Who will pay for tomorrow’s hospitals?

Who will pay for tomorrow’s hospitals?

I did not watch the royal wedding. That does not mean I am a republican, or anti-monarchist, it simply means I am not interested.

If they want to get married, let them get on with it, they do not need the approval of the masses. After all, they are both adults, both famous for being famous, and one has already been there and done that!

I am also not interested in going to church. That does not mean I have no moral compass, or personal code that has as a base what could loosely be termed the 10 commandments. They make sense irrespective of your brand of faith.

What I am interested in is the replacement of important questions and issues, such as how we live together, how we treat others, and who pays the piper, by this wild and to my mind absurd, emotional response to two thirty somethings getting married.

It seems to me that the things that got us were we are, no longer hold any sway.

We have a tax system that is broken, at a time when we voters appear to be demanding more and more. Those with the power, which really means those few individuals running multinational corporations, hold the power to, and are personally paid to ensure the institutions they run pay as little tax as possible, and they have the resources to find the cracks in the system through which they can wriggle.

Amazon is a prime example, along with their digital multinational friends. They are disrupting retail, and a host of other domains, while investing heavily in new services in the cloud. Great you say, they deserve to be successful, and they do, but Amazon is doing it by more than just being the smartest in the room, they are being subsidised by their competitors.

Amazon trades at what  is effectively break even, yet it will probably  become the most valuable company in the world very soon. It has grown by reinvesting their profits into becoming bigger and more powerful across their areas of operation, and as investment is a tax deduction, they pay no tax.

Their competitors do pay tax, they are largely those who were around before Amazon emerged, but will not be around much longer to pay for the schools and hospitals we all want.

Who will pay for them then?

Not Amazon or Apple, or Google, or Netflix, they are reinvesting in growth at the expense of their competitors, and in the process denying our kids a place to go to school.

Amazon has flipped the system.

Listed companies are usually judged by their profitability, usually on an absurdly short term basis.  Companies sweat the books and beat up their staff to deliver on optimistic forecasts of quarterly profitability. By contrast, Jeff Bezos makes no or negligible profits and has made vision and the long term the source of share value.

Amazing!

Any business that pays more tax than it is legally required to do is not acting in the best interests of shareholders, or so the mantra goes, as was so dramatically stated by the late Kerry Packer in 1991. Therefore  in this day of internationalised supply chains, and low tax regimes in fly blown little islands scattered around the place, they register as businesses, and engage in legal but morally bankrupt practises.

In Australia we have in addition the sight of personal greed, cronyism, and utter lack of personal and corporate integrity being brought into the light by Royal Commissioner Hayne and colleagues. I am sure that this level of malfeasance exists elsewhere, most probably in greater volumes, but that does not make the sight any more palatable. Most probably nobody will go to gaol, a few will be banned from being directors for a while, and there will be mutterings of regret forgotten almost before the words are out. Then we have the competing pollies promising handouts of money we do not have, a bill our kids will have to pay in one way or another.

Who will pick up the real bill for tomorrows hospitals?

 

 

 

 

 

How much do I need to spend on marketing my new business?

How much do I need to spend on marketing my new business?

This ‘How much’ question was posed to me recently in a networking group by a young professional who had just left the comfort of a large corporate firm to strike out on her own with a business partner. My answer: ‘Depends’. There is never a right answer to  this question, every situation is different, but there are a few foundation things that should be considered, and they all involve some sort of trade-off.

Time.

Time is our only truly non-renewable resource, so it makes sense to use it as productively as possible, depending on your definition of productive. For this new firm, while they have clients, they also have more time than they had working as corporate ‘slaves’ in a bigger firm, so they can choose to use it for marketing, developing their professional competence, which is after all an investment in their future, or they may even go to the pub. Early on it makes sense to invest some of the excess time in building their marketing and sales processes so that they can ‘feed’  the pipeline of potential clients.

Money.

Nobody, no matter how big, has sufficient money in the marketing budget to do all they would like. Therefore it is a matter of priorities and choices. Never easy. It is also true that the way you see marketing makes a potentially huge difference. Seen as nothing more than a necessary expense, it is just a chunk of money going out the door. Seen as an investment, marketing becomes something different, by definition. While it costs money now, it is an investment in future prosperity. By gaining clients that will continue to deliver revenue over a longer period, without having to spend on getting them through the door again in the first place, the initial investment will deliver great returns. My answer is also always tied up  in the need to use available money as productively as possible, which means that before you spend a zac on the communication end of the marketing spectrum, make sure you have the definition of  the ideal customer and your value proposition in place, so you can accurately target both the potential clients and your messages.

Expertise.

Expertise you can buy in, but it is dangerous to buy in expertise in a situation where you do  not know enough to adequately make the choice between alternatives.  This applies  perhaps more than anything else the strategic/marketing end of  the service continuum, simply because there is rarely one right answer, and  there are no external professional standards to be met. This means that a  marketing professional may just be highly professional about marketing their  business, but hopeless at marketing yours. If you buy in expertise before you know what expertise you really need, you risk getting a plumber when you need a carpenter. Alternatively, you can buy in the expertise to assist define just what it is you do need before you make the investment in marketing activity. The instinct these days is to talk to a so called ‘digital marketer’ whose business it is to sell you digital marketing services, whether or not that is the best use for your money. It pays to be sure, do some serious introspection before you jump. This is not usually an instinctive thing for most, in this case they are lawyers, not marketers, and marketing remains a ‘dark art’ outside their experience and expertise. Marketing has to be at the front of your mind, not just during the start-up phase, but for ever more. While the specific activity that drives client engagement can be turned up or down according to the capacity available to service the business, marketing is a key part of the DNA of every successful business.

Create processes.

Everything in business is a part of a process, no matter how big or small it may be. Therefore the things that are repetitive should be ‘routinised’ as much as possible so they happen with minimum resources, and optimum performance. In other words, they are a productive use of the time and money allocated. Just as providing a professional service requires a process to be followed, so it is with marketing activity. You can automate just about everything these days, which is where a mistake is often made, as automating a rubbish process just leaves you with automated rubbish. There is  no substitute for mapping out what you want to achieve, and the best way to achieve it, piloting and refining, before you automate. Remember also  that automation by definition, removes the ability to be agile in the face of something not considered in the automation phase.

Prioritise ruthlessly.

We only have so much capacity, spreading it thinly just ensures nothing gets done properly. Far better to do less things, well. Therefore, I absolutely subscribe to, and work with clients to prioritise their investment of time money and expertise. You can do this in any number of ways, two of which I like and use. The first is the well known urgent/not important matrix,

 

 

 

 

 

The second is an aggressively culled priority list. Record the top 20 priorities you have in front of you. Prioritise 1 to 20. Draw a line under number 4, or 5, and discard the rest into a ‘carpark’ of some sort, not to be considered at the moment, but too be kept aside, as being in your top 20, there is some importance to be attributed. Ensure that as a part of  the process you have performance measures built in so that you know which parts of your marketing are working, in which case you double down, and which are not in which case you stop, and either save the investment or use it in the doubling down.

Finally.

Find activities you are happy to do, that you can feel proud of, and do  them. You are in business for yourself, being happy is often hard as the pressures can be substantial, so make the effort to find the elements  of the wider role you have taken on, and do those that you enjoy, are good at, and which add value to your business, and outsource the rest, having done sufficient research to ask good questions of potential suppliers.

Four strategic questions raised by Manufacturing Week and CeBIT

Four strategic questions raised by Manufacturing Week and CeBIT

 

The juxtaposition of two trade shows, Manufacturing week last week, and the current CeBIT, have raised some questions in my mind about the road on which we are travelling.

I spent the best part of two days at Manufacturing week, and yesterday at CeBIT, talking, observing, getting caffeinated, and  generally trying to question the preconceptions that seem to be driving the activity I saw. I arrived at a small number of questions that I think  need to be addressed.

How do we overcome the myth of Silicon valley?

Simply put, it seems that the general view is that an ‘App’ or digitisation of something will be the panacea. The VC’s will emerge from their caves and fund the next big thing that will solve all the problems, despite much of the stuff I saw looking a bit like an App in search of a problem to solve, particularly at CeBIT.

There needs to be, in my humble view, more focus and understanding that the improvements in manufacturing will come more from the improvements in material science and engineering than from a  VC funded miracle cure.

The developments that make a real difference are long term ones, basic science that bounces around often for decades before a commercial application is found, a timeframe that requires public funding, as the VC’s will not be interested. A case in point is the development by CSIRO scientists of the wireless LAN technology we all now use every day.

Where do we find the skills to compete?

We are a small country, so graduate numbers in STEM subjects are low by international comparisons, but apparently dropping as a proportion of graduations. Numbers vary, as do definitions, but to be globally competitive we need to increase the number of quality graduates, ensure their funding, and focus their activities on areas where Australia has some sort of competitive advantage. Logically the first two should be an outcome of government policy, sadly lacking, and the latter an outcome of commercial forces over time. Currently we import a substantial percentage of STEM employees and entrepreneurs, a fact demonstrated clearly, albeit qualitatively, at the two trade shows.

How do we build genuine collaboration between Government, Academia and Industry?

This collaboration gets a lot of air time and ‘polly-speak’ but seems lacking. There are a lot of government programs around to assist industry, but most are not well understood, are hard to access, and have demanding guidelines that alienate time poor manufacturing management. To be fair, we all want to see out taxes spent sensibly, but sometimes you have to take a leap of faith, and make the funding more accessible, and not so risk sensitive to the bureaucratic, risk averse funding bodies. This requires additional expert, non  bureaucratic resources at the early stages of project development and assessment.

The problem with academia holding IP remains a huge stumbling block. I delivered a session at a University recently, for free, on the understanding that I would be given a recording of the session. I put a lot of work into the session, the Professor concerned assured me that the recording would be forthcoming, but it is tangled up in the Universities IP policy, and I have not got it. Next time they ask for help the answer may be different, and this was just a simple exercise of me passing on the wisdom of my experience, not leveraging the IP of some advanced research project in which the University had a hand.

How do we participate meaningfully in the next wave?

Forget today, it is already too late. However, the next wave of development, artificial intelligence, IOT, human/machine interfaces, in short, industry 4.0, the combination of advanced manufacturing and digital technology, is just around the corner.  Australian of the year Professor Michelle Simmons leads a world class quantum physics team,  but I wonder if there is the supporting infrastructure and political longevity of will to leverage the break-throughs that appear to be coming. In addition, there is really only the one team, competing against the world, as well as collaborating with it, and I suspect both are insufficient.

 

As a final observation, and this is a ‘groan’ from a marketing bloke. The quality of thought that has gone into the leveraging of the investment made by the organisations of all sizes with stands at both exhibitions is rubbish.  After Fine Foods last year I penned this post that outlined 18 strategies to leverage the substantial investment required to be present at a trade show. I was astonished, particularly at CEBIT yesterday, the digital tech show,  at the number of times I was allowed to move on after a conversation without the stand staff getting any of my details, even in instances where there was obvious genuine interest, and therefore some potential value in a follow up.

Photo credit: CeBIT via Flikr

 

 

 

How do you measure culture?

How do you measure culture?

With an increasing regularity, ‘Culture’ emerges as an item to be ‘managed’. I fully expect it to be front and centre before the end of the current Royal Commission into the financial sector, as most of the poor practises we have seen , immoral, unethical, and some down-right illegal, stem from a poor culture, lack of leadership in the true sense of the word, and a failure of governance.

Culture pervades every organisation of more than  1 person. It is how we interact, behave, collaborate, and deal with other people in the pursuit of whatever objectives, personal, and commercial that are front of mind, but mostly is just about how the job gets done.

Mundane as that is, culture is the determining factor.

It truly bothers me that an outcome of the Royal Commission may be that a legislated  regime be put into place to regulate culture.  The boffins in Canberra have no idea what it is, and how to define it, but that may  not stop them regulating for it.

It is also a fact that ‘culture’ is an outcome, like a brand, of a host of small  behaviours, interactions, and processes over time that added together deliver an outcome we call ‘culture’. It is not an item to be managed as you would an expense item  in the P&L.

To my mind, culture is grown from the inside, but it responds to the outside environment. Growing a culture is not dissimilar to the Japanese art of ‘Bonsai’, the cultivation of dwarf plants, grown into all sorts of intricate shapes.

The bonsai gardener starts with the raw material of the plant, and the environment in which it will be growing, then over time, it encourages the characteristics they want, and cuts off those that do not want before they can take shape and become an integral part of the plants physiology, disfiguring the outcome. A leader who acts as a bonsai gardener for the growing evolving culture, will fertilise the behaviours that add to the development of the envisaged end result, while nipping in the bud those that do not add to the end result, all the time training others in the art of bonsai.

 

Making a commitment to the cultural style that suits the strategic and competitive choices being made is a first step.

What culture do you want? It seems to me that the starting point should be envisioning where you want to end up. No different from setting any other objective, as it provides a consistent framework for making those difficult trade-offs and compromises that become necessary. Therefore decide what sort of culture you want, one obsessed with customer service, innovation, operational productivity, attention to detail, whatever it may be, and behave accordingly. All will have elements of each of the others in them, but there should be an overriding objective.

Are you committed for the long term? Culture is not something you erect in a financial year, it is an incremental process, built over time and very dependent on the CEO. It is the boss who makes the running with the culture that prevails, and the boss must simply walk the talk, every single day, in every way. This can be painful, and the board of a business that has the wrong boss needs to make a choice about the culture it wants and recruit accordingly.

What measurement tools do you want to use? There are a lot of choices out there, a simple google search may lead you to the conclusion that this is a task that can be outsourced to a fancy consulting firm with pretty measurement tools. Those that in my experience try and either ignore or outsource ‘culture,’ end up with at best a neutral result, and usually a poor one. Most of the tools used are pretty simple when pared back to their essential elements.

However, the common element is that they are subjective, and only really relevant as a measure of change over time. Treating a measurement of ‘culture’ as an objective measure of performance at a point in time as you would with a P&L to measure profitability will be misleading. It is the trends that really count, not the quantum of any measurement you might take.

Measuring ‘Culture’ like most things can be, and should be, made as simple as possible. This is itself is a challenging notion. Much easier to have a series of complicated dashboards that measure all sorts of things, but are really there just to make those in authority feel better.

Employee referrals and sales leads.  An employee is hardly likely to refer their own networks to the business if they are unhappy.

Customer complaint responses. Timeliness and follow through are always good indications of a customer facing culture. Every business needs customers, and dealing with problems that arise should be a first order task.

Employee turnover, and rehires. A turnover of people is natural, and I would regard as healthy. The tipping point is around the point where they are leaving because they are tired, bored and not learning anything, and where they have acquired new skills and are keen to test them in new challenges. Similarly, capable people who wish to return is a good indicator. Large businesses can also track the internal movement of employees across functions and geographies for the same reasons.

Employee exit surveys. Understanding why employees leave can be a vital piece of information about the culture, and existing management. At exit, employees are often more likely to ‘tell all’ than under other circumstances. Such an interview should be routine, friendly and constructive, and not conducted by the exiting employees line manager, and certainly not  by the HR intern, but by someone of stature in the business.

Employee Survey.  Regular employee surveys  can deliver quantitative data across a range of cultural variables that makes measurement of changes over time possible. It is always better that they are anonymous and done by a third party.  It is usually the truth that you get when you engage with the operating level employees, those on the production line, the truckies, warehouse hands, they see and suffer from the impacts of poor practises every day.

Customer survey, as above.

Supplier survey, as above, and even more important that they be done by an external party, and certainly not by the sales force, or including only those recommended for interview by the sales force. Suppliers are often in a position to give great insights into cultural drivers.

Employee Net promoter Score. NPS is now an established measure amongst customers, there is  no reason  I can see  not to use it amongst employees. It is a more complicated version of employee surveys.

The ‘carpark’ test. If it is a race to get out at 5.00, it is a sign of employee disengagement, a poor cultural outcome, and easily assessed rather than measured simply by being there and watching.  The behaviour being exhibited by operational staff is the ultimate test of ‘culture’, and you can and should observe that in many ways.  How many smiles and greetings does the ‘Boss’ get during a factory walk-through, how happy are staff to interact with senior staff on matters trivial as well as important, how well do senior staff listen to and provide feedback to operational staff, and so on. While I call it the carpark test, it is really just being respectful  of others, building their their sense of personal value, irrespective of their role.

 

As a final point, we all talk about culture as if it was a ‘thing’. It is not, it is as noted, the gradual, incremental outcome of thousands of individual interactions. You can dictate culture all you like, but it will have no effect. It is only when you change the individual interactions, one by one, that the evolved culture will slowly emerge.

Photo credit: Dave Gammon via Flikr

Three critical success factors of a newsletter.

Three critical success factors of a newsletter.

A colleague has a newsletter, he emails it to his list on an irregular basis as he has something he  thinks of interest to say. When I unsubscribed, he rang me, angry that I had done so, after all I am known personally, and have an interest in  the topic.

Compiling a newsletter can be a hugely valuable tool in the marketing armoury, I subscribe to several that are on my ‘must read’ list. However, my time is limited, and my inbox stuffed with rubbish, the unintended consequence of being curious in this digital age.

Apart from some basic errors, like an absolute lack of any visual attraction, and questionable editing, I pointed out he has ignored some of the marketing basics that simply have to be covered in this day of competitive tsunamis of information coming at us from all angles. So I gave him some gratuitous advice based on what makes me wait for those few newsletters I value.

Respect my Time.  Time is the only totally none renewable resource we have, I do not want to waste any of it, and the demands on it have multiplied geometrically over the last decade. Therefore, I prune from the bottom. If you want a ‘sticky’ audience for your newsletter, treat your audiences time as being way more valuable than your own, and they might stick around.

Create Value. The corollary to not wasting peoples time, is to deliver great value. If all you are doing is regurgitating other people’s stuff, how does that add value? It is also true that people value different things, so your newsletter has to be a source of value across a few domains in which your readers live, and not all of it will have a commercial value. Considering the sources of value to your primary potential reader, and being sure you can consistently deliver,  should be a foundation step before you contemplate allocating the resources necessary to build a newsletter.

Create a community.  The advice of all the pundits is to ‘Build your list’. Rubbish. If all you have are email addresses, you are no different to every other hopeful spammer out there. The value of the list you have is not in the  numbers, but in what the receivers do with the information you send them. I would rather have a community of 100, that waits for the next newsletter, consumes the content, comments, shares, and feels like their time has been well spent, than a list of a million, 90% of which get caught up in the spam folder.

None of these three are easy, in fact, they will consume considerable resources, way  more than their short term value would indicate is sensible. However, if you are in for the long term, great, a newsletter can be constructed and encouraged to evolve that will be ‘sticky’ in a sea of mundane crap.

Newsletters such as the John Deere publication  ‘The Furrow’ survive because the follow these unspoken rules. ‘The Furrow’ have been serving a their readers since the 1895, the Michelin Guide since 1900, just two examples of newsletters that have become synonymous with content  marketing success delivering brand longevity.