Jul 7, 2021 | Governance, Management
Small and medium businesses have many advantages over their larger rivals. They also have many disadvantages, which centre around the more limited resources they have to get the job done.
One of those disadvantages rarely spoken about, but sadly, present too often, is the lack of robust book-keeping procedures, which can and too often does, enable fraud.
This comes usually from the lack of internal controls, coupled with the ‘all hands in’ necessity of SME’s which means basic financial security measures are curtailed. For example, the recording of both debtors and creditors is in the hands of one person, or even simpler, there is little scrutiny on such items as credit card usage.
The propensity for fraud, and/or misleading financial reports and results can be looked at in a similar manner to fire.
For fire to occur, there needs to be 3 things in place. Fuel, oxygen, and heat. Take away any one of these 3 factors and fire cannot occur. If there is no fuel, it will not burn. Take away oxygen by covering the fire with water, or a fireproof sheet, and it will not burn, take away the heat source, and the fire cannot start.
It is the same in finance.
The 3 factors are opportunity, pressure, and rationalisation.
-
-
- Pressure. For an individual to perpetrate a fraud, there must be some pressure for them to do so. Some situation in their lives that makes them take what they know is a risk creates the pressure to take that step. Debt, divorce, a burning desire to own something they cannot afford, and so on. Then there are a few who are just opportunistic, and when the opportunity arises, will leverage it.
- Rationalisation. The individual must be able to rationalise the fraud, stealing by another name, in some way. They need the money more than the company, nobody will notice a bit going missing every month, ‘I have been underpaid for the value I add’ and so on.
- Opportunity. There must also be the opportunity for the fraud to be perpetrated. The easiest way is to gain access to cash before it is counted, as in retail environments, but the lack of controls in a bookkeeping function or warehouse can have the same impact. I have seen payments clerks set up an account for a phony supplier, generate invoices from that phony, and pay them. I have also seen an order for 10 pallets have 11 pallets loaded onto a truck for delivery and the extra pallet not accounted for. This may not be financial fraud, it is stealing, and the effect is the same. Involving more than one person to perpetrate a fraud makes many types more possible, while at the same time, offering greater detection opportunity.
Remove any one of the 3, and fraud is far harder. Not impossible, but harder.
There are many simple things that management of any enterprise can do to minimise the occurrence of fraud in their business.
-
-
- Separate the recording from the physical. The obvious example of this is the use of a till in retail that records the products and amounts bought, which then must be reconciled with the actuals in the cash drawer. This also records the products being sold which can be reconciled with stock records in a stocktake, further eliminating a source of opportunity.
- Separate the two sides of a transaction or create transactions as a data collection point. For example, the separation of the recording and payment of a debt should be separate to avoid the ‘phony’ customer situation. In a factory, you might institute a data collection point using bar coded pallet numbers on transfer from the factory production floor to inventory. This separates inventory from the waste stream, sometimes the source of an opportunity, as it was in the example noted above. This latter example also offers management some of the data necessary for improvement projects as an added benefit.
- Regular and close management of the debtors and creditors ledgers with the bank accounts. This will detect unauthorised payments made from the bank accounts.
- Restrict manual transactions, particularly where they involve cash.
- Control access to the books to ensure accountability of individuals for accuracy and completeness.
- Build in multi person authorisation into standard processes.
- Have clear transaction audit trails, that are monitored.
If some of these seem a bit ‘over the top’ for an SME, I understand. However, the volume of fraud that goes undetected and unreported is huge, and very damaging for an SME without the financial depth to easily navigate the losses.
Implementing some simple safeguards is just responsible business practice.
Get some help if you need it, and usually the return on a modest investment will be very quick.
Jul 5, 2021 | Leadership, Marketing
If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.
On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.
There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market. So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of todays fish wrapper from yesterdays newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.
There is a welter of research, and opinion that confirms the notion that marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations. Most however have a dog in the fight.
I asked myself the question again, after a stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes it has changed’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.
Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create, and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just a decade ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.
Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, chief marketing Officer, Chief Engagement officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles.
The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not previously present, but still reporting functionally.
Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all.
The role of marketing is to tell the future, and then to adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.
The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.
In the past, marketing was a relatively passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table, which demands that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.
Look at it from the other perspective.
Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.
It has changed somewhat organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.
Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares, tactics are just that, short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is generally limited in the short term.
The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this status, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, and drive that priority by removing the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, which are not directly accountable to marketing.
Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more, as they are the future tellers. Those who generally occupy that office are the engineers and accountants who are really good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.
Who is next in your corner office?
Jul 2, 2021 | Customers, Marketing
Every second self-appointed digital marketing guru who offers to help me, making the offer in a mass email, proves the point in the headline.
They have a list, bought from somewhere claiming to have a ‘relationship’ of some sort with me. However, they still manage to spell my name, or that of my business incorrectly, are mistaken about what my business delivers, or make exorbitant claims about what they can do for me. There are many ways to demonstrate they know nothing about me, my business, or the sorts of challenges I face. ‘Spammy’ emailers seem to find them all.
The money is not in the list.
The money is in the message.
Had they delivered an offer to my inbox that might be of interest, I may have read it, and you never know, taken it up. However, being specific requires work, and the tailoring of the message towards the pain points uncovered by that work.
Doing the work means the collection of data, building a profile of the me and my business, presumably falling into the bucket of ‘ideal customer’ for the specific product being sold. They must ensure there is alignment between the problem the product seeks to solve, the pain points being felt, and the communications being sent. Failing in any one of these means the email recipient falls into the 99.9% who make the 0.1% success rate possible.
Again, the money is in the message, not in the list.
Header cartoon credit: Dilbert and Scott Adams. Again. (Sorry, could not resist that one)
Jun 30, 2021 | Change, Governance, Marketing
I have been at this ‘marketing’ game a long time, long enough to know that the bits you see, as a customer, prospective customer, or just by accident, are only the tip of the iceberg.
For many so-called marketers, what you see is the whole iceberg, they are ignorant, wilfully, or otherwise of the underlying factors that go into making a success of the process of ‘marketing’.
Despite the market research, social tracking, customer satisfaction measurement, and all the other stuff that we can do, the customer is often ignored.
Why is it so??
- There is little ‘fit’ between the market and the product/service being offered. This is usually because there is no ‘seat in the boardroom’ for customers. This should be the responsibility of the marketing people, but they so often revert to cliches and fluffy qualitative assertions that they are ignored. I really like the practice of Amazon, where there is an empty chair in every meeting, signifying the customer.
- Products are designed back to front. Businesses assemble the resources they have available, and build products they think customers will buy, rather than identifying customer problems and working backwards to assemble the resources that solve them.
- Marketing is usually seen as a subordinate function. The heads of the accounting, engineering, and operational functions are more likely to wield corporate influence than marketing. Partly this is the fault of marketers, who have systemically failed to speak the language of the boardroom. Marketing, which is about the future, tends to speak ‘qualitative’ whole other functions are all about the past, and can speak authoritative ‘quantitative’. This difference makes them more believable, as our brains like the certainty of quantitative. Partly also it is a failure of leadership. How many CEO’s are you aware of that have ‘marketing’ as their core skill?
- KPI’s rarely involve customer metrics of any value. I am a huge fan of tracking performance, but measures that do not relate to the manner in which the job done satisfies customers is a metric that is only looking internally. Some are necessary, but most are not, in my experience. Then, you see the occasional customer metric touted, and it is the number of likes on a social platform, vanity measures that again mean nothing. In fact, such measures are worse than nothing, they are misleading.
- Marketers by their nature are looking forward. This tends to enable them to be blinded by the newest shiny thing that emerges. This constant response to the shiny object serves to erode any focus and consistency of brand building, customer awareness and loyalty. When you are constantly moving around from video to podcasts, clubhouse, Tik Tok, and all the rest, you become hard to follow.
- Poor key strategically important customer definition. Too often marketers are unable to focus on the niches where the really powerful returns hide. The old cliché that you cannot be all things to all people prevails. The more important to the few who will buy your products and nothing else you are, the better. The temptation however to try and broaden the appeal, just a bit, to get a few more customers just dilutes the power of the value proposition.
- Innovation is messy, suboptimal, and experimental. Marketing and strategic development, whether it be of product, brand, customer groups, geographies, always has significant elements of trial and error, risk, and the inevitable failures. In enterprises that run on continuous improvement and optimising processes, this ‘messiness’ is unacceptable, and so is minimised. The result is the evolution of the enterprise stalls for lack of innovation, and marketing cops the blame. The corollary is that marketers are intimidated by their KPI’s and the status quo, into not making waves, so are always playing safe. This results in bland, undifferentiated marketing that has little impact.
- Marketers are not often the smartest people in the room. It seems to me to be a sad fact that this is often the case. From the outside, marketing looks easy, so those who do not seek or are unable to make the grade into professional training often seem to gravitate to marketing. Of the outstanding marketers I have seen and hired, many seem to come from a professional background. Scientists, lawyers, accountants, engineers, looking for something that values their creativity in bigger doses than their first profession. Running a marketing function in a large company for some time, I always went looking for these people when hiring, although it did take me some time to figure it out.
- Marketers fail to engage the other functions that are critical to success. Marketing is the only function that needs the co-operation of others over whom they have no functional control, to be successful. While this is a great test of leadership, it most often ends in tears. How often have you seen an operations manager whose KPI’s are all about factory efficiency, take a hit because the marketing manager wants to do a factory trial of something the ‘Ops’ people regard as a fantasy?
- The pace of superficial change is faster now than ever before. However, human behaviour does not change easily. The tools we use are becoming like our underwear. The reasons we wear underwear do not change, but the brands, types, cuts, and colours of the underwear we buy can change easily. This profound difference is most often shovelled under the carpet, kicked away by the seeming attraction of an apparent change in short term choices we make, which are at odds with the underlying drivers of behaviour. The unfortunate added outcome of this is a dilution of the creative impact of advertising communication. When you have to produce volumes of ‘content’ on a short term timetable, the impact of that communication is necessarily diluted. We fail to give the creative part of the communication process sufficient time to generate the attention and magnetism required in a frenzied world of fragmented communication.
- DIY syndrome. Marketing, like everything else has become increasingly fragmented, and specialised. No one person can cover all the required bases, any more than a doctor can be a specialist in more than one narrow niche of medicine. Yet many fail to recognise the competitive necessity of engaging specialists for specialist tasks. This can be addressed in large companies by very specific job descriptions and skills of those employed, but in SME’s, it requires often expensive specialists to be engaged on an ‘as needed’ basis.
The good news is that all these shortcomings can be overcome. The bad news is that it takes large doses of experience, leadership, and time, to do so
Header cartoon credit: www.TomGauld.com in New Scientist.
Jun 28, 2021 | Collaboration, Marketing, Sales
In many major companies, there has been a number of new positions created in the last decade to try and accommodate the changes in the strategic and competitive environment.
Among them has been the ‘Chief Revenue Officer’ (CRO)
In some cases, this reflects the need for increased collaboration and sometimes convergence of marketing and sales. In others, it is just the fashion, the latest management fad.
This seems to be particularly the case in businesses where another of those-acronym driven fads has evolved, ABM, (Account Based Marketing)
The barriers to the integration of Marketing and Sales are high, and deeply set into the functional status quo of most organisations, and highly resistant to change. However, the emergence of digital tools has accelerated the trend, and the recent Covid challenges have been a catalyst for further and quicker evolution than would otherwise have been the case.
For years I have been advocating ‘Alignment’ of marketing and sales to the needs of specific customers, and the ways to achieve that outcome.
Removing the Marketing and Sales labels has proved to be useful to the integration. The emerging combined function recognises that the responsibility of each is simply Revenue Generation, or ‘RevGen’
The first substantial consulting assignment I had 25 years ago introduced my client, a domestically owned multinational supplier of ingredients to the food industry, to Strategic Key Account Management. (SKAM)
We went through a process of identifying the specific needs of key customers, and tailored our marketing and sales effort, to the expressed and often jointly uncovered needs of customers, with whom we engaged in the process.
Those workshops and subsequent implementation efforts are as relevant now as they were 25 years ago, probably more so. It is now just a component of Revenue Generation, a descriptor of the best way to make profits by delivering value to customers.
The core assumption of SKAM is that that only by doing one or more of the following, could we be successful.
-
-
- Assisting our customers to increase their sales,
- Actively reducing their costs,
- Increasing their productivity.
We set ourselves the task of identifying how we could achieve at least one of those three things, preferably two, and focussed our efforts on delivering those outcomes.
Predictably, it was a successful initiative, customers loved the collaboration. Inventory levels reduced, as customer service levels and responsiveness increased, generating increased trading profits.
Perhaps it was too successful, as the business was then sold by its parent company, at a very high multiple to a multinational competitor.
