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.
Aug 30, 2012 | Branding, Customers, Innovation, Strategy
Apple has beaten Samsung in the US court, protecting a raft of patents that apply to mobile devices, acquiring a pile of cash, and the probable withdrawal of a number of Samsung products from the market. Competitive nirvana.
Whilst it is understandable that Apple protect its commercial position through the courts, it is nevertheless a hypocrisy of vast proportions, and breaks the cycle of innovation that has characterised the mobile space over the last 5 years, and changed, if not enriched our lives, and is now turning into a legal quicksand that can only hamper innovation, whilst embedding incumbents into our wallets.
Tim Cook, Apple’s MD released a note describing the win thus: “For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth.”
Excuse me whilst I throw up.
This contrasts to Steve Jobs 1994 statement that Apple had been “Shameless about stealing great ideas” then later reversing that position by saying Apple would go “thermo-nuclear to protect its position” when others sought to build on their innovations.
Copy, Transform, Combine.
This is the thesis articulated by Kirby Ferguson, that everything is a remix of what has gone before, creativity emerges from and builds on the efforts of others. In his TED talk, and outstanding series of short videos which expand on the ideas, he traces the source of our patent and copyright laws pointing out the purpose of the laws is no longer what they are used for, competitive forces have fundamentally changed them into something not intended.
Apple built on the ideas of others, adding remarkable creativity to them to bring us a series of innovations perhaps unequalled in their immediate impact on our lives, but now is using outdated legal interpretations of patent law to protect its position from others seeking to do exactly what they have done so shamelessly.
Hypocrisy for the sake of money, undermining innovation. Understandable, but very costly to the consumer, and to the march of innovation.
Aug 29, 2012 | Innovation, Management
Innovation is not a marketing term, it is much wider than that, it is a mind-set.
It remains however, an eternal question, often used to open another boring workshop, “What is innovation?”
Usually those who ponder this question are the marketing bods, and the very senior management of an enterprise, but they do not usually do the work of innovation, their task is to create the environment where it can flourish. The work is done by hands on people, leveraging the resources made available to make change, and often working in quiet corners away from the scrutiny of the accountants.
So, again, What is innovation?
- Product, obviously, we change products all the time, occasionally it can be classed as innovation, but not often. The first iPod was an innovation, the second just a range extension.
- Business model. Ebay was a business model innovation that broke the mould for single item sales by individuals, as is the current move to cloud services from desktop applications.
- Business process. Old Henry made the best known process innovation when he adapted the production line from earlier examples, and applied it to automobiles.
- Perception of value to a user, demonstrated again by Apple, whose retail outlets are now the most successful retailers on a sales/sq meter basis in the world. Suddenly, bricks and mortar retailing has a place? Or is it a remake of the notion of how value is delivered that all retailers need to absorb.
Aug 28, 2012 | Customers, Management, Marketing, Sales
Most of the best ideas are simple, as is the Net promoter Score (NPS) the brainchild of Bain & Co executive Fred Reichheld.
As it gained currency, its simplicity became blurred by unnecessarily imposed complexity, often added it seems, just to make a consulting job seem more complicated.
NPS is really just one simple question:
“How likely are you, on a 1-10 scale to recommend this product/service to a friend or colleague”?
What Reichheld termed “detractors” answer 0-6, “Passives” answer 7 or 8, and “promoters” answer 9 & 10.
A company’s NPS is the percentage of Promoters minus the percentage of detractors. Simple.
The complexity comes often from the sample to whom you direct the question, and it is pretty easy to see how it can be “gamed” by those selections, which happens most often when some senior person reads about NPS, decides it makes sense, and just decrees to the sales force to go ask your customers, and that is exactly what they do, selectively. After all, their bonuses may depend on it.
