I don’t completely agree with AHAA’s approach to “right spend”. However, “right spend” is a critical tool for all U.S. marketers. True U.S. Hispanic experts have a broader understanding of this tool than the way the industry in general speaks about it today.

The “right spend” conversation should not result in one-size fits all number. Enabling the interpretation that all entities should allocate 14.2% of their overall investment to reach U.S Hispanics is dangerous.

Marketers must correctly define the value U.S. Hispanic consumers to their business. Above all the “right spend” calculation is a “demand based” model and its result will vary by category and brand. The calculation itself forces marketers to put the value of U.S. Hispanic consumers in the context of their overall business.

Marketers need to think about how both mainstream and targeted media work together to truly engage U.S. consumers who happen to live in a mainstream and Hispanic context. We are nurturing a narrow definition of “right spend” as the percentage of a marketer’s advertising and marketing budget devoted to reaching U.S. Hispanics via targeted U.S. Hispanic media. But really the exercise makes the marketer define the total percentage allocation before dividing it into mainstream and targeted media.

Marketers need to clearly define their situations before setting objectives and embarking on planning. The “right spend” calculation must never be used in isolation of market conditions, product life stage and competitive circumstances. The formula results in a guideline spend that can be adjusted up or down for the brand’s particular situation.

The idea of “fairshare” or “right spend” existed for quite some time before AHAA commissioned and published its first “Right Spend” study. Institutions such as McDonald’s Corporation and P&G have been working with allocation formulas and models since the eighties. It’s a critical first step for marketers from which objectives, strategies, tactics and measurement will flow when conducted correctly.

I’m not sure that multicultural audiences see themselves from the marketers’ point of view. I don’t think that anyone sees themselves as valuable to a brand or marketers or as a consumer. I don’t think people think about how they add value to a company. I think people see themselves as individuals with needs and wants and they are looking to fill that need. People see a product they like and they say, “That is exactly what I need.” They don’t say, “I’m an African American and I want to add value to this company by purchasing this product.”

I might have read your article incorrectly. Correct me if I’m wrong. Thanks for writing this.

Too often, the large agencies employ the “impress them with our offices” game. This is only to the detriment of the brand in question. Brand managers and others managing the images of these brands really believe that they will be able to sleep better at night because a large global agency is managing their account. Well in the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, “Surprise, Surprise, Surprise,” it simply is not always the case.

The reason that many “boutique” agencies are alive and thriving is because principles like myself know that we are better at serving the clients in our particular aspects of the publicity and marketing industry.

We provide value propositions that no other agencies can, such as quicker access and turn-around from senior level talent, and greater, more focused results. Clients should consider and weigh this heavily when selecting whom to work with.

JM de Jesus, MBA
President
Quadrant Two PR
Guttenberg, NJ/New York, NY