Jun 25, 2020 | Branding, Communication, Customers
Kids understand stories, it is the way they learn, the way they absorb the lessons of the past for later use.
Why don’t we use this instinctive capability more often in our marketing?
Take your kids to the pantomime, they love it.
They get excited every time the villain comes on stage. They boo, yell warnings to the hero, and hop up and down in frustration when the hero looks around as the villain hides.
Why does this matter?
When building a brand, you have to make choices. Who is your brand for, and just as importantly, who is it not for?
If you can explicitly state who your brand is not for, then those for whom it is for, will rally around and support it against the villain.
Simple stuff, hidden in the instinctive responses in our brains.
Watch your kids at the panto, and learn how to build a brand.
Define the villain, and the kids will cheer for you.
Jun 22, 2020 | Analytics, Customers, Marketing
One of the questions occupying my newly monastic mind over the past few weeks has been: ‘what changes can we expect in the revenue generation processes as a result of the ‘Bug?’.
In the lead up to this crisis, I have been considering how automated everything was becoming, at the expense of humanity.
There is an inherent conflict between the centralising force that is the ‘Martech’ (marketing technology) automated decision making processes, and the front line sales function. Martech investment requires that a range of decisions to buy and install various combinations of software be made that automates a selling relationship. The decentralised nature of the sales front line does not benefit from such automation, as people still prefer to buy from people, particularly in cases where the investment is large, or there is an emotional element to the purchase.
To my mind, it has become too clinical and automated in most large businesses. This creates opportunities for smaller businesses whose niche is perhaps more clearly defined, and who lack the resources and capability to leverage an integrated ‘Martech stack’.
The Bug has brought the question to the fore.
On one hand, we are now compelled by circumstances to interact using the digital tools, but there is a steep learning curve for many, and SME’s are rapidly discovering their capability shortcomings. On the other, human contact will become more valuable than ever, and those same SME’s may be in a better position than most large companies to be ‘Human’.
Where on the scale does your business fit?
Jun 19, 2020 | Marketing, Strategy
‘The bug’ has given us a once in a generation opportunity to make change. Things that may not have been possible, have suddenly become not just possible, but necessary.
While most of the focus is automatically on cutting costs, the greater long term benefit is in the optimising of current expenditure. Arbitrarily cutting costs, as often happens in extreme circumstances, always results in throwing out a few babies with the bathwater.
Revenue generation, the combination of sales and marketing budgets, is usually the first to feel the knife when times get tough.
However rather than just ‘cutting’ across the board, or making the obvious decisions by cutting the biggest items first, consider the opportunity to optimise, and how this will deliver cost savings. More importantly, such an exercise can increase the productivity and long term impact of the investments you make, as well as reducing costs.
Classifying all expenditure into ‘buckets’ so that you can then allocate a weight to their relative value, and concentrate on those from which you can extract productivity increases, is a sensible first step.
All expenses can be classified in two major axes:
- Fixed to variable or discretionary expenses. Those that are not able to be reduced or improved, to the extreme of expenses which are entirely discretionary, such as media spend.
- The second axis is tactical to strategic. The short term expenditure which can reasonably be expected to deliver a return in a very short term, to the other end of the scale, the strategic expenditures which are normally those that appear to be in the ‘important but not urgent’ pile.
The manner in which you go about optimising your expenditure will be a function of your competitive context, the financial and strategic position you are in, and the strategic priorities in place. It will also reflect the attitude of the person delivering the instructions. Therefore, it is also a measure of your effectiveness at arguing the role that investment in marketing has to the health of the enterprise.
Your fixed marketing costs are items like employee costs, marketing software licences, retainers paid to service providers, and are often overlooked, or just cut arbitrarily. In the absence of a critical review, mistakes will be made.
Discretionary costs are often heavily weighted towards media, and they are very easy to cut. This will deliver a short term cost saving while often compromising the commercial sustainability of the enterprise.
History shows us that those who continue investing thoughtfully in the tough times, benefit hugely as the better times return.
When instructed to cut costs, do so with an intensive focus on the relative revenue and margin generating productivity of the cost you are about to cut, and to the long term impact that will have on the enterprise.
Jun 17, 2020 | Analytics, Change
To measure anything in a meaningful way, you need some sort of baseline.
To say you have a 20% increase in market share sounds impressive, but if your starting point is a 5% share, it is less so. By contrast, if your starting point is 40% in a competitive market, a 20% increase is a great effort.
Setting this baseline from which to measure change can be extremely difficult. Finding a simple measure that captures the impact of a wide range of variables while adequately reflecting the whole story is never as easy as it sounds.
Look at Australia’s published rate of unemployment. Whatever it is on any given date, it is an extrapolated survey that includes a definition of ’employment’ as: 1 hour of paid work a week. Clearly nonsense, but what is the real measure? How do you gather reliable data that offers actionable insights into segments of the population which are subject to a myriad of differing drivers?
Climate scientists faced this problem when setting out to determine the rate at which the decay of vegetable matter, which emits CO2 during the decomposition process, was adding to the store of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is an enormously complex problem, driven by variations in temperature, humidity, type of vegetation, and the state of vegetation, particularly as it relates to permafrost slowly becoming less permanent.
The measurement solution came to two scientists as they struggled to assemble reliable data from the varied sources, collected in varied ways, around the world. They buried two teabags in the same location. One which decayed quickly at first, then much more slowly, and the other that decayed in the opposite manner.
By establishing the quantitative impact of differing conditions on the two teabags, a reliable measure of the rate of decomposition can be calculated. That calculation holds irrespective of the location, establishing a baseline from which the amount of CO2 being emitted by decaying vegetable matter from that location, can be derived.
Subsequently, they have engaged with interested people around the world using the same two teabag types. By pooling data, they had arrived at a means to calculate with considerable accuracy, how much CO2 was being emitted by the process of decomposition of vegetation globally.
They had The Teabag Index.
Economists use a similar measure of purchasing power of currencies across the world, by converting the local price of a Big Mac into US dollars. This is pretty obviously called the Big Mac Index, and has proved to be a pretty reliable indicator for over 30 years.
Sometimes the best solutions to complex problems lie in being creative about finding a simple solution. This is rarely obvious, but sometimes hiding in plain sight.
What is your teabag index?
It will be those few simple numbers that are a reliable macro indicator of the performance of your business.
Jun 15, 2020 | Management, Operations
Metrics at their best deliver game changing insight and wisdom. At their worst, they are misleading , irrelevant and a pain in the arse to collect.
So, what are the two characteristics that make a great metric?
The metric is a leading indicator.
A Leading indicator is a reliable measure of what will happen.
For example, if you have the data that shows that for every lead you generate, you convert 5% at an average purchase price of $50, and those customers buy twice a year for an average lifetime of 3 years, you can calculate with some confidence what each lead is worth to you. In this case, it would be: 100 leads X 5% X $50 X twice a year X 3 years = $1500.
The metric is causal.
The most common mistake I see, is metrics that confuse cause with correlation. There are many things that correlate, despite the fact that there is no relationship between them. One does not cause the other.
For example, there is a correlation between ice cream sales and drownings, which on a graph looks identical, but there is no causation between the two. Look deeper, and you might see that on sunny days, more people eat ice cream, and more people also go to the beach, swim, and therefore risk drowning. There is also a close correlation between ice cream consumption and a shark attack. This second correlation would also suffer from very ‘thin’ data, which make any sort of causal relationship even further from the truth. However, a glance at a graph, which takes on some credibility as someone has actually created a graph, would suggest there is some causation.
For a metric to be of any real use, it has to be the catalyst that changes behaviour, and delivers a predictable result. It is not always easy to sort the causal from the correlative. When you need some experienced wisdom, give me a call.
