• Marketing Mag Website

  • Marketing Blogs

The AMI bites back

this article
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 20
  • 51

Roger James is the chairman of the Australian Marketing Institute.

Advertise with us

This post is the fourth in a series looking at the AMI. Click below to read the others:

  1. What's wrong with the AMI
  2. The Great AMI Debate: Round 2
  3. The Stark Reality of the AMI
  4. The AMI Bites Back
  5. Marketing the Marketers: the UK perspective
  6. Bowll bites back: Geoffrey responds to the AMI

I know we can't please all of the people all of the time, but you must have been going to AMI functions somewhere else. I attend many AMI events and people’s shoulders on departing don’t seem hunched to me; on the contrary, they seem uplifted, and their comments are also, apparently, strangely positive.

Our events are attended by far more women (66%) than men (34%) despite what you thought you saw. Our records reveal that 40% of our members are under 35 and you can see that at the events.

So what’s wrong with the AMI? Let’s consider a few facts to weigh up the question.

In 1999 our membership was 3,400. Our membership is now over 6,000 and currently growing at over 14% net per annum. This performance is occurring at a time when many membership organisations are declining or just maintaining numbers. You say that ‘the AMI could have several hundred thousand members’ when the best estimates of the number of professional marketers in this country is between 45,000-60,000.

What have we contributed to the marketing community?

Well, our Marketing Metrics program has led the world in promoting the role of marketing in creating value. This has been recognised by organisations such as the Marketing Science Institute of the USA and the Marketing Society of the UK. Our soon-to-be published metrics website will offer marketers unparalleled tools to measure their marketing performance and to demonstrate marketing’s central role in value creation.

Our Institute has been a major player in a project run by the ISO to develop a Standard for Brand Valuation, an undertaking of real importance for all marketers, given the challenges we face in demonstrating to accountants that the most valuable assets in most companies are its brands.

We have greatly increased the availability of professional development programs for all marketers in the past five years. Check out our website (www.ami.org.au) for some of our current programs, such as Strategic Marketing Leadership, Building Winning Brands and Finance & Marketing Metrics. These are programs designed in consultation with senior marketers to help them progress to CEO and Board level roles

Contrary to the listing in the article, we have a range of other direct benefits to members including:

  • Online newsletter – Marketing Update
  • Subscription to Professional Marketing magazine and B&T Magazine
  • Online bookshop
  • Marketing services directory website for CPMs
  • Privileged car hire rates
  • Privileged rates for Qantas Club membership
  • Special rates for professional indemnity insurance
  • Web hosting and managed services
  • Research services
  • Online webinars, featuring overseas marketing experts, available to members around the country.
  • A special student rate of $66 for three years, plus a two-year graduate rate at less than 50 percent of the normal membership rate


We work closely with other organisations such as the Australian Association of National Advertisers and the Australian Market and Social Research Society on synergistic programs to benefit all marketers.

We have offered access to world level marketers through our various events, people such as Professor Raj Srivastava from Emory University in Georgia, Tim Ambler from London Business School, David Haigh from Brand Finance plc, Pat LaPointe of Marketing NPV, New Jersey, Paul Alexander, CEO of BeyondAnalysis (and formerly head of global markets for dunnhumby plc), Iggy Pintado, Head, of Online Sales, Telstra, Graeme Chipp, CEO of Growth Solutions Group and this year Professor David Reibstein of Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, among others.

These are people at the cutting edge of marketing in emerging areas such as advanced data analytics and the critical issue of marketing and financial performance. But I guess you would still go away with hunched shoulders. Sorry. Maybe it’s you.

We have recently established a new Business Advisory Board headed by Mark Smith, Director, Toll Holdings and until recently CEO of Cadbury Schweppes and Trevor Amery, Executive Chairman of Subaru Australia, to add further insight into marketing and the boardroom.

You ask about research. We have conducted research on the attitudes to marketing of CEOs/CFOs and Marketing Directors. We conduct comprehensive surveys of needs and preferences of our members. Our 2008 member research indicates positive attitude and response to our programs and activities, though of course it is not universal, but as I agreed earlier, you can’t please all of the people all of the time…

One final point. I am a passionate believer in the benefits of marketing and that’s why I spend a lot of my time working on this cause. If you feel the same way and can put aside those unsubstantiated assertions, let me know.

If you look closer you will see an organisation that is both growing and engaged with the marketing and business community, as the facts demonstrate.

Roger James

Chairman
Australian Marketing Institute

20 Comments

LukeF
  • Wrote on 20 Jun, at 05:06PM
Nice conservative reply. And I do not mean this mockingly.

I am a member of the AMI, although admittedly primarily as a signal of our affiliation with the industry. I have only attended a few events, but have found them informative and enjoyed them.

One of the drawbacks of Web 2.0 style feedback is the tendency for it to draw out negative feedback and complaints.

This maybe because us whingers like having a voice (I am a Brit so am well qualified in this area), but how much of the feedback was us readers providing constructive criticism, e.g. steps that AMI can take to please its members and prospective members? Not many from my reading.

Involvement is great, but contribution is even better.

Criticism is easy, for a Friday afternoon challenge, put yourself in Rogers’s shoes and voice some positive suggestions. This way, together we can all benefit from the wonderful world of online interaction.
Editor | Scotland
  • Wrote on 20 Jun, at 07:14PM
An excellent point LukeF and one echoed by a few of our commenters. As one adland figure I spoke to put it recently, "Its easy to criticise, but what have you done lately?"

OK, so that does sound a little bit petulant, but Luke's right: suggestions can only benefit the marketing community at large, something even those with a problem with the AMI would probably agree on.

Interestingly, I see that Geoffreys piece has been picked up by Adbrief, who weigh into the debate too. Feel free to check out the article:

Members attack peak mktg body
noisy johnny
  • Wrote on 21 Jun, at 02:35AM
My last post seemed to be processed with an error. Ive forgotten all the good stuff now.

Essentially I was encouraging marketers 'do' something for the profession by joining the AMI. The more who make a commitment to professional development and help people understand what is good marketing the better it is for the profession.

Take a leaf out of Gene Stark's blog (The Stark Reality of the AMI) and do something constructive.

Existing members could recruit a colleague and, well, double the influence and resources for the AMI. Marketers are their own worst enemy.
RuebenS
  • Wrote on 21 Jun, at 06:30PM
This brand valuation initiative sounds interesting. Can anyone shed any
further light on the subject?
sirtezza
  • Wrote on 21 Jun, at 10:29PM
In response to RuebenS on Brand Valuation at last a topic close to my heart! As I understand there is a real problem in how you account for the value of a brand under the current global accounting rules. A brands value can only be placed on a balance sheet if it was sold or acquired in the previous year. Therefore at any other time marketing’s efforts in growing a brand cannot be recognised. No wonder marketing struggles to be heard! By having a standard method for valuing brands globally this will allow for consistency and therefore accountants will be able to apply a standard approach to placing brands on a balance sheet. This will be an enormous step forward for marketing globally and indeed a more correct way of presenting the financial health of a company. Great news!
imarkmarket
  • Wrote on 22 Jun, at 09:44AM
We are a corporate member of the AMI and can say that membership is highly valued by senior management and is one of very few professional association subscriptions that is approved. (Our company is getting tougher on any subscriptions and renewals). That said, I can see that the services we receive from AMI would not always suit the small corner store type business. Likewise, I appreciate that the price for some of their major events may be a lot for an individual - but are definitely worth attending (event fees are still less than a lot of others in comparison). Still, If I had to personally pay the membership I would. I’m not sure there is any easy answer, but by setting standards and continually improving the marketing environment I can easily see the benefits of AMI membership.
The Marketer
  • Wrote on 22 Jun, at 12:04PM
I’d like to congratulate the Chairman of the Australia Marketing Institute for such an articulate and educate response to Geoffrey’s article.

Roger James’ response highlights the fundamental problem with our Institute. Australia’s leading marketing professional body lacks any real credibility; it has no vision of the future, it’s bland and does not connect with the vast majority of marketers, in Australia.

Our Institute leaders have failed to respect the needs of all its members, who just want to be heard. Roger James seems to have a George Bush attitude of you are with us or you are against us.

I see Geoffrey’s comments as a marketer who is passionate about our Institute and the broader marketing community. As a marketer and an Institute member, I expect all comments or complaints to be embraced and celebrated, NOT ridiculed or labelled as a hunched back whinger. I especially have concerns when these words come straight from our Institute Chair.

Roger James is proud to talk about our Institute’s growth, but HELLO! The stark reality is that our Institute has had little growth over the last tens years. It’s your numbers! It has only attracted 10% of professional marketer’s living and working in Australia.

Roger James must be proud that 90% of all professional marketers living and working in Australia have never heard of the Institute or even worse, decided it’s not worth joining. I call it failure. God help Roger James if Gordon Ramsey visited the Institute’s Oval Office.

I would like to praise Geoffrey for starting this open debate. I’d also like to thank all the other contributors to this friendly debate, even the ones I do not agree with. For the first time, our Institute members and the broader marketing community has had an opportunity to engage with other marketers across Australia in a frank open conversation about their Institute.

It is not Roger James’ or Mark Crowe’s Institute, it is our Institute. A free open debate…isn’t it wonderful? It’s the best metrics!

Roger, is it too much to ask for you to embrace openness, candor and strive to build trust across the whole marketing community. The barbarians are not at the gates. Yet!

But, what really concerns me is our Chair freely admitting he knows that there are unhappy members, but decides to ignore them and berates them. Labelling those who complain as some for form of hunch backed marketer and saying - Sorry. Maybe it’s you. Roger you must be so proud.

Our Institute Chair should be the custodian of our image, our values and our vision. Our Chair needs to look to the future, engage in conversation with all members, monitor the Institutes pulse and represent all marketers, not a few. In his response, has Roger James done this? NO!

I believe Roger and his marketing neo cons are fixated on the marketing metric and events, neglecting the one true initiative that gives members credibility, the Certified Practicing Marketer (CPM) program.

If marketers are going to be relevant in the marketplace, we need a CPM program that marketers, employers and even recruiters embrace. Currently, the Institute is failing to build this awareness. It’s a worthless piece of paper. There is no awareness or credibility.

If the Institute love metrics…why doesn’t our Institute monitor the success of the CPM program? Why doesn’t our Institute publish any metrics on the CPM program i.e. awareness levels or even the number of companies actively looking for or employing CPM’s.

In my view, our Institute has pursued a rare beast; it’s called a white elephant and in doing so wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars in human resources and hard cash, on a metrics program that in my opinion is totally irrelevant to 95% of all Institute members.

To some people it maybe ground breaking, but to me this work has already been done many times over. It is a dead duck.

Let’s look at some simple metrics. How long has this program been going? 5 years? If the marketing metrics program is such a big ticket item for marketers and businesses people a like, then, marketers across the land must be rejoicing.

How many out of the 1.25 million registered businesses in Australia or 60,000 marketers are using our new marketing metrics? You must be measuring? Is it 50%, 10%, 5%, 1% or is it nil? Roger, please prove me wrong…I’m a big guy!

Our Institute has failed to keep up with the needs of its members and the broader marketing community. I reject Roger’s glossy words that our Institute is at the cutting edge of marketing. I like to use the term laggard.

Marketers like Geoffrey and me feel our Institute is not performing to its full potential and the numbers that Roger supplied to this debate shows this.

Roger, it is nature to be scared of change.

But as Chair, you have a responsibility to embrace member suggestions or comments, not ignore or berate members by calling them a hunch backed marketer

I may be a hunch backed marketer, but unlike your bland wallpaper, I don’t live in an Oval Goldfish Bowl.

Roger, people like Geoffrey and me are not going away, because we are called marketers. It is up to you to evolve out of the goldfish bowl and learn to hold a conversation with all marketers.

This hunch back is not going away. Vote 1 for Geoffrey!
The Marketer
  • Wrote on 22 Jun, at 01:24PM
P.S. To LukeF and Scotland, It is easy to say we should provide constructive criticism. Unfortunately this is the debate many of us AMI members have wanted to have for years. Currently, we are prevented to air our issues or suggestions and even berated for doing so.

I should know, I've been on the receiving end for years. I was even prevented me from taking my seat at the NSW State Council. What horrible crime did I commit? I lived in the Hunter Valley.

So for you to just to jump in and make a broad statement like that is disappointing, but I do think you guys and girls at Marketing Magazine have taken a brave step and should be congratulated.

If you don't air or comments then the light goes out.
Lottie
  • Wrote on 22 Jun, at 11:25PM
Im a new member of the AMI and so far I am impressed. Attended a fantastic event at docklands on web 2.0 - great speakers - a cool MC who said he is a director of the AMI - he didnt fit the picture that GB painted - very funny and definitely on top of the topic. 200 people had a lot of fun that night - and my company benefited from contacts made. I enjoyed reading the well researched articles in the online newsletter - not the usual rehashed marketing newsletters we all receive.

Now Im looking forward to the next edition of Professional Marketing, that magazine is getting bettter with each issue, even better its free to AMI members. I do belong to other associations and receive varied benefits - but my short time with the AMI has been positive.

Getting a little bored by the 'marketer' - time to let go mate - move on.
Eliot
  • Wrote on 22 Jun, at 11:53PM
With all this bickering, I think we need yet another industry association. I'm starting the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to the AMI (SPCAMI). If you're not already paying enough subscription dollars for your numerous corporate memberships, then send your cheques my way.
Mal
  • Wrote on 23 Jun, at 12:23PM
Special rates and discounts are nice to have but I get real value from the AMIs knowledge, information and mentoring services. Keep it coming. I pay my own way because I think its worth it.
Goanna
  • Wrote on 23 Jun, at 09:55PM
sirtezza is right about brand valuation, however, marketing contributes more than just brand value. This is important to business as much as marketing, and if the AMI is spearheading this then that's a very worthwhile contribution.
rsharma
  • Wrote on 24 Jun, at 03:08PM
AMI is doing a fine job. The facts quite adequately confirm this. This is particularly relevant for remote and regional areas where the target audience is small and fragmented. AMI, Roger and his team have delivered valuable services to marketers based in these areas through technology driven professional development programs. Keep up the good work Roger.
Editor | Scotland
  • Wrote on 24 Jun, at 07:06PM
One of the really great things about the internet is the fact that at its best, it is a really transparent medium.

By identifying themselves clearly online, bloggers allow their readers to decide for themselves how valid or biased the arguments presented on a blog are. If we decide to weigh into the debate, isn't it just as fair that we honestly represent who we are and give other commenters the same chance to assess our opinions in context?

Case in point: read the above post and tell me that it doesn't sound like marketing spiel.
A simple Google search for "sharma AMI" quickly returns the source of the rather salutary assessment of the AMI's regional programs. Isn't the transparency of the Internet fun!

Come on people, if we want to weigh into the debate, whatever our opinions, let's at least have the courage in our own convictions to declare who we are, and give everyone else the opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of a job the AMI is doing, without the all-too-obvious advertising copy disguised as comment.

If you want to read more on this issue of identity and the need for commenters to declare themselves, why don't you head over and check out the debate in the comments of Laurel Papworth's post 'Australia: Social Media Freelance Journalism.'
Marketing Guru
  • Wrote on 24 Jun, at 07:11PM
On brand valuation, I can see real benefits however I can also see real challenges in devising a common standard if you take into account the various methods that are currently applied across the globe.

Many of the current methods are applied by companies who have propriety tools to measure brands and see commercial value in applying their own methodology.

I wonder if any of these companies are involved in the project? Would like to hear more.
John
  • Wrote on 25 Jun, at 06:51PM
Gee theres something up someones nose about the AMI. Ive been a member for years - still am and happy to be. Im also in the Institute of Company Directors (and did the program) because as marketers we need to be across the business. Im also doing a convergent media program because we need to be across that. (And yes I know Laurel and hope you (editor) supported the Freelance Writers of Sydney last week when she was talking to that group at the Orient Hotel)

Is the AMI relevant - yes and its the best there is. If someone isnt happy with it - then get in and fix it. Im sure Roger or Mark or the other people in the industry who take time out to contribute to building a community would welcome more office bearer nominations.

On the Web 2.0 thing I think the AMI do need to get closer to building a closer community - maybe this magazine could have a strategic alliance (remember those) with the AMI.

I also think that it would be good to get more company directors into the marketing world and vice versa. So to those bleating ....stop talking and start doing.

John Cookson
BCA
  • Wrote on 25 Jun, at 06:57PM
As a former board member during the mid-nineties I played my part at a time when the AMI board said GO to starting the evolution and national launch of the CPM program as well as agreeing to become the AMI's first Chair of the national ethics committee which was another great initiative during that period.

The board (and the membership) saw great opportunities (now approx 15 years ago) in developing and launching a professional certification program along the same vein as a section of the accounting profession in getting their CPA program going WHY .. because in our research it was going to address our lack of profile and standing in the national business community.

The CPM program was also going to offer focussed educational development and interaction with Monash and Uni of Melbourne as well as RMIT .. there was great synergy between all parties!

The ethics committee was primarily developed to force state councillors and board members to openly declare their position if a consulting opportunity came along or take advantage of prospective case studies or state and national award functions.

There seems (perception) to be some move away from this overall focus of developing the AMI's CPM brand .. sort of a weakening of where that program could have gone? We all saw what great marketing the CPA's did with their national advertising and the rest is history!

I have no doubt that the Marketing Director who fired up the CPA's learnt a lot from the AMI's CPM launch .. becuase he was our national CEO at the time! Oh well..you win some and you lose some!

I would suggest that like we did many years ago we canvas or elicit widespread support from the AMI members and non-member marketing professionals and see on paper (real data) what the members really want OR should i say what the non-members really want as most of us are biased and converted over to "force anyway" and the growth opportunity at the end of the day is full-filling what basic needs the non-members will invest in?
David
  • Wrote on 25 Jun, at 08:35PM
On reading these numerous derogatory comments about the AMI, you begin to wonder, what is the agenda of of these peope. Is it to help improve and progress the AMI? or is it to just slander the AMI? There is no debate here, just some people who are writing unsubstantiated remarks and making them out to be from the majority.

One statement states there aren't any marketing people on boards!! Perhaps they should get a current list of Who's Who and the top 500 Companies have a good look, they are littered with high profile Marketing people.

From the comments made, there isn't any evidence of any involvement in the AMI other than perhaps attend a couple of meetings. Additionally, if the AMI is in such trouble, where are the suggestions/solutions for the woes of the AMI?

If these people are serious, then they should nominate for the State Council and then for the National Board, where they can, if they are serious, make a difference.

But no, these people just sit back, throw mud and do nothing. I bet they are the typical back stabbing parasites you encounter at the corporate office, all wind and no substance.

If you are serious, then there is the facility for you to contribute and make a difference, but I suspect, you haven't the courage to do that, or is it that you have another agenda and your main aim is to destablise the AMI.

If that is your agenda and I suspect it is, it wont work as people like you are found out very quickly and are forgotten.

The AMI will continue to grow and prosper, they will grow and prosper through the hard work and dedication of council and board members who give of their time freely, because they have the true passion for the AMI and back that passion up with both commitment and effort.

Where is yours?
britrail
  • Wrote on 26 Jun, at 02:32AM
It was enlightening to read the `AMI response given by Roger James. It gave credence to the other face of this long winded debate. [If one can call it that?] At this point I must confess I'm of the opinion expressed by Lottie and again David above that is; there seems to be hidden agendas by a few of the contributors and most specifically " The marketer" In the entry posted some three days ago their comments contained what appeared to be significant contradictions and the on-going habit of that contributor to make sweeping generalizations as if they were the custodians of the marketing industry in this country and able to speak for it's entirety.
As a member of the AMI [but currently working overseas] I have had the opportunity to experience the workings and operations of similar industry organizations in the UK and can say that I was delighted to find that AMI is well regarded here by both academic and industry circles particularly due to work done over the past five years or so to network and form strategic alliances with UK entities. [As well as providing opportunities for eminent speakers to visit Australia when the weather is crap here and warm in the Antipodes!]
Based on the response from Roger James I can only assume that the facts and figures supplied represent the current state of affairs of the AMI, and that being the case, I should expect that members should be pretty happy with the progress being made by the Institute. I certainly am, and as mentioned above was quit chuffed to find their work was being recognized over here in Pommie Land.
Debate is a good thing, but lets try to keep it constructive and relevant rather than deteriorating into a destructive slanging match based on irrelevant sweeping statements!
Editor | Scotland
  • Wrote on 26 Jun, at 10:11AM
@John - glad to hear you're working hard to keep across the changing landscape. Laurel has her head screwed on properly and though I didn't get up to see her presentation in Sydney, as an online editor I feel passionately about the area she is working in and about many of the ideas she stands for.

As far as strategic alliances go, I wouldn't know where to begin, but suffice to say this online forum is evidence enough that the AMI would benefit from a closer embrace of such two-way communications channels. There's clearly tremendous benefit in engaging in conversation with the marketing community, and (as @BCA rightly suggests) the non-marketing business community too.

@David - no need to drop into your own mud slinging, your arguments don't need that. I agree, positive suggestions are better for the overall growth and improvement of the AMI, and I should say that I don't think there is a professional organisation in the world that would not benefit greatly from a more open and inclusive dialogue with their members.

I would disagree with your summary of the comments here - this is a debate, warts and all, and as far as debates go, it affords all who wish the right to let their arguments do the talking. I also disagree that there are not numerous positive suggestions as to how the AMI might meet the needs of their community better.

Gene Stark led the way with his longer piece, but plenty of other commenters have offered up their own advice. @britrail - I agree, constructive and relevant, and your insights from overseas are interesting.

Instead of dismissing the views of all commenters because of the perceived bias of a few, I really think the AMI can work through many of the excellent suggestions here and in the other articles around this debate to better understand their members and marketers at large.

To have your say, login at the top of the page or register free and start commenting.