Sep 20, 2012 | Innovation, Marketing, Small business
“Big data” appears to be the coming cliché amongst my propeller-headed friends, as it gets cheaper to gather, store, and mine data, they are like excited 21st century versions of Oliver Twist, “more petabytes please sir”!
Surely at some point diminishing returns occur, more and more of the same data cannot to my mind possibly lead to the insights that make a difference. What is needed is different data, meaningful insights generated from the data, better assembly of data into project plans and performance measures, curation of key bits of data to those who can use it to solve a problem or provide insight into a circumstance.
Imagine if you will, a black and white photo taken with a 10 megapixel camera, compared to the same photo taken with a 100 megapixel camera (does this exist?) same photo, better definition although hard to distinguish, you can blow the one taken with the 100 up to the size of the opera house and still be recognisable, but it is still the same photo, just more data of the same sort. Now consider the same picture taken in colour, at 5 megapixels, same photo, less data, but what a change is wrought by a bit of different data, even if it is just an added bit of small data.
More of the same is never as good as a little bit of different.
Sep 19, 2012 | Leadership, Marketing, Strategy
Strategy is about choice, which market, customer, technology, and so on.
Never has this black and white choice been so stark a challenge as in publishing, as the established operators struggle to find profitability in the electronic age.
Fairfax in Australia recently announced a record loss of 2.7 billion dollars, a continuance of their recent performance, on top of a series restructuring announcements and a precipitous drop in the share price over the last couple of years. They are not alone in the world of print media.
However, all is not lost. A few weeks ago I heard the editor of the “New Yorker” Henry Finder being interviewed on Sydney radio, a whimsical interview, but the astonishing difference is that the New Yorker is thriving in the new digital environment.
Instead of chasing the commodity, fluffy stories available anywhere, the magazine is going deeper into stories, rewarding readers with superior journalism and a range of views not available elsewhere.
They made a choice, not just to be different to everyone else, but to do it in a way that is consistent with the history and culture of the magazine.
My revered old mentor, Jim Hagler, scion of Harvard Square said to me almost 40 years ago “son, create a niche and then OWN it”. Jim had never heard of the internet, or the disruption it would bring publishing, but his wisdom still holds, and the New Yorker has listened. Wisdom has a context, but it remains wise.
Sep 17, 2012 | Management, Marketing, Sales
The web has disrupted the sales process, as well as just about everything else in our world.
Just think about differences between how the process works now, and how it used to work.
It now starts with a web search by a prospective buyer, after a team has identified the opportunity, scoped it, and developed specifications that need to be met, usually well before a salesman even knows that the prospect is in the market. The specs are then sent to a range of potential suppliers with a “request for quote” or some such phrase which really means give us your best price.
This all used to be the function of the sales person, to shake the trees, identify prospects, qualify and develop them through to a sale and ongoing supply relationship.
No longer.
Now it is the function of marketing to digitally “shake the trees” for prospects, then find ways to use the communication and marketing tools of the web to engage and qualify them, before turning them over to sales at the point at which they are about to become customers.
Many enterprises I see have not made the internal structural and cultural changes that acknowledge this disruption, and are failing to extract the maximum productivity out of their communicationand sales investments as a result.
Sep 14, 2012 | Branding, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
The shape of Apple after Steve Jobs has been a source of much scribbling, and the launch on Friday of the newest version of its golden goose, the iPhone 5 has given us a peek.
The razzamatazz has been huge, Apple all over, but they delivered what the pundits view as a pretty limp offering. Nothing new, apart from a different case, and behind current offerings from Samsung and HTC on a number of parameters.
However, what Apple does deliver that nobody can get close to is profits. On $150 billion forecast revenues this year, Apple is delivering an astounding 28% EBIT, double a year ago, and considerably more on phones according to Creative Strategies Tim Bajarin. All this as their sales in a market growing at 42% are increasing at only 27%.
Apple has its own ecosystem, so to some extent is protected from commodity type comparisons that erode price, but how much of a premium can they sustain, and for how long? Googles Android operating system now has around four times the share of Apple, from “even-stevens” just a year ago, and Google spends 14% of revenue on R&D, to Apples 2%. In dollar terms, they are about the same, and Apple has less of a product portfolio to manage, but the tide of initiative is now with Google, and the momentum is really hard to break.
It seems to me that Apple is mortgaging their future, putting the dough in the bank, much as Microsoft did in its halcyon days, and not continuing the drive that got them where they are today. In a sharp reminder of priorities, Apple is spending big on protecting its current position by suing everyone standing in the tech space, which must be a huge distraction from the disruptive innovations created almost yesterday that put them where they are now.
Sep 13, 2012 | Communication, Customers, Marketing, Small business, Social Media
In a chook-house, there are both chickens and eggs, all mixed up, and hard to tell which chicken laid which eggs. It is a bit like the web, full of sites that could belong to any number of businesses.
As a part of a project a while ago looked at the sites of a range of operators competing in the market category in which this particular client operates. Most spruiked the features of their products and brands, what they did, rather than talking about the benefits that usage delivered, what problem the product solved, and why that solution was superior.
Why is it that the designers of sites seem to think that the most important thing to be said is what their product does, rather than designing the site to offer information that relates to the reasons why a customer may be seeking a product?
The old habits of printing a brochure and shoving it into every letterbox in reach die hard, and are being replicated on the web. A real pity, when the real opportunity is to target the offer to the individual who is attracted to look at the detail of your proposition because it engages them with something they want to know
