"An astonishing 84% of B2B marketing campaigns actually result in a fall in market share and brand equity."
I read this quote in a newsletter from MarketingProfs.com . By the way, I highly recommend MarketingProfs.com. It is an excellent resource.
The article also puts forth this little tidbit:
"Throwing money at the problem doesn't seem to help-doubling campaign budgets for established products can lead to an increase in sales of just 1-2%. And quality over quantity doesn't seem to impact on efficacy, either-great ads don't mean great sales, as illustrated by the award-winning Budweiser "Whassup?" campaign in 2000. Budweiser's US market share actually dropped 1.5-2.5 percentage points during the campaign, with sales in barrels falling 8.3%-the largest revenue drop the company had experienced since 1994."
Wow! Who wants to do all this work only to shoot yourself in the foot? Or, maybe this information isn't the full story.
To me it just doesn't make sense that smart people can deliver educated, researched, and persuasive campaigns only to consistently lose market share - unless there are other factors at work. And there are always other factors at work.
In the Budweiser case, the article does not indicate the events and activities within the consumer group (eg. the economy), nor does it indicate the (counter) activities that were occurring in the competitors' camps. Or maybe companies often embark on Marcom campaigns when their share is eroding (in an attempt to eventually turn things around). Might that explain why things get worse in these cases?
I certainly don't know the details of these particular examples, but I do know that the Marcom sky is not falling.