Sep 10, 2012 | Change, Marketing, retail, Sales, Strategy
Would you rather do business with someone who knows a lot about you, and demonstrates they have your best interests at heart, or some stranger, enriching themselves?
Pretty obvious answer, so why do so few retailers seem to be able to respond?.
The ability to collect data is no longer much of a competitive advantage, everyone can now do it, the advantage has moved towards the analysis of the data, development of a customer proposition from the data, and most importantly, the capability to deliver on that proposition.
In Australia, both major FMCG retailers are busily copying international retailers, particularly Tesco in the UK. Tesco’s analytical and customer proposition development capabilities has driven the huge success of their category marketing initiatives. They have collaborated with researcher Dunhumby, leveraging the data emerging from their loyalty card to tailor their offers down to the level of to individual consumers, rewarding loyalty with compelling offers. The Aussie FMCG duopoly and other major retailers are still in the dark ages. The retail offer is still all about price, and a race to the bottom, but there has to be a limit, as costs are squeezed out of the supply chain at the expense of the weakest links, and on-line sales explode.
Tesco has, by contrast, moved beyond the numbers, and is concentrating on delivering to their customers, particularly their loyal ones, and the results over the last few years have been pretty good. They are managing by customer, not number, and other retailers have a lot to learn.
Listen up Gerry, stop whingeing as the business model that made you a billionaire becomes redundant, and make the changes that can keep the money rolling in by redirecting your efforts to your customers.
Sep 7, 2012 | Management, Strategy
Most enterprises are pretty familiar with project portfolio management, which always include a risk rating attached to each project. What happens if we turn the notion around, and consider the portfolio from the perspective of the risk profile of the whole portfolio, not just by the risk rating of the individual projects that happen to inhabit it.
Depending on many factors, everybody reacts to risk differently, most however, accept that a portfolio of projects is better than a one-at-a-time approach.
Why not a portfolio of risk whose profile is aligned with the strategic priorities?
The question that therefore needs to be asked is how that portfolio will be structured.
At one end you have a portfolio of incremental projects, essentially short term, low risk adaptations of existing technology or market positions. At the other, there is a portfolio of longer term, more challenging projects that seek to disrupt markets, and redefine the existing mind. In the middle can be a whole range of projects with differing risk profiles that together create a risk portfolio.
In my experience, little long term value is created by low risk projects, the real value comes when the status quo is overturned in some way, and having a balanced portfolio the captures the strategic priorities of the enterprise seems to make sense.
Sep 5, 2012 | Sales
In tennis, the simplest point, and if you do it well the most effective, is the serve and volley.
Put in a good serve, and follow up with a volley that puts the point away.
Same in selling.
The serve: Ask a simple question to which there is only one answer,
The volley: Follow up with a related question that closes the sale, or moves it to the decision point by a decision-maker.
“Do you believe that a machine that processes this task faster would help with the backlog?”
“Would the XYZ machine, with double the capacity of your current at a comparable cost be of any interest?”
Serve….. Volley….. Sale.
Sep 4, 2012 | Marketing, Sales, Small business
A modest sized marketing services agency I do occasional work for has an awards wall, where industry peer bestowed awards appear, a feature of most service agencies I have seen. However, theirs has two wrinkles
- Beneath each award is a further rating, done in collaboration with the relevant client that records the effectiveness of the ad/campaign, whatever it was, in the only awards arena that really matters, the marketplace.
- Campaigns that fail to win industry awards, which is most of them, are also subjected to their internal assessment of effectiveness, and they give it an internal award, and a spot on the wall.
As part of the effectiveness assessment underneath each award is a record of the assumptions, that drove the communication strategy, and their own internal award, the rating of which goes from “ratshit” to “not again” to “OK” to “dreamtime”. It also records what they collectively did right and wrong to deliver the result, and what they learnt that can be applied next time.
The wall provides a talking point, is a reminder each day of the reason they are in business, and how they are performing. Making performance transparent in this manner can be confronting, but time and time again, as I review best management practice, I see such transparency as a key success factor.
Oh, and another small wrinkle that sets them apart. They apply a pre-agreed sliding fee scale based on the agreed performance against objectives they set with their clients, so they always have skin in the game.
Clients love it!
Sep 3, 2012 | Leadership, Personal Rant, Small business
I observe lots of activity in all sorts of enterprises, public and private, see KPI’s set and met, initiatives announced with fanfare (and in the case of the NSW Government re-announced)but little of any value seems to be happening.
Familiar?
Enter the Rocking Horse syndrome.
Lots of activity, failure to make any useful progress, but sometimes it keep the kids happy, for a while anyway.
