & Company.

The researchers at LinkedIn and Bain have coined the term Buyability to describe what business buyers need to believe to have the confidence to make or recommend a purchase.

A survey of 750 B2B buyers conducted by the initiative's researchers identified five main factors that business buyers need to feel confident about. When the researchers analyzed the survey results, they found that the most important factor buyers identified is to feel confident they can defend their decision if the purchase goes wrong. This was slightly more important to buyers than feeling confident the product or service they recommended could do the job.

These research findings strongly suggest that an essential element of Buyability is that business buyers must perceive a prospective vendor's product or service to be a "safe" choice.

Buyer Risk Aversion Isn't New

The bias of business buyers toward "safe" purchases is not new. It has been discussed frequently in the B2B marketing literature for many years.

For example, in his 2009 book, The BuyerSphere Project, Gord Hotchkiss emphasized the importance of buyer risk aversion in the B2B buying process. He wrote:

"B2B buying decisions are usually driven by one emotion - fear. Specifically, B2B buying is all about minimizing fear by eliminating risk . . . The importance of risk aversion on the part of the buyer cannot be overstated. It's the essence of B2B buying. To state it in plainer terms, '99% of B2B buying is about covering your butt.' "

The Corporate Executive Board (CEB) (now part of Gartner) and Google also pointed to the importance of buyer risk aversion in their popular 2013 white paper, "From Promotion to Emotion:  Connecting B2B Customers to Brands." CEB and Google observed that B2B buying often exhibited greater emotionality that B2C buying and offered this explanation.

"B2B purchases entail personal risk - far more than most B2C purchases. B2B purchase stakeholders fear:

• Losing time and effort if a purchase decision goes poorly
• Losing credibility if they make a recommendation for an unsuccessful purchase
• Losing their job if they are responsible for a failed purchase" (Emphasis in original)

Unbalanced Incentives Cause Buyer Risk Aversion

Most business buyers are predisposed to favor "safe" purchases because of unbalanced incentives. Most buyers perceive that they will receive only minimal rewards (tangible or emotional) if they recommend buying something that works well, but they also believe they can significantly damage their career if they recommend a purchase that goes badly.

As a result, most buyers are inclined to choose what they perceive to be the safest solution that meets basic performance requirements, rather than one that appears to be "better," but more risky.

Buyability Has Great Potential

So, the buyer risk aversion component of the Buyability model isn't really new, but that doesn't diminish the importance or the potential value of the LinkedIn/Bain initiative.

The initiative has already generated a significant amount of interest in the B2B marketing community, and several industry organizations - including, among others, WARC, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), and the International Advertising Association (IAA) - are supporting the initiative, which should further increase interest among B2B marketers.

In addition, during a recent presentation, Jann Schwarz and Mimi Turner stated that they are now beginning the work needed to operationalize the Buyability model. This probably means they will soon be providing examples of actions that B2B companies can take to nurture a perception of safety in the minds of their potential buyers.

While we await these examples, the research already done by the initiative's leaders makes three things abundantly clear.

• The most influential factor for building a B2B buyer's confidence in purchasing from a prospective vendor is having previous personal experience with the vendor.

• The second most powerful confidence-building factor is recommendations from colleagues or from similar customers with similar needs and use cases.

• Negative feedback from a buyer's colleagues or peers in the buyer's network, or from other similar customers will usually stop a deal in its tracks.

These research findings suggest that, when performance and cost factors are generally equal, what influential third parties say about you becomes critical for making potential buyers feel confident enough to do business with you.

A Powerful (But Not Easy) Way to Boost the Influence of Marketing

In my latest three posts (here, here, and here), I've been discussing the widely-held perception among marketers that the marketing function in most companies has less influence than it should have - and less influence than it once had.

Some research studies (like this one) have shown that the influence of the marketing organization has declined over the past 2 - 3 decades.

In my previous posts, I've argued that the rise of business strategy has had a significant impact on the role of the marketing function. Over the past sixty years, strategy has become the primary mechanism senior business leaders use to make major decisions about the future of their business and create their gameplan for success.

This development has affected the marketing function for two reasons.

First, the formulation of a complete business strategy will require several decisions that most marketers would call "marketing" decisions. For example, strategy makers must decide how to segment their industry, what their target market will be, and how they will deliver compelling value to their target customers. Most marketers would say these are classic marketing decisions. Think Segmentation-Targeting-Positioning. 

Second, strategy development in most companies is the responsibility of the CEO and usually involves some or all of the company's C-level executives.

So, the bottom line is that the rise of strategy has transformed some "marketing" decisions into "strategy" decisions and changed who typically makes those decisions. This doesn't make the marketing function's loss of influence inevitable, but it does change what marketing leaders need to do to preserve - and even raise - that influence.

In essence, marketing leaders must recognize that how much influence they possess will be largely determined by how much they contribute to (a) the success of their company's strategy, and (b) the effectiveness of their company's strategy development process.

In my last post, I argued that marketing leaders must perform two core jobs well to raise their influence.

First, they must ensure that their teams are creating and running marketing communication programs and performing other marketing activities that support their company's business strategy. I discussed this task in detail in my last post.

Provide Strategy-Critical Intelligence

The second core job is equally important, but less frequently discussed, at least in a detailed way. To increase their level of influence, marketing leaders need to provide their company's strategy development team the information and insights they need to make sound strategic decisions.

The choices that senior business leaders make when developing a business strategy are high-stakes decisions that will have a major impact on their company's competitive success. Therefore, those choices should be made on the basis of detailed and reliable information about the company's capabilities and its competitive environment.

More specifically, strategy developers need detailed and reliable intelligence about their company's industry, its potential customers, and its competitors. I've use the term intelligence intentionally because what strategy developers need is not simply raw data, but data that's accompanied by a sound analysis of that data.

The following outline shows that major kinds of information marketing leaders need to provide to the senior business leaders who comprise their company's strategy development team. This outline is not exhaustive. It contains the types of information that apply to most companies, but additional or other information can be important based on a company's specific situation.

Providing the information shown in this outline, along with adequate supporting evidence, won't be a trivial undertaking for marketing leaders in many companies. The intelligence needed for strategy development differs from the data many marketers now routinely collect. Therefore, providing this intelligence will require a fairly significant amount of research.

The amount of work required to perform this job well can be substantial, but the payoff justifies the effort. When a company's strategy makers have access to relevant and accurate industry, customer, and competitor intelligence, they are more likely to make sound strategic choices, which will ultimately make the company more successful.

For marketing leaders, performing this job well will enhance their influence and, by extension, the influence and stature of the marketing organization. When the CEO and other company leaders view the senior marketing leader as a trusted source of the industry, customer, and competitor intelligence that will help them formulate better business strategy, they will place greater value on, and give greater weight to, the view and perspectives of the marketing leader.

Top image courtesy of Joshua Tree National Park via Flickr (Public Domain).

Why Mission Is the Critical Foundation of Effective Marketing Planning

The fourth quarter of 2025 is well underway, which means many B2B marketers have begun planning for next year.

Marketing planning processes vary considerably across companies. Planning in large enterprises can be quite formal, while the process in smaller companies tends to be less formal.

Whatever your approach to planning, one key to developing an effective marketing plan is to keep your planning process focused on the right things. Fortunately, a proven military planning technique can help marketing leaders keep their planning process on course.

For years, US military commanders at all levels have used a framework called METT-TC as an integral part of their planning process. METT-TC is a mnemonic that is designed to help commanders remember and prioritize what to analyze when planning a military operation.

METT-TC stands for mission, enemy, terrain, troops available, time, and civil considerations. These six factors define the environment in which any military operation will be conducted, and commanders must thoroughly analyze each of these factors to develop sound operational plans.

When I work with a client to develop a marketing plan, we analyze five environmental factors, and I've created a mnemonic for these factors that serves much the same purpose as METT-TC. My mnemonic is MMCC-R, which stands for mission, market structure and dynamics, customer dynamics, competitive landscape, and resources available.

Mission Is "First Among Equals"

These five factors are all important, but mission is clearly the "first among equals" because it provides the "north star" guidance for the rest of the planning process. Mission occupies this pivotal position for two reasons.

First, to deliver maximum impact and effectiveness, all marketing activities must be aligned with and supportive of a clearly defined mission. With every proposed marketing initiative, you should ask:  "How will this initiative help us fulfill our mission?" Obviously, you can't answer this question if you don't have a clear picture of what your marketing mission is.

The second reason is equally important. To be a successful marketing leader, you need the support of your CEO and other senior company leaders. Your chances of gaining and keeping that support will be higher if you and the other members of your company's senior leadership team have a common understanding of marketing's mission.

Therefore, you need to have regular, open, and frank discussions with your senior company leaders about the core mission of marketing in your organization. The goal, of course, is to cultivate a shared understanding of marketing's mission across the entire senior leadership team.

The Core Mission of Marketing

So, what is the core mission of marketing? I'm always skeptical of marketing principles or methods that purport to be universal. Competitive conditions can vary considerably across companies, and that usually requires a company to develop business and marketing strategies that fit its unique circumstances. But, this is the "exception that proves the rule."

Every marketing organization in a for-profit company has a two-part mission, both aspects of which are linked to revenue growth. Marketing must create and run programs that will enable the company to achieve its short-term revenue objectives, and also design and execute programs that will lay the necessary foundation for long-term revenue growth.

The need to focus simultaneously on the short term and the long term is not unique to marketing, but it can be particularly challenging for marketers. For the past several years, marketing leaders have faced increasing demands to prove the value of their activities and programs. Overall, this has been a positive development, but it can have a dark side.

Marketing programs that produce a quick impact on revenue are relatively easy to measure, and their results can often be seen in a few weeks. However, programs whose impacts are several steps removed from the buying decisions that generate revenue are much more difficult to measure, and they may not produce visible results for several months.

Under these circumstances, marketing leaders often face pressures to shift resources to marketing programs that can deliver quick and easily measurable results. Unfortunately, such a shift can cause companies to under-invest in longer-term marketing activities and programs, thus placing future revenue growth at risk.

Producing both short-term and long-term revenue growth is the core marketing mission at any for-profit company, and the company's senior leadership team must understand and endorse this mission. Therefore, communicating this mission to your company's senior leaders and obtaining their buy-in is a vital step in your planning process.

Top image courtesy of DENAN Production via Flickr (CC).

Long Live the 4Ps!

Source:  Shutterstock

The latest salvo of criticism aimed at the venerable 4Ps of marketing was fired by Joanne Seddon, the CEO of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board, in an article published last month at WARC. 

Ms. Seddon pulled no punches in her criticism. She wrote that the 4Ps are "hopelessly out of date," don't "truly reflect the basic principles of marketing," and are "wrong. Or, at the very least, dangerously incomplete." Therefore, she argued, the attempt by some to revive the use of the 4Ps, while "well meant," is "misguided."

Beyond these broad condemnations, Ms. Seddon offered five specific criticisms of the 4Ps in her article. In my view, these criticisms are largely unfounded because they are based on an inaccurate understanding of the 4Ps model.

The 4Ps model of the marketing mix was developed by E. Jerome McCarthy, a marketing professor at Notre Dame. McCarthy introduced the model in his 1960 marketing textbook, Basic Marketing:  A Managerial Approach (Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960) ("Basic Marketing").

As the developer of the 4Ps model, McCarthy is the authoritative source of information about what the 4Ps encompass and how they should be applied, and his textbook provides a detailed description of the model as he originally designed it. So, in the balance of this post, I'll address Ms. Seddon's specific criticisms of the 4Ps using material drawn from Basic Marketing.

"The 4Ps Are Tactical, Not Strategic"

In reality, the 4Ps model is more strategic than tactical. McCarthy's extensive discussion of product, place, promotion, and price (Sections C - F in Basic Marketing) highlights the many strategic business issues that marketing managers must address when developing a marketing mix.

The following passage illustrates McCarthy's view of marketing's role in strategic decision-making:

"Are the activities of product development, product design, packaging, credits and collections, transportation, warehousing, and price setting included in 'marketing?' There is little doubt that personal selling and advertising are marketing activities, but many business executives would have marketing stop there. . . We must reject this view of marketing.

". . . Marketing should start with the customer, not with the plant. Thus, marketing should determine what products are to be produced . . . what prices to charge . . . and where they are to be available . . . - as well as selling and advertising." (Basic Marketing, p. 34)

The 4Ps Are "Purely Product-Focused" and "Miss Out" the Customer

McCarthy clearly states that marketing starts with the customer numerous times in Basic Marketing. It's noteworthy that he devoted 171 pages in his textbook to explaining the importance of choosing a target market and understanding the needs, preferences, and buying behaviors of potential customers before he began his detailed discussion of the 4Ps.

McCarthy's view of the centrality of the customer is evidenced by the following diagram, which appears on page 45 of Basic Marketing.

The "C" in the center of the above diagram stands for "consumer," and the diagram illustrates that all decisions regarding the 4Ps are centered on the customer.

The 4Ps Assume a "Static, Unchanging Marketplace"

This criticism is also unfounded. Near the end of Basic Marketing, McCarthy directly addressed the issue of changing conditions. He wrote:

"A 'best' solution can hardly remain 'best' for long . . . We are dealing, too, with a great range of ever-changing variables, and the movement of any one may change the final result. That makes our 'best' solution obsolete immediately. The marketing manager, then, must . . . make appropriate changes in his marketing mix. And this is a continuing process. He is continually analyzing, measuring, evaluating, and changing. (Basic Marketing, p. 671)

The 4Ps Don't "Touch on the Purpose of Marketing, Which Is to Drive Revenue, Profit, and Financial Value"

This criticism is accurate in the sense that McCarthy doesn't specifically address the measurement of marketing performance as a distinct topic. This shouldn't be surprising given how he sees the role of marketing in a business.

McCarthy defines marketing as follows:

"Marketing is the performance of business activities that direct the flow of goods and services from producer to consumer or user in order to satisfy consumers and accomplish the firm's objectives." (Basic Marketing, p. 33)

In McCarthy's view, marketing plays a leading role in most aspects of a company's business operations. Therefore, the effectiveness of the marketing strategy will be reflected in the overall company performance.

"The 4Ps Miss Out Brand!"

Ms. Seddon's final criticism is that the 4Ps model omits brand. In fact, McCarthy discusses branding in both the "Product" and the "Promotion" sections of his textbook.

It is fair to say that McCarthy's treatment of brand focuses on fundamentals, what we might expect to see in an introductory brand management textbook.

It's also fair to say that McCarthy, unlike today's brand marketing advocates, doesn't discuss the shortcomings of performance marketing, the pitfalls of "short-termism" in marketing, or how a strong brand affects the psychological aspects of buyer decision-making.

But, it's simply wrong to say the 4Ps omit brand.

Are the 4Ps Outdated?

Like any textbook, Basic Marketing reflects the state of knowledge about its topic that existed when it was written. So, there are aspects of Basic Marketing that are now outdated. To address this issue, popular textbooks are typically updated regularly, and Basic Marketing is no exception. The book is now in its 19th edition.

The 4Ps model itself is not outdated if it is properly understood and used, and most criticisms of the model are simply way overdone.

Thought Leadership or Brand - Which Matters More to "Hidden Buyers"?

Edelman and LinkedIn recently published their 2025 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report, which was based on a survey of 1,934 management-level business professionals from a wide range of industries and company sizes. The survey was conducted March 17 - April 3, 2025.

The primary focus of this year's study was "hidden buyers" - people in the buying organization who influence a purchase decision even though they are not a primary user of the product or service being considered.

The 2025 report includes several survey findings for "hidden buyers" and "target buyers," defined as follows:

• Hidden Buyers - "People who . . . are a final decision-maker in group purchasing decisions and are primarily involved as a representative of a function that does not require in-depth knowledge of the specific product or service. These functions might include finance, operations, legal, compliance, procurement, and others."

• Target Buyers - "People who . . . are both a final decision-maker and are primarily involved as an expert in the service or product being offered."

Here are some of the major findings from the Edelman/LinkedIn report.

Consumption and Use of Thought Leadership

 Hidden buyers consume as much thought leadership content as target buyers. Sixty-three percent (63%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents said they spend an hour per week (on average) consuming thought leadership, compared to 64% of target buyer respondents.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents reported using thought leadership content to evaluate potential vendors, compared to 56% of target buyer respondents.

Impact on Marketing/Sales Interactions

Seventy-one percent (71%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents reported having little or no interaction with vendor sales reps. However, 95% said that strong thought leadership content made them more receptive to marketing and sales outreach from companies producing such content.

Attributes of Strong Thought Leadership

Ninety-one percent (91%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents said that a key attribute of high-quality thought leadership content is that it helps them uncover challenges, needs, or opportunities that they hadn't previously recognized.

Two Controversial Findings

The Edelman/LinkedIn report contains two somewhat controversial findings. In this study, the researchers asked participants to rate the importance of several considerations when selecting a vendor.

The following table shows the percentages of hidden buyer respondents who rated each consideration as very important or moderately important.

As this table shows, hidden buyer survey respondents rated "Vendor is the 'safest choice'" as less important than five other considerations.

The second controversial finding relates to the importance of brand. The researchers asked study participants how much they agreed or disagreed with this statement:  "In vetting vendors, if an organization produces high-quality thought leadership, it matters much less to me how well known they are." Fifty-three percent (53%) of both hidden buyer and target buyer survey respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with this statement.

The Alternative View

These two findings differ significantly from the results of other recent research. One example of this research is a recent study by The B2B Institute, Bain & Company, and NewtonX (the "B2B Institute Study").

(Note:  This study is described in a 2024 LinkedIn article written by Mimi Turner and Jann Schwarz, both with The B2B Institute. I understand The B2B Institute is planning to publish  a report or paper discussing this research later this year.)

The B2B Institute Study examined the attitudes and behaviors of hidden buyers and target buyers using definitions of those terms similar to those used in the Edelman/LinkedIn study. The study found that making a "safe" purchase decision is a primary driver for hidden buyers.

• Hidden buyers care more than target buyers about factors such as brand reliability and "peace of mind." (See the graphic accompanying "Finding #2" in the LinkedIn article.)

• About two-thirds of hidden buyers and target buyers said they would prefer products or services that "provide peace of mind without career advancement" over products or services that offer "business growth that involves potential career uncertainty."

The B2B Institute Study also found that a strong, well-known brand is important to both hidden buyers and target buyers, but is more influential with hidden buyers.

• Eighty-one percent (81%) of the study participants said the brand they ultimately bought was known to everyone or almost everyone in the buying group at the start of the purchase process.

• Hidden buyers are 31% more likely to reject brands they don't know and 70% more likely to reject brands that aren't well-known to other members of the buying group.

My Take

These two studies present starkly different perspectives regarding the tendency of B2B hidden buyers to make "safe" purchase decisions and the influence that brand has with hidden buyers.

I suggest that most of these differences can be attributed to differences in the focus and design of the underlying surveys. The B2B Institute Study focused on high-consideration, high-value technology purchases by large enterprises. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the survey respondents in this study were with companies having more than 10,000 employees.

The survey used in the Edelman/LinkedIn thought leadership study had very different survey demographics. In fact, 48% of those survey respondents were with companies having 200 or fewer employees.

Several other recent studies have highlighted the preference of most B2B buyers for safe purchase decisions and the important role that brand plays in B2B buying decisions.

Under these circumstances, I think the findings of the B2B Institute Study provide a more accurate picture of real-world B2B buying.

Top image courtesy of Hans Splinter via Flickr (CC).

How to Make Sustainability Marketing Effective Marketing

(This is the third of three posts discussing the use of environmental claims in marketing. The first two posts in the series can be found here and here. This post describes how marketers can make environmental claims more compelling for potential buyers and thus more effective at driving revenue growth.)

Many marketers at companies offering sustainable products or services have been featuring environmental messages prominently in their marketing campaigns, and this shouldn't be surprising. After all, numerous surveys have found that most people are concerned about the environment and support actions aimed at improving environmental sustainability.

But many surveys have also revealed a substantial and persistent disconnect between the views people express about sustainability in surveys and their actual buying behaviors. This say-do gap can be attributed to several factors, including:

• The impact of the social desirability bias on survey findings

• The failure of some surveys to capture how important sustainability is to survey respondents compared to other factors that influence their purchase decisions 

• The higher cost of many sustainable products

• How convenient it is to purchase sustainable products (compared to "non-sustainable" alternatives)

While all these factors have contributed to the say-do gap in specific instances, marketers also bear some of the responsibility for the gap because we haven't consistently communicated the benefits of sustainability in ways that produce changes in buying behaviors.

Recent Research Provides Important Insights

Making sustainability an effective marketing tool has been a tough challenge because there hasn't been much research on what kinds of sustainability claims are most appealing to potential customers. However, two recent studies have provided several important data points on this issue.

The Public Inc. Survey

The first study is a 2024 survey conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Public Inc. (the "Public Inc. Survey"). This survey was conducted July 11-24, 2024 with a nationally representative sample of 1,510 US adults and 1,508 Canadian adults.

The NYU-Edelman Study

The second study is a 2023 research initiative conducted by the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business and Edelman (the "NYU-Edelman Study").

For this research, NYU and Edelman partnered with nine consumer brands from various industries. The researchers conducted a survey with a sample of the US general population and asked respondents for each brand to rate the appeal of 30-35 marketing claims, which included a mix of conventional product claims and environmental claims.

The researchers used two robust survey techniques to obtain an appeal score for each claim and to identify the combination of claims that produced the maximum overall appeal.

The Formula for Effective Sustainability Marketing

Collectively, the Public Inc. Survey and the NYU-Edelman Study provide robust evidence about the attributes that make sustainability claims appealing to potential customers. They also identify two steps that you must take if you want to be successful at using sustainability claims in your marketing efforts.

Focus on the Right Goal

First, you must always remember that your primary objective is to drive increased sales of a sustainable product or products, not to evangelize the cause of sustainability.

This distinction is critical because it largely determines which sustainability claims you will use and how you will frame those claims.

The focus on increasing sales is not solely a matter of economic self-interest. The surest way to advance sustainability is to increase sales of sustainable products. As the authors of the NYU-Edelman Study report wrote:  ". . . consumer demand will be a key driver for companies to scale investments at the pace necessary to combat climate change and other urgent issues."

Recognize the Diversity of Your Target Audience

The target market for your sustainable products - and therefore the target audience for your marketing campaigns - will consist of potential buyers with substantially different levels of interest in, and commitment to, sustainability. So, your sustainability claims must take this diversity into account.

The Public Inc. Survey identified five consumer segments based on the percentage of their purchases that are conscious, i.e., purchases of "products or services made with consideration for social, ethical, or environmental factors."

The researchers found that only 9% of the surveyed consumers made conscious purchases at least 75% of the time. Forty-five percent (45%) of the surveyed consumers made conscious purchases less than 50% of the time.

Three Ways to Make Sustainability More Appealing

Based on the findings of the Public Inc. Survey and the NYU-Edelman Study, there are three steps you can take to make sustainability claims more compelling for potential buyers.

Step 1 - Link sustainability claims to "conventional" product performance claims

• The NYU-Edelman Study evaluated the appeal of sustainability claims and conventional product performance claims (which the study report calls "category claims").

• In this study, product performance claims were found to be "paramount and non-negotiable" and were more compelling than stand-alone sustainability claims.

• However, the researchers also found that claims that combined sustainability and product performance elements extended brand reach and were the most compelling claims tested.

Step 2 - Make sustainability personal

• Both the Public Inc. Survey and the NYU-Edelman Study found that sustainability claims were more appealing when they expressed how sustainability provides tangible benefits to the buyer or to the people or things the buyer cares most about.

• Specifically, the NYU-Edelman Study found that the surveyed consumers cared most about themselves and their families (health, well-being, etc.), saving money, local farms and farmers, their children and future generations, and sustainable sourcing.

• Conversely, both studies found that science-oriented claims like "carbon neutral," "net zero," and "bio-degradable" did not perform well with consumers. The NYU-Edelman Study did find that the performance of science-oriented claims is improved when they are tied to a personal "reason to care."

Step 3 - Emphasize the aspects of sustainability that deliver present-day benefits

• The Public Inc. Survey found that consumers are more likely to respond to sustainability claims that focus on immediate or short-term benefits.

• As the report's authors put it:  "They [consumers] want to know how their purchase makes their life better or easier now, not in some distant future."

A Final Point

Marketers who include environmental claims in their marketing communications must ensure that they have adequate scientific evidence to support those claims. And the same is true for environmental claims used on product packaging.

Without such supporting evidence, you run the risk that your company can be accused of greenwashing, which refers to making false or misleading claims about the environmental impacts of a product or company to make it look more environmentally beneficial than it actually is.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is the federal agency primarily responsible for regulating environmental marketing claims, and all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting false or deceptive advertising that can be used to combat greenwashing.

Equally important, the number of private class-action lawsuits involving allegations of greenwashing is increasing, and some have resulted in the award of substantial financial judgments against companies found to have engaged in greenwashing.

The important lesson for marketers is:  Only make an environmental claim if you have the evidence to back it up.

The top image is a version of the universal recycling symbol and is in the public domain. Accessed via Wikimedia Commons.