5 meanings of ‘Send me a proposal’

Oct 21, 2019 | Customers, Management

 

Send me a proposal is a phrase I hear from time to time, and most of my clients hear often.

The challenge is to interpret what it really means.

Possible meaning 1. You have their attention, your pitch has generated genuine interest, and it is likely that there will be a job here, assuming the demons of the procurement process, and that person in the background with the power of veto, is amenable. Great.

Possible meaning 2. There is a job here, but you are not going to get it. Our procurement process requires us to have three quotes, and yours is number three. We can now confirm our first choice has the job.

Possible meaning 3. Great meeting you, thanks for the time and information. Your offer is really interesting, and I would like to go ahead, but cannot. However, I really like you, and would not want you to feel as if you have wasted your time, so send me a proposal.

Possible meaning 4. We think we have a problem, but are not sure, and even if we have, are not sure if it is worth addressing. Therefore, have a think about it, do some preliminary research, and give us your views, we will be grateful, we will both know  a bit more.

Possible meaning 5. I am just making myself feel important by asking for a proposal, but do not have the authority or budget to commission such a crazy project.

Clearly there are many variations, but they seem to boil down to these five.

I recently made the mistake of preparing a proposal for an industry body, knowing at the back of my mind that it was a waste of time, but the exercise of gathering the information to prepare it was useful for other reasons, so I proceeded. As anticipated, there have been a number of requests to amend the proposal, which has been done, but I do  not anticipate a green light any time soon.

As consultants, and service providers, we can spend a lot of time preparing proposals that will never go anywhere, and the time we spend is not valued by those who are asking us to do the preparation. It is up to us to leverage the opportunities as we best we can.

There are several strategies you may want to think about, all require you to have some sort of

‘RFQ Qualification’ process in place.

  • Politely decline the opportunity. It seems that sometimes when you do this, it just confirms in the mind of the potential client that you are in fact the right person for the job. You can then go around again if you choose to.
  • Reframe the RFQ so that you are responding to the question through a different frame from the one your competitors will use. At least that way, a real choice has to be made, and perhaps some deeper thought put into the brief, and ultimate choice. Sometimes this works.
  • Subcontract the job to someone else, and should they get it, you can clip the ticket.
  • Run for the hills.

In most cases where a proposal that acts as a competitive tender is required, there will already be a preferred tenderer. If you do not know who it is, it is not you!

 

Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams, again nails it.

 

 

 

An alternative view of ‘KPI”

Oct 11, 2019 | Customers, Marketing

 

We all understand the term ‘KPI’, Key Performance Indicator. It is always used as a term to describe internal performance metrics.

Our customers employ us to deliver value, a solution to their problems, a means to deliver some sort of gratification. Yet, we use as performance measures things that are of importance to us, usually irrelevant to customers. Sales revenue, margins, share of wallet, customer churn, inventory turn, factory efficiencies, and so on.

How many of your customers give a toss about your factory efficiencies or sales revenue?   The reason they came to you is that you made them a promise, sometimes unspoken via your brand, sometimes explicit via your advertising.

Perhaps the KPI metric should be reversed to ‘Kept Promise Index’.

The promises we make have no positive weight unless they are kept, then they carry weight. When promises are not kept, they also carry weight, far greater than when they are kept, but it is negative weight.

In my experience, a promise not kept is remembered, commented upon, often generating disproportionate  anger and frustration to be vented somewhere, usually these days on social media.

Last week my internet service went down without notice for 16 hours, as always, right in the middle of a research project. I will remember that, and act on it, whereas for probably 99.9% of the time, the service is there, uninterrupted, at my demand, but that is the promise, so I will not necessarily remember that 99.9%, it is simply expected.

However, when the promise is made explicit, and it comes with a guarantee, it can become a huge marketing benefit. For example, if I was a plumber servicing domestic  markets, I would explicitly make two promises: turn up when promised, and leave the work site cleaner when we leave than it was when we arrived, or there is no charge.

I think there would be a premium price in that, as it is a guarantee of a promise to be kept!

How many of your KPI’s would your customers care about?

 

Header cartoon courtesy Scott Adams and ‘Dilbert’

How do you delight a customer?

Oct 7, 2019 | Customers, Marketing

Delight the customer has become a cliché, popping up in all sorts of places from PR blurb, to websites, mission statements, and sales rev-ups.

However, few seem to have any real idea of what it really means, can put a solid foundation under the fluff, to make it something meaningful.

I asked the question recently of a group, one of whom had used the words as a throwaway.

 ‘What does delight the customer mean to you’?

I got the expected fluffy strings of adjectives and adverbs back, until someone at the back of the room came up with what I think is the right answer.

She said, ‘We provide an answer to a pressing problem for our customers that is dramatically superior to anything else they have seen’

Do that, and no matter the words, your customer will be delighted.

 

Photo credit: David Woo via Flikr

How can you build a relationship with an algorithm?

How can you build a relationship with an algorithm?

Sep 2, 2019 | Customers, Marketing

You cannot.

Building a relationship with an algorithm is beyond even the wildest imaginings of the ‘AI forever’ set, which is why I prefer people.

Algorithms are there to be gamed.

On the provider side, wherever you see a platform that uses ranking algorithms, at some point, it will become a pay for performance regime. Equally, when the algorithm is king, the gamers who understand the system better than you, will win. Algorithms cannot tell the difference  between an article ‘written’ by another AI algorithm, and one that you sweated over, but your friends and connections who genuinely know you can.

When you meet someone and you seem to be on their ‘wavelength,’ stuff happens, deep conversations, referrals, collaboration. When was the last time an algorithm referred you to someone that was useful, and who had not paid for the referral via some means or another?

What happens when you receive a thank you via email, generated by an autoresponder? You ignore it, often do not open it, but if you recieved  a hand written note, posted, it is opened every time, and remembered.

It takes a bit more effort, which is why it works, it taps our deepest needs to be social and connected to people.

Algorithms are not human, they have no conscience or social awareness.

If I suggested that we put an ad for grog at an AA meeting, you would be disgusted with me. However, and algorithm does not have any social conscience. Such an ad would likely be very successful, and deliver a great ROI on the advertising cost, which is what  algorithms are designed to do.

In our digitising world, those who continue to demonstrate their  humanity will win in the end.

Header cartoon courtesy Tomgauld.com

 

 

The hyperbole trap

The hyperbole trap

Aug 21, 2019 | Communication, Customers

 

We marketers as a stereotype tend to adjective driven descriptions that make little logical sense, and in some cases, are in fact misleading.

Yesterday in a major supermarket deli section I saw two examples that should be taken out the back and flogged.

The first was ‘organic salami’. I am aware of organic chicken, beef, tomatoes, and others, but I am unaware of an organic salami running around anywhere. I am not sure I would recognise a live salami if I saw one.  Presumably the motivated copywriter hidden in the bowels of the retailer, or more probably, a well-meaning deli manager in the store, wanted to differentiate this salami from the others on display. They were probably made in the same factory, from the same ingredients as some of the others,  and certainly were not certified organic. Hyperbolic over-reach, and either completely incorrect, or the rules governing the use of the word ‘organic’, have been radically and terminally loosened since the last time I looked.

The second, equally misleading, was ‘Fresh Sea Barramundi’. Unfortunately for the copywriter, barramundi is a fish species that does not live in the sea, it is native to the coastal rivers of northern Australia, with close genetic relatives found throughout S.E. Asia.  The only exception to this rule of nature is when the barra is ‘farmed’, presumably not an attractive description. Again, a misleading and factually wrong product description used in the quest for hyperbolic impact.

I am nit-picking, these examples are relatively minor in the scheme of things that are manipulated to attract consumers, but nevertheless, struck a chord when I saw them. I will admit to a chuckle at the evident lack of recognition that most consumers are not fools, and would see through the hyperbole for what it was: flowery and meaningless language.

However, retailers are held to account. Regulators do not like false product descriptions, and more importantly, consumers, who have come to accept that the food they buy in supermarkets is as described, may start to have the trust eroded, just a tiny bit by such nonsense, and in the long term, this will damage the supermarkets brand.   

Do you allow your marketing people to wax illogically lyrical, or insist on well crafted copy that delivers a value proposition devoid of superfluous hyperbole?

 

Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gault.

 

 

 

 

The cost of failing to build brands

The cost of failing to build brands

Aug 12, 2019 | Branding, Customers, Governance, Marketing

 

Direct marketing is highly tactical, it is a one on one communication from the marketer to the consumer. Within the boundaries of some limitations, the outcome of direct marketing can be quantified with a considerable level of confidence.

You either got a response, or you did not. It is tactical, short term, and transactional.

Because it is so responsive to short term quantification, and our digital lives are all about quantification, these tactical elements are now predominant. However, there is no evidence that tactical activity alone will build a brand, and plenty that an overuse of tactical stuff will actually destroy a brand.

By contrast, building a brand takes time, investment, a great strategy, and the nerve to continue in the face of debatable real time data, and short term expediency.

Just look at what has happened to proprietary brands in supermarkets. They have been destroyed by the power of the retailers demanding tactical promotional dollars, which is code for retailer margin protection. This has been given by suppliers, usually reluctantly, at the expense of brand building, simply because it is easier and expedient in the short term to comply.

Consider Meadow Lea. At its height, Meadow Lea had a 23% market share at premium prices in a crowded and growing margarine market. The great advertising supported by a range of customer focussed promotional activity that had built the brand, was stopped in favour of tactical retailer price promotions. Now, 20 years later, Meadow Lea is just a label on a few Sku’s in the chiller cabinet.

Imagine you are the marketing manager of a branded product, you have a finite marketing budget. You need to convince the CEO, who is an engineer or an accountant, that it is better to keep advertising for  the long term health of the brand, than give in to powerful retailer demands for various forms of retailer margin supplementation, which will retain distribution in the short term. This has been a very hard argument to win for all but a very few FMCG marketers. With the benefit of hindsight, it has been a vital one that was lost.  

Had the argument been won, and a balance between the two been found, what would have been the difference to the revenue and margins of both retailers and Meadow Lea Foods?? Most probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and consumers would have benefitted by  continued value innovation in the spreads  category, which has been stagnant for years.