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.
Jun 8, 2021 | Governance, Marketing
Part of the job of marketing is to make the complex simple and understandable, while retaining the essential core of the proposition.
As Einstein said, ‘Everything should be made as simple as possible, no simpler’.
This is the same logic used by ‘Occam’s Razor’, which summarised tells us that the best theory is the simplest one that still explains all the facts. Arthur Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes was referring to both these when he said: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’
However, there is a point beyond which the process of simplification becomes corrupted by the selective choice of facts and variables, of leaving out those that might deliver a conclusion different to the one that is preordained, and preferred
People are not stupid, but sometimes they are lazy, do not have the technical knowledge to fully understand, or their cognitive capacity is consumed just by living, and a host of other mental barricades.
However, that is no excuse to oversimplify the complex when the complex is important, or to be sufficiently selective with the facts to be grossly misleading.
Successful long-term marketing depends on the truth, expediency may be attractive in the short term, but is poison over a longer period.
Our current PM, labelled ‘Scotty from marketing’ by that most reverential publication, the ‘Betoota Advocate’ has gone too far.
He has been conducting a masterclass in oversimplification on one hand, and obscurification on the other, for political purposes. It has been going on for some time now, and it is time to stop.
To be fair, ‘Scotty’ is not alone in the political sphere, (and I use the word political in its broadest sense), but he does set a very high bar.
We, the electorate, are not stupid. We may be disengaged, cynical, selfish, and mostly put our immediate family and community above the greater good, but treating us as stupid is a bridge too far.
It is easy to go too far in simplifying a message, which then is read as patronising, self-interested, and with little relationship with the facts. This erodes credibility, and therefore the ability to get anything done by any means other than leveraging institutional power.
Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gauld in New Scientist magazine.
Jun 7, 2021 | Branding, Marketing
Brand is underplayed as a source of economic power in B2B. We seem to default to the tactical marketing tools used in B2C too easily.
Over the years I have concluded that there are only two core elements in B2B brand strength:
Trust.
Service.
They are mutually reinforcing, or indeed, depreciating, and are both multi-faceted, with variations that are as varied as the businesses that deal with each other.
The dictionary definition of Trust is something like:” A statement that is taken as truth in the absence of anything more than the word of the party giving it”.
So, trust is based on doing what we say we will do.
The definition of service would be something like: “An act of selflessly helping someone else”.
Again, as varied as the contexts in which it is used.
Clearly however, service drives trust, and trust is the fodder of service, and both go both ways.
You still must do all the stuff to get customers inside the tent, once there, they have at least once, accepted that you will do as you say. Do that, and the reasons they might move on for the next time are way more limited than if you fail on some dimension of the service that they believe is important.
Therein lies the dilemma. Every business sees ‘service and trust’ in their own context, within their own definitions of ‘Value’.
It is your task, as the seller to unravel that often unclear ball of expectations.
When you think you would benefit if your customers trusted you more, give me a call, an audit of your trust profile with customers may be enlightening.
Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams’ alter ego Dilbert does it again.
Jun 2, 2021 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Successful businesses in my experience have several things in common, and in general do most of them well.
Focus.
They are sufficiently disciplined to be able to assemble and deploy resources against a limited number of objectives and opportunities. This requires that there is a robust strategy in place, as they have made a series of choices about what they will do, and what they will not, which are all clearly understood throughout the business. Being all things to all people is never an achievable outcome, so they leave it alone.
Niche.
In one way or another, all successful businesses I have seen operate in a niche, where they have sufficient scale to be relevant to their selected customer base. This is the same for a small local business as it is for a multinational, each in their own way have defined a niche and set about owning it. Of great value is the niche that others do not recognise, where competition does not exist, or is marginal.
Leverage.
Leverage is doing more with less, so it follows that the greater the leverage of assets, the greater the success. Of course, when taken in purely financial terms, leverage can lead to disaster, as leverage also increases risk, but when looked at from the lens of human capabilities it works. It also works when you consider outsourcing as leverage, keeping your most valuable assets doing jobs that deliver greater returns. In successful companies, the jobs that just must be done to keep the machine grinding, are broken down to repeatable processes and done at the least cost, so the assets released can be deployed to deliver optimised results.
Differentiation.
In the absence of some sort of differentiation that increases the value of an offering to a group of customers, all you have is price. When price is all you have, you will, eventually, lose.
External sensitivity.
Being able to ‘feel’ the changes as they happen in their competitive environment and react before others marks not simply good businesses, but ones that have the DNA to be sustainable, as they incorporate in their DNA the ability to change early, and often. This does not imply a moveable feast of strategy, rather an agility in the implementation, which requires a considerable dose of leadership.
To my mind, businesses that are able to keep themselves in front of the ‘market Takt time’ are well placed to prosper.
Robust and shared culture.
‘Culture’ has become the rallying cry of all sorts of pundits, and self-proclaimed experts, but is clearly a major differentiating factor in good businesses. The cliches of all rowing in time and in the same direction apply, but the best definition is still Michael Porters definition: ‘Culture is the way we do it around here’ holds. In addition, when setting out to measure culture, as we are increasingly trying to do, I have yet to see any measure of culture that make a lot of sense beyond the simplest, ‘bad news travels quickly, & untainted, to the top’. When I see that, I know there is a robust culture in place.
Collaboration.
Part of superior performance is understanding where your capabilities are best deployed, and from time to time, a collaboration makes sense as a means to leverage both yours and another’s capabilities into an outcome neither could hope to achieve on their own. Collaboration is a really challenging thing to pull off, as it requires that both the businesses and all the personnel understand that their own best interests are best served by serving the best interests of the partners.
They have a detailed understanding of their strategically important customers.
This may not always be their biggest, although that helps, but those that will deliver sustainable profits into the future. Every large and important customer started as a small one, the trick is to pick those that will, long term, make a difference to your business, which can only be done when you can make a difference to theirs. This implies some sort of key account strategy is in place.
Robust financial management.
It should not need to be said, but sadly, genuinely robust financial management is not all that common. Anyone can deliver the statutory accounts required, but it takes creativity and understanding of the complexity of customers and markets to produce useable management reports that reflect the current, and more importantly forecasts of the state of the business.
Of all the reports, cash is the most important. All the sophisticated marketing, procedures, and cultural initiatives become redundant in the absence of cash.
Header cartoon credit: Hugh McLeod at www.gagingvoid.com nails it.
May 31, 2021 | Analytics, Marketing, Social Media
‘Social Media Marketing’ has become a substitute in many people’s minds for ‘Marketing’.
It is sensible to have such a strategy, just as it is sensible to have an email marketing strategy, and a telephone marketing strategy, in the appropriate circumstances. However, to treat it as anything more than another tool in the marketer’s toolbox is to completely misunderstand the whole process of marketing.
Following is a reproduction of a note I sent after a long conversation with a potential client who runs a large function venue in a regional area. It all happened pre-covid, but it seems the sentiments were still valid, based on a similar conversation last week.
Thanks for taking the time to talk to me yesterday, you clearly have some challenging issues to be dealt with.
I suspect that the social media “brain-dump” over the phone I delivered yesterday may have been a little unclear, so I thought I would follow up with a few points that have consistently come through over the course of the work I have done in this space.
- To achieve anything at a cost that delivers leverage on your investment, you need a plan.
- A core part of that plan is establishing objectives for your activity, and in social media marketing the real objective should be to generate “leads”. Not sales, leads. Social media will not be effective directly selling a product such as yours. It can, however, be a very potent tool to identify and feed leads into a sales process that can be at least partially automated.
- There will be investment required in the process, particularly the development of the ‘content’ and messages you send, irrespective of the level of automation.
- The starting point to developing the messages as it should always be, is the definition of the value of the product you are selling to the receiver of the communication. This is the point where your mix will be challenging, as the wedding reception product you have will be different to the corporate function product, although held in the same room, just re-arranged, and with differing support services. Similarly, the person to whom you are marketing the wedding product will be different to the one likely to be the buyer of the corporate function. Defining all this is critically important, much more now in the time of social media because of its ability to deliver a specifically targeted series of messages to a well-defined individual potential buyer.
- You can develop metrics that will give you indications of the effectiveness and impact of your activity. However, the problem of attribution is a significant one. Which piece of content, or ‘marketing collateral’ was the driver of the move towards the objective of a sale? Any digital agency that tells you they have that absolutely nailed is dreaming. However, you do now have the opportunity to test all parts of the process in a multitude of ways and optimise over time.
- The nurturing requires a “toolbox” of content, aimed at the individuals inhabiting specific target markets that you are setting out to reach. Some of this content can be challenging to create, but once done, can be used, and re-used, improved, and used again for little cost, providing your investment with considerable leverage. In your case, you do not have to do everything at once, pick a market (like weddings) and create a few pieces of content, such as the “Guide to the big day” I suggested yesterday, together with a few supporting pieces such as photos of decoration options, flower seasonality guides, and checklists of the really little things that make a difference on the day. These will both alleviate the planning headaches of the wedding planner, and make your life easier by neutralising those last minute panics.
- Once you have some of this, you can utilise social media to target the buyer. For example, Facebook and Pinterest will probably work for the bride to be, but LinkedIn may be better for the corporate buyer. In corporate it is rarely the one signing the cheque that does the investigation into venue options. Having such targeted message recipients means you can get some useful measurements of the outcomes of your social media spend, that can be supported by some of the other media options you are already using. I am however, a great believer, based on the results of the years, of being able to create a “conversation” with potential customers via social media, but this is just an automated and ubiquitous version of the opportunities we have always had to communicate, as evidenced by this story which goes back many years that I related in a post back in 2013.
As a last word, it is really difficult to find people who genuinely understand all this stuff and can implement as well. There are many around who will promise the world, and deliver something entirely different, when they deliver anything beyond an invoice. However, if you are curious, and prepared to explore the options, much can be done very effectively, and the outcomes are measurable and cost accountable.
If it costs you $50, or even a couple of hundred dollars to find, nurture and convert a prospect for a wedding reception into a sale, is that a worthwhile investment? I suspect so.
Let me know if I can help you develop and implement a plan that will deliver a return on the investment you have made in a terrific venue. Just do not be seduced by the hyperbolic nonsense sprouted by many self-styled ‘Social media experts’
Header cartoon credit: Hugh McLeod at www.gapingvoid.com
