Dec 9, 2009 | Marketing
Demand for a whole host of products appears to be splitting into two camps, the price sensitive camp, and the risk averse camp. What other explanation can there be of the situation where you find people willing to pay for something that is on the net, just a “click” away for free?. ( I am ignoring those few who have yet to turn on a computer)
This is a relatively new paradigm that appears to be emerging as the net reduces the marginal cost of production and distribution of many products and services to virtually zero.
For free entails risk, whilst paying carries an implicit if not explicit promise of service and support, which is does not come for free.
The marketing challenge is to leverage the for free into something people will pay for. A new word, “Freemium” is appearing as people consider this challenge, Rupert Murdoch’s stated intention is to use the freemium model to get people to pay for what has been free, but I have yet to see the notion of “information integrity insurance” being used as a reason to charge for what has been free. The Wall St journal would be a great model to consider, as information integrity is a foundation of its value proposition.
Dec 7, 2009 | Management, Strategy
Currently I am involved in a portfolio management exercise that covers brands, products, and projects on the books for a modest sized but rapidly growing business. A pretty standard exercise that most thoughtful businesses go through on a regular basis as a part of their strategic processes.
However, it occurred to me that the information, and mindset we were using reflected either an internal view of the piece we were looking at, often driven by what had worked in the past, or by industry trend data, that again, reflected an extrapolation of what had happened in the past, the underlying assumption that the past would repeat itself.
We know that the old saying “those who do not understand the past are destined to repeat it” is true, but what of the flip side, deliberately ignoring the past, to envision the possibilities, and using that to inform your portfolio management decisions.
We tried it, and whilst the process is incomplete, it is certain that the outcome has been altered substantially to what it may have been. We have also concluded that looking from the outside in should be a discipline we impose on ourselves, as that is how the markets, competitors, and innovative insights that can be very “left field” will look at us.
Dec 6, 2009 | Management, Marketing
Social media is more than Facebook, Twitter and U-Tube, it is a suite of tools that enables rapid connections to be made, it creates and leverages knowledge, and enables very rapid development of an organisation of those who may be unconnected physically.
Imagine, the government decides to put a waste plant in the local park of your community. Predictably, there will be substantial local opposition in the local community who will want it elsewhere.
Under the “old” way of organizing a protest, someone would get on the phone, and try to stir up some passion and get people to a rally in Macquarie Street, (and a few will turn up so long as it does not rain), letters will be written to the local member, the Minister, the local council, and a few others, and the kids will run a partition around the neighborhood. Not very effective.
Under the “new” way, someone will register a domain “stopthewasteincroydon.org” and a site that will collect views, stories about how the kids use the park, signatures, disseminate information, clog up every conceivable receiver with emails, provide links to the U-tube footage of kids playing then being herded off the park by officious waste managers (actors, probably the kids dads) , and generally make a very big noise against the development. Very effective, the Anti position suddenly has real teeth, because it enabled the anti case to be developed then managed in a way that it has a geometric impact on the receivers, all because the new communication tools were used to assemble and leverage a set of views that would have otherwise been individual, and nowhere near as powerful.
Dec 3, 2009 | Leadership, Personal Rant
Here I am in a regional NSW town, now a bit late at night, engaged by a client to assist in the strategic development of their business, and after a very long day, lifting my head to discover the premier of the state has changed, again. This follows yesterday, when there was a meltdown at federal level with the other lot.
My client is a manufacturer, they employ people, train them, make stuff, and contribute to their community, whilst dealing with the crap imposed by a series of governments trying to be relevant to voters, whilst satisfying demands of their various looney back room brokers.
On another TV channel to the press conference o f the new NSW premier, (what is her name, what has she done to demonstrate she can run a multi billion dollar business like NSW) is an old concert by Stevie Nix. Loved her as contributor to Fleetwood Mac’s best days, but she has passed her best, even when warbling some of the old classics.
Point is, I would rather have a broken down old pop singer in the background than the new premier of the state where I live, and need to make my living working with businesses that produce stuff.
Will the state be better off tomorrow with the fourth premier in four years, will the trains run on time, the emergency wards save lives, will the teachers in the schools feel they have an important task ahead of them for which they will be recognised? I think not.
Aristotle may have been right, but what did we do to deserve this shallow bunch of sycophantic twits, bleeding us dry whilst assuring it is all for our own good.
A pox on both their houses.
Dec 3, 2009 | Branding, Marketing
Building a brand is about the consistency of action thought, and expression over a long period of time, and only the CEO can ensure that this happens.
The CEO must be the chief brand manager, as the brand is the business, it is not the packaging, or advertising, it is everything that a consumer sees, feels and consumes.
This also opens the question to boards, “Do you have the right CEO”?
