Apr 14, 2014 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, retail, Sales
Walking into chain retailers these days you are inevitably confronted by displays of product, usually at a discount.
Most people seem to think that it is the retailer doing the promotion as a means to attract added sales, which is true, but the reality is that the promotion is funded by the suppliers, and it is a competition for the retail space that is generally won by those suppliers with the deepest pockets, and best information.
Retailers are in two businesses, selling stuff to consumers, and renting retail space to suppliers. Chain retailers business model relies on a formula that accommodates volume, revenue, and total margin over the space allocated. This can get very complicated, as the number of variables is enormous.
For a supplier to a chain retailer, the challenge is to balance the complex and competing demands of enterprise profitability and investment in the future against the need to meet retailer margin demands necessary to retain access to the consumer via the distribution controlled by the retailer.
Of real significance is the difference between sales that would have been made irrespective of promotional activity the “base sales rate” and sales made in a period as a result of promotional activity, “incremental sales”.
The need to fund retailer margin via promotional allowances is universal, but the sales that occur as a result of the activity may not be there when there is no activity, and are therefore” rented” sales. The effectiveness of the activity has many measures, but to the supplier two measures only are of any real use.
- The real cost of the promotional activity including all discounts on deal volumes and associated co-operative advertising.
- The number of consumers who convert over time from being a rented consumer to one who becomes a part of the base sales volume.
If you are not making these calculations, and adjusting the mix of your expenditure programs accordingly, and are prepared to make some very tough choices on the basis of the information gathered, chances are you are going broke being successful, a very common complaint in the Australian FMCG market.
Apr 1, 2014 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Marketing
What do I do now?
The great paradox in selling is that to sell successfully, we often raise the expectations of those to whom we are selling, but to have satisfied customers, we need to under promise and over-deliver.
Complicating that dilemma of the potential mis-match of promise and delivery is that people hear what they want to hear, filtering out stuff that is inconsistent, unexpected, off their personal radar, or is just uncomfortable, while interpreting and exaggerating the stuff they want to hear. This particularly applies to sales outside the expertise of a customer.
Flicking through the TV channels last night, a bit slower than usual, I saw (another) ad for some sort of home training device that promises to deliver me the body of an Adonis in 10 minutes a day with little effort. A classic case of over promising if ever I saw one, but I guess someone is sucked in every minute, or they would not be aired.
Wonder if the poorer suckers ever get their money back? Guess not, but they do get to keep the flab.
The only antidote is to build a brand that customers trust. To do that you need to deliver on the value proposition consistently, over a considerable period, and act with honestly, humility and transparency. Big call for the “fat-be-gone” industry.
Mar 25, 2014 | Customers, Leadership, Sales, Small business
Many years ago, pre-digital, I gave time to a sales rep who rang up and promised to bring in some samples of brand new products from Europe that had changed the dynamics of the market segments they were in. I presumed that all contained the stuff he sold, but the pitch was persuasive.
The upshot was that he brought in some examples that were at best mundane, that I had seen before, were not innovative in any way, and that I was not interested in hearing about. Then I had to be rude to get rid of him and his lying pitch, but was further subjected to a stream calls, letters, offers, and promises from him and his superiors that “spoke ” to me as if I was a red hot prospect, desperate to throw myself at their shitty product.
He wasted my time, misled me, and then continued to irritate by trying to waste more of my time and presumed a relationship that did not exist, and that I would not have, and I have never forgotten the lesson.
Don’t waste peoples time!
The older I get, the more intolerant I seem to get when someone consumes that most valuable of all our resources, time, and I was pretty “bolshie” 25 years ago when this happened.
Whilst today everything moves so much faster than before, our time is if anything more valuable, but the presumption of those who want our attention seems to be that we all have plenty to share and usually waste.
One of the most effective sales people I have ever seen made appointments for 10 minutes each. He promised not to take more than the 10, and to deliver something of value while he was there, and he always did. No coffee, no chat about last nights football, straight to the point in 10 minutes or less, and any more time spent was entirely at the discretion of the appointee, he was always ready to leave, having delivered his pitch.
He valued peoples time and attention, so he got more of it.
Are you asking your people to waste not just their time, but that of those with whom they are paid to interact?
Mar 10, 2014 | Branding, Customers
We all seek value, we set out to buy when we find it, but all too often, we settle on price as the measure, when price is only one component of the mix of factors that makes up “value”. The challenging thing is that even each individuals perception of value can change radically depending on context.
I tried to catch a taxi last week in the CBD, mid afternoon, and it was raining very lightly, I was late for an appointment,………
No hope, none at all. AAARRRRHHHH!!!!
There was also one of those sensational exposes on TV last week about the taxi industry in Sydney, how bloody awful it is, poor cars, badly serviced, flagrant profiteering by those who own the licences, and so on, typical populist “news comment”. However, those who own the licences, and those who issue them were declaring righteously how good it really was, and we better all wise up and understand that they had high standards, and the fares were managed to ensure we could all get a cab when we needed one, at a fair price.
What crap. Clearly, the model is broken.
The growth of Uber has been explosive after a shaky start in San Francisco in 2008, it went from an idea to a valuation of 304 million in 4 years.
They do not own a fleet of cars
They do not employ many people
They deliver a service people are prepared to pay for.
The service has always been there, it is called a Taxi, but taxi regulation obsesses about low fares, and regulation, making sure everyone is the same, Uber obsesses about Value. Same service, getting from point A to point B, Uber just does it differently and arguably more reliably than our regulated taxi service. However, you pay for it.
Their model enables cars to be called up in peak demand, but at peak demand, you also get peak prices, the surge pricing model kicks in. You can get a ride at 3.00 in a rainy CBD, but you pay for it.
Back to my taxi dilemma, when I have time, and it is not raining, there are many transport options, of which a taxi is one, but when there is no time, and it is raining the value of having a taxi there when I need it is enormous.
Value is extremely context sensitive and variable.
Does your marketing reflect this reality?
Mar 4, 2014 | Customers, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
Innovation is a process, mostly it is managed for better or worse with some sort of stage-gate process.
Sensitive project management of innovation is vital, the context of the project, the culture, management engagement, business model, the source of resources used, funding, and all the rest are critically important, and blend into a system.
However, one vital consideration often under-considered, or missed, in development projects is the evolution of the Customer Value Proposition.
Concentrating on the product, its specifications, the technology, operational considerations, design and engineering, and all the rest are vital, but ultimately, it is the customer who puts their hand in their pocket, and allocates, or otherwise, their scarce resources to your products. They will only make that choice in your favour when it is in their interests to do so.
Why is it then that the foundations of the value proposition, the identification, characteristics, interaction, and measurement of the drivers that will deliver customer value and therefore sales are often ignored, or glossed over? In my experience, it is usually because the developers fall in love with their products and designs, not really considering them from the customer perspective.
The value proposition usually evolves during the design and pilot process, but only if it is allowed to.
Sensibly, there is a second stage gate process, one that is parallel to the product development, the value development process which critically translates the product features into customer value as they evolve.
A test of the success of the value development process is the depth of the debate about price. A successful VDP will preclude almost any debate, and certainly the most often used determinants of prices, being cost and competitor activity, will be relegated to the bottom of the pile of considerations.
Feb 18, 2014 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Marketing, Sales
Jan Carlzons great 1987 book Moments of Truth reflected on the point at which a “front line” employee interacted with a customer, and how important that interaction was. The digitisation of our lives has profoundly changed the context in which interactions occur, the moment is no longer the point at which some personal interaction occurs, it is now far more likely that it will be a digital one, and in addition, “front line” now includes everybody.
The idea of Moments of truth needs to be expanded, and categorised so they can be managed independently if it is to be of much more than a cliche.
- Opening moments of truth. That may occur anywhere!! Anyhow on a range of platforms.
- Referral moment of truth, When someone refers someone else to a web site, blog post, social media platform etc.
- Conversion moments of truth. When a “lead” evolves into a “prospect”. Then there are more as the prospect moves through the system to the transaction
- Depart moments of truth. The point at which prospects drop out of the funnel, what do you do with them then? Do not lose them!!!! Figure out how to re-engage.
- Recidivism moments of truth. The point at which a departed prospect returns to the funnel. Sales funnels as a metaphor work, but the neat, orderly and logical progression seen on all the whiteboards and consultant presentations are far from the truth. The process of moving a contact through a set of steps towards a transaction, then hopefully, many subsequent transactions is messy, random, often illogical and emotional. Therefore, a key marketing task is to raise your recidivism rate
- Apostle moments of truth. When a user becomes an advocate, an apostle, for you.
- Complaint moments of truth. When customers complain, that is potentially full of information, and opportunity to serve them better, discover where and how you can improve, and convert them to advocates. Alternatively, give them to your competition to harass, as the customer is not always right, but the right customer is always right.
- Loyalist moments of truth. When loyal customers return, they do so because they have been satisfied in the past, convenience, the offer is compelling, and sometimes just because it is easy. A returning customer costs way less than it costs to find a new one, the loyalists are the financial backbone of every enterprise, thank them, and treat them like you are grateful for their custom, and pleased to see them again.
I tried some word games to make the list more memorable, hopefully you can do better than me, I’m just happy that the idea that the context of MOT’s reflects the way you should treat it.
Walking into chain retailers these days you are inevitably confronted by displays of product, usually at a discount.
