Sep 16, 2020 | Governance, Innovation, Strategy
A short while ago I felt very sad, and uplifted at the same time.
Weird.
I was watching my 4 year old granddaughter play , keeping herself company in her own fantasy world, jumping from one thing to another without any hesitation, no sense of self consciousness, but following a ‘logic’ only she could see, hear and feel.
Creativity being expressed in a totally natural way.
I am pretty sure most people have seen this, at some point, and felt uplifted. Then I realised, that in a few months, she would be going to school, and that joy of random thought, learning by experience, feeling absolutely free from judgement was about to hit the wall.
School works with a set of disciplines. Numbers, regulated behaviour, nominated time slots for scheduled activities the kids did not choose. It teaches organisation, discipline, and a ‘top down’ awareness to these rapidly developing brains consistent with what ‘conventional wisdom’ has decreed as appropriate for the future life kids will lead.
Who knows anything about the future life of my granddaughter?
Watching her, I also recalled that I had seen the previous week the announcement of the death of Sir Ken Robinson. That made me sad again, all over,
For those few on the planet who do not know who Sir Ken was, just google ‘the most watched TED talk’ for a dose of his verbal and philosophical magic.
Asking how schools kill creativity in kids, and how to fix it, was his life’s crusade. His TED talk at the time of writing has 69 million views, several of which have been mine, and a much larger number have been those I have persuaded, cajoled and pushed to watch.
Here, in front of me was the living reason he took on the world of education academia.
It also occurred to me in those minutes of reflection, that over time, my granddaughter may be pushed into doing the things she was good at, in preference to the things those she liked to do.
That is how the world now works.
Most people have things they are good at, but do not particularly like doing. I certainly have. To meet the outside markers of success, most go with those things, and use their free time for the things they really like doing. In those times, hours seem to pass like minutes; somehow, you have entered what some would call ‘a flow state’ where time seems compressed, and the output, is just for its own sake.
Joyous.
Wouldn’t it be fantastic if the things we like become the things we spend our days doing to earn a living?
Imagine living your life in a state of ‘Flow’
My granddaughter was in a state of flow playing, and it seems like my duty to extend that as far as possible.
A lucky few get to feel it for themselves every day, and as a result, have a chance of both being as happy as they can be, and changing the world.
Sep 14, 2020 | Change, Governance, Management
‘5 why’ is a tool often used to understand the real cause of a problem. Finding those real causes is often like peeling an onion: one apparent problem or more often symptom of a problem, leads to another, to another, until the root cause is clear.
Often however, we make changes in the absence of a compelling problem, usually to take advantage of an opportunity, or simplify/optimise some sort of process. In those cases, I have often seen the onion reverse itself.
You end up with unintended consequences.
A pack change that confuses existing customers, a change of supplier for a better price that has consequences for operational efficiency; a product feature added that customers said they wanted that added to unanticipated production complexity, and so on. I have suffered from several of these unintended consequences of seemingly sensible, well considered and pro-active changes.
Before any change, exercise a ‘Reverse 5 why’. Look for the wider consequences that may be caused by the change, and take the impacts into consideration.
Move a few steps back, and ask yourself; are there any impacts from this change? How will other functional responsibilities, customers, supply chain partners, be affected? What unintended consequences may occur?
It is very easy to become close to a project, and proceed to implementation without taking a ‘helicopter’ view of the potential impact beyond the immediate context of the change. Once you start doing it, taking that extra moment, which is usually all it takes, it becomes an integral part of an automatic due diligence process undertaken before making a change.
Building an automatic ‘Reverse 5 why’ into your planning processes will identify risk, and build the confidence of others with a veto in the projections you will have done to support the change.
b
Sep 10, 2020 | Customers, Small business
Regularly, I find myself in a discussion with those who sell their time and expertise rather than a physical product, talking about price.
How do you set it?
After 25 years of doing it for myself, you might think I have some tips?
Well, I have plenty of experience and some scars, but it remains a really tough question. It is especially tough when there is not much work around.
There are only two driving considerations:
- How long the project will take me.
- What is the value of the project to you.
These two factors combined with my standard rate will define a quote.
Generally my quotes are fixed, if I make an error in scoping in my favour, OK, if the error is in your favour, good luck to you.
I will not haggle, either the knowledge and experience I have is of value to you, or it is not.
However, there are a few mitigating factors that can influence the price.
- Project scope. I am an expert in specific areas, not all. Often there is the opportunity for you to use others who may generate a better outcome more quickly. In that case, I will recommend a couple of people to you, people that I would trust were I in your shoes. In that case I will not clip the ticket in any way, unless you need me to project manage the ‘subbie’. This may reduce my price, as it no longer consumes my time.
- Timing. As I work on projects, there are times when I am up to the gills, and others when there is plenty left over. If your project is flexible in its timing, and I can get to it in those slower times, perhaps we can agree on some price flexibility as well. However, that is unusual, as what seems to be a ‘dry patch’ has the habit of suddenly turning into a downpour.
- For some reason, the project we are discussing is more than just interesting to me, as those are the only ones I take, but compelling, addictive in its potential to make a difference. Again, rare.
I am a stand alone freelancer, an expert in a narrow but very deep field, trading my time, experience and knowledge for money. I know a lot about a wide range of other things, but do not claim expertise of any great depth. Generally, I do not do projects that require those skills, except as a catalyst and enabler of the areas of deep expertise.
The focus should be on the value that will be delivered, not the price.
Maybe that helps you to think about your own pricing strategy.
Sep 7, 2020 | Analytics, Management, Marketing
As a marketer, I want data to better understand the risks and impact of investments in marketing. I am a true believer in data, which also means that the limitations of data are factored into my thinking.
The nonsense pushed around for decades that by default, human beings respond to stimuli in a binary way is increasingly being recognised for the bunkum it is. Marketing effectiveness is not as easily subject to risk analysis and probability based reasoning as most, including myself, would like to be the case.
Data that represents what has happened in the past might be objectively true, but as we see every day, can easily be interpreted and presented differently to deliver the message the carrier wants to be heard.
If we can do it with real data collected from past activities, imagine the vagaries that can be built into the data that is supposed to be telling us what will happen!
The selling point of all the digital data around is that it is both accurate and actionable. Tactically this is partly true, strategically it ranks with the fortune teller in the local fete as a base from which to make long term choices.
The two fundamental drivers of calculating an objective assessment of the impact of a marketing investment are:
Attribution.
Attribution is a particularly difficult and often overlooked problem. Is that purchase because of the anonymous display ads on Google, the annoying branded email that follows you around for weeks after a casual search, the fact that the truck that went past your door delivering was clean, the TV advertising, or that the packaging looked good on a supermarket shelf? All these factors play a role in creating a successful marketing investment, but how do you sort out the relative weights of the impact with one dimensional data?
The unpredictability of human behaviour.
Then you have the fact that people simply do not act rationally, or always in their own best interests, the two foundations of econometrics. They act on a range of impulses and learned behaviours that have little to do with rational economics, and everything to do with psychology. We are only just beginning to understand the impact of psychology on an individuals decision making.
Between them, these two factors make assessment of marketing effectiveness an elusive target. It is best served with the combination of data, and intelligent hindsight, mixed with a high degree of qualitative sensitivity to the drivers in the market, and instinct. These characteristics are only gathered with deep experience, years down in the marketing weeds, learning by doing. It does not come from a textbook, online course, or a few years following instructions.
Sep 4, 2020 | Change, Innovation
Robust ecosystems have points of balance; change is incremental, competitive, and evolutionary, leading to a revised point of balance.
When a species becomes dominant, that dominance becomes the source of weakness over time, as evolution requires responses to changing circumstances. A dominating player in any system resists change, as that involves increased levels of short term risk, and dominating players are generally risk averse.
Occasionally, an unpredicted catalyst appears, throwing the rules against the wall. Established incumbents fail to evolve quickly enough to accommodate the changes and survive. This is as real a process in commercial life as it is in the natural world.
The introduction of rabbits and the cane toad into Australia’s ecosystems have had the same impact on the pre-existing status quo as has the evolution of the microchip has had on the commercial world. The microchip unleashed a series of innovations for which the pre-2000 economic ecosystem was unable to recover. The now dominating players were little more than single cell commercial organisms, and many did not exist, at the change of the centuries.
Commercial ecosystems are no different. There will be times of consolidation based on the strength of the balance sheet of the dominating players. This becomes the source of weakness as they become locked into the status quo which produced them.
It is pretty clear to me that there are 4 stages in the commercial development of a market:
- Start-up stage. One player emerges, that effectively redefines a market in some way, followed up quickly by a series of fast followers. This is normally generated by some sort of catalyst, unanticipated by market incumbents, and leads to what is seen at the time as unprecedented periods of growth. Think Ford, General Electric, and those around the move from the vacuum valve to the microchip, from Allan Turing during the war to Gordon Moore in 1965.
- Scaling stage. The new players fight for dominance, with most of them going to the wall, while a small number, scale and consolidate to a position of dominance, if not monopoly. Think social media, web browsers, mobile computing.
- Leverage for profit. The new ‘kings’ leverage their dominant position for maximum returns, optimising processes, and minimising risk in pursuit of profitability. Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Amazon are all following this pattern.
- The cycle repeats. A catalyst appears that changes the rules of the game, again. Some may survive in a different form, others will disappear.
This is a Darwinian process applied to our economic and commercial ecosystems. Charles Darwin’s much quoted musing in the header applies as much to commercial systems as it does to natural ones.
The speed of change, enabled by digital technology has concentrated the cycle time from decades to a few years, and now arguably, a few weeks. It took 30 years for the vacuum tube to morph into scalable microchips, a decade for the early versions of the net to enable distributed computing, and a couple of years for that to create a system that might support new communication tools. Then, Facebook created a new model that blitzed the competition and led to absolute domination of a new ecosystem. A similar story led to Amazon, and Google, while Microsoft, the monopoly operating system player of the 80’s and 90’s, threatened with anti-trust breakup, evolved with incredible speed and agility into something new.
In the last few months we have seen examples of businesses and institutions that have evolved at a pace unimaginable a year ago, to face the challenges of Covid.
It may be fanciful, but it seems to me that market dominance contains the seeds of the dominators own destruction. This is a pattern followed not just by companies from Wedgewood, the British East India Co, Ford, GE, Microsoft, but to countries. Rome, China, Britain, and dare I say it, the US, while China is rebounding.
I speculate that this is the result of the crushing of opposition, and resulting lack of ‘genetic’ diversity that occurs as short term risk is minimised while profitability is maximised. Lack of diversity in the commercial DNA leads to commercial vulnerability, just as in the natural world
Ford ‘invented’ the modern version of the production line, (the Venetians had it first in the 1500’s) but could only make one type of car, so GM ran over the top of them with choice. Kodak dominated photos, but they defined themselves in a particular way, and despite being the ones who invented the virus that would kill them, digital photography, they failed to evolve. Same story with Blockbuster. They absolutely dominated global video rental, defining themselves as video rental stores. The then CEO John Antioco put in place a strategy that anticipated the growth of subscription streaming services. Blockbuster even had the opportunity to buy Netfliks at a give-away price at the time. However, the board, dominated as it was by those whose sole interest was short term profitability, got rid of Antioco, and the strategy that may have saved them as a significant if not dominating player. They actively rejected the opportunity to evolve, signing their own death warrant.
On each occasion, in each domain, there has been some sort of catalyst that has led to the demise of the dominating enterprise.
It seems to me that this current Corona crisis is another such Darwinian catalyst?
We have already seen many businesses struggling, and many ‘hitting the wall’ and I suspect there will be many more, while some, mostly smaller and more agile businesses are doing very well. Question is, will a few of the dominating enterprises fail the test of rapid evolution, and disappear?
I am prepared to bet that many will, and be replaced by businesses we have not yet heard of, that are able to deploy digital tools in almost real time. Just look at the manner in which Zoom has been able to harness the opportunity, blowing away incumbents like Microsoft.
