Marketing technology. Master or servant?

Mar 4, 2020 | Communication, Marketing

 

 

This is a story of two modest sized SME clients.

One has spent a lot of time, effort and money building a marketing technology ‘stack’, to use the vernacular. The expectation was that it would deliver significant marketing productivity, which they defined pretty well with a range of measures.

The other uses a basic system to record customer contacts and follow ups, as well as a semi manual system to create, collect and collate information, or ‘content’,  combined with social platforms and their website for lead generation.

The first client, with the sophisticated system has a tiger by the tail. The technology is ruling them, is unrelenting, unforgiving, and prone to drive them down dead ends because their data input is patchy  and sometimes flawed. Their recognition is that after all the effort, they are  little  better off than before the technology, just lighter in the pocket, and wearing people out.

The second client is struggling with the processes, particularly the manual interventions required, and the personal level of engagement necessary. There is frustration as they are continually told, ‘all this should be automated’ ,  but when you look at the total cost of conversion, share of wallet, lifetime value and referrals, they are much better off.

The question then is the extent to which the software is serving the purpose to which it has been directed, vs. serving itself. The intervention of people has been removed, automated, and the automation does not give a fig about the human interactions that make relationships, it just needs to be fed data.

Greek philosopher  Sophocles is quoted to have said, ‘nothing vast enters out world without a curse’ , and never has that reported quote been truer than when we consider the automatic responses we all have to the digital triggers now prevalent in our lives.

Give me back some of the humanity, with all its ambiguity and nuances any day.

So, as you are considering automation of your revenue generation processes,  never forget to account for the fact that people do business with people, in strong preference to algorithms, which are just tools.

 

 Header cartoon, Courtesy XKCD

How to think about your business

Mar 2, 2020 | Governance, Leadership, Management

 

Business is simple, in principal.

Sell something for more than it cost you to produce or acquire it, recognising that the buyer needs to understand that the value they will derive from the product is greater than the cost they incur in buying it.

Simple.

Einstein said everything should be as simple as possible,  no simpler, and his E=MC2 is the simplest  equation that explains (somehow) masses of complicated stuff. It is the best example ever of Occam’s Razor, named after William of Ockham, a 13th century philosopher which encourages decision making to the broken down by progressively removing those outcomes that are based on beliefs and ideas rather than facts. When you have all the beliefs removed, you are left with the facts.

Often however, not so simple after you go one or two levels down the burrow to figure out just how you go about that process of removing all the biases and beliefs that masquerade as facts.

Charlie Munger, offsider to Warren Buffett in creating billions of value for Berkshire Hathaway shareholders over 50 years spoke about Mental Models in a speech in 1994.  His premise was that you need a ‘lattice’ of mental models that apply to the different  perspectives that apply to any question being faced in order to distil the ideas and wisdom that applies to your situation.

I agree absolutely with the idea.

It is simple, but as complex as you choose to make it.

As someone who helps small and medium manufacturing businesses improve the economic performance, there are numerous mental models at work simultaneously.

Strategic models: There are many strategic frameworks or models for business planning. Porters 5 forces, Boston consulting’s 4 quadrant,  game theory,  the old favourite SWOT, and many others. Profoundly important and often missed  at this point, is consideration of the business model being employed. 

Operational models: Lean thinking, 6 sigma,  shift sequencing, the mix of technical, support and operational staff, deployment of technology, interaction of technology and those at the work face,  on and on, you have the opportunity to use the wisdom of others to sort the relevant from the  not so relevant.

Financial models: the standard accounting forms of cash flow, P&L, and balance sheet, together with a break even analysis, and decisions about the type of costing models to be used, ratios to be calculated, and formats in which the information will be communicated. To properly understand the operational mechanics of a business, you need more than the standard financial reporting. Their limits are a view of what has happened to the money, little about why and how it happened, and certainly very little about what may happen in the future.

Marketing and sales models: where do I start?  Ideal customer profiles, value proposition, digital Vs analogue, differentiators, marketing toolbox and the multiplicity of tools to deliver leverage, ROI of marketing investment, Account based selling,  selling models such as BANT, sales funnel, conversion rates, anchoring a negotiation, and thousands more.

How do you sort all these options into a few that will deliver results that are worth the investment?

  • You start with the end in mind, the strategic and commercial objectives, the why. I call this process ‘hindsight planning’
  • You break down the challenges into sequential ‘chewable chunks’
  • You focus on the important more than the urgent.

Behavioural models: These usually emerge as a group of expected behaviours, collectively called ‘Culture’. The best example I can think of is the 10 commandments, common to the 3 Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christian and Jewish) that sets a wide framework of the few things you must not do, leaving the rest up to you. Together, in their own environment, they provide a ,macro framework for behaviour, which we then break down further into the components that we seek to live by in a community.

When you need some help sorting this out, call me.

 

 

How do you trouble shoot flow?

Feb 27, 2020 | Lean, Operations

You never get this process of articulating flow right first time, or second, maybe third for simple tasks. People are always people, they are in a hurry, forgetful, negligent, or new to the task, so it has to be made as easy as possible.

Toyota pioneered this idea of flow in a manufacturing environment, but whether you are in a factory, or in an office, the process is the same. There has to be a process for continuous improvement, or at the least one to identify and remove impediments to orderly and consistent flow, in any organisation that aspires to survive and prosper. It results in the optimisation of the process, which is usually radically different to what is required to encourage innovation, which is by its nature more ‘scrappy’ and disorganized, as the activity seeks to test its viability and grow.

Improvement only comes from a stable environment, where things happen in a consistent and predictable manner. When you have stability, you are in a position to experiment, and observe quantitatively the result of the experiment. Was it beneficial, is it worth incorporating into the standard process? If so, then the process check list is changed to incorporate the change as the new standard procedure. If not, a note is made so that at a later time someone can review and know the change has been tested, or indeed, use it as the base for construction of a hypothesis and further experiment that takes the change one step further to where it may make the difference.

A client some time ago installed a coffee machine in the tea room. An expensive unit, that took beans, ground them and dispensed with hot water and milk on demand. The unit has three  things that needed to be done. Beans added to the container, water added to its dispenser, and the line from the milk bottle, held in a small refrigerated unit on the side, needed to be removed and cleaned each day.

These seemingly simple things caused a lot of problems, and really shitty coffee. Water was put into the bean dispenser, (strangely perhaps, beans did not seem to find their way into the water dispenser) requiring an extensive service (twice) and the milk line seemed immune to any cleaning.

To address this challenge, we engaged the staff in a bit of a game, using a fishbone diagram and post it notes. 

Within a few days, the diagram was covered in suggestions, which at a lunchtime meeting we ‘workshopped’ down to those that the people using the machine thought were the best. We wrote a checklist, or standard operating procedure  for the coffee machine, which was tested over a few weeks by a small group of heavy users, then posted on the wall of the kitchen, as well as included in the businesses then developing library of SOP’s.  We also left a big framed photo of the fishbone on the wall in reception, as a reminder to all that improvement was everybody’s job, and that it could be fun, as well as useful.

And, far fewer problems with the coffee machine since.

 

Header photo courtesy Alwin kroon via Flikr

 

 

The core problem of calculating a return on an investment in marketing.

Feb 24, 2020 | Management, Marketing

Return on Investment is a very simple financial equation.

What you earned, minus what you spent, divided by what you spent.

Earn $100 after spending $75, divided by the $75, and you have a  33% ROI. Put another way, for every dollar you spend, you get back $1.33.

Simple, right?

Then why do marketers seem to have so much trouble convincing the corner office that investing in marketing is a sound strategic and commercial choice.

Simple answer: Attribution.

Which part of revenue, or margin earned, depending on how you want to measure the success or otherwise of an investment, is attributable to the spending of the money?

Let’s take a simple and very common example: building a website.

Every business these days is told they need a website, not having one is like not having a phone, it simply makes doing business next to impossible.

 Let’s look at the formula to try and pick clean the bones of the calculation.

What you spent:

  • You need resources to determine the form and scope of the website.
  • You need someone to write the copy, and take or source the photos and illustrations.
  • You may need subscriptions to items supporting the website, such as CRM integrations, analytics services, pop-ups, autoresponders, and on, and on, and on.
  • You may need resources to manage and ‘clean’ the data bases that appear on the site, such as product specifications, promotional deals, customer and lead management, and on, and on, and on.
  • Finally, you need resources to build and maintain the website.

All of these resources can be sourced from external parties, in which case you can track invoices, or from internal resources, in which case all you have to do is determine what part of their employee costs you need to attribute to this website development. Simple to say, hard to do.

What you earned:

If anything, this is harder than attributing costs to a website development project.

  • What part of the revenue, or margin, whichever you choose as the benchmark, can you attribute to the cost of the website, and which part goes to the sales force, the quality of the product, the photography on the website, the manner in which you follow up enquiries, how  you capture returns, the cleanliness of the delivery truck belting around suburban streets, and on, and on, and on.
  • Over what time frame do you measure the return? A week, a month, a year, the duration of the associated advertising campaign, the lifetime of a customer?
  • How do you factor in other marketing activities, advertising on traditional media, digital ads, the weight of your distribution, the quality of the targeting of activity to real potential customers Vs the tyre-kickers. And on, and on, and on.
  • How do you include the value or otherwise of the word of mouth, or organic reach on social media? Which social media do you include in these considerations, is it just Facebook and twitter?  What about LinkedIn, or if you are a ‘techo’, GitHub, or Reddit, or the networks of gamers, and on and on, and on.

The core question is, ‘what do you include, and how do you allocate a weight to the contribution it made to the outcome?‘

Attribution.

Too add to  the confusion, people use a range of  terms interchangeably, usually because they do  not think about, or recognise the problems of attribution.

For example, they confuse return on marketing investment with return on advertising spend, and they  confuse leads generated with real financial results, and most particularly when confronted by someone flogging new and shiny digital toys, revenue with margin.

To go back to the metaphor at the beginning, a website is not anything like a telephone, so to make the comparison is  nonsense. A phone is a one dimensional tool. They all look the same, and do the same job, although the advent of smart phones has widened that scope considerably. A website by contrast is infinitely variable in what it does, looks like, and performs, and should be the product of a robust strategy and tactical implementation plans, not some simple template pulled out of a digital urgers kitbag.

To build that necessary credibility in the corner office, most probably occupied by an accountant or engineer, whose whole mind set is quantitative, you must be able to draw conclusions based on data. This data must demonstrate the cause and effect chains that exist, often  very well hidden, and avoid the marketing clichés and jargon, which just make you sound like that digital urger in the foyer.

Need help thinking about the implications of all that, call an expert.

 

The grassroots essentials of marketing

Feb 19, 2020 | Branding, Customers, Marketing

 

What do we mean by the term ‘marketing’?

I suspect if I did a poll, there would be a scarily wide range of responses. So, let me repeat the definition I have evolved over 45 years, which would not be found in any textbook.

‘Marketing is the identification, development, protection and leveraging of competitive advantage that adds value’

This is different from the ‘purpose’ of marketing, which to my mind is to create the opportunity and motivation that, when conditions are right, will build relationships and create opportunities, that lead to transactions. That transaction might be a sale, a subscription, a vote, a referral; it can be many things, with the common element that it is an outcome of the so called marketing activity.

Let me use the metaphor of the expert gardener. 

This gardener has a process by which he/she manages their gardens.

  • They decide what it is they want, what the end product should look like, at least in general terms.
  • They pick the ground they will cultivate.
  • They prepare the ground in the manner appropriate for the outcome they have visualised.
  • When conditions are right, they plant the seeds.
  • They nurture the seeds and resultant seedlings until they are ready to harvest.
  • They repeat the process, incorporating the things they learnt on the way through.

This process is the same for growing broadacre grain as it is for growing a few decorative flowers in the back yard. As it is for marketing. The process is the same whether the product is a tub of yoghurt or a power station, a national effort, or a local one. Only the scale of the investment, implementation details, and time frame differ. Try to take a shortcut, and you end up with dead flowers, or at best, substandard ones.

So how does that rather vague stuff translate into your world of marketing the products and services of your SME?

When I first encountered ‘Marketing’ at University, 50 years ago, the core of it was ‘The 4 P’s of marketing’. Product, Price, Place, Promotion. Everything sprang from those 4 elements. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and the expressions used may have changed a bit,  the processes of achieving them changed radically, but the core remains.

The architecture of the 4 p’s of marketing are a bit like the Model T Ford. It redefined the notion of the car, and how to manufacture it. Over time, the expression of the car has changed enormously, but the basic architecture remains.    

However, to me it makes sense to see ‘marketing’ from the perspective of the customer, and to do so, we need to answer a few simple questions:

  • What is the problem my customer has that I can solve with my product/service? This will answer the further question of why should my customer do business with me and not my opposition, which is all about the value you can create while being differentiated from the competition. You need to define it from the perspective of the customer. The costs, of all types, created by the problem, and the benefit to them of a solution.
  • Who is my ideal customer? Your ideal customer will see your differentiated value proposition, as being made for them. This takes focus and always hard choices about who you will service, and who you will not; it is the customer Pareto at work. If you have defined both the problem and the ideal customer, i.e. the one who has more of the problem, or feels it more acutely than most, when they see your value proposition, their instinctive response is ‘at last, this is for me’, or something similar.
  • How do I apply leverage to my marketing investment? It is at this point you are considering which messages, delivered to who, via what media, and how do you do that while getting the biggest bang for your buck possible. It is where the marketing rubber hits the road.
  • How do I make a profit? Profit is a simple equation: revenue minus cost.

Still the same four items, or ‘P’s, it is only the articulation and perspective that has changed. The primacy of the ‘p’s remains.

The common denominators in each of the four, required for success, are choice and iteration. You must make often very difficult choices, implement, learn from that experience, and apply the learning for the next iteration. This need to make choices, and enable the manner in which you deploy your modest marketing resources to evolve based on the experience, is perhaps the largest marketing hurdle for every SME I have ever seen. Many SME owners have had a bad experience with marketing snake oil, and are reluctant to try again, and others who have hit on something that seems to work are reluctant to change anything, so you get a lack of optimisation, not as much leverage as you could.  

As you consider your marketing, given the small scale of business, and budgets available, do not let your thinking be dominated by the mass models of the past. These are simply not appropriate for you. Way more appropriate are small, niche models, an artisanal approach. Why? We have become sceptical, untrusting, demand to know the real provenance, and only rely on those we know personally, and trust because they have earned that trust.

The original social media, word of mouth, subsumed by digital for the past 15 years is making itself heard again. Therefore it follows that you, the business owner, need to be seen and heard, tell your story, use the digital tools, but be personal and human. However, this does not mean you should turn your back on digital, by any means. The data and tools we have now could not have even been imagined 15 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. The practise of marketing has changed radically, the foundations remain the same, just way more exposed and subject to interrogation and automation than they were, and you have to be in there just to keep up.

As Einstein said, ‘Everything should be as simple as possible, no simpler’. What could be simpler than providing a great product and service that solves a problem, and having those problem liberated people tell their friends, and most particularly those with a similar problem? That is how to market at the grass roots.