May 29, 2013 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, Social Media
This afternoon I saw the best example of marketing I have seen in ages, a metaphor for what it takes to be successful in this crowded, commoditised world.
Two youngsters, dressed in jeans and the T-Shirt of the Cancer Council were stopping people in the street and trying to have a chat with a view to extracting a donation. Both were working hard, were well presented, earnest, spoke well, and had big welcoming grins on their faces. However, one was far more successful than the other in both successfully stopping people, engaging in a conversation, and then extracting a donation.
The less successful was approaching people with the grin, and welcoming patter, only to have most people just brush by. The second did one more very simple thing, he offered his hand, and in almost every case, it was taken, the person stopped, and a conversation started.
The automatic reaction to the simple generosity of offering a hand in welcome was almost irresistible, even to total strangers, in a situation where they knew the “bite” was coming.
Amazing.
Think about your marketing, traditional or social, do you offer the metaphoric hand? Is the follow up “conversation” sufficiently interesting that it has the chance of engaging a potential customer to the point where they will give you their business?
I think offering a hand is the original Social Media, and it still works better than anything else.
May 27, 2013 | Branding, Marketing, Social Media
While writing the future proofing of marketing post recently , it also occurred to me that we have a generation of kids now becoming serious adults who have grown up immersed in the web 2.0. They are a different breed, even different to their almost generational siblings born in the late 70’s and 80’s who were around in the development days, these kids leaving school now did not know a world without an i in front of it.
iadults?
The sale of 6 year old Tumblr, created by a young high-school dropout David Karp for $1.1 billion, to Yahoo this week just highlights the point. Whilst there are not many smart enough, motivated enough, and commercially capable enough to create a startup that turns into a billion dollar baby, we are not teaching our kids anything like the creativity, agility of mind, and determination necessary to do so.
It scares the daylights out of me, as we are spending billions trying to educate our kids into the mould that made us.
Wrong.
Ken Robinson is clearly right, the traditional, industrial age education is failing our kids, we are not giving them the tools to be successful and happy in a world we cannot forecast. How can a cariculum designed in the nineties be relevent to the intellectual tools and practises necessary on the 2020’s and beyond?
All we talk about is the money it costs, not what we get out the other end, education is not an expense, it is an investment, and we better figure out how to be better at it.
May 22, 2013 | Uncategorized
Marketing used to be about brands, customers, channels, pricing, advertising and the other stuff we came to terms with up to about 2004.
Then it changed, and became really confusing.
We progressively discovered digital devices, social media, Apps, an exploding range of communication channels, and the pace of change is still accelerating.
In this digitally driven environment, where does the art and craft of marketing fit in, and how does the person directing the application of marketing funds make the trade-offs required to be both accountable for the expenditure, and taking the creative risks that have always been the “secret sauce” of success.?
The role of the head of marketing is now far more complex than just a decade ago, requiring an ambidexterity rarely found, a clear understanding of the technical tools and platforms, as well as the more traditional right brain skills. There is also now a political dimension to the marketing role, at least in larger companies not faced before. On one hand, you have a “bring your own device” environment that requires sensitive handling, from a personnel perspective as well as the obvious security and compatibility challenges, then you have the product platforms, everything from Salesforce to facebook requiring attention and understanding, while the C-Suite and board is being sold on enterprise solutions by IBM, SAP and Oracle.
What a mess.
Then you have Social touching everything, but nobody is really controlling it, partly because nobody knows how, and partly because in reality you can’t. Adequately calculating the ROI across the spectrum of influence that social is having is a huge challenge not seen before.
It is data driven marketing with a human face.
In the past, I have raved about the richness of the data derived by UK research firm Dunhumby using Tesco loyalty card data, and predicted that they will be making an impact in Australia before long. In the US, they have just hosted a “Hackathon” in Boston, effectively crowdsourcing ideas for analysis of consumer data.
This is the future people, and the only way to prevent being killed in the tsunami of change is to be in there kicking!
May 21, 2013 | Branding, Category, Marketing, retail, Sales, Small business
I am old enough to remember doing warehouse withdrawals by hand. Heavens.
Then we had early data managers automate the process, an evolution that pottered on for 25 years, through to category management based on scan data, some of which can dive remarkably deep.
However, we ain’t seen nothing yet!.
The combination of retail data, personal card data, social media and the proximity capabilities of mobile applications will set off another revolution promotional and sales strategies.
Some of the technology is becoming pretty standard, the components of so called Big Data, and there is plenty around to tell you what to do, like this McKinsey article.
However, it takes resources and deep capabilities to effectively leverage the emerging possibilities, so how do SME’s compete?
It seems there are a few strategies that will become mandatory for those who actually want to survive:
- Develop scale. This does not just mean individual enterprises, which is by definition not possible for SME’s, but I see the emergence of “data co-operatives” groups of category marketers (some may even be competitors) who contribute to resourcing the necessary data science.
- Develop deep domain knowledge. This is like suggesting breathing is good for health, but the transitory and superficial culture surrounding product and brand management counters deep knowledge. This is a challenge of leadership, and personnel management, difficult topics for most businesses up to a substantial size. It is however, an opportunity to absorb the skills of the baby boomer marketers that are around, whose Intellectual Capital is becoming available for hire, as a contractor, consultant or often as a Director.
- Do extensive “Environmental Research“, and learn from what is happening elsewhere. For 30 years I have pretty well predicted what will happen in the Australian market by deeply engaging with 2 sources. Firstly the trends originating in the UK, which almost inevitably translate to the Australian scene at some point, and secondly being wrapped in social research, the stuff that details the behavior and attitudes of Australians. The original and still the best is the McKay Report. Hugh McKay has an enormous ability to articulate the complication of peoples lives and break them down into things you can use.
- Recognise and act on the simple truth that marketing is now fully accountable. No longer can marketers argue that the impact of their decisions are too hard to tie back to specific activities and costs. The ROI on marketing activity is now almost as transparent as that on capital expenditure, you just have to understand how to go about it, and get the right tools and capabilities in place.
- Differentiate. Notwithstanding the point above, you still need to stand out from the crowd, and the only way to do that is to be noticeably different, to engage with and serve consumers better than anyone else. The genuine creativity needed to do this will attract a premium, simply because it is so rare, and now the impact can be quantified, albeit after the fact.
Need help thinking about all that, give me a call, I have been there before.
May 19, 2013 | Governance, Leadership
This week we have had a budget, arguably the first half realistic assessment of the economy for some time, with some politically unpalatable pills swallowed. Not before time.
We have also had the budget reply, which was more an election speech than a roadmap for sensible governance, and government. We still know little about the priorities and relative weight the opposition gives to the many competing demands on the resources at their disposal via our tax payments, but we know a bit more now than before the speech.
Mr. Abbott put his finger on it when he recognised in his speech that if directors of a public company behaved like politicians, there would be some very serious questions asked by the regulatory authorities. We of the taxpaying classes have been saying that for years.
So, on the standards by which Directors are judged how has our government performed, on a scale of 1-5.
-
- Formulation and execution of a strategic plan. 1/5. Comment. I see nothing that resembles a coherent plan that takes account of the short term bumps whilst assembling the capabilities and resources to deliver longer term prosperity in a volatile and commoditized world. Long term planning to this lot is what they are doing after (taxpayer sponsored) lunch. There are a few exceptions, some good intentions that may never emerge from the policy cocoon, which gave them the 1 point.
- Communication with, and alignment of, stakeholders to the strategic priorities outlined. 1/5. Comment. They get 1 because they did try, however ineffectively. The only stakeholders who appear to be aligned are the militant unions who have lined up to build back some of the rorts lost over the previous 15 years. Non public sector union membership is now around 10% of the workforce, yet they exert a huge influence on this government, way out of proportion to the numbers they supposedly represent. The internal alignment of management is appallingly bad, and has resulted in not just a trashing of the brand, but in having some useful talent and experience being relegated to the bench for speaking their mind. Successful leaders recognise that the debate around differing views, and the “due process” that is a part of creative and sensible policy development is vital, shooting the messenger went out with Al Dunlap.
- Development of sensible policy to deliver on the “vision” bits of the strategic plan. 3/5. Comment. The “policy” agenda of a government is equivalent to the components of the value proposition and business model of a commercial enterprise. Discussion of the current governments policy development performance could have a strong partisan element depending on your views. However, whatever your views on the individual components, I think it is fair to observe that they made considerable effort, carbon abatement via a tax regime, taxing mining profits beyond the existing tax rates, some substantial international initiatives, the disability scheme, the NBN, response to the initial impact of the GFC, and a few others. You may not like the individual policies, the implementation may have been be buggared, but the policy thought was there.
- Credibility. 0/5. Comment. Nobody I speak to believes anything coming out of the mouth of a pollie, of any persuasion. The spectacle of politicians and their mates who do not just stick their snouts into the trough, but dive in and wallow around has utterly tarnished the credibility of the whole lot. You can thank Obeid and McDonald et al in NSW, Thompson in Canberra, the sound of cabinet ministers dumping on the Rudster, who then squibbs, and absolute undertakings (as distinct from “election promises”) made and broken with monotonous regularity. The list goes on, and on.
- Performance compared to peers. 3/5. Comment. There is no doubt that Australia is in a far better position than most, if not all of economies that are reasonably comparable. The speed of Australia’s reaction to the GFC was commendable, and effective, although it can reasonably be argued that there was much waste involved. However, the financial flexability to make and implement decisions was a result of decisions taken by former governments, Hawke, Keating and Howard, and had little to do with the current regime. They just got lucky that there was money in the bank, and coal and iron ore prices went into a once in a generation spike. Discussion about how much better it could, perhaps should, have been done while being interesting, is irrelevant except as a learning experience.
- Productivity of our tax dollars, the outcomes we get from the spending. 1/5. Comment. Having run an agency outsourced from a Federal Department, and lived in Canberra for several years, I am particularly cynical about the manner of the expenditure that happens on our behalf. Everything costs many times what it should, and would under a different, more commercial performance and accountability culture. There is simply no bottom line culture of accountability, just spend what is allocated and fight like banshees for more, as size of budget and reporting numbers are the measures of seniority and therefore salary, and associated employment perks. Obviously this is a generality, there are many motivated, educated and engaged public servants around, trying to do a job, and being frustrated by the existing culture, and it is this culture that must change before any reasonable productivity progress can be made. It is in a word, a function of Leadership, a rare commodity it seems.
- Governance, finally. 0/5. Comment. As Mr. Abbot recognised, any CEO whose leadership had failed as conspicuously as that of the current and former PM would not just be out of a job, and be responsible for a trashing of the share price, but would be fronting the ASIC and its investigators for breaches of more regulations than Ian McDonald has had long lunches. (It should be noted, the opposition would also have problems with the regulators, as making public pronouncements of fantasy as fact when you are trying to get someone to buy your product is illegal)
All in all, a pretty sad state of affairs that no board would tolerate. A responsible board would have identified and eliminated the causes of such hubris well before it got to the stage on show in our various parliaments around the country.
The truly scary thing to consider is how much better the current opposition will perform when they, as it is almost assumed, take over the keys to the lolly cabinet in September. I fear they will be overcome by the same stuff that has sunk the current lot, and will just govern for themselves whilst mouthing platitudes.
None of this is to deny the difficulties of government, the competing agendas and political realities of the 24 hour news cycle, and our seeming intoxication with the banal, irrelevant, and superficial. However, it is our money that is being spent, we have a right, indeed obligation, to have our say.
How would you mark these parameters, and what other strategic considerations should be made that I have missed?.
