Jun 25, 2021 | Governance, Management
Often when seeking advice, we set out to find those who have ‘Domain’ knowledge’. Those who know what we need to know because they have ‘been there done that’ or have studied the domain extensively for one reason or another.
When you break it down, there are three components to building valuable domain knowledge:
First hand experience.
There is no better way to gain a feel for a market than to be out there, in the weeds, dealing with the drivers of performance as well as the day-to-day challenges that arise. Understanding ‘why’ things happen is infinitely better than just being able to observe them happening, it gives you a sense, an instinct that cannot be easily defined. Hands on experience and exposure to a market and its drivers offers the opportunity for the nuanced understanding you may be looking for. Fingerspitzengefuhl‘ is a German word for it.
Helicopter view.
In a helicopter, you are high enough to see the whole domain, but still low enough to be able to see the features that make up the whole. Importantly, you can zoom in and out to investigate features that grab the attention in some way, to examine how they work, and the relationships they have to other features in the terrain.
Through others eyes.
Being able to see and objectively assess your value proposition from the perspective of your ideal customer is vital, a basic discipline of marketing and sales. Why should they buy yours, and not the offering of the opposition? You also need to be able to look at yourself through the eyes of your competitors, seeking the points of relative weakness and strength, the potential paths to a greater share of wallet, or attracting new customers. Others, not necessarily those with whom you are commercially engaged can also have an influence in the way you deploy your limited resources. Regulators, interest groups, research bodies, and others can all have an influence on your enterprise. Being attuned to the potential impacts of those views is an important component of domain knowledge. Just look at what a small group of animal rights activists did to the live cattle trade to Indonesia a few years back. Irrespective of your views on the rights and wrongs, they managed to totally change the face of a large industry almost overnight.
Most business owners find themselves short of the time and expertise to build a nuanced view of their domain. Confirmation bias also tends to rob them of breadth of view. Engaging an advisory group, or individual is the best way to fill in the holes and build long term success.
Jun 21, 2021 | Branding, Marketing
Retailer ‘brands’ have taken a huge toll on the ability of proprietary marketers to profitably market their brands and build markets in FMCG.
A proprietary marketer may spend several years and make a huge investment in product R&D, market research, advertising and listing fees in various forms in order to get a product on shelf. They carry all the risk in this exercise.
Retailers carry no risk beyond the inventory risk when they choose to stock a new product. That inventory risk would normally be mitigated by the supplier, at least partially in the deal to secure initial shelf space.
Retailers have at their disposal detailed information about the performance of every product on their shelves. Volumes, margins, behavioural data such as what consumers have in the same basket, what products have been removed by consumers from their basket, and price sensitivity and elasticity.
Based on this information, they can reverse engineer formulations, and have a contract manufacturer supply a direct copy very quickly, with very little risk.
An innovative proprietary product will normally be supported by advertising, which will also often benefit the housebrand product.
If a small manufacturer copied a product and launched it into the market, perhaps via alternative channels, the proprietary marketer may have the option of legal action for passing off. It is illegal to mislead consumers, yet this is happening every day on supermarket shelves, in the name of choice.
It seems a different set of rules applies to the major retailers who have all the power in the relationships.
Over the time I have been watching FMCG markets, the level of investment in product R&D, and brand building has declined substantially. Many brands that had created and built markets have virtually disappeared. The investments previously made in product and brand growth have been directed towards retailer profits, and to be fair, consumers have benefitted by lower prices in some product categories. The downside is the lack of innovation and category building which delivers benefits over the long term, that has occurred as a result.
I do not have an easy answer to the dilemma faced by marketers, and it would be suicide for any manufacturer to sue Coles or Woollies for passing off a housebrand, but in an idle moment, it may be a question worth asking?
Jun 17, 2021 | Lean, Management, Operations
Chasing improvements in an enterprise comes down to doing the small things well, every time, and continuously improving, generating a compounding effect.
The best way to achieve this is for everyone involved to be engaged in the process, have a stake in outcomes, and understand how they impact on others.
At every level, this is achieved, not by memo, or strategic planning, but by consistent, focussed verbal communication backed by facts.
Best way to do this is to communicate often.
Not a lot at one time, but small bite-sized chunks regularly.
Daily, weekly, monthly, and so on.
At the ‘coalface’, it should be daily, which leads us to the daily stand-up, huddle, group chat, or as one of my clients call it, ‘toolbox’. Whatever you choose to call it in your workplace, it plays a crucial role in performance management.
This is a daily meeting at the beginning of a day, shift, or whatever the work cycle is, that reviews the day to come, in the light of what happened yesterday, with some acknowledgement of what will be coming tomorrow, and perhaps the next day.
Why it works
- Daily communication keeps everyone on the same page, enables problems to be surfaced and addressed before they really hurt, escalated as necessary, and contributes enormously to a culture of communication and collaboration.
- They replace the one-to-one conversations that need to happen many times, with a one-to-many conversation. This saves time and energy, while ensuring the communication is the same to all parties.
- It enables focus on the priority activities, removing some of the day-to-day firefighting and craziness that always occurs.
- It also enables quick updates to larger objectives and relevant projects to be delivered, which removes the always present rumour mill. This works equally well for the positive things as it does for the negative.
- They lead to significantly engaged employees, as not only are they heard, but they can see the outcomes of their ideas and suggestions.
In these days of increasingly remote workforces, this daily get together takes on a much wider role, in reminding everyone that they are a part of a team, and others are relying on them.
What makes them work
- Same time, same place. Having the huddle, stand-up, whatever you choose to call it at the same time, in the same place, every day creates a cadence that drives activity. Start on time, finish on time.
- Sitting down will elongate the meeting, so stand. It might be in the workplace, often it is just outside the workplace, which adds credibility to the process.
- As short as possible, no more than 15 minutes should be an iron rule.
- Everyone gets a say. Engagement comes with being heard, and the chairman must ensure everyone is explicitly given the chance to have a say.
- This can take many forms and will vary with the level of the huddle. At the coal face, a whiteboard is usually sufficient, with perhaps a photo or copy taken and kept for reference for a short time. At higher levels, the recording will vary.
- Be on time, do not ramble when it is your turn to speak. Take any follow up or extended conversation offline, the huddle is to identify problems, address the molehills, but the mountains are for another place.
- Be respectful of time, others and the process. Be attentive, with no side conversations, or banter.
- Meeting chair. Someone must lead the meeting, have control of the conversations and agenda. That may be the same person every day, or it might rotate, which in my experience is the better way.
Usually very quickly there is a sense of team effort, and even the small wins become evident and can be celebrated. It is an incremental process, which once the ball is rolling, picks up momentum that is very hard to stop, even if you wanted to.
Jun 15, 2021 | Branding, Marketing, Strategy
A few weeks ago, Apple released an upgrade of their operating system, iOS 15. This release includes a (potentially) monumental change in the digital world of communication. Its default is to turn off the ability of a third party to track your online activity. If you are relaxed about being tracked, you can opt in and continue to be tracked.
This will be an opening shot in a war between very powerful vested interests.
For years there has been genuine and rapidly increasing concerns about the volume and use of the data collected by apps, and the privacy invasion and leverage that data can generate. As the concerns grew, so did the mumbling from the advertising industry about the value of targeted ads, and soothing bullshit from Facebook.
Apple has gone in hard by making opt-out of tracking the default of the new release. I suspect Apple sees it as a point of competitive leverage that they can exploit. Their advertising is making this differentiation not just clear, but an explicit reason to move to Apple.
I think it is an absolute game-changer.
There are several dimensions to the vested interest battles I expect:
-
-
- Facebook Vs Apple. The business model that has made Mark Zuckerberg one of the world’s richest men, and arguably one of the most powerful, is based on the ability of Facebook to track activity and market their ad services based on that ability to target. Removing that ability will compromise that model, and Zuckerberg has not demonstrated any sort of tolerance to any interference to his ability to accumulate more and more billions.
- Apple Vs Android. For many consumers, the ability to turn off tracking will deliver a valuable competitive advantage to Apple over Android. This presents Google, the owner of the Android system with a dilemma. Do they follow and compromise their own ad business, or allow Apple to retain such an advantage in mobile computing? Indeed, is the attraction of an automatic ‘No cookie’ environment as strong as I anticipate?
- Regulators Vs Tech. For the past 5 years or so, regulators have been suggesting that some sort of regulatory framework was necessary to protect the privacy of consumers from the rampages of ad targeting. At the same time, regulators have demonstrated a rancid inability to even understand the basics of the challenges that such regulation will face in implementation, enforcement and unintended consequences.
- Advertisers Vs Ad fraudsters. The emergence of ad fraud because of so called ‘programmatic’ digital advertising, has offered fraudsters the opportunity to milk billions out of the system unhindered. Advertisers controlling large budgets have been largely unwilling, and perhaps unable to stem these losses, so just paper them over with cliches and bullshit. In a 2017 presentation to the IAB, Marc Pritchard the CMO of P&G publicly took a stand against the ‘crap’ as he called it spawned by digital channels. Crap ads, and the fraud perpetrated by those who assembled digital advertising inventory. The P&G initiative to stop advertising in the absence of hard data about the reach to humans rather than bots, and the location of ads placed, was followed by several other major advertisers. Sadly, the words were more hollow than substantial, as the fraud continues. The fraudsters will not go quietly, and based on performance to date, advertisers are too timid, or seduced by the seeming ease of reach, to do much. Dr Augustine Fou in his research highlights the tactics, breadth and depth of the fraud being accepted by advertisers.
- Consumers Vs advertisers. Marketers have found their ability to communicate compromised by the never-ending demand for new and different content to throw at the digital channels. They no longer have the time, and increasingly the inclination, to do the foundation work that leads to creativity and advertising cut-through.
Apple’s advertising revenue is very modest, by comparison to Google and Facebook. It has little to lose from this change. Facebook and Google by contrast have huge ad revenues. In Facebooks case, advertising is 98% of its total revenue, for Google the number is about 80%.
This change by Apple, if it creates a surge of iOS market share from its current 15% will compromise these revenues, and erode the business model of both Facebook and Google.
It certainly creates a strategic dilemma for the Google owned Android software, powering around 85% of mobile devices currently. Do they follow Apple, or take another route?
For marketers who understand ‘marketing’ as distinct from the digital ‘new shiny thing’ syndrome, who treat ‘marketing’ as an integral part of their investment in future prosperity, it will be a boon. They will be much better placed to leverage real marketing skills that the large businesses have lost.
To the question posed in the headline: the degree to which consumers demonstrate they value privacy, will be measured by the rate at which they will switch to Apple to protect it. Alternatively, if Google decides to follow with Android, game over.
Note, an hour after publishing: I omitted to mention above that Google pays Apple something around 12 billion a year to remain the default search engine on iOS and Safari. This is so Google can collect information on your searches on Apple. For Apple, it is money for jam. If I am right, and there is a significant move towards the auto opt out in the new iOS upgrade, this 12 billion will erode over time, so Apple does have a bit more skin in the game than noted above.
Header cartoon credit: Dilbert explains tracking codes.
Jun 10, 2021 | Change, Governance, Management
Culture change is perhaps the hardest challenge to be faced by any leader. It can evolve over time, with patience and commitment, but every successful change I have seen comes after a catalytic event of some sort.
Many years ago, I worked for a manufacturing business that had built a new factory in the west of Sydney, which had more than its fair share of teething problems. The production the factory was supposed to absorb and build upon came from an inner-city site that had been operating for almost 100 years.
In those years there had been built up a powerful culture of management Vs workers, and fierce demarcation battles between the many unions on the old site, several with only one or two members, desperately trying to build their position.
This toxic mixture was transferred to the new, automated site with the predictable results. Manufacturing productivity was appalling, labour relations non-existent, demarcation disputes ongoing, the place was on the brink of being closed as the biggest disaster since the Titanic.
In a desperate dispute, to make a point, someone (no charges were ever laid) resorted to arson in the warehouse. The damage was extensive, and the already hobbled ability to produce saleable product was almost destroyed.
However, it was a monumental catalyst for change.
In the middle of the night, I found myself driving a forklift, working shoulder to shoulder with warehouse and production staff clearing stock from the refrigerated warehouse into trucks for transport to outside storage.
This would have been absolutely unthinkable just 24 hours before.
Suddenly, everyone in the plant recognised that their jobs were about to go, forever. The unionised workforce recognised that those in so called ‘management’ were just people who wanted, like them, to do as good a job as they could. We found it was easy to communicate without the artificial barriers that had existed, and we all had a common purpose, to survive.
Within a few months, after enormous effort and collaborative changes unthinkable before the fire, the business had been transformed. The fire had been the catalyst for a determination to acknowledge the failures of the past, and to accept massive change was necessary, welcome, and in the interests of every stakeholder.
In a small way, this is what is needed in Australia.
A common purpose, clear and consistent communication, determination, and goodwill.
This does not mean there will not be fierce debates, and difficult decisions that need to be made, but it does mean that there is a general understanding of why those decisions were made.
After royally stuffing up the reaction to the fires in December 2019 and January 2020, the government recognised their failings when the Corona virus took hold. It served as a catalyst, and suddenly there was bi-partisan and general community agreement that change was needed.
We moved forward.
As things quietened down, the collaboration and goodwill dissipated, partisan politics and apparently ill-considered and reactive decisions taken by fragmenting politics at all levels re-emerged, driving people apart.
Question is, can we restore the emergent culture of goodwill and collaborative communication that served us well in the crisis? It is the same question commercial leaders need to ask of themselves after experiencing a catalytic event.
Do we have the leaders capable of driving the culture change necessary?
How do we assemble the resources necessary?
Can those with vested interests in the status quo, resistant to the changes, be shunted to the sidelines?
In the case of ‘Australia Inc’, failure to respond will leave all our children and grandchildren poorer: financially and emotionally.
Header cartoon credit: Dilbert, again. Scott Adams and his mate have a knack of hitting that vital nerve.
