5 crucial parameters of the Value Equation.

5 crucial parameters of the Value Equation.

Some time ago I wrote a post that listed the 4 questions every business owner should ask themselves:

How do we create value?

How do we deliver value?

How do we capture value?

Will it be the same tomorrow?

In a recent workshop I was asked to expand on the rather brief notes in the original post. Following is a summary of the comments I made.

How do you create Value?

This is the one question every successful business on earth has in common. Success depends on them creating value for someone in excess of the cost to create that value.

There are several parameters to consider.

First: What is value?  Value can be relative, as in the situation where you stick a premium brand on a pair of ordinary sunglasses, and some people who value the cachet and assurance of the brand will pay several times the cost of the identical pair unbranded. The value is in the brand rather than the physical pair of sunglasses.

Value can also be contextual. I have been considering the option of upgrading my computer recently, looking at the costs, brands, and technical performance of the available options that suit my needs. Two weeks ago, my existing computer took a powder,  at which time the context in which I was considering a purchase changed radically, and the value of time became the over-riding factor. As the context of the consideration changed, so did the value, and so defining value at any time needs to consider these two differing sets of relative and contextual factors.

Second: Value to whom? Everyone defines what value means to them differently. In the sunglasses example above, there are groups who will pay significantly for a brand, and differing amounts of premium for differing brands.  For some, a brand like Ray Ban might add 5 times the commodity value, for others, who would not buy Ray Ban to save themselves, Pierre Cardin might add 8 times the commodity value to their choice of sunglasses. The marketing challenge is to define the groups to whom your brand adds the value, and target your marketing and brand building activity towards them.

Third: What is your niche? The definition of a niche is always a critical but often overlooked component of your marketing planning. Without adequate definition, you are unable to find the degree of definition of customers necessary to discriminate sufficiently closely to refine your messages to a point where they resonate with the most likely primary customer without wasting resources on those less likely to buy.  Often the creation of value evolves when an unrecognised or under-serviced niche is identified. Back to the sunglasses. 10 years ago there were no brands (that I can recall) targeted at sports people, who valued a light tint, polarisation, and a ‘wrap-around’ style that ensured a frame did not impede peripheral vision, and a very close fit. Oakley jumped into this unrecognised niche and built a brand based on delivering value previously unrecognised to a closely defined niche in the sun glasses market.

How do you deliver value?

It is of little use having something someone else would value without the means by which to deliver it. Your ‘Business Model’ is the means by which you deliver, a factor that is again often not considered in any real depth by small and medium sized businesses.  There are a pile of questions that need answering, but are mostly left to chance, habit, and the way it is always done in that market, which is hardly the way to differentiate yourself. Are you a retailer, wholesaler, operate in a double sided market (such as EBay), fee for service, franchise operator or franchisee, and so on.  While we are all sick to death of Airbnb and Uber being held up as examples, they are simply great examples of delivering an existing service via an entirely different business model making their owners rich in the process.

A great tool to use is the business model canvas articulated a few years ago  in a book of the  same name, and described in this post.

How do you capture value?

A business model offers some of the story about the means by which you capture value. Every model approaches the task differently. However, there are some common elements irrespective of your model that face every business.

Firstly, and most obviously, your costs must be less than your revenue, numbers captured well in traditional accounting models of the Profit and Loss account. However, what the P&L usually fails to do is clearly articulate all the costs that are incurred, particularly the last two in this following list.

Direct or marginal costs are those incurred directly to produce another unit of sale. Usually this is referred to as the cost of goods sold.

Overhead costs are incurred in every  business to keep the doors open. Communication costs, rates and taxes, management wages and salaries, utilities, and so on. Many accountants use a ‘fully absorbed’ cost method that divides the total of all costs incurred except perhaps discretionary trading costs such as advertising and promotion, into the number of units sold and allocates a cost to each unit to ‘absorb’ the overhead. This is logically flawed as the less you sell the more you must sell it for to absorb the costs, so the march towards commercial oblivion proceeds.

Opportunity costs. I have never seen these captured in a P&L, indeed, am not sure of how you would go about doing it,  but nevertheless, it is a cost of choosing a less than optimised allocation of resources. Consideration of the opportunity costs of resource allocation decisions should be a topic in every serious strategic discussion.

Transaction costs are the costs of managing transactions inside a business. A business with one supplier for an ingredient has less transaction costs associated with the purchase of  that ingredient than  if they had 50 suppliers. Obviously they also have greater risk, but transaction costs are the great hidden cost in most businesses.

The answer to the dilemma of capturing value is twofold:

You just have to understand, really understand your numbers, what drives them, and how you can influence them. Secondly, the number that counts above all else is cash. How much cash is coming in, from where, and going out, to where, and what are the timing factors that will influence that flow of cash. Every business should be forecasting their cash flow at least weekly in a rolling periodic forecasts that suits their business, but usually 13 weeks is a good number, and be watching the ebbs and flows daily.

Will it be the same tomorrow?

While a literal tomorrow may see little change, but what about next month, next year, the answer is a clear and resounding No!

The answer to this dilemma of managing for short term profitability while ensuring commercial sustainability is complex. On the one hand you have to have stable processes to optimise the productivity of resources allocated to a task, at the same time as you experiment in order to see the next thing coming, which is usually messy and risky, but absolutely necessary to survive. The classic case is Kodak who invented the digital camera and did not do anything with it, enabling the seeds of its own destruction to be sown. Most good businesses manage what they can control, and accommodate the changes necessary to moderate risk or leverage the opportunities as they  emerge.

It is a cliché but time has to be spent ‘on the business’ rather than in it by at least some of those responsible for the commercial sustainability of the business.

People.

Most will tell you that people are their greatest asset, then go off an do something that demonstrates the hypocrisy in the statement. It remains the truth however, that in all but the markets for non-critical purchases, people do business with people, not corporations, and people still do business with people they know like and trust.

Since I was a boy, I have heard the expression ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. It holds absolutely true for value as well. Value is always in the eye of the beholder, and is the net outcome of the complex set of unconscious and unseen mental gymnastics we all go through as we make assessments of options open to us. In a supermarket that may be hundreds of times in a few seconds, in a significant B2B purchase decision the considerations may be entirely different, but the processes are identical.

How could Samsung stuff it up so badly?

How could Samsung stuff it up so badly?

Once again, we are the observers in what will become another in the great ‘How to manage a marketing cluster****’ course.

I am talking about the public reaction of Samsung to the exploding Galaxy Note 7 phone.

Recent history is littered with lessons on both sides of the equation, how best to handle the meltdown as it happens,  and how to really stuff it up. You would think that an operation with the size and apparent sophistication of Samsung would have learnt, but it seems not.

The Galaxy 7 was launched in August, in a race to beat Apple to the market with their new ‘Apple iPhone 7’. There were almost immediately reports of the batteries blowing up, initially treated with some scepticism, as the fail safe levels built into the design and regulatory testing regimes should have identified any problems. Ooops… Samsung test their own batteries, whereas others all have third party tests done.

At the point of recall, Samsung had produced 2.5 million units, sold about 2 million, and there have been 35 reported explosions. Not quite a 1 in a million chance, but not far off it, so I guess they just thought it a minor glitch.

On October 10, Samsung announced ‘We are temporarily adjusting the Galaxy Note 7 production schedule in order to take further steps to ensure quality and safety matters.’  For the couple of weeks prior, Samsung had been recalling the phones, but calling it an ‘Exchange program’. When a couple of the exchanged phones also went ‘Boom’ they ended production, with the ‘temporary’ announcement above.

From October 11 until October 17,  when the US Federal Aviation Authority put on a blanket ban on carrying the device, describing it as ‘forbidden hazardous material’ airlines had started banning carrying the Note 7 on board off their own bat, recognising the public concern and real safety question.

There is a pretty large gap between ‘forbidden hazardous material’ and an ‘exchange program’.

Samsung’s statements are in competition for the ‘Biggest Blooper-statement in history’ Oscar with then BP Managing Director Tony Hayward who said ‘There is no-one who wants this thing over more than I do. You know I want my life back’  in the days after  Deepwater Horizon blew up in April 2010.

By contrast, when Arnott’s had a recall of Monte Carlo biscuits in 1997 prompted by an extortion bid, MD Chris Roberts was up front, recalling all Arnott’s products from the retail trade, explaining the reason and how Arnott’s was dealing with it. While it cost a lot of money, the Arnott’s brand was probably enhanced in the long term. Similarly, in 1982 Tylenol, the market leading US analgesic brand was found to have caused the death of a young woman after she consumed a poisoned pill. Johnson & Johnson immediately recalled all Tylenol from the shelves, and committed to completely redesigning the packaging to ensure tamper evidence. J&J garnered considerable public support, and Tylenol rapidly regained their market leading position after the relaunch.

These are just a few of the best known but very many examples Samsung should have considered. Had they done so, the short term cost would not have been as high, and the damage to the brand not as severe. Coming on top of the recent exploding washing machine episodes you would have thought they had sufficient practise to get it right.

The cost to Samsung will be huge, in both short term cash losses and longer term damage to the brand. Apple must be loving this!

As an aside, you would think that Samsung would have taken down their digital marketing material on the device, particularly with the tag-line ‘Rethink what a phone can do” but at the time of post publication, had not.

3 things advertising cannot do, despite the claims.

3 things advertising cannot do, despite the claims.

Many small and medium sized businesses I interact with seem to have the view that advertising and marketing are synonyms, and if they had a bit more money in their marketing budgets, it would best be spent on advertising.

Rarely is that the case.

Advertising is just a part of a marketing menu, often crucial and a voracious consumer of dollars, but nevertheless often a small part.

Advertising is a great tool, a device to achieve all sorts of commercial ends, but like any tool, there are limits.

The babble that usually  accompanies the sales pitch for advertising is often long on superlatives and short on specifics.

Here is what advertising cannot do:

Advertising weight is no substitute for creativity.

Messages only really get absorbed when they appeal to our hearts, and most advertising appeals to our brains. Like all rules, there are exceptions, such as the advertising of a once only limited time price deal. No heart in that, all head, and it may be seen, and it may also be destructive of the brand, as it is commoditising it.

Advertising cannot make people care about something that has no relevance to them.

Look at all the advertising done for starving kids in Africa, soliciting 10 bucks a month to save a life. If we really cared, rather than felt guilty, the coffers would be running over. It is not that we do not abhor the fact that kids die of malnutrition, it is just that it is removed from us, has no personal impact, and we are cynical about how much of our 10 bucks is actually getting to the people who need it.  Advertising  is best when it defines the WIFM to those seeing it. The best copywriters are usually the direct response writers, they know immediately when their adverting works, and they are always appealing to the prospects top of mind self interest.

Advertising rarely increases the size of a market in the short term.

The purpose of advertising is to attract your competitors existing users, lapsed users, or light users to your products or service. From time to time advertising latches onto a latent need and does create a market, such as the great Apple advertising for the first macs or even better, DeBeers programs to create the tradition of a diamond engagement ring, but those take bucket loads of money, beyond the capacity of any medium advertiser, as well as great timing and a level of creativity rarely seen. Most advertising is aimed at nicking your competitors customers, in one way or another. When I had to turn around Ski yogurt, the target was Yoplait. There was no mistaking what we set out to do by offering a product that was distinctly different, had a different value proposition, but it was still yoghurt. Over time the combined activity increased the size of the market considerably, but our advertising target was Yoplait users and we got them by taking a stance on yogurt that had discernible pieces of fruit in it, rather than being a homogeneous product, and the taste was distinctly different, so there was a choice to be made once we persuaded consumers to trial.

The question of which channel to use for your advertising is a whole set of different questions.

Digital or analogue, is usually the first step, and the logical answer is ‘both’ as there is no one right answer. Each channel and each platform within the channel plays a different role, and has different costs and outcome expectations. It can get very complicated, and the only sensible way to sort out the mess, and conflicting claims is to be very clear about the objectives you have, then assess each advertising option against the objectives, and the value they deliver.

Is ‘Proprietary Housebrand’ an oxymoron?

Is ‘Proprietary Housebrand’ an oxymoron?

Is this range of McWilliams wines a housebrand or not?

it is exclusive to Dan Murpy’s, so ‘yes’, but it is a proprietary brand, so ‘no’. At the very least, the trading terms conversations would have been interesting.

It is also claimed to be an ‘Innovation’ which redefines my understanding of what that word means. Housebrands do not innovate, they copy, some may say act as a parasite on the innovation activities of proprietary brands.  Product innovation is one of the two key competitive options (the other being the opportunity to now connect with their consumers digitally) available to FMCG suppliers by which they can differentiate their products from their housebrand competition. Supermarket chains have done well squeezing costs out of their supply chains with process innovation, usually to the cost of their suppliers, incapable to this point to be effective with product innovation.

Exclusivity has always been a demand of retailers, difficult in Australia with just the two of them having such overwhelming dominance, but in unbranded categories like produce, they have successfully developed strongly preferential supply arrangements. But wine? one of the most brand sensitive categories around?

From  Woolies owned Dan Murphy’s I got the above offer the other day for an exclusive to Dans branded McWilliams Bagtown range, from the Griffith area. All the hyperbolic language and story telling that goes with the wine category, but an exclusive range to Dans. it seems Woolies have started something I have not seen before in Australia that has the potential for wider use. For years in Hong Kong, you dealt with one or the other of the two major FMCG retailers, but not both. Problem here with that strategy is that there are only 24 million of us, and widely scattered so the twisted economics and trading term requirements surrounding proprietary branded retail chain distribution have simply not allowed a similar development here. Till now?

The McWilliams sales manager will be having an interesting conversation with the Liquorland buyer the next time he visits, although it is reasonable to expect he will get a phone call, and probably lose either some distribution or a promotional slot, or something that reflects that McWilliams have crossed a line, and Liquorland will not be left out.

As an aside, the Dan Murphy’s 90 point label badge borders on the dodgy. You can expect a 90 point wine (Silver medal) judged at one of the major shows to be pretty good, warranting a place in any cellar. The wine in this case might be OK, but it has not been judged by anyone outside Dans staff, and they are unlikely to tell the boss that his choice sucked. Griffith is not known for its cabernet, the climate is all wrong for the grape variety, and the few I have tried were well short of 90 points. Hopefully this one is an exception.

6 strategies to build a brand on a shoestring

6 strategies to build a brand on a shoestring

Small businesses everywhere suffer from the unequal access to the marketing funding they have compared to their larger competitors. Some complain about it, others get on and short circuit the system by turning it on its head.

Large companies overrun  with so called marketers do things in a pretty standard sequence.

Advertise to build awareness,

Generate some customer trial,

Build on trial for repeat purchase.

Small businesses need to find a way to get people to trial their product without all the mass advertising, they need to be able to target their ideal customer specifically, without the investment of mass media, and these days, paid social media which has replaced much of the mass media, but still needs to be managed.

Following are 5 strategies that have worked for my clients, often in tandem.

Sampling. 

If for example, you run a restaurant, stand outside at lunchtime and give samples of your signature dish to passers  by who match the profile of your ideal customer. Don’t waste money on advertising in the local paper, or sponsoring the local footie team (although that may be a good thing to do for other reasons)

Amazon allows you to sample the books on their lists in a number of ways. You can look inside most books, typically you are shown the contents page and often the first chapter. Sometimes you can download a sample chapter, and from time to time there are deals for a limited time on one book in a series, and of course there are the recommendations tailored on your search and purchase history, and reader reviews. All sampling.

Meadow Lea, a brand icon built through the late 70’s and into the eighties had a hugely effective media persona, ‘You ought to be congratulated’, but was supported with an extensive program of sampling in supermarkets that continued for   many years. Getting consumers to sample the product on a bit of bread in store, where the purchases are made was a hugely effective, but low key, slow burn, strategy

Identify your ideal customer.

Identify the most profitable market, by identifying your ideal customer, not just the ones who say they like you, but those who put their money where their mouth is. It amazes me how often a target market turns out to be other than the most profitable market when you do some data digging.

If you are an architect, the most profitable market is unlikely to be first home  buyers, far more likely to be successful 40 plus professionals. They might be harder to find, and sell, but way more likely to be able to spend the necessary money to get what they want.

Differentiate yourself.

Create some sort of differentiation that has some emotional component, so it is likely to be something personal.

I drive an old Mercedes, love it to bits. Whenever it gets a service, the car comes back cleaned, not something I ask for or pay for, (at least not directly) but very nice. Last time I picked it up after a service, there was also a matchbox car of the same model as mine, and a note “for your new grandson” on the passenger seat. In casual conversation when I dropped the car off, I had shown a picture of my new grandson. Think anyone else would ever get to service my Merc?, probably cost them 10 bucks for the toy to ensure I never went anywhere else.

Use direct response techniques.

Direct response advertising provides a huge portfolio of ideas and techniques to learn from, and from long experience, we know direct response works. Even after social media has destroyed much of the advertising industry as we knew it a few years ago, direct response has adapted and thrived. Virtually every offer you receive in your inbox has been crafted with the disciplines of direct response that originated and were refined in the back half of the 20th century. Always have a call to action in an ad, an email, or piece of copy if the reader does not know what to do next, they will wander off.

Direct response advertising is absolutely  and immediately measurable, you know what you get, and can test varying treatments, so being able to calculate an ROI on your investment is now a reality.

Create or highlight a problem, then solve it with your product.

Purchases are made for a reason, and while  the reasons vary from the rational response to a problem, to the emotional solution to an imagined one, the rules are the same. If your product can deliver the solution better  than the alternatives, you will be successful.

Colgate used variations of this technique from the mid 70’s with the Mrs Marsh series of ads, which is to my mind the best example around. However, you do nit need to have Colgate-like budgets to use the same formula. Almost every  ad for weight loss products, gym membership, and a myriad of other things uses the same formula, varied in a range of ways.

Fix your website.

Most businesses these days have websites, and most websites I see are just bloody awful, at least they are if their objective is to build business. If the objective is to stand around and do nothing, then they are fine. There is tonne of advice out there on how to make your site more effective, and this is not about SEO, although that cannot hurt, it is about making the site more ‘sticky’ for when people visit.

There are some pretty simple things that will help add ‘stickyness’:

  • Understand your Bounce Rate. When a visitor to your site fails to move past the first page, it usually indicates that you have failed to engage them, they ‘bounce’. Experiment with differing treatments on your site, noting those that do not work, and ‘doubling down’ on those that do.
  • Ensure there is a prominent headline that leads to an action, top and centre of the page. As  noted above, problem/solution headlines work well in this context
  • Make it clean and uncluttered, so as  not to distract the visitor from the next thing you want them to do
  • Use video. Up till recently, Video was not a common tool, but as site visitors become more fussy and less likely to stay out of curiosity, and video gets better and cheaper, its use has exploded, as have the expectations of visitors.
  • Have social proof prominent, especially video testimonials prominent on the site. People want to be assured by people they can relate to that you are trustworthy, and will treat your money with the same respect they treat theirs.
  • Collect emails and mobile numbers. The old saying, ‘The money is in the list’ still holds, but in these days of mobile, having mobile numbers is becoming increasingly important, SMS messages have an almost 100% open rate, and is remarkably flexible. For example, if you run a restaurant, and have 20 seats available one evening, and you have mobile phone numbers, send out an SMS offering a bottle of champers with dinner as an offer to fill the seats, tonight. It may be that the average revenue on a table is $150, with marginal costs only for the food of perhaps $25, and you have just given away $20 to get the seat filled. Seems like a good deal, and the those who get the champers will be pleased, and talk about your restaurant.

Finally, and importantly, get stuff done. So often I see the results of procrastination, and self doubt, don’t let it hamstring you, and if you need a nudge, call me.

Social media, Wholesalers of eyeballs.

Social media, Wholesalers of eyeballs.

The business models  of all major social media platforms require a profit, and they generate that by being wholesalers of eyeballs.

They do not do it for free, any more than your wholesalers of produce at the city markets provides their service for free.

Social media platforms fight for the attention of users, then sell the users attention to advertisers, attracted by the ability to slice and dice the audience in ways almost  unimaginable a decade ago.

However, at the foundation level, little has changed since the dark ages of print media, just a decade ago, when profitability depended on content being sufficiently attractive for buyers to purchase a newspaper or magazine, offering the opportunity to advertisers to show them their advertisements. The only difference is that the media is now run by algorithms and often crowdsourced content, rather than journalists and typesetters.

The objective is unchanged, creating the situation where advertisers are willing to pay for eyeballs.

The fight for this wholesale market share also has not changed much. Newspapers over the years consolidated and generated profits by a combination of scale delivering low cost, and regional eyeball oligopolies, often monopolies.

Now the digital platforms are playing the same game.

Facebook has once again tightened the screws on brand marketers by reducing the eyeballs that will go to their pages. They talk about enhancing the experience for their customers, i.e. those who use Facebook, not the advertisers who are trying to reach users. Controlling access to the newsfeed is a way of controlling supply, and every economics 101 student knows that the intersection of the supply and demand  curves is the price. Build demand, restrict supply, Goldmine.

Microsoft’s purchase of Linkedin for $US 26 billion last month (June 2016), an eye-watering amount, is a similar play for eyeballs, and seems great value when compared to Facebooks purchase of WhatsApp which was still just a startup, for $US19 billion in early 2014. Microsoft had a big hole in their grip on their business customers, now filled by Linkedin. So it seems that even more than ever, Facebook will be the social platform for socialising, and  Linkedin, which includes the Slideshare platform purchased for what now seems a paltry $US119 million back in May 2012, the social platform for business. Given Microsofts power elsewhere in the digital ecosystem, with the ageing cash cow ‘Office’ platform, their enterprise offerings, and Xbox for consumers, it is a logical hole in their range of eyeballs.

All of this leads to the simple conclusion that the marketing priority of businesses should be the building of their own eyeball platform,  their website and own ecosystem that leverages the wholesalers to your benefit, not just theirs. In your own home you can do pretty much what you wish, instead of being at the mercy of the landlord as you are when you rent.