Once your marketing Strategies and Goals have been developed and agreed upon – the next stage is establishing your budget for the projects at hand.
Recommended: Zero-based budgeting
The classic quantification of a marketing plan appears in the form of budgets. Because these are so rigorously quantified, they are particularly important. They should, thus, represent an unequivocal projection of actions and expected results. What is more, they should be capable of being monitored accurately; and, indeed, performance against budget is the main (regular) management review process.
The purpose of a marketing budget is, thus, to pull together all the revenues and costs involved in marketing into one comprehensive document. It is a managerial tool that balances what is needed to be spent against what can be afforded, and helps make choices about priorities. It is then used in monitoring performance in practice.
The marketing budget is usually the most powerful tool by which you think through the relationship between desired results and available means. Its starting point should be the marketing strategies and plans, which have already been formulated in the marketing plan itself; although, in practice, the two will run in parallel and will interact. At the very least, the rigorous, highly quantified, budgets may cause a rethink of some of the more optimistic elements of the plans.
Many budgets are based on history. They are the equivalent of `time-series’ forecasting. It is assumed that next year’s budgets should follow some trend that is discernible over recent history. Other alternatives are based on a simple `percentage of sales’ or on `what the competitors are doing’.
However, there are other alternatives:
Affordable – This may be the most common approach to budgeting. Someone, typically the managing director on behalf of the board, decides what is a `reasonable’ promotional budget; what can be afforded. This figure is most often based on historical spending. This approach assumes that promotion is a cost; and sometimes is seen as an avoidable cost.
Percentage of revenue - This is a variation of `affordable’, but at least it forges a link with sales volume, in that the budget will be set at a certain percentage of revenue, and thus follows trends in sales. However, it does imply that promotion is a result of sales, rather than the other way round.
Both of these methods are seen by many to be `realistic’, in that they reflect the reality of the business strategies as those in management see it. On the other hand, neither makes any allowance for change. They do not allow for the development to meet emerging market opportunities and, at the other end of the scale, they continue to pour money into a dying product or service (the `dog’).
Competitive parity – In this case, the organization relates its budgets to what the competitors are doing: for example, it matches their budgets, or beats them, or spends a proportion of what the brand leader is spending. On the other hand, it assumes that the competitors know best; in which case, the service or product can expect to be nothing more than a follower.
Recommended:
Zero-based budgeting – In essence, this approach takes the objectives, as set out in the marketing plan, together with the resulting planned activities and then costs them out. The merger of the marketing and business plans to create the Action Plan. The decision then becomes which Actions to take in a given time period, considering, of course, what is affordable to the company.
Recommended: Zero-based budgeting
The classic quantification of a marketing plan appears in the form of budgets. Because these are so rigorously quantified, they are particularly important. They should, thus, represent an unequivocal projection of actions and expected results. What is more, they should be capable of being monitored accurately; and, indeed, performance against budget is the main (regular) management review process.
The purpose of a marketing budget is, thus, to pull together all the revenues and costs involved in marketing into one comprehensive document. It is a managerial tool that balances what is needed to be spent against what can be afforded, and helps make choices about priorities. It is then used in monitoring performance in practice.
The marketing budget is usually the most powerful tool by which you think through the relationship between desired results and available means. Its starting point should be the marketing strategies and plans, which have already been formulated in the marketing plan itself; although, in practice, the two will run in parallel and will interact. At the very least, the rigorous, highly quantified, budgets may cause a rethink of some of the more optimistic elements of the plans.
Many budgets are based on history. They are the equivalent of `time-series’ forecasting. It is assumed that next year’s budgets should follow some trend that is discernible over recent history. Other alternatives are based on a simple `percentage of sales’ or on `what the competitors are doing’.
However, there are other alternatives:
Affordable – This may be the most common approach to budgeting. Someone, typically the managing director on behalf of the board, decides what is a `reasonable’ promotional budget; what can be afforded. This figure is most often based on historical spending. This approach assumes that promotion is a cost; and sometimes is seen as an avoidable cost.
Percentage of revenue - This is a variation of `affordable’, but at least it forges a link with sales volume, in that the budget will be set at a certain percentage of revenue, and thus follows trends in sales. However, it does imply that promotion is a result of sales, rather than the other way round.
Both of these methods are seen by many to be `realistic’, in that they reflect the reality of the business strategies as those in management see it. On the other hand, neither makes any allowance for change. They do not allow for the development to meet emerging market opportunities and, at the other end of the scale, they continue to pour money into a dying product or service (the `dog’).
Competitive parity – In this case, the organization relates its budgets to what the competitors are doing: for example, it matches their budgets, or beats them, or spends a proportion of what the brand leader is spending. On the other hand, it assumes that the competitors know best; in which case, the service or product can expect to be nothing more than a follower.
Recommended:
Zero-based budgeting – In essence, this approach takes the objectives, as set out in the marketing plan, together with the resulting planned activities and then costs them out. The merger of the marketing and business plans to create the Action Plan. The decision then becomes which Actions to take in a given time period, considering, of course, what is affordable to the company.