May 21, 2014 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Courtesy www.theage.com.au
Years ago I worked as a junior marketing bloke for Allied Mills, which became Meadow Lea Foods, then Goodman Fielder. I returned 25 years later as a contractor running a specialist unit of the ingredients division in a pre-sale “polish-up” as they struggled to manage their assets and generate a sustainable profit.
Finally, it seems GF, the last really significant Australian FMCG business has dropped the last hospital pass, and is being sold overseas.
What a shambles, a litany of strategic bumbles and crap management over a long period. It is also a report card on the whole Australian food processing industry. The sale reflects the result of the challenges that have finally led to the demise of large, Australian owned enterprises in the food industry. One day a Phd student will document all this, and perhaps the mistakes many of us saw evolving over a long period will be articulated in the hope we learn something.
I have written about this progressive failure to retain domestic ownership a fair bit over the last few years, the fiddling, the missteps, stupid stuff by both management and regulators, and now just feel sad rather than angry as I have been before.
The undoubted opportunities for Australia to become the food basket of Asia will not go away, we will still get some of the benefits, but just those bits that multinational conglomerates give us, almost none will be because we can make the decisions that have a long term impact on the shape and nature of the enterprises. Those decisions will all be made overseas in someone else’s best interests.
Vale Australian value added food processing.
PS. May 28.
It has been announced that, as expected, Peters ice cream has been sold. to UK based R&R icecream, funded by a French private equity group. Despite a checkered ownership history in the last 25 years, Peters is a brand of my (long ago) childhood.
Sigh.
May 20, 2014 | Change, Communication, Leadership, Marketing, Small business
“Serendipity” . Luck that takes the form of finding valuable or pleasant things that are not looked for. Websters Dictionary.
My old Dad used to say “Son, the harder I work, the luckier I get” and it has usually worked out that way.
It follows then that if you combine the definition of Serendipity and Dads old chestnut, Serendipity can be managed.
How you ask!
- Recognise that Serendipity is a state of mind rather than a quantitative outcome, and should be managed that way.
- It requires a management culture that has everyone working together, “alignment of strategy and activity” as a popular management article would probably purr. A utopian notion, but doable.
- Ensure there is “spare” time allocated to staff to pursue ideas, contribute to collaborative activities, and look for improvements. Personnel whose performance measures are quantitative box ticking exercises are unlikely to risk compromising their KPI’s by allocating time to potentially serendipitous pursuits.
- Provide the forums for casual and social interaction. This can be done in all sorts of ways from the way the offices are designed to organising staff picnics.
- Encourage the behaviours you are seeking by publicly recognising it when it happens. Financial and organisational rewards are of little value, but is the social rewards that really count.
- Trust and respect are critical components of productive collaboration. Neither can allocated, both need to be earned. “Ideo“, the creative agency has it nailed, one of their core values is “Make others successful”. When everyone works to make others successful, trust and respect follow, and the culture tends to expel anyone who does not work with that culture and its behaviours.
The great benefit if success in these endeavours is that it will make your place a great place to work, and that ends up attracting the best talent, attracting interesting, challenging and rewarding customers, and making good money. A virtuous circle.
That’s how.
May 19, 2014 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Small business
Imagehaven, Innovation by design
On several occasions last week I found myself frustrated that I could not find a piece of information I needed on a website, I knew it had to be there somewhere, it is just that someone had effectively if inadvertently hidden it. GGGRRRRR
Over the years I have asked many people, individually and in audiences, what for them constitutes the perfect website.
There have been many answers, but there are always three that recur almost every time:
- Simple, clear, and quick to navigate.
- The information needed is on the site.
- We know what to do next.
How easy is that?, yet how often do we find ourselves searching a site, getting frustrated before we move onto the next likely one in the search list.
Usually it appears that the confusion and clutter comes from a few common sources. Designers try and put all the information up front, rather than creating a hierarchy of information that reflects the way people search, they let their “designer” genes run riot with the result that there is simply too much “design”, or that the original design has been added to over time like a house that goes through a series of renovations and extensions and ends up just being a collection of rooms.
It is really just a question of thought being put into the design. The combination of white space, written information, graphics, and calls to action (CTA). There are many “rules” of design around, this article by Zoe Sadokierski from UTS offers some of the perspective of history, that can be usefully applied to website design, but a bit of common sense goes a long way.
Next time you set out to design a site, consider these three simple rules, or you could just call the gurus at Imagehaven.
May 16, 2014 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Social Media
Building brands has always been the core of successful marketing efforts, and by comparison to what it is now, it used to be simple. Do a bit of market research, make stuff, generate distribution, throw money at advertising, generate volume, make more stuff, advertise more….. a virtuous circle that if you had the deep pockets, was hard to stuff up. This no longer works.
Marketing and branding have become socialised. Consumer electronics is a category among many that has created new categories of products that are heavily influenced by reviews, and comment curation by users, which pushes the boundaries very quickly. Nokia was killed by missing the social phenomena of the smartphone. They had the mobile phone market by the shorts, had every opportunity to see the emerging technology, but failed to harness it along with the social cachet.
The other side of socialised branding, it can be a killer.
This trend is evident everywhere you look in consumer markets. I would contend that brand-building is no longer possible without social being a major factor in the mix. It is also true to observe, as Bob Hoffman continues to point out in his wonderful blog, that very few, if any, brands come to prominence without advertising, despite what the social media promoters would have you believe.
Building your marketing strategies with the reality of socialised marketing and branding being a major factor in the mix is just plain dumb.
May 14, 2014 | Branding, Management, Sales
expertflyfishingand camping.com
Creating a lead is a whole world of work and pain for many business people, followed by another, converting the lead into a transaction.
Too often I see the process followed as an aggressive “close at all costs” mentality. That approach rarely ever worked well for anything beyond one off transactions, and is even less effective now that digital communication has revolutionised the way we create, conduct and nurture relationships.
People like to buy from those they like and trust, basic human nature.
It follows therefore, that to make sales, you need to demonstrate that you are both likable and trustworthy, as well as being in a position to address the customers need and deliver value at least as well as alternatives.
Following is a three stage process:
- Humanise you marketing, you are selling to people, not “organisations”, people!
- Track relationships. Have a metric, and visual device that articulates the existing relationships with people, such as the one following.
3. Explicitly set out to build relationships, recognising that sales will follow, rather than the other way around. Having a visual representation of the state of a relationship, and an objective of moving up the pyramid, by understanding and acting on the drivers of a relationship will deliver mutual benefit, and a return on effort.
Each relationship, whatever its status, is an individual thing. It will have a range of parameters that will direct its development. How we met, what we look like, how we conduct ourselves, the mutual stories we have, how authentic we are, how consistent as are in the engagement and interaction, and the degree to which we are proactive, and generous in that engagement, and so on.
Managing the inputs to those parameters is a foundation of marketing success that was not possible just 20 years ago because we did not have the tools, but now we have, so there is no excuse.
