Jan 3, 2014 | Change, Management, Strategy
In a post in January last year, I made 10 predictions for 2013. In the interests of accountability, it is reasonable to see how I went.
So, here goes:
- Marketing is digital and personal, mass marketing is dead! As with Mark Twain’s quip that reports of his death appear to be premature, so to are the reports of the death of mass marketing. However, the trend is clear, and the grim reaper is ‘a comin’. 3/5.
- Social media will overtake traditional news dissemination channels. Few of us wait these days for the evening news to hear about the events of the day. Even if we have not seen it in out twitter feeds, somebody we know has, and has told us. The role of traditional media as a disseminator of news, rather than a source of analysis of the, is clearly over. Arguably the analysis role is also kaput, as traditional media appears to have been highly politicised to reflect the views of the owners, that real analysis hardly occurs. Anyway, who goes to the 7.30 “analysis” shows on TV for anything beyond the foot in the door, inane, and emotive “journalism”. 4/5.
- A few smart SME’s will do very well, but the rest will at best struggle, and many will fail. Still true. 5/5.
- The new “cool” for our kids is to train as a “tradie” as there are insufficient fulfilling jobs left for those with modest, non vocational degrees, to fill demand from the aforementioned graduates. Still true, and getting truer. 4/5
- The shortage of willing and able workers will continue, as we no longer train people to work, we train them to “expect”. As above. A client of mine has a number of farm worker under 457 visas, several of them very qualified (pharmacy, teacher) working happily for wages unemployed Australians turn their noses up at. 5/5
- The 40% of SME’s who do not have web sites, or have sites that act only as an electronic brochure rather than as a magnet to their target customers need to realise they are missing the opportunity to grab the lifeline. Still true. Several services have evolved in the last 12 months that make it even easier. WordPress still rules the roost, but services like Weebly make it even easier again, there is no longer any excuse. This site, Yarralong.com run by a friend of my sisters was done in a few hours on Weebly by someone with few computer skills at all, just a bit of common sense and patience. 3/5
- “Big Data” the combination of traditional data bases and the behavioural and attitudinal data scavenged from social media will become the next big thing during 2013. I still believe this, but the change is slower than I expected. 2/5
- Mobile will take over from fixed line, comprehensively, and across all communication channels. Almost done. 4/5
- The economy will continue to slow, consumers are cautious and risk averse. No change there, the economy is slowing rapidly, in my anecdotal view, slower than the public figures would lead commentators relying on the numbers to see. 2014 will be a crappy year, notwithstanding the drop in the $A. Manufacturing is down the toilet, investment is slowing rapidly, retailers are struggling, large areas of rural Australia are again in the grip of drought, and more will tip into drought as winter approaches. The long paddock will be well used. 4/5
- Around July/August, the economy will stumble into a really nasty hole as we approach a Federal election. The hole was not as deep as I anticipated, but the numbers emerging in the post election period are pretty grim, and we wait to see if the new government has any real strategy, or if they will continue just to dump on the previous government, and focus on getting elected again by spending our children’s legacy. 4/5
Marking yourself can be self serving, so let me know what you think.
Dec 23, 2013 | Change, Management, Operations, Strategy
Amongst all the emotional rhetoric and dubious numbers being visited upon us by various interest groups and pollies after the announcement by GM that they will be folding their tents, there seems to be very little sensible analysis of the whole picture. Comment has all been focussed on the current supply chain, the economic and social impact of its crumbling, and what others should have done in the past to prevent it, and now clammering for compensation.
Compensation for what?
Lets have a look at some of the more common blathering.
- Holden is a national icon. GM is a huge multinational company, with problems facing it appropriate to its scale. Australia is a pimple on its arse, no matter how much we blather about “Holden, the national icon”. Why should we continue to support its operations here? If they are not commercially sustainable on their own merits, experience suggests, it is just a matter of time, and the longer we administer the medicine, the more painful the withdrawal.
- The workers need compensation. Fair enough, there will be pain in many households supported by Holden, and Ford over Christmas. However, compensation for what, where are the lines drawn? These workers have had many years of news that their employers are in the edge, so the announcements should not be a surprise, and now they have 4 years notice, and generous redundancy. There are many thousands of worker that have been displaced over the past 20 years who would have killed for just a month of notice and modest redundancy, let alone the largess heading the way of displaced auto industry workers.
- The supplier businesses need compensation. Similarly, the manufacturers in the supply chain, now to be supplying only Toyota whilst they remain manufacturing here, are facing tough times. Should be no news in any of this for them, so failure to adapt over several strategic horizons should not be an excuse for handouts.
- Employees pay taxes. So, the argument goes, being employed, even by a subsidised industry, owned overseas, is better than having them unemployed and the industry closed. This is the sort of economic and social poop, ignoring the lessons of many past disruptions that even the far left should be embarrassed about.
- The industry is the engineering University of Australia. There is some real truth in this, the capabilities nurtured by the car industry have benefited many other industries. However, as the decline in manufacturing in this country is across the board, not just in the car industries, perhaps we should be considering engineering capabilities in the wider context than just one industry that is clearly at the end of its life as it has been run to date. Australia has several sources of potential international competitiveness, mining engineering and technical mining services, solar engineering are just two. The fist of these we squeezed mercilessly for current income, disregarding the long term opportunities to build sustainable engineering capabilities, the second of which we actively encouraged to go overseas to find financial and technical support. How stupid are we?
- Loss of sovereignty. Perhaps the most spurious of the lot. As it goes, without the car industry we have no ability to defend ourselves, no national pride, no capacity to be Australian. Given that only 20% of the cars sold over the last couple of years have been manufactured here, this argument holds little water.
The solutions for the car industry have been obvious for a while, and although not easy, or without risk are not inconsistent with the commercial choices faced by any firm in an industry facing disruption. A few companies have embraced them. Futuris, a former subsidiary of Elders, and a major suppliers of car seats went offshore several years ago, and are reaping the rewards, and there are others, although way too few, who have moved to accommodate the long term trends in the industry, and have prospered.
Here is where I have problems. We are focussed on the political cycle, short term returns, ideology lacking foundation in the real behaviour of real people, and an expectation that it will be all done for us, by the “government”, forgetting that the government is us, spending our money in ways that suit them, and their political priorities, that have little to do with the long term development of engineering capabilities in the country.
Bit like Canute up to his arse in waves bitching about the tide.
Dec 19, 2013 | Change, Customers, Sales
Had an interesting debate at a conference a short time ago, something that I think makes a big difference, but is not usually considered, at least in my experience. The debate was the merits of pitching Vs what I call “long form selling”
Selling is a process, it takes time, effort, and involves multiple touch-points as a relationship evolves that can lead to a sale. Obviously the process varies depending on many factors, you would not expect to spend much time considering the competing merits of different paper-clips, but power stations are a bit different.
By contrast, a pitch is a yes/no equation. You get one shot, a short time, little opportunity to build rapport and points of empathy with your audience. Make or break.
In some industries pitches are the norm, nobody thinks much beyond the immediacy, they are the all there is. In others, long form selling is the norm.
Often the forms are mixed up.
Being an account executive selling to an Australian supermarket retailer is usually called “selling” but the reality is that it is just a series of pitches, with little opportunity to build a relationship much beyond knowing the other parties name and a few commercial characteristics.
Clearly, the greater the imbalance of power in the conversation, the more likely each interaction will look like a pitch. The task of the seller in that case is to take control of the conversation, and ensure it is a process, with opportunities to revisit and review, not just a once off opportunity to sell.
I know which I prefer, but I also know which focuses the mind.
Dec 18, 2013 | Change, Collaboration, Leadership, Strategy
Years ago I worked in a small management group that was faced with the resurrection of a failed business. Problem was, the parent company was blissfully unaware, as the poor performance was hidden inside the operations and overhead recovery of the much larger parent entity.
When it was broken out as a separate division, I did the first P&L, in those days by hand on a 25 column ledger sheet, (any readers remember those?) and wondered what the hell I had done leaving my comfy corporate marketing job for this pile of smelly, baked-on crap.
Over a period of 6 years, this small group turned the business around. It was profitable, 5 times the size, and strategically well positioned. Then the MD of the parent woke up with a good idea in his hand and re-merged the division back into the larger business in an effort to capture some of the successful competitive DNA we had grown. You know what happened then.
Upon reflection, the core of our success was two things:
- Relentless focus on the things that mattered. We relentlessly identified problems and their root causes, and attacked them as a group, disregarding the superfluous, distracting, and often attractive alternative opportunities to spend our time.
- We worked together. The management group, a pretty standard functional arrangement argued, experimented, and engaged as many people as we could who may have something to contribute. People on the operational floor often had the solutions to problems before we had identified the problem adequately, no information was privileged, apart from salary levels, and every pair of eyeballs, and voice listened to, and encouraged. We just had to trust everyone, and it worked. By having many eyeballs on everything, we always had better outcomes.
I am reminded of all this, some 25 years later, with pride, some nostalgia, and sadness. One of that small group died last week, and many of those involved attended his funeral yesterday, it was a sad but joyful day.
Vale my friend and colleague George McDonald, St Peter better have a solid lock on the VB fridge.
Dec 11, 2013 | Branding, Change, Collaboration, Leadership, Marketing
In some circumstances, “collective clarity” may be a synonym for alignment, but in others it is an entirely different beast.
Currently I am involved in a project that aims to bring together a small group of specialist growers and retailers into a collaborative framework that delivers fresh Sydney basin produce to consumers, and contributes to the building of a brand. “Sydney Harvest“, if successful in pilot, offers the opportunity for commercial sustainability to both Sydney basin farmers and specialist retailers. In the process of developing this project, which seeks to re-engineer the supply chain in response to the economy wide trends that are placing huge pressure on the viability of agriculture in urban proximity, the differences have become stark.
Alignment is typically sought inside a commercial entity, all employees, and stakeholders having a clear understanding of the enterprises direction, priorities, and resources availabilities so each can see the bigger picture, beyond just their area of operation, and act accordingly.
Collective clarity, by contrast, is a term I have started to use to describe the necessity of having a common view of the end point of a collaborative project amongst all collaborators, as well as of the key project collaborative points along the way. This is external to any of the individual enterprises.
By its nature, a collaboration is not subject to the same management thinking that prevails in commercial enterprises, as collaborators are all independent, and sometimes competitive businesses. It therefore requires that they all recognize that their individual best interests are best served by serving the best interests of the collaboration, a big ask.
This Collective clarity is required amongst collaborators for a successful collaboration, alignment as commonly articulated as being internal, is not.
Each individual business will still be managed independently, in their own way. The processes that impact on the collective operations will usually be only a small part of the overall, and so will often require a different perspective, and explicit management, and leadership to be effective.
I would welcome feedback on this idea, as I have not seen it articulated before.
Dec 5, 2013 | Change, Customers, Marketing, Sales
Some marketing activity is aimed at creating demand, alerting people to a value proposition. Other so called marketing activity is aimed at delivering an offer, an important but very different activity to demand creation.
Consider the difference between most ads on TV, and the yellow pages. The former generally sets out to tell you why you should buy something, whereas the yellow pages is a list of places where you can go to get delivery.
Which leads me to all the all the banner ads on the web, those persistent, annoying and endlessly crappy pop-ups that appear. I have just upgraded from windows XP to Windows 7 as I replaced my laptop, not wanting the leap to windows 8, just a step too far, and have not yet figured out how to avoid the apparent thousands of pop ups plaguing my screen. None are likely to get my attention beyond wanting to strangle the silly bastard who is paying somebody to disrupt me in the belief that I will react positively to the disruption.
The old laws of supply and demand still work. The supply of space into which to place a banner ad on the web is infinite, so any price is too much, and it does not work, like an ad in the yellow pages does not work to create demand, just where to get it once you have decided to buy something.
