“They just don’t get it!”

    How many times have we heard this as a smart front line operator expresses frustration with the attitudes of the executive suite, the redundancy of the business model, or the strategy being pursued, as  again, the “bosses” appear to fail to understand the coal face drivers of success.

    The most common cause of this cry is becoming  the rapid commoditisation of many markets, and those that see it first are usually on the front lines.  Suddenly, long term customers are turning away, a new competitor emerges, and the only tool the troops have left is price, and they are pushed to do more with less. 

    Short term responses to a fundamental change in the business model necessary to be commercially sustainable won’t get you far, at best it will put off the inevitable. You need to ask yourself a couple of key questions:

  1. How can I differentiate my commodity product to a smaller market, instead of being all things to all people?
  2. How can I solve a problem someone has with the existing commodity product and service?
  3. How do I deploy my resources to make it happen, recognising , often this will mean adding a different type of resource.
  4.  

     

     

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

It has been interesting listening to the “debates” over the last week or so on two different topics, the latest of the seemingly endless versions of a NSW transport plan, and the redevelopment of the area of Sydney harbour now called Barangaroo

On both issues, it seems if talkback radio is any indication, that everyone has an opinion, and wants everyone else to hear it.

It also appears that the conversations vary from loud opinions based on fluffy thinking at best, to sensible opinions based on a series of assumptions that even if you choose to disagree with the opinion, at least the assumptions upon which they are based are transparent. There appears to be some correlation between the level of noise and the ignorance of the mouth from which the noise emanates, particularly when responding to an opinion leading view expressed aggressively, as Paul Keating has done on Barangaroo.

It seems to me that if you are going to be taken seriously in a debate, any debate,  about the changing of the status quo, you had better have some facts, transparent assumptions, and a vision of the preferred outcome in order to be taken seriously, and to have a useful role in the debate.

Making noise just distracts from the real work of driving change.

Is more always better?

It seems that most innovation is aimed at getting more of the same for the same price, rather than making the experience with the product better.

Every time I see an ad for a new car, it seems to have more airbags, more electronic gizmos to go wrong the day the warranty ends, but who really needs it all to get from point A to point B reliably, comfortably, at a modest cost, which is the point of having a car.

Surely it is time to innovate backwards, do less, strip the glitter, simplify.

I used to shave with a single blade, now I am a poof unless I shave with five, my stringy beard is not five times tougher than when I was 21, just a bit more gray worked its way in.

Two businesses, Gillette and Intel have led the way in adding features that they think will give them a marketing advantage through differentiation, and then  turning them into benefits.

For a funny, sarcastic view of the trend to complication, follow the link to the Onion site, and have a laugh.

The answer is inside, just ask the question.

How often is the “next big thing” hiding in your organisation without you knowing?

Fairly often is seems.

Probably the classic example, is the development of the first digital camera by a Kodak engineer , Steven Sasson in 1975.

Kodak, with a totally dominant position in the film market  had a huge amount to lose with the development of an alternative, and ironically, many of the adjacent inventions such as advances in storage volumes,  which enables the digital photographic technology to be realised, and which also made the computer industry as we now see it possible, were also developed in their labs, but put aside, as Kodak  commercial management saw little of interest to their business.

Way after the digital camera market had been populated by the likes of Sony, Kodak woke up, but way too late to preserve their market dominance, or even have a role in the shape of it.

Meanwhile, the inventor toiled away inside Kodak, watching others commercialise the technology he initiated.

The lesson here is that you need to creatively engage with all stakeholders, whilst seeing the opportunities through eyes other than those that restrict the view to the status quo.

Seeds of their own destruction.

What will be the continuing impact of the development of  housebrands by retailers, and the current heightened value awareness of consumers? Most FMCG suppliers lose sleep over the retailers undermining their profitability by hogging shelf space with far cheaper imitations of their brands, brought to market overnight  without much concern about the long term health and development of the category, but delivering short term profitability to them at the expense of their suppliers.

This  apparent duplicity, retailers demanding innovation and category building activity from their suppliers, whilst undermining their ability and willingness to invest has to have its limits. Clearly, the old mass market model of branding is  over, but what has replaced it?

Increasingly I see the evolution of focused brands and retailers serving the more niche markets, and segments of larger markets where something different is being delivered to customers. Retailers are enabling a new breed of supplier with deep category expertise to emerge at the expense of the older mass market model, and they are in turn fuelling the growth of specialist retailers.