Sep 8, 2021 | Change, Marketing, Strategy
There is a massive but unrecognised marketing and branding war going on right on front of our eyes, unseen by most, but substantially funded by taxpayers.
It is the Covid vaccine marketing war.
Which brand will you choose?
The development of these vaccines has happened at unprecedented speed, driven by the commercial opportunities delivered to the pharmaceutical industry’s doorstep by Covid.
There are a number of agreements entered into by the Federal Government for the supply of vaccines, as well as the evolving commitment to creating manufacturing capability for mRNA vaccines. This would be additional to the rDNA capability we already have as a result of the brilliant strategic and financial management of CSL over an extended period.
Astra Zeneca? Pfizer? Both of which are TGA approved, and in distribution. Moderna is now TGA approved, on order, and about to arrive on our shores.
Which do you choose?
By moving the availability goalposts around by press release, and completely muddying the waters around the facts in the attempt to cover the total lack of planning in 2020, the federal government has created a minefield of questions and mistrust. Into this uncertainty have stepped the pharmaceutical marketers, often ignored genuine expert scientists, the ‘Looney-fringe’ with a barrow to push (a space inhabited also by some politicians with a vague grasp on the truth) purveyors of snake-oil, ‘no vaccers’, and a horde of self-appointed experts sprouting nonsense that just further confuses.
Who really knows the facts amongst the triumphant press releases and soothing words acting as prophylactics against the truth of the failure of (most) politicians to listen to, understand and communicate scientific advice.
‘Modelling’ varying covid outcomes has become a game of who can give me the answer I want. The Doherty institute modelling is widely and selectively quoted, misquoted, and ignored, as is the modelling from the Kirby Institute, and various other scientific and research organisations.
On top of the existing AZ, Pfizer and about to arrive Moderna vaccines, you have a range of other brand contenders. A Johnson & Johnson rDNA vaccine is being widely used in the US, amongst a number of not yet approved in this country options, like the creatively named ‘Sputnik’ and the Chinese ‘Sinovac’ version.
Then you have the schism between the rDNA and mRNA vaccines. This is science way beyond my understanding, but to a layman it seems that the ‘old’ vaccines, typified by Astra Zeneca are rDNA, and the newer technology, Moderna and Pfizer are mRNA
Which will you choose?
What an expensive and truly monumental mess for us, and a profit pool of unprecedented depth for those Pharma companies smart enough to put themselves in a position to dip the snout.
If I was a betting man, I would be betting on Pfizer as the winning brand. They have used one of the oldest and most effective selling techniques with great skill: scarcity. It has ramped up unfulfilled demand and this has increased perceived value enormously. In addition, they are the leaders in the newest technology, and in this space, the first mover advantage is huge.
For those who may be interested, following is some of what I have learned sifting through the mounds of material relating to the brands of vaccination medications. Apologies in advance for the simplicity, and for any errors of fact.
mRNA vs rDNA. A layman’s explanation.
DNA is the double helix design we are all familiar with, that carry the genetic instructions for the development, growth, and reproduction of life. It is the long-term storage device that drives the development and evolution of a species.
RNA is in effect the messenger that converts the instructions contained in the DNA into the proteins that take action to produce the individual cells that make up the individual organism within a species.
To date, vaccines have all been based on delivering a mechanism that results in variations that give protection from specific conditions when the cells reproduce, by altering the instructions carried when the strands of DNA split to create new cells. These variations offer protection from the condition for which the vaccine was developed. It is a game of trial and error in the lab. This is typified by the existing influenza vaccines that have been around for years. Each year, the pharmaceutical companies predict the ‘next wave’ of mutation of existing strains of the flu and produce vaccines in anticipation of next winters flu. The technology is well understood, and the processes repeatable. Many members of ‘big Pharma’ produce their versions of DNA vaccines, including CSL in Australia.
RNA has offered the holy grail of being able to translate the instructions from DNA into instructions for the cells of an individual to produce proteins that protect from the targeted infection.
The Corona pandemic put a rocket under the scientific work being done on RNA for several decades, compressing the scientific development time from decades into a year. They are based on new genetic technology called ‘synthetic messenger RNA’, a manufactured version of the substance that directs protein production in our body cells. The idea has been around for several decades, based on the recognition of the role RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) plays in the transmission of genetic codes necessary for our body to produce proteins. Understanding the mechanics of RNA is like opening a recipe book for bespoke medications for individuals to address a wide range of conditions, but the technical hurdles have been significant to date.
The result is ‘new boy on the block’ mRNA vaccines represented so far by Pfizer and Moderna.
Pfizer is 150 years old, founded by an immigrant German chemist in New York in 1849. It produced and sold medications for then common ailments such as intestinal worms, until a ‘bet the company’ investment in using fermentation technology to mass produce penicillin in 1942. Since that time Pfizer has taken over a number of significant competitors and adjacent companies, becoming a huge pharma conglomerate, producing ‘hit’ wonder drugs such as Xanax and significantly by accident, Viagra. The investment in mRNA has continued for some time, as a response to the waning sales of their other drugs as the lapsing of patents enabled competition.
Moderna by contrast is a new company formed in 2010 to commercialise the science emerging from labs around compounds that supress the immune reaction to the injection of synthetic RNA into an individual’s body. For them, the emergence of Covid was a ‘gift’ that offered an injection of capital and marketability of ballistic proportions.
Where to from here?
mRNA offers the potential, indeed, probability of developing more potent and targeted vaccines almost in real time, and there is a huge research effort quietly being applied, by both incumbent pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, J&J, and now Moderna, as well as newcomers. For example, Alphafold is an AI breakthrough of a Google subsidiary ‘Deep Mind’ that can predict the structure of proteins, an essential piece in the mRNA jigsaw . It is a combination of Neuro and Computer science. Again, this is way beyond my understanding, but those ‘in the know’ seem to be jubilant. It seems it is an advance, using similar processes to the AlphaGo program that stunned everyone by beating the best Go player in the world. Go is a game of Chinese origin many times more complex than chess, and it had been assumed that algorithms could not replicate the billions of options open in the game. AlphaGo learns as it goes, just as humans do, and that learning can be applied to the development of the immuno-proteins that make up mRNA vaccines.
Then, we have the promise of geometrically increasing data analytical capacity with the development of quantum computing.
A couple of further places I would like to go.
- We stop talking about ‘70%’ vaccination rates as the point at which we might open up. Let’s be honest, and acknowledge that it is 70% of the ‘eligible’ population, which excludes those under 18, coincidentally the voting age. The reality is that it is more like 50%, and no epidemiologist I have heard speak believes that number is even in the ballpark of a reasonable place to consider opening safely.
- Let’s have an intelligent conversation about what happens when ‘son of Delta’ arrives, as it inevitably will, and let’s not be caught again without pants around our ankles, bending over trying to tie our shoelaces so we can run from it.
- Let’s also acknowledge that 50% vaccination rate, while grossly inadequate, is way better than much of the world’s population, whose governments do not have the funds to buy the jabs, or their ‘leaders’ have their resources tied in hidden accounts in Switzerland. I wonder where Son of Delta might emerge? Yes, probably amongst those unvaccinated populations in the third world.
Hopefully, if you have read this far, it is a bit clearer. It is to me. What started out as a simple post on the observation of an essentially publicly funded branding war became a monster, as I tried to answer for myself the ever present marketing question: what has to be true to give us this outcome?
‘
Sep 6, 2021 | Branding, Marketing
Value is not ever just a function of the sticker price. In commodity markets, it may appear to be close, but will never be the same for all buyers.
What might offer value to one person is often absurd to another.
Value is equated in each buyers mind differently, and is related to the ‘Utility’ derived. Utility is a combination of the physical and psychological responses, specific to the individual.
Currently the most expensive NFT (Non-Fungible Token), the artistic equivalent of Bitcoin, created by artist Michael Winkelmann, brought $69.4 million US in an auction by Christies in March this year.
It is a piece of digital artwork, which you can download for free, a perfect copy of the original, for which someone paid $69.4 million.
At the absolute opposite end of the Fungible scale, we had Billy and Beatrice Cox pay artist, and I use the word cautiously, Maurizio Cattelan $120,000 in December 2019 for a banana taped to a wall in an art gallery. Someone obviously failed to appreciate the artistic value, so later in the day swiped the banana and ate it. Price, .50cents at Woolies.
Value is a continuum, from the extreme where the dollar is the only measure to where there is just some unexplainable value to a few people, like an NFT, or perhaps a pet rock, or an artistic banana.
The reality is that ‘the price’ is just what someone is prepared to pay. It has nothing at all to do with cost, which is the basis of most price lists I have ever seen, and everything to do with psychology.
Price and value are not the same thing, ever.
Go to Bunnings and buy a box of nails, it is the same as every other box of nails, but those nails hold your million dollar house together. Think about it in that context, and it may influence your view of the value of the nails.
Price is just the easiest way to articulate the product/service package we deliver, but it is one dimensional, just a small part of the whole, and fails to put any value on the benefit a customer receives by using your product/service.
It is our task if we are to stay in business, to find a way to articulate the value in terms other than price, while recognising that we need to be paid more than our costs to stay in business.
One of my favourite stories about value generation comes from Rory Sutherland. He proposed a creative alternative to spending billions to speed up the Dover to Paris train journey time. He suggested that instead, they just buy up all the back vintages of Chateau Petrus, obtain the world’s last inventory of genuine fresh caviar, and have it served by supermodels (male and female to avoid any problems) on the journey. The result would be that everyone would demand the train to be slowed, and the savings would be sufficient to feed sub–Saharan Africa for a generation.
Whimsical, but no doubt right!
Somewhere in the mix of tangible and intangible outcomes is our sweet spot, the price. It will vary enormously depending on the individuals and circumstances involved.
That is why it is so fundamentally important to know your ideal customer, as well as your own costs, so that you can both satisfy their varying needs, and make enough profit to build commercial sustainability for yourself.
An expert can often uncover ‘value’ you might not see. The old trees and forest metaphor at work.
Sep 3, 2021 | Governance, Strategy
The first is to have a monopoly, preferably a regulated one, such as a public asset that has been privatised.
Sydney’s Kingsford Smith airport was flogged off by the government to a private operator who makes obscene profits, not just from the landing rights, but parking, retail concessions, and every other opportunity to gouge. What are your options… catch a train to Singapore?
The second is to be in a market where the person shelling out the money for your product is not the decision maker in the purchase.
My dog does not care how much the food I deliver to her/him costs, the marketer is selling the stuff to me on the basis that my dog will prefer it, and it is better for them, and I am a bad person if I deprive my beloved pet of the best care possible.
The Australian publicly funded pharmaceutical benefits scheme is similar.
Once on the list, the pharma companies sell to the doctors, persuade them to prescribe their magic to their patients, who pay a consistent subsidised cost whatever the price of the drug to the public purse. Perhaps inconsistently, I am in favor of this scheme, despite the obvious rorting that goes on.
I am always caught between amazed laughter and despair when I hear a politician whining about the prices of some commodity, the ownership of which they have flogged off to private enterprise, who then proceeds to make a profit, because they can.
Just look at what has happened to power prices since the privatisation of the poles and wires, done in a strategic vacuum for short term political gain.
No matter the words used, what they have done is subsidise private profit from the public purse.
One that should get a mention but does not despite the disruption over the last couple of years is the takeover of Healthscope, the operator of the new French’s Forest hospital in Sydney’s north, by Canadian group, Brookfield in June 2019. Brookfield held a featured place in the Panama and Paradise papers as protagonists in tax avoidance via trusts located in tax havens.
The state government poured 2 billion dollars into the hospital in a so called partnership with Healthscope previously an ASX listed company, and closed the alternatives in the area, Mona Vale and Manly hospitals.
So much for the competition, and for the tax on the resulting profits.
Sep 1, 2021 | Collaboration, Governance
Trust in our institutions is generally accepted as being on a slippery slide to zilch. I am certainly one who has loudly carried that message.
It is easy to say, but what are the essential elements of trust amongst a group?
If you look up the wisdom of Dr. Google, you will see a library of articles, posts and opinion that varies in the words used, but when boiled down, are saying pretty much the same 7 things.
Trust that others have your back. When things go wrong, you will not be left to carry the burden yourself.
Trust in common values and objectives. This implies that the values and objectives are an outcome of the group, rather than having them imposed on the group. Objectives and values can be superficially common, as in a group put together for some specific task. However, those objectives and values will not necessarily be shared, which comes from the interactions of the group with each other over time.
Trust that we will keep each other’s confidences. Inability to keep confidences indicates a lack of integrity, poison to any level of trust.
Trust in our willingness to learn from each other. This is a two way street, and is not driven by artificial hierarchy such as position on the organisation chart.
Trust that people will do as they say they will do. No further explanation required.
Trust that we are free to express our views and ideas. Often, we refer to ‘psychological safety’ as if it were a fence constructed in some way to keep the nasties out. However, it is a fence only in our individual and collective minds, but is critical to building relationships.
Trust that we are able to be critical without being personal. We need to be able to be tough on our friends, without damaging the foundations of friendship and respect. Commonly I refer to this as ‘transparency’. It is not inconsistent with the requirement to be sure that confidences will be kept, it is more a foundation that enables those critical confidences to be shared and kept. Nothing is as corrosive as uncertainty, whether it be about your performance of a task, or how long it will take for the taxi to get to you.
In an HBR article from February 2019, the authors cited three elements a leader must have to hold the trust of those for whom he/she is responsible:
Positive relationships. Meaning a leader must demonstrate empathy, balance results with concern for people, resolve conflict as it occurs, and deliver honest and helpful feedback.
Good judgement and Expertise. People being led will be willingly led, as distinct from managed by someone who demonstrates good and consistent judgement in decision making, seeks and absorbs the opinions of others, and has the expertise relevant to the task.
Consistency. This is simply walking the talk, following through, setting a good example, and being prepared to do what is necessary.
To my mind, the 7 elements cited above contain these three, with a perspective that is a bit closer to the sorts of situations individuals find themselves in over the course of time. They are more specific, less generic than the three cited in the HBR article.
I recently heard a definition of the point at which you have a ‘group’ that is more than an assembly of people looking to achieve a defined outcome, which I like:
“A group is when you do not need to look around to know everyone is doing the right thing, but you do look around to see that everyone is OK’
Cartoon header courtesy www.gapinvoid.com
Aug 30, 2021 | Leadership, Management, Operations
What do we have to do to scale successfully?
That is a question that I often find myself answering in conversations with SME manufacturing businesses run by people who are seeking to map out in their mind, ‘where to from here?’
Generally, they know some of the answers, but they are hidden amongst all the other stuff going on, and the distractions of being all things to all people who walk through the door.
It is little different to building a house. You need solid foundations, upon which you build your house, brick by brick, designed to meet the needs of your family.
Before anything else, there are three foundational strategic questions to be asked, and answered:
What is the current status?
Every journey has a starting point. Doing the work to define that point clearly is the first step in any journey.
What are the trends, barriers, and competitive forces in their industry, and how does the existing capability set you have leverage those factors in a differentiated manner?
What is the objective?
It is important to understand what it is that they want to achieve. Articulating the objective in measurable terms is fundamental to being able to build the plans to get there. Often it is more than financial success, and unless that is clear from the outset, you can waste a lot of effort further down the track. I use a process I call ‘Hindsight planning‘ in which you imagine the objective has been achieved. You are therefore thinking in the present tense, from which you can look back and observe the mistakes, opportunities missed, and what went as expected with some level of imaginative hindsight.
What are the foundations of the business?
Every business requires a foundation, like anything you build, without which it is no more sustainable than a house of cards. The foundations of every business differ, but are made up of a variety of qualitative and quantitative bricks. The balance will vary depending on the nature of the industry. Childcare for instance will have more regulatory bricks in the foundation than life coaching.
Having answered the three essential foundation questions, you then add the frame that determines how the house appears publicly and shapes the way the activities in the house flow. The activities in the house never cease to evolve in the operational detail, but remain inside the framework determined in the design. Later, you can always add extensions, which are often ugly in the absence of creative thought, or you can build another house.
In no particular order, following are the 12 components of your framework.
Business Purpose. The expression of ‘Why’ they want to do whatever it is, a sentence that distills their motivation. This seems easy, but is in fact a very tough question, and is often not answered without considerable soul searching over some time, and often not before the building process is well begun. The caveat is that it must have something to do with the way value is added, and to whom. ‘To make money’ is not a purpose, it is an outcome of success.
Value proposition. What is it they can offer their customers that will make them want to do business with you rather than someone else? The benefits that they will gather by doing business with you. Often people I speak to are tangled up in the features they can offer, and struggle to get past them to understand customers are not interested in the features of your offering in the absence of any direct benefit to them.
Identify your ‘ideal customer’. The better the description of the ideal customer the better, not only can you target them better in connecting and communicating, but it also enables you to focus your efforts where they have the best chance of delivering.
Differentiation. What makes your offer different to that of any competitors? Differentiation goes hand in hand with the profile of your ideal customer. The differentiators you have must correlate to the specific pain points you are seeking to address with your ideal customer.
Branding. What are the brand characteristics you are building, the personality traits, messaging styles, what stories does the brand tell, and how do they relate to the ideal customer? In effect, it is what you would like those with whom you encounter to say about you when you are no longer in the room.
Strategy. How do you plan to go to market, which market, which channels, which customers, and how you are you going to execute on the strategy? All these questions need an answer, the absence of which will at best cost you money that could be saved, at worst, lead to your demise.
Business model. Your business model is how you turn your value proposition into revenue. Understanding, and making deliberate decisions about how your business model should work is a vital step.
Record keeping and reporting. This starts with the regulatory accounts, compliance reports and returns, but goes much deeper into the management of the enterprise. Producing and disseminating the relevant performance and progress reports to each level of the organisation in as close to real time as possible, is a challenge, but crucial to scaling. The old cliché ‘what gets counted gets managed’, applies.
Regulatory compliance. We live in a community, and there are always rules and regulations that must be followed on top of the moral obligations we have. Often these are seemingly pointless exercises in bureaucracy and politically correct box ticking, but they are nevertheless vital ingredients in the foundation of your enterprise.
The plan. Nothing happens without a plan, a goal without a plan is just a daydream. You must articulate how you turn all the above into a plan that is workable, realistic, funded, and with a clear path towards clear objectives, with activity priorities, review points and feedback loops built in.
People. Scaling is an intensely resource hungry activity that requires the right people. No business is anything more than an idea without people to make it happen. Having the ‘right’ people, irrespective of the size of the business is essential tom successful scaling. Indeed, it is essential for success at any level, but scaling is particularly people sensitive. The obvious challenge is to identify the profile of the ‘right people’ and even more complex, ensure that the mix of skills and thinking styles blend, and compound each other.
Cash. Cash is the enabler of all the above, without which, you will go nowhere. However, cash is readily available from all sorts of sources; the key is to get just sufficient working capital to match the rate of scaling, while ensuring that those around you have confidence in your leadership.
Image credit: Wikipedia
