A marketers rant about ‘content porn’

A marketers rant about ‘content porn’

Oct 10, 2018 | Branding, Communication, Social Media

Content has become a marketing buzzword delivering a tsunami of crap into our inboxes, cluttering up our phones, and potentially delivering all sorts of nasty surprises if we open them.

Content started as a great idea, suddenly we could communicate directly with those in our markets and give them stuff of value, that coincidentally led to a transaction, perhaps many transactions.

Anyone would think this was new, this is what advertising has done for decades, we can now just target the recipient more accurately.

We have forgotten the ultimate objective of content is to create circumstances where a transaction can occur. However, ‘Content’ has become a cliché, and we all indulge, churning out shit that does nobody any good.

It is like Porn, interesting at first, perhaps educational for some, offensive to others, but quickly becoming just boring.

People are keen to receive things of value, things that make a difference to their lives, but increasingly the stuff they are being delivered is just content porn, doing nobody any good, leading to the turn off, so that the good stuff gets missed in the never ending churn.

There is a branding opportunity here, send only good stuff, and personalise it!

What we need to produce is ideas, not indulgence, and there is way too little of the former and too much of the latter.

Let’s be fair dinkum about what content is.

Fair chance it is a regurgitated version of something else, and by the time the first good idea has been reshaped, and re-imagined, it has become blurred and unrecognisable. An original good idea is something most recognise when they see it, simply because it demands attention and action.

That is what  we need, more ideas, originality, and deviance, in a nice way, that demands your attention, and drives an action. We do not need more of the same old content porn.

I read somewhere, and I wish I could take credit for it that: ‘if I take a photo of a pile of dog shit, I have a photo of a pile of dog shit, if I upload it to  a website, it becomes content’

Sounds a bit like the inimitable Bob Hoffman, but could not locate the source.

 

Jack is back!!

Jack is back!!

Oct 8, 2018 | Branding, Marketing

 

Tesco in the UK is in the launch phase of a discount chain, ‘Jacks’ as a competitive response to the inroads of German discounters Aldi and Lidl.

I can only assume Coles and Woolies management are watching with interest, as they have yet to find a way to combat Aldi in their backyard, and in the absence of a better idea might just copy it, almost as something to do.

Second ranked Sainsbury’s strategy has been different. They are ‘merging’ with Wal-Marts Asda chain in a deal reported to be  worth 7.3 billion pounds. This deal would take them past Tesco as the UK’s biggest retailer, and so needs regulatory approval. Wal-Mart bought Asda in 1999, believing their discount model that made them the biggest retailer in the world by a country mile, would work in the UK. They have clearly failed in the face of more effective discounters from Germany. Meanwhile, both Aldi and Lidl are rummaging around in Wal-Marts US backyard.

Perhaps Wal Mart have recognised the threat to their dominance is coming from more than Amazon and are hunkering down for a fight?

As this all unfolds, I suspect history will reveal that Tesco has made a huge blue.

They are setting out to make Jacks clearly part of the ‘Tesco family’ according to the blurb sprouted by CEO David Lewis at the opening of the first Jacks, just down the road from an Aldi site. At the same time, they are committed to sourcing ‘British first’.  This is a mix of business models that must make the Aldi executives giggle with joy, as all it will do is drain money from the Tesco coffers while highlighting Aldi’s positioning as the cheapest around. Setting out to ‘out-Aldi’ Aldi will be a doomed strategy, particularly as they have already compromised it by being overtly British first. This approach may appeal to some, but those who shop at Aldi do so for the price, first, second and last, and will not care about ‘Britishness’, so all Tesco will be doing is damaging their own positioning, and dropping bundles of cash.

From a distance, I hope those few in Coles and Woolies who have been around for a while will whisper some common sense into the ears of their bosses.

‘Anyone remember Jack the slasher, Franklins, Bi-Low, and Jewel’ ?

All discounters, all now gone.

How much should I spend on that winning that tender?

How much should I spend on that winning that tender?

Oct 2, 2018 | Customers, Governance, Strategy

 

That is a common question, which requires some rephrasing to be answered with anything other than ‘It depends’

‘How much should I invest to increase my chances of winning that tender’ is a better question.

Would you spend 20k to have a 50/50 chance of a $5 million contract?

How about if your chances of success were only 20%. Would you still spend the 20k?

There is a continuum here, one that should change with your circumstances, and your judgement of your chances in the tender process. The management challenge is quantifying the level of risk tolerance that exists at that time.

‘How much should I spend’ is a form of question that implies a short term is involved, ‘How much should I invest’ implies a longer term. It may only be a semantic difference, but  there is a great difference in the manner in which you approach the tenders preparation.

Quoting on tenders has two elements, the first is that now it is a tender, the implication is always that you are just one of several to tender, so it is an auction, of sorts.

The second is that there is never a sure fire thing, even when you have the inside running for any one of a large number of reasons, the most usual being incumbency of some sort. The fact that there has been a tender made public is an indication that the tenderer is not only looking for a price, they are looking for ideas.

To some questions you should be asking yourself:

  • How valuable is the tender to me? If the tenderer is your biggest customer, and you are an incumbent for this sort of job, the answer would probably be very valuable, not just for the job being tendered, but for the ongoing relationship and flow of further work.
  • What is the strategic value of the customer? This will often be a similar answer to the previous question, but your largest customers always started as a new, much smaller customer, and grew, so considering how ‘strategic’ they may be is important. An acquaintance of mine has what he calls a ‘green-keeping’ business that specialises in public spaces. He will do everything possible to win tenders put out by public bodies, councils, schools, and the like, as each one he wins is strategically important not just to the current cash flow, but to the position he holds in the competitive field.
  • How unique is my solution? When you can do something none of your tender competitors can do, price becomes less important. Following the above example of the green-keeping business, he owns a tractor towed machine that ‘cores’ a surface, an important factor for vigorous grass growth on areas like football fields. All of his competitors need to hire such a machine (sometimes from him) as the need arises which adds a significant cost to maintenance and a resulting reluctance, which often enables him to get a superior outcome.
  • How close is the strategic fit of the tenderer to the profile of my ideal customer? Every successful business has an idea of what their ideal customers look like, and the closer to the ideal profile a tenderer is, the more important it will be to win a tender that arises from them.
  • How does the job fit into the existing workflow? When you have a ‘hole’ in your work flow, filling it becomes more urgent, the alternative being to cover the overhead costs from reserves or remove them. When the latter course is taken, it can be hard to resource back up when the work flows in again.
  • How does the job fit my capability mix? A key part of having a profile of the ideal customer is that the mix of capabilities you can deliver exactly matches what is required by the tenderer. Having to buy in a capability you do not have is a strategic decision, and should be made carefully.
  • What is the net cash flow from the project over the life of the project? To do any sort of financial calculation, this forecast is an absolute necessity. It should be done in any case, as you are bidding for the contract, and therefore should have calculated your costs and the financial benefits and risks. This is all that is needed for a financial calculation.

 

Having determined how important the job may be to win, the task is to increase your chances and decide how much to invest in winning.

There are two variables, the amount you invest, and the chances of winning the tender. To do a financial calculation on the options, you could use a function called  ‘Net Present Value’  or NPV. We all recognise that a dollar today is worth more than a projected dollar tomorrow. The value of tomorrows dollar being reduced by  the amount of inflation, and the certainty of the projected cash flow from the project.

To do an NPV calculation, you need to have projected the cash flows to which you are applying the formula.

The NPV formula is simple in principal: Assume an amount of $20,000 is outlaid with the projection that in the following 3 years the project will deliver 100k/year positive cash flow in current dollars, and the discount rate is 5% to allow for 5% inflation.

The cash flow looks like:

$20,000 initial investment, followed by year 1 net cash flow of $100,000, plus year2  100,000 X .95 = $95,000 plus discounted year 3 of $90,250.

The net cash flow from the project is therefore $285,250.

Therefore the net present value of the initial investment at the end of the project is $285,525 – $20,000, or $265,525. In this case, it would seem that the investment of 20k in winning the tender would be a very good investment indeed.

The discount rate can be changed to reflect not just the future value of current dollars, but to also  reflect the risk of not winning. This can be a more complex calculation, but relatively easily done with a formula called Internal Rate of Return (IRR) available in every spreadsheet package.

These two calculations, NPV and IRR are routinely done in tandem by accountants to calculate a risk adjusted return from an investment.

When considering the question ‘how much should I spend on this tender‘ they will together be very handy tools.

Cartoon credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert.

Content quality trumps quantity, every time!

Content quality trumps quantity, every time!

Sep 28, 2018 | Communication, Strategy

Marketers have always created ‘Content’ as a means to  raise awareness, motivate an action, build a brand. It is what they do in an effort to hook into the behavioural patterns of their customers in order to build a relationship and generate revenue.

Human beings learned to tell stories as a means to communicate the things that are important to them way before they learned to record things on clay tablets.

So, ‘Content’ is not new, the form has just morphed over the last 20 years with the emergence of digital tools as a more efficient way to spread the ‘content’. We also know that the ubiquitous bullet points may simplify things, but they are easily forgotten, whereas a compelling narrative is remembered.

It is just the way our brains have evolved to work.

Content should be organised as stories, marketers should know this by now, and mostly do, but often fail to give us stores that are memorable and relevant, that touch an emotion.

The old story of the poet and the beggar makes the point.

The beggar asks the poet for money, but the poet having none himself offers to re-write the beggars sign, which just says ‘Blind. Please help.” to ‘Spring is coming, but I will not see it’. A week later, when the poet sees the blind man again, he is not surprised to hear the donations have soared. A simple change of word from a fact to a story that touches the emotions.

Our brains are wired to recognise and recall stories, details are remembered, so when you relate the story to others, all the colour, movement and emotion of the original remains.

Stories take a lot of development and telling, they are very hard work and are optimised over time. Attention to detail, selecting stories and story lines that really dig into the emotions are crucial.

Marketers are now required to measure everything, stories are no different. Generally the conversion rate that is relevant is the best measure. How many finished the story, how many then did what you wanted them to do.

Mediocrity rules, the 80:20 rule is really 95:5 in stories, as only the great ones  get read, create engagement and sharing, and to do this, it is all about quality, not quantity.

Ever wonder why some content goes viral?

Well for one reason or another it is in the 5% that is worthy of  the attention and sharing, aim to be in the 5%, which means that the effort has to be organic, you cannot outsource passion and commitment, it has to be in the DNA of the business.

(Sorry about the ickky  word in the headline, I have even stopped playing 500)

Cartoon credit. My thanks again to Tom Fishburne, the Marketoonist. Another marketing story told in a cartoon

P,S. This morning, in my inbox was this new ‘storybook’ by the great Hugh McLeod and Brian Solis, supported by Linkedin. It makes my point better than I ever could. I encourage you to download it and have a look. I love Hughs work, as any reader will know, I often have his cartoons as headers, as the say so much in a few lines.

 

 

 

 

A simple measure of innovation

A simple measure of innovation

Sep 26, 2018 | Innovation

 

Innovation is a challenging term to define. One man’s innovation is another’s line extension.

About the only thing that is clear is that innovation is not R&D, the creation of original knowledge. Innovation is the process that takes that knowledge and turns it into a saleable product.

To my mind, innovation has two dimensions upon which it can be measured that accommodates all the various definitions I have heard.

  1. The degree to which the ‘innovation’ creates new demand. This is not a competitive term, it is utterly dependent on the degree to which the pie is made bigger. Let’s consider Uber, often cited as the biggest innovation in personal transport history. Is it new? No, taxis have been around for as long as there have been wheeled vehicles, Wells Fargo started as a sort of taxi company. What Uber did was make taxis more accessible, which no doubt did increase the size of the pie a little, but not much.
  2. The degree to which the ‘innovation’ creates new value. Again, to use Uber, it did deliver considerable new value, in that you did  not have to wait for ages for a taxi to turn up, they are clean, and you can provide feedback. On the other hand, the taxi regulations, bloated, ill used, and anti-competitive as they are, were there for a reason, supposedly to ensure both the safety of passengers, and that the drivers knew their way around. That they fail regularly in both measures is one of many reasons Uber was able to steal so much market share by adding new value.

So, it is a simple matter of using that beloved tool of consultants, the two dimensional graph, and plotting the position along these two simple parameters. Usually that task is not as simple as the idea,