Promotion Management Case

The functions of Promotion Management (PM) department and the Marketing Area have complex relationship that requires the two units to communicate and cooperate. The PM has the responsibility to initiate hype testing, review test results and select the most productive hypes for marketing programs. On the other hand, the Marketing Area has the responsibility to set up and implement hype tests and provide information on the results of hype tests to PM. In turn, the information is used to identify the hype effectiveness. Figure 1 illustrates the responsibilities of PM and Marketing Areas divided accordingly by the heading.

The numbers represents the process of developing, conducting and evaluating hype tests while the dotted lines represents the relationship between the PM and marketing areas. Upon analysis, the process of developing, conducting and evaluating hype tests has been identified as the main problem of the case which leads to:

1. Wrong implementation of hype tests;
2. Delay in submission of information on completed hype tests;
3. Erroneous information submitted by marketing analysts; and
4. Animosity between the marketing analysts and the PM.

These consequences may be attributed to the following factors:

1. a. The Marketing Area may have a different interpretation of the hype testing ideas conducted by the PM; b. The goals identified by the PM during hype testing may not be the same with the goals of the Marketing Area during set up and implementation of the hype tests.
2. The marketing areas do not have primary data on sales information. They wait from the company’s data processing center for the information and only after receiving will the analysts are able to fill out the forms for submission to PM.
3.  The forms may need restructuring to obtain accurate information from the marketing analysts.
4. a. Prior to the present process, the Marketing Areas performs all the functions in advertising hype while the PM is simply a support function that Marketing Areas could turn to for expert advice. b. The PM has overlooked the adverse consequences of creating a “hit” list and requiring senior marketing analysts to sign the work of the marketing analysts. Other factors also include:
5. The degree of bureaucracy from the Area Managers to the Directors up to the Vice-President of Marketing may affect the communication of the marketing analysts with the PM.
6. The marketing analysts may not have the degree of expertise needed for generating an analysis of sales information as stated in the case.
7. The management may have overlooked the disadvantages of separating significant processes in hype testing.
8. Communication channels between the PM and Marketing Areas may not be effective.

Recommendation

Three courses of action are suggested to address the problem in the process of developing, conducting and evaluating hype tests. Consequently, the suggested actions may resolve the other issues identified in the analysis. 1. Conduct brainstorming sessions attended by the PM and the Marketing Areas.

A brainstorming session can generate the best ideas. In this session, the PM can share their expertise based on previous evaluation of hype tests while the Marketing Areas can agree to ideas that can be implemented reasonably with their available resources. Further, the goals of the hype tests can be identified in this stage thus setting the two units in the same path right from the beginning of the process. This step ensures that the Marketing Areas will no longer implement a hype test that is different from the idea of the PM. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed process of hype development, implementation and evaluation.

Step 1 is shown in the middle to signify that this process is jointly executed by PM and the Marketing Areas. 2. Assign the analysis and interpretation of the sales information to PM. In the previous process, the Marketing Areas have to fill out forms based on the sales information report of the Data Processing Center. In turn, the information is submitted to PM which is used as basis for hype evaluation. Erroneous reporting may occur in this stage for two reasons: 1) the marketing analysts may not have the level of expertise in analyzing the data, and 2) the forms used by the analysts may not be suitable for the information needed by the PM.

This method can also cause time and delay because the Marketing Areas may not prioritize making reports over other marketing activities. It is also redundant with the function of PM in entering the information in the database. Thus, it is recommended that PM take the responsibility of analyzing and interpreting the sales information. The expertise of PM in this function can guarantee a higher level accuracy of the information. The issue on the growing animosity between the two units brought about by the “hit” list and signature requirements can also be resolved.

Step 4 in Figure 2 shows that this process can also eliminate the redundancy of work as shown previously in Figure 1, Steps 6, 7 and 8. 3. Create a workshop that will serve as a venue for the PM and the Marketing Areas to present, discuss and evaluate hype effectiveness. The third course of action is to provide an opportunity for the PM to present the results of the hype tests to the Marketing Areas. In a workshop, the PM can explain the sales information and give insights to the factors that may have affected the results of the hype tests. This process can impart knowledge to the Marketing Areas on how analysis of sales information is done.

In turn, the Marketing Areas can discuss the situations they have encountered during and after implementation which can also be helpful in the determining the effectiveness of hype test. This is significantly lacking in the previous process where the evaluation is manipulated by the PM who does not have the experiences of the implementing group. Together, the two units can evaluate the sales information and generate best possible solutions should there be a need to improve a hype test. In this process, knowledge and experience are enriched and relationship between the two units is improved.