Jul 9, 2013 | Branding, Change, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
To talk to consumers, you used to stick an ad on TV, in one of the main mags, on maybe a few radio stations, a shotgun effort informed by some pretty rudimentary demographic data.
Then we migrated to the web, in the late 90’s, and advertisers transferred the techniques of mass marketing to this new medium. The cost of banner ads, in the early days calculated on a similar reach basis as mass advertising, has plummeted to perhaps 1% of that cost, and much better targeted, as we realised they simply did not work. Mass media consumption necessitated being interrupted by ads, we expected it as the price to be paid, but the web, we do not need to be interrupted, as we have the option to ignore. Increasingly, advertising became about direct response, as we can now count it.
Now the next shift is on, to mobile, where the “rules of engagement” have dramatically moved again, and we are figuring out how best to leverage the move. Customers need to be wooed, as shouting at them no longer works, you have access to mountains of data (using it is another whole challenge) that enable targeting at behavior rather than simple demographics, and you can count the effectiveness of tactics, one by one, person by person, directly.
Not only is the practice of marketing radically shifted to accommodate these moves by consumers and the tools to hand, but the organisation of the marketing function needs to have changed to reflect the immediacy of direct response, and the disconnect that has existed between the strategy held in the minds of the senior group, and those who by default spend the marketing dollars, often without any real authority beyond budget expenditure with little accountability for the outcomes.
It seems to me as I poke around that organisational inertia that is the greatest impediment to the potential productivity gains from this explosion of accountability of marketing investments that is now possible.
Jul 5, 2013 | Change, Leadership, Personal Rant
Very few people have heard of Douglas Engelbart, who died on July 4, but it was he that thought up much of the stuff we accept as normal, every day tools and devices.
His relative obscurity is in stark contrast to the billionaires who brought commercial success to many of his ideas, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Elllison, et al.
This presentation, now called the “mother of all presentations” given in December 1968 is almost the public unveiling of computing as we now know it.
Vale Doug, and those who like him beaver away to make all our lives better, without accumulating the celebrity and bling that seems to be expected these days with every idea that sounds good to its urger.
Jul 3, 2013 | Branding, Communication, Sales
Price is always a sticky subject.
In most cases, sales people have been trained to slide over answering the inevitable, and often first question about price, until the value of the sales proposition has been established with the potential buyer.
That is the way it was.
Now, we all seek information on specification, availability, options and list price using the net, all information that in an earlier time, the salesperson could dole out as the sales process evolved. Therefore the decision is often almost made before a salesman has the opportunity to become engaged in the process.
When your sales prospect types “Widget prices” into Google, because that is their last question, the top 10 results, which is all most of us look at, are the ones that have “widgets from $100” or “Worlds cheapest widgets” in the headline.
You have just lost control of the conversation if you are not there.
Web sites are different to face to face, the emotion, the human interaction and the potential that humanity brings to the process has been removed, and you need to replace it with something that creates the opportunity for a conversation.
If you are on the web to sell, and the product is such that potential customers will ask the price early in the game, don’t be afraid, be proud, and put your pricing up front, along with your value proposition, so at least you might get a chance to talk about it.
Jul 1, 2013 | Uncategorized
Hugh MacLeod. Gapingvoid art.
Bob Mankoff is the cartoon editor, or as they probably call it, “Editor of Idea Drawings” of the New Yorker magazine. His TED talk while being about the humour of the New Yorker, is more widely about what makes us laugh, and sometimes cringe at a cartoon, and more importantly, why. Indirectly he also touches on how the New Yorker has managed to increase circulation and profits in an environment where every other magazine I can think of is going to the wall in the face of digital competition.
The old adage, a picture tells a thousand words is right only when the picture captures in some way the essence of a subject, has a context that resonates, but also challenges us to see things differently, and often confronts beliefs in some way.
I am a strategy and marketing consultant, a wonderful part of my intellectual diet is the few cartoons, or” idea drawings” that I see regularly.
Tom Fishburne is a weekly treat, poking fun at marketing , marketers, and the silly things they do, always constructively, thoughtfully, and with a laugh.
Hugh Macleod’s Gapingvoid cartoons are a staple of my daily diet, just an idea about life, expressed in a business card sized drawing that is often profound.
Then there is XKCD, which comes with the warning “This comic occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)”. Often I do not get the humor, I am not a nerd, but when I do, it tickles something deep.
Then there is David Rowe, the cartoonist for the Financial Review in Australia, and his often disturbing take on politics, its characters and their foibles is a delight to an old cynic like me.
If being creative is seeing things from a different perspective, and being able to simplify the complex, then cartoonists are the Alpha of the creative species.
Jun 29, 2013 | Change, Innovation, Marketing, Small business
We have a Department of Innovation in Canberra, and similar departments or at least functions in every state jurisdiction, and piles of industry bodies and associations, all mouthing clichés about Innovation being the savior of the economy, and the way of the future. “Innovation leads to new industries, and more jobs” type of windbaggery. Whilst it is absolutely true as a headline, without the substance of an answer to the question: “How” it remains just a press release, and worse, a consumer of public resources with little real potential to add value, and ther promised jobs.
If innovation is step one, and jobs is step three, there must be something in the middle, a step two that enables the creation, growth and commercial sustainability of the enterprises that create the jobs.
This video of Steve Blank, one of the motivators of the Lean Start-up movement likens the efforts of government to innovate to the South Park episode where gnomes are collecting underpants in the expectation of profit.
I see this so often, a leap of faith which is really a failure of logic. To get to phase three, and profitability takes more than a good idea, available resources, and fast talking, you also have to have a process to deliver value to customers superior to their existing service or product.
