Customer Rating: 
Summary: Online version: Good hook, uneven delivery
Comment: A friend introduced me to S+B with an article about Chief Marketing Officers (CMO), of which I am one. I read it with interest, so much so that I emailed the author with my questions. He replied promptly and fully which was very refreshing. The fact that S+B gave enough info to contact authors is very good. Also, the articles tend to be longer than most magazine articles so there's 'room' to present ideas in more thoughtfully, maybe even to include supporting research. Some of the other articles WERE research articles with data, charts, etc.
There are two worthwhile points that follow this cautionary tale, so persevere Dear Reader:
The article said that the really strategic CEOs are now seeking a new class of marketing officer: CMOs who have combined operations and CONSULTING experience. That resonated well with me because I have both. Then it sites some credible famous names and their theories such as Philip Kotler whose text book I used in B school. That gave me warm fuzzies too. BTW, Kotler was talking about PRODUCT MANAGEMENT, not strategic marketing, but let's not quibble at this point.
So far so good.
Then, THEN! Then it said to the effect (further clarified in an email from the author) that different "brands" cannot effectively do strategic marketing because of the conflicts caused by distributed organization structures, authority and demands on resources.
Huh? Excuuuuuse me? Is this a marketing article or an OrgDesign one?
(a) what do BRANDs have to do with early product planning? It turns out the author's definition of a brand is what those of us in the working world would call a "business unit."
(b) why is a consulting background critical for CMOs? So that we can give good presentations and influence decision makers. Hum, a consulting background has far greater value than that, but OK, that thesis is true, though trivial.
(c) "Real strategic marketing is a new concept and isn't 'there' yet. I've done strategic marketing in high tech for more years than I wish to reveal, and although turf wars, resource allocation arguments... operated in every decision, the organization structure and mentality were NEVER major obstacles. So the core thesis of a CMO being an emerging trend is, um, shall we say, uh, debatable?
Now that I've nit-picked a single article to death, what about the rest of the articles I read? They were buzz-wordy, flossy, interesting but not substantial. They serve a useful purpose as 'mind candy' and got me thinking and researching in greater depth, which is good. I suppose that's one difference between monthly, thousand word articles and peer-reviewed research papers. :)
Here are my points:
1. This magazine is published by Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the more famous strategy consulting firms. The tone reflects BoozAllen culture a lot, but it's also possibly self-serving. Practically EVERY article I've read so far extolls the virtues of consulting and consultants.
2. Some authors are better than others, not just in writing style, but in CONTENT. The editors might be a committee, or someone whose business background can be deeper. The quality of the contents vary a lot. Marketing advice: They need to come up with a consistent brand and a value promise that are fulfill by every article.
Thanks for reading this whole thing. Hope it was helpful in your decision about whether to buy.
