Search results

The purpose of this paper is twofold – the first is to explore the key actions that enabled Pizza Hut Korea (PHK) to come out of a nine‐year decline in sales and profits. The second purpose is to delve deeper into the concept of return on marketing as applied to the turnaround of Pizza Hut Korea, using customer lifetime value (LTV) and the related return on marketing investment (ROMI) principles that were instrumental in turning around the business.

The main method used is interviews with company senior management, reviews of internal company data as well as external data and literature reviews of existing theories on return on marketing. The case uses a specific promotional decision that senior management must make to review the decision methodologies using return on marketing. This quantified return estimate is then combined with marketing and business strategic considerations to review the decision that management should make regarding the promotion. In addition, the detailed executive interviews shed light on the approaches taken by the senior management to effect a change in culture as well as the disciplined business reviews that were put in place to improve the financial performance. Finally the case describes the marketing insights that led the firm to implement their consumer promotions to help turn the business around.

Turning around a business that has been in decline for a long time requires not just keen consumer insight and excellent marketing tactics, it is a combination of changing the culture of the company and mindset of the leaders along with instilling disciplined financial processes and driving consumer insight driven strategies. In particular, this study focuses on the role of quantified marketing investment return model that helped to drive a fact‐based, data‐driven decision‐making process that, combined with strategic insight, helped to turn the business around. The lifetime value and return on marketing investment model employed by Pizza Hut Korea provides a starting framework for analyzing marketing investment returns that can be adapted by many other companies.

Though there has been research conducted in many turnaround situations, there has been virtually no work done to examine the turnaround strategies employed using key marketing return metrics. In addition, the study provides value in that it examines the totality of management principles employed (cultural, organizational, financial, marketing) to drive innovation and change. This study will be useful for those that seek to better understand the key principles involved in turning around a business but with particular emphasis on quantified marketing returns analysis using return on marketing investment method.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the conundrum between the increasingly importance of investments in new information technologies (IT) on marketing practice and marketing scholars continuing to question the profitability of IT-led marketing initiatives.

Systematic reviews of the relevant literature on the financial and market return of customer relationship management (CRM) investments from both Marketing and Information Systems (IS) literature were conducted.

Findings suggest that, while both IS and Marketing scholars try to determine what generates returns on CRM investment, the IS community has a more complete conceptualisation as to how these returns are realised. A broader epistemological framework, better suited to observing how organisations benefit from IT-led management initiatives, enables a more comprehensive assessment of CRM investment.

Supplementing the methods used by Marketing scholars with those frequently used in IS research would likely improve the assessment of IT-led Marketing investments and the resultant prescriptions for Marketing practitioners.

Failure to assess accurately the return from IT-led Marketing investments hinders managers’ ability to manage them for maximum performance improvements, all the more important now that organisations are preparing for large-scale investments in big data and social media strategies.

This paper is the first to illustrate how a combination of Marketing and IS scholarship can assist Marketing research and practice.

Traditional methods of marketing evaluation may underestimate the true benefits from brand marketing, unless opportunities for brand extension are included in the evaluation. However, valuing brand extension opportunities is not without difficulties. Traditional discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis may underestimate the value of brand extension, in particular the value of flexibility, such as the ability to increase or decrease brand extension investment depending on future circumstances. An approach based on real options theory is recommended and it is demonstrated how this can be used both formally, to evaluate the contribution of marketing to the success of a brand extension, and informally, to influence the thinking of brand managers.

Understanding the impact of marketing-related investments on market-based assets is a fundamental issue for marketers. In this study we address the relationship between product-related investments and communication-related efforts, with respect to a basic intangible market-based asset: consumer-based dimensions of brand equity. We draw from a longitudinal study of pre-purchase brand attribute data derived from consumer panels, conducted within the context of the U.S. automotive market. Brand equity dimensions are statistically related to marketing investments and contextual factors of “region of origin” and “global brand reach,” employing a seemingly unrelated regression model. The results reveal a positive effect of communication-related investments, as measured by annual advertising expenditures, on all dimensions of brand equity except luxury image. Product-related investments, as indicated by a brand's innovativeness, positively affect brand image but negatively affect perceived economy. Region of origin and global brand reach have mixed effects on the consumer-based dimensions of brand equity.

Marketing value is not an oxymoron. Most, if not all, companies determine strategies and implement them with a common end‐goal—to satisfy customers while maximizing Return on Investment (ROI). It's the whole ballgame. Inning by inning, organizations that are making hefty investments in brand building, marketing, and communication activities want to see measurable returns on those investments.

This paper aims to examine how much importance the financial market attaches to advertising spending’s short-term productivity vis-à-vis its investment component and the impact of important contextual factors (investor mix and analyst coverage) on this trade-off.

A stochastic frontier estimation (SFE) approach is used to help disentangle advertising spending. Using a panel internal instruments model and 10,017 firm-year observations from publicly listed US companies over a 13-year period, this study relates aggregated advertising spending and disentangled advertising spending, together with important contextual factors, to Tobin’s q.

The results do not indicate an effect of aggregated advertising spending on Tobin’s q. However, after advertising spending is disentangled, results show the component with an efficient immediate revenue response to have a positive effect on Tobin’s q, whereas the effect of the remaining investment component is negative. Contextual factors moderate investors’ valuation of the components.

Findings are limited to US publicly listed firms, and are based on secondary, non-experimental data. The results imply that investors reward firms only for short-term advertising productivity, casting doubt on investors’ understanding of the long-term value of marketing.

The results confirm managers’ belief that not all money spent on advertising creates shareholder value. Managers should use the outlined SFE to benchmark their firms’ short-term advertising productivity against that of industry peer firms.

This study advances a new perspective, suggesting that advertising spending can be decomposed into two distinct parts by considering how financial market investors evaluate advertising spending. Important contextual effects on this evaluation from firms’ investor mix and analyst coverage are also shown for the first time. The findings help in reconciling conflicting prior results, and shed new light on how the financial market evaluates marketing expenditures.

The goal of this paper is to use three condensed case studies to present an analytical ROI framework that helps marketers make sense of complex and seemingly chaotic marketing investment patterns and allows them to quickly reach conclusions about future marketing commitments.

The article focuses on three marketing science techniques with roots in econometric analysis. The three techniques are: structural equation modeling, historical analyses, and in‐market experiments.

The case studies give evidence of hard returns not only in terms of marketing funds conserved but also in terms of revenue gains, more positive brand equity, and greater marketing efficiency. The article suggests that changes in marketing practices to include the new ROI techniques will yield measurable benefits.

The article will be of value to marketing leaders, brand managers, and senior executives who seek quantifiable returns from their marketing functions. The three quantitative techniques described make sense of previously inscrutable marketing choices such as spending more on word‐of‐mouth campaigns than on national advertising or selecting one direct‐mail approach over another.

To date, marketing ROI work has been constrained by confusion over ROI definitions, by decisions about what data to collect, and by an emphasis on pricing, coupons, and promotions rather than broader marketing questions about, say, the efficacy of direct mail or the impact of regional advertising. The article reports on a fresh approach termed marketing science – techniques whose fact‐based analyses make it easier for managers to decide where to invest.

The purpose of this study is to understand and compare how business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) companies evaluate the return on investment (ROI) on their social media marketing (SMM) programmes and how the investment is handled in these type of marketing programmes.

A mixed-methods approach involving multiple cases and a survey was used. Data were collected from personal interviews with eight professionals responsible for SMM management, from four B2B and four B2C companies, complemented with responses to a web-based survey by the other 28 companies’ marketing managers.

The results show that there are some differences between B2B and B2C companies regarding SMM evaluation and investment but in general marketing managers for both types of firms use simple metrics to evaluate their SMM programmes. The main measures used relate to awareness, engagement and reach and most of the metrics identified are interaction-related.

Given the complex and sensitive nature of the subject, more research is needed focussed on providing additional evidence from a larger sample of B2B and B2C organizations to allow the extension of the finding to the population as the non-probabilistic nature and size of the current sample impose that the findings should be interpreted carefully. Future research should focus on understanding what the firm’s characteristics predict the importance and level of effort placed in SMM and the barriers to ROI measurement in SMM programmes, especially in B2B firms.

The current findings confirm that the topic of SMM ROI evaluation is not a priority for B2C or B2B companies. There is a need for an update of their online marketing strategy, namely, on budget definition and allocation. Furthermore, companies should increase the autonomy of SM managers, as they are dependent from marketing managers and hire specialized professionals devoted to SMM in both B2C and B2B companies.

The findings of this study contribute to improve the understanding of the evaluation of SMM and to extend the literature on the subject. It also provides a relevant advance into the assessment and understanding on the measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of SMM programmes by offering a comparison on how B2B and B2C use metrics and allocate resources to the SMM management.

We examine the role of financial and nonfinancial performance measures in managing revenues derived from life cycles of a type of intellectual property products − motion pictures.

Our study focuses on the first two markets in which audiences can watch a motion picture – the upstream theatrical market and the downstream home video market. We combine data collected from numerous public and proprietary sources and form a final sample of 654 motion pictures. Then we perform regression analysis on the data.

First, three measures of a movie’s performance in the theatrical market, opening box office revenue, peak rank, and weeks at the peak rank, have positive effects on subsequent revenues in the home video market. Second, the same set of performance measures also predicts the motion picture’s life span in the theatrical market. Third, when the actual life span of a motion picture in the theatrical market deviates from its predicted value, the total return on investment in the motion picture decreases.

We do not have data on other downstream markets related to motion pictures, such as pay-per-view and online video streaming.

This study suggests that the public and proprietary data can be used to inform managerial decisions regarding intellectual property product life cycles.

This is the first accounting study that directly examines life cycle revenues of intellectual property products. We also extend literature on revenue driver and revenue management research to the product level.