Apr 23, 2015 | Branding, Marketing, Small business, Uncategorized
Albert Einstein would have made a great marketer.
He made a number of statements that are highly applicable, but one that sticks in mind is:
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, no simpler”
Marketing is simple in concept, but becoming ever more complication in the execution.
The huge array of choices to be made at every stage is enough to scare many people away, so their marketing remains sub optimal.
There are only four components, all are critical, and all interact with each other creating the huge mass of choice confronting us, but in its simplest form, it really is pretty easy to understand.
- The message. What is said
- The medium. Where it appears
- The mechanism. How it gets there
- The sweet spot in the middle. The customer.
Albert also said “if I had an hour to solve a life and death problem, I would spend the first 50 minutes defining the problem. The rest is just maths”.
Marketing is just the same, define the outcome you are seeking, the problem you are solving, and the game is over, you can go to lunch in peace.
See, now you know.
Simple to say, hard to do.
Apr 16, 2015 | Branding, Marketing
“True Aussie” meat products have been around for 12 months or so in export markets, and we are told of its great success, Japan is particularly pointed out, where “That True Aussie beef logo can be found on more than half of retail packs in Japan now, and growing fast.” MLA Japan spokesman.
Yesterday, the National Farmers Federation came to the party with at least public support for the idea, supporting the suggestion that the “brand” was potentially far wider than just meat.
“True Aussie” is another in the long line of group marketing initiatives based on generic branding. They are attempts to leverage the assumed clean green credentials of Australian produce created by industry bodies funded by levy. Meat, horticulture, dairy and grains have all had a shot, domestically and internationally over the 35 years of my memory of these things.
Where I wonder are all those lavishly promised outcomes, those dollars flowing back to farmers because the international consumers demand Australian produce over produce from anywhere else in the world?
However, it is a very appealing idea, which I guess is why it keeps on being wheeled out again, and again, as the panacea.
“Focus the marketing funds against the common concerns of all consumers rather than spreading it around by operators acting individually, build the value positioning of Australian produce by providing the assurance of product provenance, and promising great value for money”.
Problem is that to date, in the real world, it has not worked. Perhaps things have changed sufficiently that this time, attempt number ?? how many?
Back in 2001, running a maverick operation called Agri Chain Solutions that had been reluctantly outsourced, at the direction of the then PM Howard, from the old department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (AFFA) I commissioned a piece of research aimed at uncovering the motivations driving the decision making of those who controlled the supply chains in markets targeted by produce exporters. The results were not a surprise to anyone who had really thought about the problems facing produce exporters, but were not popular amongst the industry bodies at the time.
In summary it confirmed that those who did not sell anything, ie industry bodies, had no power in the game beyond the power to give money for promises, and when the money ran out, nothing really had changed.
Supply chains, particularly those dealing with commodities, are driven by volume, availability and price, at least they are once you get past the regulatory barriers that populate and pollute the commercial environment. If you do not own anything, if you do not have the power to change anything except by committee consensus, have no power of coercion, and if you are not commercially agile, and able to differentiate, you get taken to the cleaners.
Every time.
There is an old saying, we’ve all heard it, ‘do what you have always done, and you will get what you have always got’
Well, we are doing it again.
The digital tools we have now have potentially changed the game by giving the real opportunity for supply chain transparency, potentially turning them into demand responsive chains, but that requires real skill and commercial discipline to pull off, which is still sadly absent.
I hope that this time something I have not seen has changed that will give us the promised outcomes, I genuinely hope I am wrong, but unfortunately I suspect history is going to be repeated, and in another decade, it will roll around again.
Mar 30, 2015 | Branding, Communication, Marketing
What is my position?
Over the years I have seen hundreds, probably thousands of statements of various kinds intended to position a company, product, opportunity, and most are crap.
As a marketing graduate decades ago, in one of my first challenging situations, an interview for a job I wanted, I was asked what “Positioning” meant. My answer which I realised at the time was waffle, indicated I really had no idea.
The answer now is pretty simple:
“Position is how customers and potential customers see your product, what it looks like through their eyes”.
Doesn’t matter if it is a position statement for a product, or a statement for business, the rules are pretty much the same;
Who is it for,
What is the need,
What is the product,
What is the key benefit to the buyer,
A competing alternative statement
Product name and differentiator.
For example:
For households
Who do not have enough room store all their stuff,
Ebay is an on line auction site
That offers access to thousands of potential buyers
Unlike advertising in local newspapers
Ebay will reach more buyers to get the best price and get you back some room.
Pretty simple really, but the construction takes some thought.
Mar 16, 2015 | Branding, Customers, Innovation, Marketing, retail, Sales
Words spoken cannot be taken back
Gaining distribution in supermarkets is really hard, and more to the point, expensive.
Supermarkets control the key “choke point” between you as a supplier, and consumers. On occasions when you are pitching a “me too” product, a decision just comes down to the retailer margin and the amount of promotional and advertising dollars that are being thrown at the launch, which both reassures the buyer that you are committed, and offers some confidence that consumers may be receptive. Generally with a “me too” product, you need to be prepared to take something out of your own range to make space, or be able to pinpoint with data an under-performing competitors product that can be deleted.
New products are usually a bit more complicated. For a retailer to put a new product on shelf, in addition to their existing ranges, it is often more than just a simple one in one out decision, particularly if the new product claims to be opening up a new category or subcategory.
In either case, the simple fact is that retailer stores do not have elastic walls, and space needs to be made somehow.
Over the years, I have launched many new products, some category creating products that have been a huge success, and some not so much, and many line extensions of various kinds. However, in the launching of them, I have done hundreds, if not thousands of presentations to supermarket buyers, and found a number of things that should not be said of you are to be successful.
It really is important to recognise that even though you may think your new product is the best thing since sliced bread, supermarket buyers see hundreds a year, and have heard it all before, so your presentation must be sympathetic to that simple fact.
Some of the wrong things to say which have come out of long experience are:
- “Our research says that this product will increase the total size of the mart by $50 million in three years”. You both know that research is usually rubbish, and that everyone lies to supermarket buyers about theirs. If you cannot support the research claims with very solid data, just be honest about it, recognising that even supermarkets buyers cannot tell the future, and be realistic.
- “Our sales forecasts are conservative” See above, and the truth is that the forecasts are usually these days just spreadsheets with autofill, and are really meaningless. Speak more about the assumptions that are the foundation of the numbers rather than the numbers themselves.
- “You are the only chain that has yet to confirm their acceptance and promotional program for this product“. Nonsense. While someone is always last, it will not usually be one of the big retailers. They know you need them more than they need you, so better to honest, although being desperate is also the wrong tactic.
- “XY company, the current category leader is too slow and locked into their ways to react quickly, so we will have this new segment to ourselves for a long period”. Big companies do not usually get big by being stupid, they may be a bit slower than the small guys, but they do know their stuff, and can move quickly when necessary. A buyer will see your confidence as misplaced, and react accordingly.
- “ABC Co do not have the will to risk their cosy positon by innovating” or some similar comment. Denigrating a competitor is a common fault, and should never be done, you just might be denigrating the people who give the buyer his most profitable products, and he will not take kindly to having his stocking decisions being questioned.
- “This product has been protected by patent” More rubbish. Only very few companies have the resources to develop something genuinely new, patent it, then be prepared to spend the megabucks to protect the patent. The last one I can remember is the Nestles cappuccino product in a pouch, a genuine innovation that gave them just a small amount of time before the copy cats arrived. If Nestles cannot so it, you almost certainly cannot, and the buyer knows it, so do not kid yourself.
- “We have first mover advantage“. This is sometimes true, but is may not worth all that much unless there are long lead times involved in equipment. When a new product can be made on existing plant, you cannot usually count on more than about 12 weeks start, after which the copy cats can arrive, correct any mistakes you have made, and capitalise on your investment with consumers to open up the new category. Sometimes it is better to be second mover, and step over the carcass of the pioneer, who gets the arrows in his back. Having said all that, First mover in a genuine innovation does give you a good chance at distribution.
- “Our plant is state of the art“. Retailers do not care much about your plant, so long as their orders are filled, the product is safe for consumers, and moves quickly off their shelves.
There are 40 years experience in these points, some of it painful, but there is no greater (commercial) feeling than seeing a product you have conceived, developed and successfully launched still on the shelves 20 years later, still meeting consumers needs and delivering profits to all concerned.
Feb 24, 2015 | Branding, Innovation, Small business
Today, February 24, 2015 would have been Steve Jobs 60th birthday.
All lives are valuable, few add as much to others as did that of Jobs. I can only guess he is currently hanging off his icloud lecturing St Pete on the shortcomings of the design.
There are thousands better qualified than me to comment on his achievements, but the lessons for those running small businesses are clear:
The value of innovation
Focus, focus and more focus.
Immoveable determination
The inestimable value of being different, bucking convention, and connecting the dots where others see no connection.
The great 1997 “Crazy ones” ad positioned Apple so powerfully in peoples minds that it remains today as perhaps the greatest pieces of positioning communication ever.
Apple under Jobs disrupted markets and created new ones. The music and telephony markets of 2015 bear almost no resemblance to those of 2001. Consumers globally behave differently as a result of Jobs insights.
Few companies or certainly individuals can claim to have had so much impact on the world as Jobs, and paradoxically, as he jealously guarded the proprietary nature of Apples digital ecosystem, he shared his insights and experiences widely, such as in the terrific Stanford commencement address, and captured on his death in these quotes and cartoons .
Seth Godin called Jobs a “ruckusmaker” in his post, but I think he made more than a ruckus, he made a hole in the universe.
Vale Steve Jobs.
Feb 23, 2015 | Branding, Marketing, Small business
8 factors to build a great site
First thing you need to do is decide what you want the site to deliver. Once you have that, you can build the site around the objective. A website has really only two possible purposes: first, it may be commercial, second, it may be a hobby. If you decide that the latter is your sites purpose, save yourself some time, and stop reading now.
However, should it be a commercial objective, the following will have some value for you.
- A headline with a hook. You may get a couple of seconds at best or catch a visitors attention, you must do it with the headline. There are plenty of posts around that tell you how to write a killer headline, but however you do it, you need to be able to hook and engage a casual reader. A great headline focuses on a problem that the reader needs solved. It can be a list, question, or many other forms, but is must be about them, not you.
- Visual and text alignment. The image on the page must reflect what the page, and site are about. Humans are visual animals, we impute a lot of information from visual cues, make sure they are all aligned.
- Logical progression. Being visual we run from headline to sub head, to sub-sub head, and expect there to be a logical progression if information. In the event we do not find it, our minds meander off somewhere, and a visitor will “bounce”.
- Uncluttered clarity. Unclear, disorganised content is death to a casual visitor. They want to find what they are looking for with a minimum of fuss, trouble, and clicks. Make it hard to navigate and they are gone before you know it, probably never to return. In many ways this is similar to the point above, but clarity is more than a logical progression of headlines, it is also the layout, and visitor centric journey through the levels of information.
- Visitor centric page names and headers. A site should be all about the reader, not the site owner. “About us” is perhaps the most common, as well as the worst page name on the web. A visitor does not care about you, they care about them, and what you can do for them. For heavens sake call them “how we can help” or “problems we solve” or something, anything other than “About us”. (perhaps you can hear a hobby horse)
- Relevance and clarity. Irrelevant material must be banned. Just having a video for the sale of having a video, because somebody told you humans were visual animals, or because the bloke down the road has one is stupid.
- Clear, easy to use, call to action. Does not matter what it is, click here for info, download the research, even like us, it has to be clear what you want a visitor to do.
- Mobile editing. More than just “mobile friendly” you site needs to be “mobile edited”, Mobile sites play a different role to desktops. Mobile fills a more short term role satisfying an immediate information need, rather than being a tool for research. Therefore much of the information and links that are usually on a website are superfluous to a mobile, just serving to slow down delivery and extend the “finger-flicking” necessary to get the answer.
None of this is easy, a website that delivers commercial value rarely happens by accident, particularly now when there are over a billion sites plus the social media platforms vying for the limited attention of your audience.
There are many opportunities to vote for the worst website of all time, this is mine as it combines unsurpassed zealotry with a psychedelic “sicko” design that is a stomach churner.
