Mar 19, 2014 | Marketing, Small business, Social Media
Who in business does not carry a business card of some sort, from the standard 9 X 5 bit of cardboard to the “it” thing of a USB with a resume, and published material as well as contact details on it?
It used to be that having a business card was just a cost of being in business, just like an office, some furniture, a phone line, the sign over the door, and so on.
There is a new one, the cost of an online presence.
Like all things, some do it better than others, make it really work for them, but if you want to be in business in the 21st century, you have the entry cost of a digital presence just to keep the doors open.
At the basic level, an online presence, a website, twitter account, facebook page is a it like the old business card, it is the first reference point people have for you, but they are not much more, and can be counterproductive if not done with a reasonable level of professionalism.
Two thirds of Australian SME’s that do have a “presence” take a DIY route, using family, friends, or the office intern to create and manage their digital presence, with the attendant problems, but almost half still do not have any presence at all. None! Nada! How can that be in 2014?
There are increasingly widely available the tools to make it relatively cheap and easy for SME’s to have a web presence, the starting point of successful marketing. Services like those provided by my old” tech-head” mates at Imagehaven, who as a part of their service menu, offer a great entry level service backed up by deep technical knowledge.
Would you go to a network meeting without a business card?
Mar 17, 2014 | Communication, Governance, Management
Trust is a word that keeps on coming up, everywhere.
Increasingly in a complicated world we are looking for those we can trust, to do business with, to have as friends, or just to share a cup of coffee.
I have just completed a project of chain re-engineering that did not deliver all the hoped for outcomes, but during the debrief process, the word “trust” and its foundations that in this case proved to be a bit fragile, loomed large. Similarly, a friend of mine is selling her house, retiring to the south coast, and she appointed an agent from a small number in her local area, and as it happens, one of the unsuccessful bidders was also a friend of mine, someone who I would get to sell my house, when the time is right, because I trust her.
Got me thinking about the components of trust.
It seems there are four headline components, which is good for me as a consultant, as I can conjure up a quadrant and deliver it as a deep intellectual exercise. However, the reality is that it is common sense, just like most consultants quadrants, but common sense that paints a picture, that delivers a perspective, and makes you think.
- Engagement. You do not trust those with whom you have no experience, who have not earned that trust. You may think they are trustworthy, but would you confide your pin number to them?, there is a difference. Engagement of the type that generates trust happens over time, is a two way process shared equally by both parties, and is devoid of ambiguity and hidden agendas.
- Integrity. It becomes clear over time that the positive behaviour that builds trust is not just for the benefit of the chosen few, but is based on a “personal code” of some sort that extends to those not closely engaged. The individual or enterprise concerned consistently puts the interests of those with whom it interacts above its own short term interests, and it acts the same way to everybody, irrespective of their status. They “walk the talk,” always.
- Operational excellence. This sounds business-like, but is just as applicable to individuals. Summed up it simply means that they never over-promise and under-deliver, what you get is what you saw and at least what you expected, but usually is more than you could have reasonably hoped for.
- Fit for purpose. The product or service is the right one for the purpose for which it has been delivered, and there has been an effort to ensure that the purpose has been defined sufficiently by both parties to ensure that the product was the right one for the circumstances.
Back to my chain exercise. When I look at it dispassionately, the parties had insufficient opportunity and incentive to build the trust in each other that was necessary. Individually, they trusted me, as I knew them all, spent considerable time articulating the process, and have a history with several, but they did not know each other well enough to offer the real trust we were looking for.
And to my two friends who did not do business. The house seller went with an alternative that offered an up front incentive, it seemed to reduce the cost of selling. When the process is over, her house of 30 years which is the only substantial asset she owns has been sold, I suspect she will wonder if the agent delivered her a buyer that just made his life easy, a cut price, quick and easy sale that delivered him an easy commission, in return for the added costs he incurred up front, all wrapped up in the clichés of the real estate agent. Had she trusted my agent friend, it is quite possible that she would have delivered them a buyer, just the right buyer who wanted the house because of what it was, not because the price was great, the cash benefit of which would have been to dwarf the up front saving that was made.
During the research for this post I put “trust” into several dictionaries, and the options for a definition are many and varied, according to the context. No wonder we have difficulty.
Mar 12, 2014 | Collaboration, Communication
“You complete me” a really cheesy line, made famous by the Jerry Maguire movie, but relevant elsewhere.
Communication devices have exploded over the last decade, most of us now have multiple tools by which to communicate, but just how well are we doing it?
Pretty poorly by my count.
We spew stuff out, and sometimes some of it comes back on us, good and bad, but are we actually communicating?
Isn’t communication supposed to be a two way process, something that engages the parties, grows, informs, adds value ?
Tools are only useful when well used, communication devices by themselves are just objects, they need people, stories, and emotion to be of any value.
Communication tools need people to complete them.
Mar 11, 2014 | Change, Governance, Innovation, Personal Rant
Comment on possible changes to the cross media ownership laws is emerging, again. Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull reopened the conversation in an interview with Sky, reflecting that the media landscape had changed dramatically, so it makes sense to change the rules that govern the ownership that were set up before the changes occurred. It seems pretty sensible to me.
However, here is the paradox.
The traditional media is commercially stuffed, as the advertising has been drained away by the “new media” of the internet, but never have they been so powerful. Just look at the role the Murdoch press, and the so called “news” programs on commercial TV at prime time in the evening, played in the recent federal election.
“New media” outlets are popping up all over the place, previously unpublishable individuals (like yours truly) can have their say, amongst comment and analysis by serious groups like the Guardian , and new collaborations like that represented by the Conversation . However, the agenda is still being shaped by the newspapers and evening TV “news” programs.
Occupying a core place in the system is the ABC, seemingly reviled by both political persuasions when in Government, so they must be doing something right. However, the future of the ABC is consistently under question, and the economic argument is a solid one. The demographics of the ABC are heavily skewed towards the top half of the population, 70% of the population never engage with the ABC over the course of a year, and yet we all pay equally, effectively a regressive tax. As the argument goes, those who want the ABC can generally afford to pay for it, or have their viewing/listening interrupted by ads which pay for it, and those who do not ever listen/view it should not be expected to pay.
The media landscape has changed beyond recognition in the last decade, and the rules that govern that landscape should evolve as well to better ensure a competitively and commercially healthy system, as we are all best served by diversity, competition and innovation. Just what that evolved regulatory framework means is under debate, and some pretty smart people are putting their views, amongst them Marc Andreesen, an investor who gets it right more often than he gets it wrong, with this terrific post on the future of news.
Any change will impact all of us. How we obtain information, analysis, and opinion, wrapped up as “news” in my humble view, is crucial to the way we interact with the world, and we should all be engaged in the debate about the changes.
Mar 10, 2014 | Branding, Customers
We all seek value, we set out to buy when we find it, but all too often, we settle on price as the measure, when price is only one component of the mix of factors that makes up “value”. The challenging thing is that even each individuals perception of value can change radically depending on context.
I tried to catch a taxi last week in the CBD, mid afternoon, and it was raining very lightly, I was late for an appointment,………
No hope, none at all. AAARRRRHHHH!!!!
There was also one of those sensational exposes on TV last week about the taxi industry in Sydney, how bloody awful it is, poor cars, badly serviced, flagrant profiteering by those who own the licences, and so on, typical populist “news comment”. However, those who own the licences, and those who issue them were declaring righteously how good it really was, and we better all wise up and understand that they had high standards, and the fares were managed to ensure we could all get a cab when we needed one, at a fair price.
What crap. Clearly, the model is broken.
The growth of Uber has been explosive after a shaky start in San Francisco in 2008, it went from an idea to a valuation of 304 million in 4 years.
They do not own a fleet of cars
They do not employ many people
They deliver a service people are prepared to pay for.
The service has always been there, it is called a Taxi, but taxi regulation obsesses about low fares, and regulation, making sure everyone is the same, Uber obsesses about Value. Same service, getting from point A to point B, Uber just does it differently and arguably more reliably than our regulated taxi service. However, you pay for it.
Their model enables cars to be called up in peak demand, but at peak demand, you also get peak prices, the surge pricing model kicks in. You can get a ride at 3.00 in a rainy CBD, but you pay for it.
Back to my taxi dilemma, when I have time, and it is not raining, there are many transport options, of which a taxi is one, but when there is no time, and it is raining the value of having a taxi there when I need it is enormous.
Value is extremely context sensitive and variable.
Does your marketing reflect this reality?
