Mar 7, 2014 | Governance, Leadership
Everyone knows the optimist sees the glass half full, and the pessimist sees it as half empty, but few see the other options.
The technologist sees the shape as sub-optimal
The engineer sees the variation of material in the glass as an affront to his efficiency
The designer sees the glass as twice the size it needs to be
The production manager wants more glasses
The marketer thinks the glass just needs to be bigger, with a better name
The innovator is keen to find another way to introduce liquid into the glass
The accountant just bitches about the costs.
The entrepreneur sees a great opportunity in glasses
The salesman points out that people buy less glasses when it rains, which is why his sales are down
Leaders find ways to bridge the gaps between these perspectives, and have everyone working to a common goal.
Mar 5, 2014 | Marketing, Small business, Social Media
Recently I have been talking to SME’s about their engagement with digital tools, and getting some pretty disturbing responses.
Many when asked will say they are engaged, because their phone is connected to google maps so they can find their way home at 3am. Not setting out to mislead me asking the question, it is just that they do not know what they do not know.
Several pieces of research around suggest that around 40% of Australian SME’s do not have a website, and a large proportion of those who do are not using them as much beyond an electronic brochure. The “last updated” box is the giveaway, even if from the content it is obvious.
At the other end of the scale, there are a few who have just so much data and options at their disposal, and often so much conflicting advice coming in, that they are paralysed with indecision.
Somewhere along the line I recall a comment, probably by Avinash Kaushik where he said something like “given me an extra hundred dollars to spend any way I like on data, and I would choose to spend $10 on the data, the other $90 on people who could understand and use it”.
Sorting the quality insights and ideas from the tsunami of stuff coming at us is the marketing challenge of the century. Automating it is only half the task, the GIGO effect takes over very quickly, you have to really understand it.
For the beginners at this stuff I advise just two measures:
- Bounce rate,
- Conversion rate.
All the other metrics that you can develop and that are now freely available can be hugely valuable, but knowing these two is a bit like knowing where the brakes and accelerator are in your car, essential for productive progress.
Quality of visitors beats quantity every time, and these two measures together give you that insight.
Mar 4, 2014 | Customers, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
Innovation is a process, mostly it is managed for better or worse with some sort of stage-gate process.
Sensitive project management of innovation is vital, the context of the project, the culture, management engagement, business model, the source of resources used, funding, and all the rest are critically important, and blend into a system.
However, one vital consideration often under-considered, or missed, in development projects is the evolution of the Customer Value Proposition.
Concentrating on the product, its specifications, the technology, operational considerations, design and engineering, and all the rest are vital, but ultimately, it is the customer who puts their hand in their pocket, and allocates, or otherwise, their scarce resources to your products. They will only make that choice in your favour when it is in their interests to do so.
Why is it then that the foundations of the value proposition, the identification, characteristics, interaction, and measurement of the drivers that will deliver customer value and therefore sales are often ignored, or glossed over? In my experience, it is usually because the developers fall in love with their products and designs, not really considering them from the customer perspective.
The value proposition usually evolves during the design and pilot process, but only if it is allowed to.
Sensibly, there is a second stage gate process, one that is parallel to the product development, the value development process which critically translates the product features into customer value as they evolve.
A test of the success of the value development process is the depth of the debate about price. A successful VDP will preclude almost any debate, and certainly the most often used determinants of prices, being cost and competitor activity, will be relegated to the bottom of the pile of considerations.
Feb 27, 2014 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
Some things we can predict with great accuracy, simply because we can quantify almost all the variables that come into play. The path a bullet will follow when fired, how long it will take a brick to hit the ground when dropped, and how much fuel it will take to do 10 laps of Mount Panorama racetrack flat out.
It is when you start to introduce unquantified variables, as distinct from unquantifiable variables, that things get exciting. A strong gust of wind will change the trajectory of a bullet, and a prang on Skyline and subsequent braking and weaving will alter fuel consumption, but the impact of both can be reasonably accurately forecast if they are included in the variables considered.
It is the random events that really cause trouble, the kangaroo that jumps out half way down Conrod, the quick-handed apprentice that reacts to the brick heading for your toes and does a diving catch, these things cannot be reasonably forecast, are random events, but have a profound impact on the outcome.
The point of the story is to again confirm the old adage that strategy rarely survives the first contact with the enemy, so the more agile you can make your reaction to the unpredicted and just plain random, the more likely you are to come out on top.
Feb 25, 2014 | Branding, Change, Collaboration, Demand chains, Marketing, retail
A pilot program I have been recently involved with, setting out to assist the evolution of a” Sydney Harvest” brand of local produce has not delivered the results hoped for.
After years of agitation by produce growers in the Sydney basin, beset as they are by aggressive competition from the chain stores, lack of scale and high operating costs as a result of being in semi urban areas, governed by urban concerns, the pilot was created. It was a collaboration between a small number of Sydney basin growers, and specialist retailers aimed at delivering the freshest and best possible produce to those discerning and demanding customers who choose to shop at the specialist produce outlets.
The value proposition was simple : “You know it is fresh, because it come from down the road, you know the retailer, and here is the grower, guaranteeing product provenance and farming practice sustainability”.
In considering the reporting of the exercise, part of the shortcoming of the pilot was that there was little commitment beyond the verbal from the participants, even though the verbal commitment was strong. This is very common in the early stages of collaborative exercises, everyone says “yes” and waits for others to do the lifting. The emergence or otherwise of a “champion” someone who takes on the challenges at a visceral level, can be the main bellwether of success.
Watching a presentation by Seth Godin last night, he articulated just the situation we had.
There was no “connection” between the participants beyond the superficial, the human connection was not there.
Godin calls Connection “The asset of the future” and in a connected world, it would be hard to argue against this proposition. He further identified 4 pre-conditions of connection occurring.
- Co-Ordination. There was co-ordination in this pilot, but it was managed from the outside, by me, there was little skin in the co-ordination part of the game by participants.
- Trust. Trust evolves over time as a result of behaviour, it is never given, it has to be earned. In this case, we underestimated hugely the role to be played by trust, and the preconditions necessary for its evolution.
- Permission. Seth is talking about permission being given by the subject of a marketing effort, so this pilot is a different set of circumstances, nevertheless, whilst” permission” was given in the sense that all signed up to the pilot knowing exactly what was going to happen, and the role they were expected to play, when it went away, nobody missed it. The “permission” whilst given was nothing more than a superficial “OK”
- Exchange of ideas. In this case, whilst there was superficial buy in, the subsequent behaviour did not include interaction amongst the participants. They were too busy and pre-occupied with the normal business to put the time aside to exchange ideas, and get to know on a human level the other participants ,exchange ideas and experiences, and learn from each other.
This stuff is really, really, hard, and the only way we learn is by jumping in and having a go.
