90% of global toolkits are never activated by local markets. 45% of all global assets produced are never used. A huge waste in many ways, both financially and effect-wise. Positive though, global collaboration works – if it’s done right.
The figures comes from a report from the Danish consultancy firm Implement who concludes that ”this (wasted money) is mutually frustrating for Global and Local – especially when even more money is spent creating new content for the same campaigns by Local”.
A higher cost is obvious, but effect is even worse. A very simple way to calculate the effect is looking at two scenarios:
- In scenario 1, 80% of the total budget (HQ and Local) is used to produce material leaving 20% to activate the campaign
- In scenario 2 we turn it around so 20% of the total budget (HQ and Local) is used to produce material leaving 80% to activate the campaign
Not so hard to see what company will get most bang for the buck…
As we always motivate it, the advantages of a global approach are:
- Focus on one brand. Through a central control of messages, tonality and arguments you build a strong brand that is perceived in the same way on different markets.
- Shortened time-to-market (TTM) is more important than ever. Through a central development of ideas, strategies and communications carrier you can launch the product faster and at the same time on all markets. This way you will save a lot of time, which you can focus on sales with higher revenues as a result.
- Lower production costs. It is fairly obvious that it costs more to develop a communications solution for each market, instead of a universal one. Overall, you can reduce development and production costs by about 2/3. Money that could be used for higher investments in media, or to hire additional salespeople.
- Invest in the company’s future, not the agent’s. Companies working with agents or distributors will not spend resources on building the agent’s brand.
- Optimum utilization of resources. Local sales people are often involved in time-consuming tasks like translations.
The obstacle to the success of collaboration is often the market companies, who look with suspicion on the parent company’s ambitions to develop the communication in Sweden. They do everything they can to defend their independence, presenting a number of arguments for why, for example, a French launch must be developed in France. This is a syndrome called NIH (Not-Invented-Here). Marketing companies feel pressured in the development process, and protest by finding errors in the campaigns and materials.
It’s a shame, because there are relatively easy ways to get marketing companies committed and motivated, and with full enthusiasm utilize the central campaign. The key is involvement which can be done through one of two models which we call Concept coordination and Campaign coordination. More about how to go at it in a coming post. If you are curious already now, just reach out to ulf@sfinxconsulting.se
