Budgets - the cut that dare not speak its name?

I know half my marketing is wasted - this year, I really wish I knew which half.

There's incredible pressure on budgets. Its only February and yet budget 'revisions' are already hot topics. Kneejerk responses are to cut the peripheral (out goes the loyalty programme) or the long term (out goes the training budget) in favour of the big, predictable and immediate.

These are almost certainly bad prioritisations if they rob the future and eliminate chances to innovate. But any other path requires leadership - and if the top isn't sending out the right messages, what hope for the rest.

Paul Walsh of Diageo speaking on 13th Feb confirmed a cost cutting exercise involving redundancies and a headcount freeze. Yet when asked about media cutbacks he was quick to respond "We're actually not cutting back, but we are benefitting from real media deflation". A very odd position - what makes media spend sacrosanct, and puts it beyond question?

Companies that have invested in their brands through previous recessions have performed well in the longer term. But that is not necessarily the same as simply continuing to spend the media budget regardless. When savings must be made there is good argument for doing the opposite.

For many established brands, a single deep cut - taking brand advertising completely out of the mix for 2009 - could be used to ringfence all budgets for innovation, new launches and promotions. The gradual dilution in equity that is the typical product of a period of time off air may be a lot easier to address in the future than a lack of talent, or an empty pipeline.

Do you agree? And will anyone be brave enough to take this path?