Earlier this year, I conducted a research study on Boardroom views regarding effective marketing ROI reporting. In order to find out which metrics are most effective in linking marketing performance to company profit, 108
Board members answered the following question:

How much do the following KPI’s tell you about marketing’s profitability or ROI?Note: Marketing’s profitability means profits that are DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY attributable to marketing!

To answer this question, the respondents had to consider 13 metrics that are (commonly) used by marketers to report on their performance. The table below shows how the Board members evaluate these 13 marketing metrics.

The responses are grouped by the Board member’s reporting requirements – i.e. whether they require their marketing ROI reporting to be value-based or performance-based. Value-based reporting presents marketing ROI in tems of monetary value. Performance-based reporting tracks and presents non-monetary marketing outputs.

In the above table, we also make a distinction between B2B and other (B2C / Both) respondents to see whether there are significant differences in how these groups evaluate the surveyed marketing metrics. Based on these results, we can rank these metrics by relevance in their ability to link marketing performance to company profits:

From the table above, we can also conclude in general that board members, that require value-based marketing reporting, tend to focus on less metrics than those that require performance-based reporting. The value-based group seems to say: “Less (KPIs) is more!”

Of the metrics highlighted in green, the measured profitability can be more easily and directly attributed to marketing contributions. As a result, when applied correctly, they are great marketing profit indicators. Although the metrics highlighted in yellow are great profit indicators, they are next to impossible to be exclusively or directly attributed to marketing. Customer satisfaction, for instance, is as much – if not more – the result of Operations (product / service delivery) than it is of Marketing (product / service management & development). To a large extent, the same applies to Loyalty.

Although the ROI metric evaluation differs among the four response groups, there are five metrics that all groups consider to be valuable:

1. Increased Sales/Profit
2. Customer Lifetime Value
3. Faster Time-to-Sell
4. Customer Satisfaction
5. Loyalty

Consequently, it is safe to say that any report that includes these five metrics has a high chance of meeting the C-Suite’s requirements for marketing ROI reporting.

In one of my following blogs, I will elaborate more on what the C-Suite considers to be reliable sources of marketing income in terms of increased sales and profit.

Request the FULL survey report (Free).

CALCULATED MARKETING SUCCESS!

What is the most effective way to measure and report on marketing ROI? This may seem like a strange question. After all, the term ROI (return on investment) is an accounting term that is very clearly defined. Nevertheless, over the years, a good number of marketers have been ‘creative’ in applying ROI-methodologies to marketing. There are too many examples of marketers reporting non-monetary KPIs (performance-based) - or sometimes even plain marketing activities (activity-based) – under the ROI label. In other cases, the ‘ROI family’ is being extended with exotic non-monetary variations such as, for instance, ROO (return on objectives) or ROE (return on engagement).

It is clear from the above that marketers do want to report their marketing ROI. But at the same time they find it difficult to express marketing value in monetary tems (value-based). Hence, the many variations in marketing ‘ROI’ reporting.

To find out which of these reporting variations are the most effective, Calibrero conducted a research study to solicit the input from management board members. Over 100 participated and helped us find answers to the following questions:

1. How do board members define the marketing role?
2. How satisfied are they with current marketing ROI reporting?
3. Which metrics effectively link marketing performance to company profit?
4. Which marketing value drivers are considered fit for marketing ROI calculation?

Find out how to best report your Marketing ROI to the C-Suite. Request the FULL Research Report (Free).

What is the most effective way to measure and report on marketing ROI? This may seem like a strange question. After all, the term ROI (return on investment) is an accounting term that is very clearly defined. Nevertheless, over the years, a good number of marketers have been ‘creative’ in applying ROI-methodologies to marketing. There are too many examples of marketers reporting non-monetary KPIs (performance-based) - or sometimes even plain marketing activities (activity-based) – under the ROI label. In other cases, the ‘ROI family’ is being extended with exotic non-monetary variations such as, for instance, ROO (return on objectives) or ROE (return on engagement).

It is clear from the above that marketers do want to report their marketing ROI. But at the same time they find it difficult to express marketing value in monetary tems (value-based). Hence, the many variations in marketing ‘ROI’ reporting.

To find out which of these reporting variations are the most effective,
Calibrero conducted a research study to solicit the input from management board members. Over 100 participated and helped us find answers to the following questions:

1. How do board members define the marketing role?
2. How satisfied are they with current marketing ROI reporting?
3. Which metrics effectively link marketing performance to company profit?
4. Which marketing value drivers are considered fit for marketing ROI calculation?

One of the conclusions from the survey results is that there is a significant gap between C-Suite requirements for marketing ROI reporting and the actual reporting – as shown on graph 9. In this graph, we see that the majority of board members require value-based and performance-based ROI reporting – respectively 43% and 42%. In general, we can say that the CFO is more interested in value-based ROI reporting and the CCO (the one also responsible for marketing) in performance-based ROI reporting.

Graph 9 also shows us how this gap influences satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels within the C-Suite. Board members with unfulfilled value-based reporting requirements, have an above-average dissatisfaction rate (31.7% over an average of 24.3%) and a below-average satisfaction rate (56.5% over an average of 64.3%). We see a similar result among board members with unfulfilled performance-based reporting requirements. The reverse applies to those board members that require activity-based ROI reporting or no reporting at all. The satisfaction rates for these board members are not affected whether or not their reporting requirements are fulfilled. The reason being that their expectations are so low that they are more likely to be exceeded.

It is, therefore, fair to say that C-Suite satisfaction with marketing ROI reporting depends very much on their reporting requirements. Still, my recommendation is as follows: Focus on value-based marketing ROI reporting! This is the only way to attain high and durable satisfaction within the C-Suite. Even if your management board only requires activity-based marketing ROI reporting it makes sense to focus on value-based reporting. After all, board members come and go and the C-Suite reporting requirements can only go up. Focusing on value-based marketing ROI reporting, therefore, has long-term benefits.

Request the FULL survey report (Free).

CALCULATED MARKETING SUCCESS!

There is continued discussion on whether marketing is an art or a science. The short-cut difference being that for marketing, as an art, it would be impossible to predict or measure commercial results. Whereas for marketing, as a science, it would be possible. The discussion is, however, an exercise in futility. After all, the question ‘is marketing an art or a science?’ presents a false dilemma.

To me, M.C. Escher’s work is a great metaphor for marketing. His work is as  much geometry (science) as it is art. Similarly, marketing isn’t either art or science. It is both! Marketing is an art in that it relies on creativity to make a desired impact on the market – the art of persuasion. And as with all creative output, it is next to impossible to predict what that impact will be. This is because art is experienced on a subjective level.

At the same time, marketing is also a science. The dictionary.com definition of science is “knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.” Marketing is a science in that it gains knowledge on how to best maximise profit through increased commercial effectiveness (lower cost-to-sell, faster time-to-sell) and through the creation of new profit streams (new market/product development). Calculating marketing ROI requires a scientific approach. You need a calculation model that will allow you to quantify marketing profitability as accurately as possible.

Many marketers do not calculate marketing ROI, because they find it hard to produce objective, fact-based evidence of marketing ROI. One of the reasons for this is that they feel it can only be done if their ROI calculations are 100% accurate. And that’s impossible. Attributing profitability to marketing is NOT an EXACT science! The Merriam-Webster defines Exact Science as follows: “a science (as physics, chemistry, or astronomy) whose laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression.” Sometimes, in science, we have to content ourselves with the best possible estimate. We do it all the time. And we will accept these best estimates as long as the underlying assumptions are sound and solid.

To illustrate this: In August 2007, Dr Bill Sellers and Dr Phil Manning from the University of Manchester published a study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of B (PRSB) – a biological research journal. They had developed a computer model to estimate the running speed of dinosaurs. Based on that model they concluded that a Tyrannosaurus rex had a top running speed of about 30 km per hour and would, therefore, be slightly quicker than a soccer player (source: BBC News, 21 August 2007).

There is, of course, no way that they could have drawn this conclusion from empirical observations. So Sellers and Manning’s model was built on assumptions that were based on fossil records of the animal shape and on the records of muscle strength & density of modern animals. According to dr Manning: “The figures we have produced are the best estimate to date as to how fast these prehistoric animals could run” (source: TimesOnline, 22 August 2007). The publication of these results in the prestigious and acclaimed PRSB would concur with Manning’s statement.

In business too, assumptions are made all the time to arrive at best estimates. When your market research firm presents your industry’s market potential for the coming years, you accept that the results aren’t 100% accurate, because they can’t be. When your finance department applies activity-based costing to calculate profit margins on a customer-level or on a product-level, you accept that the results cannot be 100% accurate. You’ll accept them as best estimates. The same applies to determining your marketing ROI.

My advice to you with regard to quantifying marketing ROI: Be practical and invest time and effort in making sound and solid assumptions that will allow you to arrive at the best possible estimate of your marketing profitability. The better the quality of your assumptions, the better the chances that your best estimate will be recognised by your stakeholders – not least of which, your CEO and CFO.

CALCULATED MARKETING SUCCESS!

DutchmarQ offers professional B2B market services including interim & project management. Our mission is to bring new meaning, business sense and ROI to marketing and social media marketing in B2B. Our experience and references cover companies in sectors such as IT & Technology, Utilities and Consulting in both the Netherlands and internationally.

Says Ewald Jozefzoon, Managing Director Calibrero: “The cooperation between DutchmarQ and Calibrero has already proven to be a testimony to synergy, combining our expertise in marketing ROI solutions with DutchmarQ’s strong background and focus on Social Media Marketing.”

Er zijn twee type marketeers: de virtual marketing types of de vital marketing types. Het verschil tussen de twee hangt af van het antwoord op de volgende vraag: RU 4 Real?  Die marketeers voor wie het antwoord op deze vraag nee is, behoren tot de virtual marketing types. Is het antwoord hierop ja, dan behoort de marketeer tot de vital marketing types.

Om uit te leggen wat het betekent (2b or not 2b 4 real), begin ik met een omschrijving van het virtual marketing type. Zo wordt het woord virtueel beschreven in mijnwoordenboek.nl:

“Ogenschijnlijk (als tegenstelling tot werkelijk of absoluut), b.v.een simulatie van de functies van een functionele eenheid (computer en de daarbij behorende apparatuur).Voorbeelden: virtueel geheugen, virtueel gegeven, virtueel circuit.”

Virtueel marketing doet me denken aan De Nieuwe Kleren van de Keizer, een verhaal van Hans Christian Andersen. Het verhaal gaat over twee wevers die de keizer doen geloven dat ze:

“de mooiste stoffen konden weven die je je maar denken kon. Niet alleen de kleuren en het patroon waren ongelooflijk mooi, maar ook hadden de kleren die ervan gemaakt waren, de wonderbaarlijke eigenschap dat ze onzichtbaar waren voor iedereen die niet voor zijn ambt deugde of die onvergeeflijk dom was.” (vertaald door Dr. Annelies van Hees).

Een snood plan natuurlijk. Want wanneer de wevers zich toeleggen op het ´weven´ van de nieuwe kleren (en er nog goed voor betaald worden ook), is er niemand die zal toegeven dat ze geen resultaten zien. Immers, wie wil ervoor worden uitgemaakt dat hij niet deugt voor zijn ambt of dat hij onvergeeflijk dom is?

Net als de twee wevers in dit verhaal beloven de virtual marketing types commercieel ‘gouden bergen’ door het uitrollen van ongelooflijk mooie marketing strategieën. Maar als je verwacht dat deze marketeers zich verantwoorden voor de beloofde resultaten, dan heb je het mis. Deze marketeers willen hun stakeholders ervan overtuigen dat marketing een kunstvorm is. Dat, hoe gewis de verwachte winst ook mag zijn, deze niet wetenschappelijk kan worden gemeten. En dat het onvergeeflijk dom zou zijn om de gangbare business rules toe te passen op een kunstvorm als marketing.

De vooruitzichten voor de virtual marketeers zijn, net zoals die van de twee wevers, niet rooskleurig. Wanneer de keizer door de stad paradeerde in zijn nieuwe kleren, was het uiteindelijk een kind dat hardop de waarheid zei. En alsof de betovering werd verbroken erkende iedereen dat de keizer geen kleren aan had. De virtual marketeer is inmiddels al een ruime tijd geleden door de mand gevallen. De C-Suite vindt het in toenemende mate onacceptabel dat marketingkosten onverantwoord blijven. Ze willen concrete winstgevende resultaten zien van marketing.

Als laatste verzet, meten en produceren de virtual marketers allerlei soorten metrics die als doel hebben om de aandacht van hun stakeholders af te leiden van de werkelijke toegevoegde waarde van marketing – Return On Investment. Een groeiend aantal CEOs en CFOs prikken hier gelukkig door heen. Door de lawine aan indirecte of ontoereikende winst indicatoren, zoals website statistics, return on engagement, brand awareness, en andere exotische variaties.

Dit brengt mij tot de vital marketing types. Deze type marketeer ziet in dat marketing zowel een kunstvorm als een wetenschap is. Ze is erop gebrand om van marketing een vitaal component – of een vitaal orgaan - in de valuechain te maken. Ze realiseert zich dat ze dit alleen kan volbrengen wanneer ze ook op kristalheldere wijze kan aantonen dat, zonder marketing, de bedrijfswinst lager zal zijn. Ze onderbouwt dit door marketingkosten te koppelen aan reëele marketing inkomsten, die uiteindelijk resulteren in een ’harde’ Return On Investment.

Als beloning hiervoor, wordt marketing een gelijkwaardig partner in een commercieel proces samen met o.a. sales, business development, account management, et cetera. Ze is dan ook niet het type dat onderdanig de brochure verzoeken van sales inwilligt. Ze is het eerste aanspreekpunt voor de C-Suite wanneer de commerciële bedrijfsstrategie moet worden bepaald. Ze heeft het zelfs betrekkelijk makkelijk om haar budget te behouden of te doen stijgen – zelfs in economisch zware tijden.

Welk marketing type ben jij?

CALCULATED MARKETING SUCCESS!

As a marketer, you can only be one of two marketing types: the virtual marketing type or the vital marketing type. The difference lies in how you answer the question: RU 4 Real?  The ones that aren’t for real, are the virtual marketing types. By extension, the marketers that are for real are the vital marketing types.

To explain what this means (2b or not 2b 4 real), let me start by describing the virtual marketing type. Here follows the freedictionary.com definition of the word virtual:

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) adj.

Desalniettemin begin ik mij af te vragen of sommigen de betekenis van social media niet schromelijk overdrijven. Alsof social media de panacee zijn voor alle marketing uitdagingen. Ik geef twee voorbeelden:

Ik volg nu al een aantal weken een felle discussie op ‘Dutch Marketing Professionals’ (een LinkedIn groep). Deze discussie werd geïnitieerd door Bart Kuipers met de volgende stelling:

[...]“Ervaren” Marketeers boven de 40: Wat moeten we ermee? Experienced marketers older than 40. In het afgelopen decennium heeft Offline media (print) de slag met Online (Internet) definitief en volkomen kansloos verloren. De wereld zit echter nog vol met “ervaren”marketeers op belangrijke posities die denken en doen met de nadruk op “Offline”. Deze mensen houden de vooruitgang tegen [...]

Elke goede marketeer zal het uitgangspunt van deze stelling betwisten. Ten eerste, omdat Bart ten onrechte veronderstelt dat marketing en marketing communicatie synoniemen zijn. En een beetje marketeer behoort te weten dat marketing veel meer omvat dan alleen maar marketing communicatie. Mijn tweede probleem met de stelling van Bart is dat hij ervan uitgaat dat offline media volledig irrelevant zijn geworden. Om te bewijzen dat offline media nog steeds levend en wel zijn ga ik naar mijn tweede voorbeeld.

Onlangs luisterde ik naar het radio discussieprogramma BNRpeptalk. De talkshow host, Frederique de Jong, poneerde de volgende stelling: “Campagnes voer je met social media. Wat denk jij?”

Frederique was bijzonder kritisch over een landelijke campagne tegen discriminatie vanwege de “call to action” – bezoek de website www.discriminatie.nl, download een poster, print ‘m uit en hang de poster op aan je raam om je steun voor de campagne te tonen. “Erg ouderwets!”, zei Frederique. “Deze campagne zou moeten worden gevoerd via social media.” Hoe ironisch eigenlijk om de discussie over deze anti-offline stelling te voeren via de radio. Nota bene via een radiostation – BNR – die financieel zwaar afhankelijk is van radio commercials. Ik stuurde haar nog een tweet met de vraag hoe blij BNR eigenlijk was met haar stelling, maar ik kreeg helaas geen reactie…

Nieuwe technologie krijgt altijd onze volledige aandacht. Nieuwe technologie maakt hedendaagse technologie “oud”. Nieuwe technologie doet vaak veronderstellen dat ‘oude’ technologie irrelevant is geworden. Ik noem dit de alles-of-niets valkuil. Want hoe vaak gebeurt het eigenlijk dat ‘oude’ technologie volledig door nieuwe wordt vervangen? Is het niet veel vaker zo dat ‘oude’ technologie evolueert om vervolgens synergetisch samen te gaan met nieuwe technologie?

Video zou de bioscoop de doodsteek bezorgen. Maar in werkelijkheid is sinds de invoering van de video de kwaliteit van cinema’s (cinema experience) drastisch verbeterd. Met als gevolg dat de bioscoop nog steeds een zeer winstgevend afzetkanaal is voor de entertainment industrie. En ook de personal computer werd geacht ervoor zorg te dragen dat het gebruik van papier op kantoor een snelle dood zou sterven. Het ‘papierloze kantoor’ is echter nog steeds geen realiteit.

Misschien – heel misschien – moeten we open staan voor de notie dat social media wellicht GEEN vervanging zijn voor de traditionele offline (en online) media. Misschien hebben traditionele media nog altijd een waardevolle functie bij het realiseren van communicatiedoelstellingen die niet door social media kunnen worden gerealiseerd. Sterker nog: Misschien staat de combinatie van social en traditionele media wel borg voor succesvollere campagnes. Dit is in ieder geval wel mijn uitgangspunt.

CALCULATED MARKETING SUCCESS!

‘Hard’ ROI is, of course, a flaming pleonasm. Why? Because there is no such thing as ‘soft’ ROI. ‘Soft’ ROI is an illusion. It’s like the mirage of a water-rich oasis in the middle of a scorching desert. All the ‘returns’ on engagement (roe), on objectives (roo), on interest, on influence together will never ever produce even an ounce of ROI. That’s because ROI means monetary return on monetary investment.

Social Media may be a novel marketing phenomenon. Nevertheless, when it comes to ROI, the age old business rules still apply – Show me the money! Don’t just take my word for it. Watch and listen to
Olivier Blanchard’s views (fromthe brandbuilder blog) on how to measure Social Media ROI:

What Olivier rightfully says is that many marketers will measure the “non-financial impact” of social media and mistake that for ROI. Don’t get me wrong. It is absolutely crucial to measure the ”non-financial impact”. It’s what I call measuring the Quality of Social Media Marketing (SMM) Events. There are plenty of great tools that can help us determine the success of SMM events such as tweets, blog & videoposts, webinars, polls, et cetera. Listed below, I share some links to articles with excellent and thorough evaluations of most social media analytics tools:

• HOW TO: Track Social Media Analytics by Ben Parr
• Tools To Measure and Impact Social Media ROI by Rebekah Paul

But just so I am clear: These social media analytics only show you the quality of SMM events. It is only one of the steps towards measuring the Social Media Marketing ROI. To measure what Olivier calls “Financial Impact”, you must proceed by measuring what I call the Quality of SMM Responses. In other words, don’t just look at the types of responses that are triggered through SMM events (quality of events). Also look at the quality of these responses: How many leads are generated through these responses? How many of these leads convert into customers? What are their lead-to-sales times? Cost per leads? Et cetera. In answering these questions, you can measure the commercial effectiveness achieved through SMM. Thus, you can quantify the (incremental) value of SMM. For more details on how this is done, also read How To Measure 360° Marketing ROI Part 1 and Part 2.

For more information on how to ‘harden’ your Social Media ROI, you can go to www.socialmediamarketingroi.com.

CALCULATED MARKETING SUCCESS!

In part 2 of my blog post ‘How To Measure 360° Marketing ROI’, I elaborate a bit more on the practice of calculating Total Marketing Income. In part 1, I indicated that marketing cannot and should not measure its success directly based on sales revenue. This is because marketing usually doesn’t sell directly. Sales does. In determining Total Marketing Income, marketing should focus on how successful it has been in maximising the company’s commercial profitability. And marketing has three value drivers at hand to accomplish this:

1. Sales cost reduction
2. Sales cycle time acceleration
3. Incremental profit streams generation

The first two marketing value drivers together increase the commercial effectiveness of a company. After all, being able to sell more within the same time period at a lower cost is a compelling value proposition. Here’s how you measure the value of increased commercial effectiveness:

Step 1 – Base Measurement
“You can’t know where you’re going, until you know where you’ve been” (George Duke in Ancient Sources on his Album ‘Cool’). In this context, it means that you need to know what the commercial effectiveness would be without marketing intervention. It is, in fact, the benchmark against which you measure marketing’s impact on commercial effectiveness. I often call this benchmark the ‘Sales-Only’ scenario. Because if there’d be no marketing, sales would be on its own to manage the FULL sales cycle – from suspect identification to cold acquisition; from response handling to lead conversion; from closing the sale to continue to engage the customer. So at its core, the marketing business case is a make-or-buy consideration. Especially from the perspective of sales.

With the help of internal data sources (financial, CRM, etc.) it is not so difficult to conduct a base measurement on commercial effectiveness. In the illustration below, you see an example of what variables can be used for this.

From the example above, we can say that for every 1,000 orders received from existing customers:

• 2,857 prospects, 11,428 leads, and 57,143 suspects are required
• Suspect ID costs will be €17,143 (57,143 suspects x € 0.30)
• 952 prospecting hours of sales are required (2,857 prospects / 3.0)
• 1,758 lead hours of sales are required (11,428 leads / 6.5)
• 7,143 cold acquisition hours of sales are required (57,143 suspects / 8.0)
• Sales spends a total of 9,853 hours (x € 75 hourly sales rate = € 738,975)
• Total existing customer sales cost is € 17,143 + € 738,975 = € 756,118
• Total existing customer sales cycle time is 15 + 15 + 14 = 44 days

Step 2 – Plan & Measure Marketing Impact on Commercial Effectiveness
As a general rule, rather than to just start measuring, make a forecast of the expected commercial effectiveness improvements. I often call this the ‘Marketing-Inside’ scenario (hope Intel won’t mind my plagiary…). Continuing with the example given in step 1, the illustration below shows an example of the variables that can be used to determine marketing’s commercial effectiveness:

From the example above, we can say that for the same 1,000 orders received from existing customers, the marketing effectiveness looks as follows:

• 2,816 prospects, 10,711 leads, and 89,255 suspects are required
• Suspect ID costs will be €15,173 (89,255 suspects x € 0.17)
• Total lead costs are € 80,333 (2,816 prospects x € 7.50)
• Total prospect costs are 63,360 (10,711 leads x € 22.50)
• Total prospect-to-sales conversion costs are € 17,500 (1,000 x € 17.50)
• Total existing customer marketing cost is € 176,366
• Total existing customer sales cycle time is 37.5 days

To determine the total sales cost, you should add the sales force costs to the marketing costs. In the ‘Marketing-Inside’ scenario, the sales force costs can be determined as follows:

‘% outsourced’ means that, for instance, in the case of lead-to-prospect conversion, on average 35% of leads continue to be converted by the sales force. For 1,000 orders received, therefore, the sales force costs are € 171,075 (2,281 hours x € 75 average sales hourly rates). This means that the total existing customer sales cost is € 347,441 (€176,366 marketing costs + € 171,075 sales force cost).

It may prove useful in the planning / forecasting stage to play around with different scenarios. The illustration below shows how tools can effectively support you in this exercise by clearly visualising the relevant data.

Step 3 – Convert Commercial Effectiveness Improvement in Monetary Value
The monetary value, we’re about to calculate has two components: (1) sales cost savings and (2) sales cycle time acceleration. To start with sales cost savings, that’s an easy one: It’s the sales cost under the ‘Sales-Only’ scenario minus these costs under the ‘Marketing-Inside’ scenario. In the case of the example we took:

The total existing customer sales cost saving is €408,677 (€ 756,118 – € 347,441).

The sales cycle time acceleration requires a bit more attention. From the examples above, we could already see that the sales cycle is 6.5 days (or about 15%) faster under the ‘marketing-inside’ scenario. To quantify the value of this time saving, you need to know the average profit per sales order. Let’s say that the average profit per sales order is € 7,500. In that case, the the time savings value is € 1,107,955. Here’s how you calculate that:

Time saving % x Total sales orders received x Average profit per sales order OR

14.8% x 1,000 x € 7,500 = € 1,107,955

Keep in mind that there are other ways to conduct the base measurement. To do this successfully, you must first understand your sales value chain. Different sales value chains will require different variables to determine your base measurement. In part 3, I will elaborate on quantifying the third marketing value driver – generating incremental profit streams. This has everything to do with new market and product development. Until then.

CALCULATED MARKETING SUCCESS!