6 rules for Strategic Alignment.

Every strategy book and article I have ever read talks about “alignment” as the holy grail of effective strategy implementation, but rarely have I seen it articulated in simple terms that are easily communicated.

So here goes:

    1. Ensure there is an open, widely discussed, open to feedback process to articulate “where we are going”
    2. Ensure the individual performance evaluation process is linked to the “where are we going” question so that the individual, when answering the question “where am I going” sees his/her personal best interest is served by the organisation.
    3. Ensure there is some sort of recognition process in place, so that individuals outstanding performance in delivering towards the strategic priorities can be widely recognised. It is these stories that make up the fabric of the organisational culture.
    4. Ensure that continuous improvement is a natural part of everyone’s everyday activity.  
    5. Ensure that leadership at every level is evident in the willingness to help others do better
    6. As above, except that every individual should be open to ways in which they can do better.

If all the above is happening, I’ll bet there is a great degree of alignment.

 

Presenter or Mentor

Presentations happen all the time, most are boring, usually because the presenter is talking about his favorite subject, “me, me, me” when the reality should be all about the audience, weather that be one person, or a thousand.

Successful presentations create in the audience a feeling of commitment and motivation, a recognition of shared vision, values, and purpose.

It follows that when a presenter comes across as a mentor, the impact will be greater.

 

Assumptions become facts

How often have you seen assumptions, either made in the early stages of a project, or as a result of a long association with a product category blinding people to alternatives, gradually become accepted as “fact”?

I have seen it often, as has everyone who ever sought to overturn the status quo, these “factoids” rear their ugly heads to stymie innovation.

Many years ago, when flavored milk was all packed in cartons that cost a few cents each, it was an accepted “factoid” that consumers would not pay extra for different packaging that added to the cost of the product.  It was a “fact” that plastic bottles with a resealable screw cap that added 25 cents to the cost , for less product, held no attraction to consumers, a “fact” confirmed by market research.  At the time, whilst pretty obvious that the research was flawed by asking consumers questions about something they had not seen, the institutional forces against any innovation were strong.

However, we launched a product,  “Dare” flavored milk that delivered less product in a more expensive, more user friendly and attractive package, and consumers changed their behavior overnight, and the product was not only a success, but it changed the marketing landscape of flavored milk overnight, and 20 years later it is still on the market.

So much for the so called facts.

Review of produce marketing and its future

The future of produce marketing in Australia is fraught with difficulties that many who just buy their produce in the supermarket will never think about.

The dominance of the chain supermarkets, lack of innovation, fragile investment outlook, environmental concerns, regulatory inconsistency and political blather in place of certainty coming from any philosophic foundation, an ageing workforce, trade barriers, the list goes on.

The report below was commissioned in an effort to put some framework around the marketing of produce in Australia, and to take lessons from what was happening elsewhere, and whilst it is a relative scratch at the surface, it highlights the challenges. Download it, and let me know what you think, what have I missed, where it could be improved. Its free to download, but I would appreciate you letting me know by commenting.

Embracing Innovative Marketing & Promotional Methods

Who would buy shares in a Telco?

Telstra is one of the best yielding shares around, management knows there is no other reason to hold them, so effectively pump the share price with good yields.  At the current prices they are a good buy, being assured of a juicy yield, and probably 50% market share from the NBN deal, all of which makes Telstra pretty attractive short term , but long term?

It seems to me that a strategy of squeezing earnings out of an existing business model when that model is being attacked from all sides is always tough, but in a telco it is almost sure to be terminal given the rate of innovation occurring from the sidelines.

There is now a free VOIP app for iPhone, “viber”  that eliminates call costs, including international roaming which has been around for only a couple of months, but has attracted 12 million users, and expanding at net speed. On top the damage Skype must have inflicted, and will inflict into the very near future as Microsoft (presumably) sets about building cheap teleconferencing services  onto the Skype platform, traditional telcos must be in a long term world of pain as they see their markets stolen by innovators they did not see coming.

I ask again, who would buy shares in Telstra, other than as a short term strategy to get a slice of the public donation of $11 billion and short term market share.