9 questions for a ‘quick and dirty’ StrategyAudit.

9 questions for a ‘quick and dirty’ StrategyAudit.

Aug 9, 2017 | Small business, Strategy

In 1712 the British government started taxing newspapers by the number of pages they printed. The predictable response was that newspapers started printing on what became known as ‘Broadsheet’ paper to minimise their tax. A rational commercial response, but by the time the tax was abolished in  1855, people had forgotten why they needed these huge, unwieldy pages, and somehow they became  a sign of a ‘serious’ newspaper.

Had the Sydney Morning Herald asked any commuter who still bought their broadsheet paper before March 2013,  would they prefer a smaller format, they would have answered with one word: Please.  Common sense caught up with them and the change was finally made, it only took 170 years.

This is just one example of thousands of a key strategic question that should always be asked, ‘Why do it that way”. When I get an answer to the question that sounds anything like, ‘because that is the way it has always been,’ I shudder, and when that say ‘customers prefer it that way’ I ask to see the research, which in most cases has been chewed by the dog.

There are 8 more common questions I work into conversations early on that give me a rough idea of the problems they face, and the ‘shape’ of  an assignment, should it eventuate.

  • What would a VC investor do? Those who put up capital with a view to an exit at a profit at an early date look for the 20% of every business that produces the 80% of profits, and having found it, tend to remove as much of the 80% of activity as they can in order to generate their return. It can be a bloody exercise when done by an outsider, but turning a managements mind to the question almost always opens up their minds to a far more critical analysis of their current business that had otherwise been done.

 

  • Are the organisation structure and capabilities capable of delivering the strategic outcomes planned?. There is a trick in the question, as many businesses do  not have a clear idea of their strategy, so are unable to articulate how the organisation can deliver on it. The correct sequence is to have a robust strategy based on the “why” or values of the business, however you choose to express it, followed by an analysis of  the structure and capabilities required to deliver. Which is the cart and which is the horse should be very clear.

 

  • Which pieces do not fit? To some degree, this is a similar question to the one about what a VC would do, just a bit less intimidating, and more sensitive to the cultural and operational shape of the business, and its capabilities. There are always bits that do not fit, that do not carry their own weight. Each part of a  business should add to the whole in a manner that is greater than just the sum of the parts. If a part does not add to the greater sum, either get rid of it, or  improve its performance very quickly so that it does.

 

  • What does the long term look like? I ask this question at all levels, hoping to find consistent answers, which is a great sign, but unfortunately as rare as hens teeth. Assessing every major decision against the framework of the desired long term objective ensures at least some degree of alignment and consistency in decision making.

 

  • Why do customers do business with you? It always surprises how often the answer to that question is either “price” or “they always come back”. Neither is a sufficient answer. If you are the cheapest around, that is a good way to go broke eventually, and if you cannot articulate why someone does business with you, in other words, repeat back to you your value proposition, you are equally in trouble.

 

  • How much business comes from repeat customers, and what is your share of their wallet? Servicing an existing customer in any market is cheaper than finding a new one, so cherish the ones you have. Similarly, if you have a 10% share of wallet, the most effective way to increase sales is to increase your share of their wallet. When there is no credible answer, to either question, it is a danger neon sign.

 

  • Who are your major and potential competitors? Knowing your current major competitors and their capabilities is essential to survival in competitive markets, and in many, being able to see over the horizon sufficiently to see who the potential competitors may be is a great sign of strategic awareness.

 

  • What is the exit strategy? In most cases, public companies do not have one, and it is really not necessary for them, what they really need is a comprehensive succession plan, with the associated capability development activities. For everyone else, the lack of an exit strategy signals a lack of focus on outcomes. Even when the owners, who are generally also the managers in most of my clients, intend to work ‘forever,’ there needs to be an exit strategy as part of the strategic planning exercise, and often the succession planning is how to bring along young ‘Georgie’ the son/daughter of the owner, who might not make it in a meritocracy.

When you would like to have a conversation that goes a bit deeper, give me a call.

Image via Pinterest

 

 

The real measure of marketing effectiveness, and how to deliver it.

The real measure of marketing effectiveness, and how to deliver it.

Aug 7, 2017 | Governance, Leadership, Marketing

Marketing is a functional silo on an organisation chart, as is Sales, Operations, Finance, HR, but unlike the others, marketing deals with unknowns, the future, whereas all the other functions deal with the past, or what is immediately in front of them.

Marketing is about the future, long term commercial sustainability, and its effectiveness is really hard to measure, other than in hindsight. There are lots of measures for things that have happened, which are the result of often many combinations of actions taken some time ago, so the measures are unable to change anything, just give insights to what worked and what did not.

As the senior marketing person in a very large business 30 years ago, I found myself often talking about advertising, segmentation, positioning, graphic design, and all the rest, around the board table, which either put others to sleep, or elicited opinions, usually uninformed, about the detail. However, when I talked revenue I had their attention.

Marketing is all about revenue, particularly future revenue. The other stuff is the paddling under the surface that enables the generation of the revenue, but the real measure of marketing effectiveness is revenue and margins over time.

In every business I have ever had anything to do with, marketing expenditure is treated as an item in the P&L. By definition, items in the P&L are expenses or past sales revenue. This is inconsistent with the notion of marketing being about building the foundations of future revenue.

The closest analogy is a piece of capital equipment, they are always purchased to fill one of two roles, sometimes both:

  • To increase the volumes too be sold, or,
  • Increase the productivity of the processes.

Those purchases are recorded in the cash flow statements, and the balance sheet, not the P&L. The greater irony is that capital items are depreciating assets, whereas marketing  investments, when done well are appreciating assets, unrecorded anywhere until the business is sold, then the accountants start talking about ‘Goodwill’ being the difference between the realisable value of the physical assets, and the liabilities on the books.

There is a structural paradox here. We treat a potentially appreciating asset differently to one that can only depreciate, just because it is hard to measure.

This challenge of measurement is the biggest one marketing people have to hurdle. The turnover of marketers in senior roles is the fastest amongst the functional heads in large corporations because we generally do not recognise the essential long term business building nature of marketing investments. We treat it as an expense to be cut at the slightest cloud on the profitability horizon, and the marketing people with it.

One of the challenges here is that to achieve these long term outcomes, marketing requires the co-operation and  collaboration of all the other functions, without the organisational authority to direct. The CMO has to be a leader across functions. He/she has to build the respect and co-operation of other functional leaders, often at odds with their short term function specific performance measures.

25 years ago, I and my marketing team, failed to convince the board of the then Dairy Farmers Co-Operative to invest the required capital in new equipment to launch a new brand of flavoured milk. It was to be packaged in plastic bottles, with a screw cap, to be sold at a very considerable premium to the products then only available in the gable top cartons, and we proposed to sell it to different consumers. Nobody had done this before, we were banking on tapping into a market completely under-serviced by existing packaging and branding. The Operations Manager at the time believed in the project, and put his neck on the line by committing  his R&M budget to refurbish some older gear in the absence of capital approval, and I ‘stole’ the required advertising funds from another brand.  We launched Dare Flavoured milk, and it delivered the fastest return on investment I have ever seen, and 25 years later, it is still going strong, delivering revenue and margins to the now overseas owners of the business.

If marketers started talking about revenue generation, rather than the more common ‘marketing-speak’ like positioning, segmentation, and all the insider jargon generated by digital, they will be taken much more seriously around the board table. Building support amongst other functions to acknowledge the long term impacts of intelligent marketing, is necessary for long term prosperity, and the only real measure of marketing effectiveness.

 

3 foundations that will enable Amazon to disrupt supermarkets.

3 foundations that will enable Amazon to disrupt supermarkets.

Aug 4, 2017 | Change, Marketing, retail

Shopping is a physical and sensory experience, humans evolved doing some sort of physical ‘shopping’ even if for most of our history, the similarity of that activity to a trip to the supermarket has been fleeting. Much as we might hate the queues at the checkout, difficult parking, reducing range as the retail gorillas replace our habitual brands with their own house-branded, and increasingly ‘Bandit branded’  (retailer owned ‘brands’ masquerading as proprietary) Sku’s, there is still an emotional and social element to the experience.

It applies even more in more specialist retailers, the more specialist, the greater the degree of sensory engagement necessary.

This is all breaking down, and quickly, as even high fashion, and highly personalised fashion like Shoes Of Prey, which can designed and bought on line.

So what can we expect from Amazon that would justify $US13.6 billion for Whole Foods?

 Virtual supermarket.

Virtual and Augmented Reality is coming at us like a train. Just as shoes of Prey allows you to design your own shoes, Warby Parker  has become a billion dollar company in 6 years by helping you to choose your glasses on line,   Amazon (surprise surprise) is playing with Prime Wardrobe , and Ikea is experimenting with a virtual furniture app.  it seems a short step to using Virtual reality from your couch to ‘walk’ through, select, place and order and schedule delivery from a grocery ‘store’.

Almost a year ago my second son bought a VR set for a few hundred dollars, and when I fiddled with it, thought I had seen the future of market research. Even so recently my imagination did not take me that next small step to an actual ordering and delivery management system, but why not?

Crowd sourced logistics.

The biggest stumbling block to digital grocery growth has been the logistics, both timing and cost. Fresh and frozen produce where timing and cold chain integrity is paramount, requires a different set of logistic standards to shelf stable commodity categories. Shoppers are very price sensitive across homogenised commodity categories of temperature agnostic products, and it does not matter much if they remain on the front step for a while, diametrically opposed on both counts to produce.

Timing of delivery has been particularly problematic in multiple income homes, and building delivery certainty creates considerable cost.

Both have been solved by the sort of technology Uber uses. Pretty simple to have a crowd sourced delivery service where the vehicles just have a refrigerated unit in the boot hooked into a power source in the car, combined with the delivery scheduling Uber has amply demonstrated works.

 Payment security.

Payment security while it should be a problem, as the level of fraud increases rapidly in Australia, from 16.2cents/$1,000 in 2013 to 24.5 cents/$1,000 in 2015, (according to the Australian Payments Clearing association), it seems not to be for most of us. However, It will be very soon. Blockchain technology will remove much of the risk, and in the early stages of development, seems to be ‘fraud-proof’. Amazon has been experimenting extensively with Blockchain , collaborating with many large financial and digital innovators to better facilitate and secure web based financial transactions.

It seems to me that these are the three building blocks Amazon needs to make a huge dent in the traditional supermarket business, struggling to identify the sustainable sources of growth and profitability. Whole Foods is only the stalking horse, as there is a lot of expertise in procuring quality fresh produce in predictable volumes, and Whole Foods is already an expert in this. Amazon will add the Whole Foods expertise onto what they are doing already, and bingo, another disruption coming your way.

 

 

Why Operational improvement and change initiatives usually fail.

Why Operational improvement and change initiatives usually fail.

Aug 2, 2017 | Change, Leadership, Lean, Operations

How do you make short term operational and process improvements ‘stick’ for the long term?

Most change initiatives fail to deliver on their early promise. You get some short term improvement, some changes made, but the effectiveness of the process dwindles with time.

I often see failed improvement initiatives, usually labelled ‘Lean” or ‘6 Sigma’ by those involved, that leave a pile of paper, some awareness and knowledge, and from time to time some useful results, but nothing like the promises of the expensive consultants as they signed you up.

Why is that?

Nobody goes into a change process expecting it to fail

In my observation, the single most common reason these initiatives fail is because they ignore one of the basic tenets of Lean: respect for people.

Lean gets a start because management sees problems they have failed to solve, or do not know how to solve. So they bring in some Lean consultants who reach into the tool box and come out with some of the common tools, go through an education process, implement, and get some quick and sometimes impressive wins, and victory is declared. After that declaration, the focus moves elsewhere,  and the process slowly deteriorates.

Why is that?

Everyone was so committed, excited at the early results, the consultants were paid a shedload, so it should have worked.

In 30 years of doing this stuff, there is always one dominant reason they fail.

The initiative is top down, not bottom up.

Those at the top see problems manifest in the P&L. Their motivations are financial, operational and strategic. They talk about alignment, and people being the most valuable asset, then ignore them.

By contrast, building initiative from the bottom, asking those doing the work how to improve it, then giving them the tools to improve, and rewarding them with acknowledgement as well as a more secure job and maybe a pay rise, is where the action is.

However, for managers, they are trained to see their job as managing. Having some stuff bubbling up from the factory that has not gone through the formal approval processes and subjected to the discipline of  the accountants mandatory NPV  and ROI analysis is uncomfortable and challenging to their authority as managers.

This is where the distinction between managers and leaders comes in.

Managers, usually unwittingly, kill off the grass roots enthusiasm to make their workplace safer, more interesting, and more productive because it makes them uncomfortable, less in control.  By imposing rules, they interrupt the productive flow evident in successful initiatives. By contrast,  leaders encourage and promote the ambiguity that sometimes results, and works with it.

Which are you, Manager or Leader?

 

 

How to choose your marketing and sales automation software

How to choose your marketing and sales automation software

Jul 31, 2017 | Change, Governance, Marketing, Sales

One of the common questions I field is which tools are the best to automate sales and marketing processes.

The right answer is that there is  no right answer.

There are just so many tools out there that may do a really good job for you, some need to be stitched together with others, but there are a few that offer all singing, all dancing solutions.

The latter are usually not appropriate for the needs or IT resources of small and medium enterprises, who typically lack the knowledge  and resources to do a complicated implementation.

While it may seem wasteful, my advice to SME’s is to take small steps, be wary, find ways to work around the shortcomings, and stitch things together, then when big enough take a bigger step and integrate in a larger package.

It does not always work, but experimenting as you go along is usually a very good idea.

However, here are some generic steps that can be taken that should be done at the beginning of the process, no matter what, and how, you are going to implement.

  • Define outcomes. Define the outcomes you want from the software in the context of your strategy. Automation tool implementation without reference to the strategic principals and goals will be a painful experience.
  • Integration. Consider how the software will integrate into the rest of your business. Most implementations I see these days are automating sales and marketing in one way or another, which usually need to be integrated into the existing financial and operational software that has typically already been deployed. You need to clearly understand where the holes between the applications hide, and have considered the manner in which they are to be filled. Excel seems to be the ‘filler’ of choice in most circumstances I come across.
  • Build wide buy in. It is essential that you get the buy in for the functional users, by seeking their input to the tool choice, project planning, training, and implementation. This offers the opportunity to ensure that their current and anticipated requirements are met as far as possible, and that their concerns are able to be aired, if not completely addressed.
  • Fit. Ask yourself how well the new software and existing processes fit together, and how familiar the new processes will feel. Most software is not fully utilised, and this is often a result of legacy systems being useful and familiar. You need to determine how to address these issues of what I call ‘legacy elasticity’.This may seem very similar to the challenges of integration, but they are different, as there is always resistance to change, and  the better the fit to the existing, the easier the evolution will be. Integration implies that both parts of the equation can be altered to achieve a different outcome, whereas fit matches existing parts together.
  • Map your processes. My normal practise is to have someone outside the business map all the current processes, then run that map over the process map that will be implemented in the software. My objective is twofold: remove the inconsistencies and silly bits from the current, and find a process that matches what is left as closely as possible, then implement the software without change. Changing the code in the software package seems easy, but always ends up in tears as unintended consequences rear their ugly heads.
  • Do we go to the cloud? The argument about ‘cloud or not to cloud’ has been had. Go to the cloud. The compromises can be managed, the cost will continue to beat the costs of on premises, but the real value is in the automatic patching and upgrades that occur.
  • Due diligence. As you are doing your due diligence, make sure you ask deep questions, and hold control over the agenda. Software sales people are very good indeed, and will sway the most recalcitrant and reluctant buyer with a vision of the new life you will have purely as a result of their software. Just assume it is all bullshit, that there are a number of options that will meet your requirements, and be clear about what you need, not just in terms of the functionality, but the training costs, ongoing maintenance, upgrades, any internal hardware expenses, and features that may not be included in the base package.

Making a software vendor decision is challenging, but the truly challenging bit, the implementation and leveraging of the software is yet to come. Make sure that the whole project is planned in great detail, and that the vendor is locked into the outcomes.

Do all that, and you might get away with it, and when you do so the productivity gains will be huge.

Image credit: Scott Brinker of Chief Martech. The landscape details 5,381 digital martech automation tools as of the end of April 2017. There will be more by now. I recommend you dig around in the Chief Martech blog for ideas, information and insight.