May 11, 2012 | Change, Innovation
Creativity at its heart is a process of either something entirely different, or coming at something currently around by an entirely different path.
Weather it be a painting, piece of music, a new bit of electronic wizardry, or just a different way of combining inputs to generate an outcome, it is creative, on the edge, risky.
Risk assessment is by its nature a quantifying process of the past and projecting it forward. The conclusions are usually inhabited by assumptions of little change in the way things work, and come together, the future will be similar to the past, and we all know how well that works.
When we set out to commercialise creativity, we usually try to apply a risk assessment, hoping that oil and water will mix, this time.
Henry Ford, probably the most creative industrialist ever, when asked about the potential acceptance of his new fangled Model T, quipped “If I asked my potential customers what they wanted, they would have told me a faster buggy”. He allowed creativity to have its head. I’m sure he considered risk, but never in the context of projecting the past into the future, he was able to see an entirely different future.
Creativity is by its nature risky, and without risk, we get no progress.
May 10, 2012 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
Nick Hortovanyi’s blog led me to this terrific short video on the “Pivot” a concept articulated by Eric Ries in his book “Lean Startup”.
The notion of the “Pivot” has always been there, I have seen it many times, and the willingness to fail, learn from the failure, and go again is the foundation of innovation success. However, it took Ries to articulate it so simply in the book, and to then make it more accessable by offering the examples in the video.
Everyone who has successfully brought an innovation to market, has project managed a successful commercialisation, or is responsible for a continuous improvement process will see bits of their projects in this notion of a Pivot.
May 8, 2012 | Change, Leadership, Management
With apologies to my economist friends, the notion of demand elasticity can be applied to the status quo in an organisation.
Embedding change in an organisation is remarkably hard, the status quo is capable of absorbing lots of punishment, and when the belting is over, it re-asserts its dominance, simply be being the “way things are done around here”.
It seems that when all the mumbo jumbo is culled, there are only two tools available that ensure you can make changes stick.
- Change processes such that there is no going back. This can mean all sorts of things, but essentially, the option of reverting to the old way must be removed. Weather you do it in an afternoon, or incrementally is just a question of management tactics, so long as doing it incrementally is not a cop-out.
- Change the people. Pretty nasty this, and has all sorts of implications, legal, moral, and the impact on survivors, but it remains that people make organisations work, and if it is not working, some stern action is required.
May 7, 2012 | Branding, Marketing, retail
30 years ago when housebrands were making their first inroads into Australian supermarkets, I took over management of Fountain tomato sauce. At the time it was a runaway market leader in NSW, but was being badly hurt by emerging cheap housebrands, priced a few cents less, 0.69 cents Vs 0.73 cents. Clearly to consumers there was not much difference in the products, they may as well take the few cents for themselves.
We lifted the price of Fountain significantly, the shelf price difference was then sufficient to suggest to consumers that Fountain was substantially better than any cheap housebrand, which was in fact, the case. Lo and behold, not only did our margins improve, so did our volumes.
The perception of the value delivered by Fountain overcame the rational response that sauce is sauce. Test yourself on this next time you walk into a liquor store, and consider a purchase of wine. Obviously, the greater the price, the better the wine?
In this great TED talk, Rory Sutherland, a big cheese in British advertising makes the point beautifully that decision making has three components.
- The technical considerations
- The cost/benefit considerations
- The psychological considerations.
The first two have a range of widely used and well understood models, whilst the third is often the province of the mavericks, creatives, and other assorted ratbags, and is therefore often dismissed as having a valid role in decision making. However, the best decisions are made at the intersection of these three perspectives.
May 4, 2012 | Sales
Your high potential new customer, the one you thought you had brought into the fold, was about to sign up, the one you had assured the boss would place their first order next week, suddenly, at the 11th hour, inexplicably, they go elsewhere.
Are they mad? Did they not understand the benefits? Why did they lead you up the garden path?
Truth is, they may have been confronted by your sales approach, and did not trust you, did not believe what you were telling them. Too pushy, sliding over their objections, not listening to their real needs, concentrating on your price rather than value to them, or one of the many other common failings of sales people leads to this sales killing response.
When confronted, many people avoid the conflict, they simply agree with you, and walk away, leaving you with the misleading understanding that the sale is done.
The task therefore is to conduct the sales engagement in such a manner that the potential customer is the one exercising the power, they are not given the opportunity to conclude they do not believe you. The best way to do that is to conduct the selling process by asking questions. All you have to do then is just respond to the answers with simple observations, and another question that addresses their evolving understanding of their problems, or opportunities for improvement, and therefore your opportunity for a sale.
When a prospect believes you, and in you, selling is easy.
