When marketing is not accountable
01/31/10 03:12 PM Filed in: Advertising
with No ROI | #marketing
#branding
Geico insures
about 8% of the vehicles in the U.S. and almost
9.5 million homes. The brand, owned by Berkshire
Hathaway, spent $618 million on measured
marketing in 2008. Progressive in the meantime
spent over $250 million in 2009 and their market
share has gone up only 0.2% ? What we have here
is a major disconnect between business and
marketing objectives and proof that awareness
doesn't mean anything today when it comes to
conversion.
In the 2010 Brand Keys customer loyalty engagement index, Geico Gecko scored 87 out of 100 and Flo from Progressive scored 80. The Gecko has 9,000 Facebook fans and Flo has 271,000. How the hell can the Martin Agency (Geico) and Arnold Worldwide (Progressive) continue to be the agencies of record for these insurance companies with such really bad results? The answer to that is that "business is business" and someone somewhere at the agency and corporate levels is really good at throwing bullshit around to justify their advertising dollars with such poor results.
Of course let's not forget that Geico has the annoying and overplayed Caveman and pile of money spots. There is frankly nothing more irritating that these constant insurance spots which don't address the real issues people have with insurance companies in a era when customer service is key.
Both agencies should be held accountable for the poor ROI here but the VP's in charge of marketing also need to be held accountable. I would love to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in an ad campaign and only be accountable for a 1% market share increase. More bad marketing, more power infrastructures wasting money.
In the 2010 Brand Keys customer loyalty engagement index, Geico Gecko scored 87 out of 100 and Flo from Progressive scored 80. The Gecko has 9,000 Facebook fans and Flo has 271,000. How the hell can the Martin Agency (Geico) and Arnold Worldwide (Progressive) continue to be the agencies of record for these insurance companies with such really bad results? The answer to that is that "business is business" and someone somewhere at the agency and corporate levels is really good at throwing bullshit around to justify their advertising dollars with such poor results.
Of course let's not forget that Geico has the annoying and overplayed Caveman and pile of money spots. There is frankly nothing more irritating that these constant insurance spots which don't address the real issues people have with insurance companies in a era when customer service is key.
Both agencies should be held accountable for the poor ROI here but the VP's in charge of marketing also need to be held accountable. I would love to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in an ad campaign and only be accountable for a 1% market share increase. More bad marketing, more power infrastructures wasting money.
