Thoughts

The Top 3 Videos of 2016 (So Far)

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Aug 08, 2016, in Thoughts , tagged with , , , , ,

Over the past few weeks I’ve spent A LOT of time looking at asset managers’ video content. I learned many things, but the most fun question to consider is a simple one: which videos are the best?

Below is a wholly subjective Top 3 list based on content posted to the YouTube catalogs of 25 firms since the start of 2016. Before we get there, a few quick thoughts:

  • There is a high-degree of sameness. Lots of talking heads covering lots of the same issues in similar formats. In fairness it’s not all that easy to be truly original with video in this industry.
  • Scripts are limiting. Having non-actors who are required to stick to a tight script is often a detriment in terms of being able to connect with presenters. Looser presentations have a little more snap to them.
  • Nothing is viral. It seems 98% of the video have view counts in the three figures (or less).
  • Production values are universally strong. Firms have mastered incorporating different angles, music, graphics, quick edits, and more.

That said, let’s get to the top 3…

3. Janus: Denver Pride Fest

So many firms have videos that TELL you about their culture. Voiceovers, brief looks at people in the office in various settings, you know the drill. This clip succeeds where those fall short – it SHOWS genuine aspects of the Janus culture. The video is only viewable on YouTube so click here or the image below to watch.

Janus

2. PIMCO: Asset Allocation for Equities in 2016

Over 25 seconds PIMCO uses one question, two statements, and two simple graphics to deliver its fundamental guidance on how the equity markets will go over the course of the year. No long-winded speeches, no multi-page paper… just a direct and clear message.

1. Schroders: Hidden Talent – Muy Thai

I am not sure how many topics would be more unexpected than Muy Thai in a video from an asset manager.

Golden Gate. Marketing a different perspective.

Two common traits of the industry’s most effective channel marketing teams

Posted by Anu Heda on Aug 08, 2016, in Thoughts , tagged with

In Naissance’s six-plus years, we’ve observed dozens of and occasionally been integrated into Marketing organizations. Integrating Mike & I into a team is the most flattering of client actions. Essentially our project sponsor is saying: I trust you enough to include you into my organization to make it better.

So through all these projects, I’ve observed two traits common to effective channel teams. These traits may not be universally applicable but they go beyond ideas like “hire smart”, “build a culture”, and “foster hard work.” By channel, we mean teams focused on the marketing needs of institutional, intermediary, direct, and occasionally DC audiences.

Trait 1 – Built foremost for efficiency. Effective channel teams accomplish tasks thoroughly and quickly. Rather than opine on roles, responsibilities, and organizational issues, or allocate time to big strategic challenges, they move quickly from problem identification to marketing requirements and into execution. In the intermediary channel, these tasks may include adding data points to fact sheets. Within institutional, effective teams quickly address issues such as updating RFP content. While there are times for more strategic analysis or introspective review, those times are far fewer than distribution organizations’ needs for efficiency.

Trait 2 – Optimized to continuously learn. Few teams allocate the time and resources to maintain collective, or tribal, knowledge. Many times, as the members of channel marketing teams turn over, past successes and failures are forgotten and thus (failures) often repeated. But the highly effective teams plan to maintain knowledge at an initiative level. This leads to high productivity and extremely effective interactions with Sales partners.

For example, imagine a new Head of Retail Sales joining a distribution team from another asset manager. She has a strong preference for fact sheets to contain a maximum number of portfolio characteristics and have a wholly different design. This could become a massive effort for a retail channel marketing team. A continuously-learning team can share from previous fact sheet renovation efforts with learnings that may showcase data refuting any benefit derived from those changes. In our experience, very few teams build in processes and tools to maintain and use initiative-level learnings. And to assume this will occur organically is naïve.

So as we enter the 2017 planning session (scary how quickly the year’s passing by), considering these traits may positively impact channel teams and the broader Marketing organization.

Our Input into the 2016 Digital Virtual Council Roundtable

Posted by Anu Heda on Aug 01, 2016, in Thoughts

Last month, I participated in the MFEA‘s digital council virtual roundtable with 20+ industry attendees. I shepherded a conversation about blogging throughout the industry. The attendees asked 6 questions related to blogging and I thought to mention two here.

Question 1 – Should asset manager’s have multiple blogs (by channel or theme)? No, asset managers should have a single, well-executed blog (exceptions arising from situations such as having a very different businesses like recordkeeping or fund-of-fund manager selection). Most of our clients find maintaining a single blog difficult; a second blog would quadruple the difficulty. With a second blog, Marketing teams would need to reconcile author affiliation, brand delineation, and other strategic issues.

Question 2 – What’s missing in most industry blog posts? Most posts miss a “bottom line” or “key points” that are highly valuable to a scanning FA or institutional investor.

If you have specific questions, let me know and I’ll be happy to share the presentation and background data.

 

Roundtable

which way?

Two Ads, Portfolio Construction, and a Strategic Dilemma for Asset Managers

Posted by Mike McLaughlin on Jul 11, 2016, in Thoughts , tagged with , , , ,

A few years ago we worked with a large asset management firm to conduct a strategic review of the robo-advisor market. At the time our client simply wanted to learn more about the space and consider the implications, both good and bad, of these potentially-ascendant companies.

One topic we addressed during the work was portfolio construction. Specifically, the fact that for the most part asset managers held a mostly undefined role in it for advisors and investors.

While we’ve had this conversation many times since, it popped directly into my mind upon encountering two new “Uncommon Presentation” ads from Invesco. Each triggered very different reactions for me. First up, “It’s time to bench the benchmarks”:

This ad relays exactly the type of message I’d expect to see from Invesco or any firm with significant actively-managed offerings. It relays the need to build portfolios with more than just straightforward index (or low active share) strategies. The implication is for investors who buy into that concept to look at Invesco as someone who can offer solutions to plug into their portfolios. Makes perfect sense.

Next up, “Goodbye 60/40. Hello 50/30/20.”:

This ad leaves me less clear. The message is direct – investors need to shift from a traditional portfolio allocation to one that utilizes more alts – but the role Invesco can and will play is not. If the ad established Invesco as a leading alternatives provider, a firm that can help investors with the 20% allocation, that would fit. However, the ad is framed with and ultimately focused on overall portfolio construction (the 50/30/20).

This ties back to the issue we raised in the robo project: what role, exactly, does an intermediary-focused (i.e., non-direct) asset manager play in helping advisors and investors construct portfolios? At this moment, for the most part, I’d argue the answer is “not much”.

Of course maybe the ad is simply the jumping-off point for more discussion, which is fine. But I do think it illustrates two critical questions for most traditional, active, retail-centric asset managers to address:

  1. Is it feasible for us to be viewed as a key resource in portfolio construction or are we too far down the road of ceding that ground to our distributors, direct firms, and new entrants like robo-advisors?
  2. If it is feasible, what is our strategy?

The rash of robo-advisor acquisitions supports that idea that asset managers believe that becoming a more prominent resource for portfolio construction is feasible and necessary. But the messaging around these acquisitions has been carefully curated to be non-threatening to the status quo (i.e., “we’re doing this to help, not challenge, advisors”). And I don’t know that 20 different asset managers offering 20 nuanced robo platforms is an outcome, even in the short-term, that any single firm should view as favorable.

So when it comes to portfolio construction and the role asset managers wish to and can play in it, “what is our strategy?” is a more pressing question than ever.

Marketing Tax Loss Harvesting (Robo-Advisors)

Posted by Anu Heda on Jun 20, 2016, in Thoughts

Robo-advisors have been on my mind as we’ve been asked to help a few firms adjust (potentially) strategic marketing plans to consider their impact on asset management. One interesting marketing component is “tax loss harvesting” championed by Betterment and Wealthfront. Is this is an important concept, though?

On the one hand, what would typical Americans think? Well 50% of Americans believe their taxes are too high. So anything that could harvest (by definition “to win, achieve a gain”) taxes would be viewed positively viewed by that half (and probably most others) of America.

On the other, the potential benefit simply isn’t very large. According to a 2014 Betterment ADV, the 2014 average Betterment account size is nearly $15,000. Coupled with the stated benefit by 0.77% yearly, the average account holder harvests $115 yearly. Over 30 years, that could become nearly $7,000 and Betterment keenly shows you this long-term impact through videos and calculators. $115 annually for a person originating an account isn’t anything to mock. Yet, that same person probably fares better by replacing 10% of latte consumption with homebrewed coffee.

So then is tax loss harvesting a worthy tenet?

Again, on the one hand, I would say no unless you’re a ultra high-net worthy investor, tax loss harvesting isn’t meaningful enough to conceptually engage on (see image below). Yet on the other hand, because the term evokes such a compelling image, I believe it’s a quality brand message and one without much ownership.

Robo-Advisors: Betterment