Sep 5, 2022 | Customers, Innovation
Some weeks ago, I found myself as a participant in a workshop touted to be one that was focussed on solving a problem by use of ‘design thinking’
Unfortunately, it was a waste of everyone’s time. Partly this was because the problem we were supposed to be solving was inadequately and inaccurately defined, and partly because the person running it had no practical idea of what ‘design thinking’ really was.
Spoiler alert: it has nothing to do with the visual definition of ‘design’
‘Design thinking’ is no more than a process that starts and ends with delivering value to the customer.
The typical stages are:
- Understanding of customer behaviour.
- Ideation based on that understanding
- Prototyping and testing of solutions to the challenges faced by customers
- Continuous and Intense feedback during testing and prototyping
- Integration of the finished prototypes into the final product offering
- ‘Shipping’ the solution to customers.
The greater the involvement of customers during this process the better.
Simple to say, very hard to do well.
PS. The fails in design thinking are rarely as obvious as the example in the header.
Aug 17, 2022 | Customers, Marketing
In many major companies, there has been a number of new positions created in the last decade to try and accommodate the changes in the strategic and competitive environment.
Among them has been the ‘Chief Revenue Officer’ (CRO)
In some cases, this reflects the need for increased collaboration and sometimes convergence of marketing and sales. In others, it is just the fashion, the latest management fad.
This seems to be particularly the case in businesses where another of those-acronym driven fads has evolved, ABM, (Account Based Marketing)
The barriers to the integration of Marketing and Sales are high, deeply set into the functional status quo of most organisations, and resistant to change. However, the emergence of digital tools has accelerated the trend, and the recent Covid challenges have been a catalyst for further and quicker evolution than would otherwise have been the case.
For years I have been advocating ‘Alignment’ of marketing and sales to the needs of specific customers, and ways to achieve that outcome.
Removing the Marketing and Sales labels has proved to be useful to the integration. The emerging combined function recognises that the responsibility of each is simply Revenue Generation, or ‘RevGen’
The first substantial consulting assignment I had, well over 20 years ago introduced my client, a domestically owned multinational supplier of ingredients to the food industry, to Strategic Key Account Management. (Try the acronym, always got a chuckle)
We went through a process of identifying the specific needs of key customers, and tailored our marketing and sales effort, to the expressed and often jointly uncovered needs of customers, with whom we engaged in the process.
Those workshops and subsequent implementation efforts are as relevant now as they were 20 years ago, probably more so. It has just been renamed Revenue Generation.
SKAM required that the marketing and sales personnel collaborated and engaged customers at decision making levels to identify how my client could add value to their customers businesses. The core assumption was that only by doing one or more of the following, could we be successful.
- Assisting our customers to increase their sales,
- Actively reducing their costs or
- Increasing their productivity.
We set ourselves the task of identifying how we could achieve at least one of those three things, preferably two, and focussed our efforts on delivering those outcomes.
Predictably, it was a successful initiative. Customers loved the collaboration. Inventory levels reduced, as customer service levels and responsiveness increased, generating increased trading profits.
I had a coffee with one of the managers from that business, now a very senior bloke in a multinational organisation a couple of weeks ago, during which he told me that he still uses the three-part test, and insists his team use it. The longevity of the idea, and the impact it has had is gratifying!
Header comes from the extensive StrategyAudit slide bank.
Jul 4, 2022 | Customers, Sales
We understand that the behaviour we reward is the one we get. It is the way we train our pets.
Many also tend to overweight commissions when we pay salespeople, rewarding a set of behaviours, some of which may not be what we want.
Years ago, we learnt that paying piece rates in a factory resulted in quality problems, and myriad ways of ‘gaming’ the system to the detriment of the overall numbers.
Why have we not applied the same lessons to sales commissions?
I will not argue that the best salespeople do not deserve to earn more than the average. The question is how much more, and how do we increase the overall productivity of the investment in sales so that there is more to share?
The answer lies in the results of the enterprise, and the way the enterprise then shares those outcomes across all stakeholders.
Collaborative teams work in factories, we have used them successfully to improve productivity and quality while reducing costs for 40 years. It makes sense to deploy similar tactics in your sales force.
Sharing customer, competitor and market information, and the best practice sales techniques amongst all salespeople, learning from each other, will lift the average without compromising the best.
Not all salespeople need to be on the same salary, but they should all have a common interest in making the enterprise successful by maximising the impact of the investment made in generating revenue.
Bonuses paid to salespeople tend to be tied to volumes, and/or profitability of the sales they make. However, all sales are not equal.
Let’s assume the strategy calls for expansion into an adjacent market. There is marketing expenditure directed towards generating awareness of the enterprise, and the value it delivers in that adjacent market, but there are established competitors whose best interest is to see you fail. In that case, you need your best salespeople on the case, but they may be reluctant if most of their income is tied to commissions on the same calculation base as the easier sales. In that case, there needs to be recognition of the greater difficulty, as well as the strategic imperative.
There is no one size fits all template that will be useful to you.
However, starting by tying remuneration of the individual to the outcomes of related work groups, strategic priorities, and enterprise outcomes is a start.
Header cartoon courtesy of Scott Adams and Dilbert.
Jun 24, 2022 | Customers, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Sales
In the past, for the orderly management and convenience of organisations, Sales and Marketing have been kept by management in separate functional silos.
In a time of flattened organisation structures and the ease of communication and data sharing, this no longer makes any sense at all.
The evolution of the silos to one functional area of responsibility will remove substantial opportunity for the transaction costs incurred by turf wars, miscommunication, and unaligned objectives, to be eliminated.
From a customer’s perspective, how you are organised internally is irrelevant, they are looking for the products and services that solve their problems or address their opportunities in the most cost-effective way.
The vast majority of interactions a customer will have with a supplier will be cross functional. Over the course of a transaction, they will interact with sales, technical service, after sales service, and logistics, probably sequentially.
The power in the sales relationship has moved from the seller, who had control of the information necessary for a customer to make a purchase decision, to the buyer. In past days, the sellers only delivered the information that benefitted them, but those days are almost gone. This process has been gathering speed since the mid-nineties, and now dominates every transaction beyond small scale consumer purchases like groceries, and even there, the need to be clear about the ingredients, their sources and provenance is pervasive.
Both sales and marketing silos have the same ultimate objective: to generate a sale, and preferably a relationship that leads to a continuing flow of orders. The combination of the silos into one, Revenue Generation, makes logical organisational sense in this new environment, as well as better reflecting the way customers interact.
Sources of revenue.
Isolating the sources of revenue is a crucial component in effectively managing the revenue generation function. Luckily, the sources can be summarised into three areas.
- Customers. Which customers buy what products, in what volumes, how often?,
- Markets. There are many ways you can dissect a market. Geographically, customer type, customer purchase model, product type, depth of competitive activity, lifecycle stage, and others.
- Product. Product type, mix, price points, lifecycle stage, margin, potential, and others.
Together these three axes form a three dimensional matrix from which your revenue is derived. The task of the RevGen personnel is to maximise the revenue today, and into the future, while minimising or at least optimising the cost of generating that revenue.
Type of Revenue.
Considering not only the source of the revenue, but also the type is a crucial part of the equation that will lead to long term profitability. Again, there are three broad categories into which all revenue can fall.
- Transactional. One off sales that require little else at the point of the transaction beyond a mechanism to execute the exchange of goods for money.
- Packaged. This category is by far the biggest, as it contains all sales that come with a ‘ticket’ of some sort. That ticket may be a guarantee of service, warranty period, assurance of quality via a brand, bundled pricing, promotional support, and many others.
- Subscription. With the emergence of the internet, subscription sales are growing rapidly at the expense of the packaged sales. This exchanges the upfront revenue of a sale for an ongoing revenue stream based on use, time, or both product and service. The emergence of the ‘cloud’ has spawned a host of new business models that use subscription as their base, but it is not new. Xerox used subscription for decades by leasing their equipment, then charging for usage on top. Similarly, Goodyear moved their sales of tyres to the airline industry from a sale to a usage model in the 80’s to sidestep the simple fact that their tyres were more expensive, but lasted longer. This encapsulated the price sensitive nature of airline purchases, with the savings over time because their tyres lasted for more landings than did the opposition.
Thought about these variations all have resulted in an exploding range of business models over the last 20 years, making the task of managing the generation of revenue way more complex, and therefore also opening opportunities for those who can think creatively about the task.
When you need some creative outside experience in this complex menagerie, give me a call.
Jun 13, 2022 | Customers, Marketing
Manufacturing Week was last week in Sydney. I spent Wednesday there, snooping for solutions to problems most of my SME manufacturing clients may not yet recognise they have, and just looking for ideas.
Found one that might be useful, but it was hard going, very hard going.
There were 170 exhibitors in one of the ICC halls, ranging from the small 9 square foot booths to enormous installations that must have cost tens of thousands just for the floor space. On top of that there was the cost of the installation of the gear, manning the stands, and all the associated costs.
Every stand had the name of the company emblazoned somewhere.
Not one stand, not one, had any reference to the problems they solved.
Why?
It is useful to have the names up there. Many visitors would find their existing suppliers to have a yarn, complain about service, look at the new versions, or do a deal. However, those like me, with a problem to solve, the name of the company is of little use.
How much better would it be for them to have up in lights the problems their products are uniquely designed to solve?
I had a look at several participants websites, and they make the same mistake.
They almost all have an ‘About us’ page. It might make them feel good, but I am not interested in the family history, or the great awards they have won, I only care about the problem they solve for me.
They all fail my 3 second Vegemite test, and as a result have wasted at least part of the investment made in being there.
Where are their marketing people hiding?
Having thrown a brickbat, it is also fair to acknowledge that there was some pretty impressive stuff on show.
Header photo courtesy university of Woolongong.
May 16, 2022 | Customers, Governance
When a rule is made by some institution, seemingly in the best interests of the community, most citizens accept the rule and do their best to adhere.
This applies from the rules introduced by local councils to moderate litter, to the larger tax and commercial governance rules applies by federal governments.
Some rules are just ‘semi-rules’. The intent is to substitute for common sense, rather than attracting enforcement in the breaking of them.
Problem is that once you have a rule which dictates behaviour, any behaviour that is not explicitly outlawed becomes OK. That has led to armies of lawyers and accountants using unintentional loopholes in tax laws to slide through.
The wider impact is that the community ceases to consider what is ‘right and wrong’, substituting the question ‘is it legal: Yes/No’. If one of the accountants can make it seem legal, no matter how morally corrupt it may be, we now have the licence to go ahead anyway.
This is stupid, it has led to the erosion of the ‘moral compass,’ the sense of right and wrong that we used to impose on ourselves.
In addition, these rules become so complex that only experts can understand them, and mistaken misunderstanding is not seen as a defence.
Just consider for a moment our taxation regime.
Hugely complex, a great big pile of band-aids that applies only to those without the resources to exploit the gaps.
Even at the ‘semi-rules’ level this applies.
Last week coming up to some roadworks in my street, I slowed to accommodate the obvious cement truck coming out of a side street. There was a bloke with a sign that said ‘slow’ which I took to mean slow but careful, assuming the truck driver would respond accordingly. He apparently did not see the sign, slammed on his brakes, as I did as it became obvious that if I followed the clear instruction, I would not come out of it well. In addition, I copped a mouthful of extremely fruity language from the driver. Understandable, but in the circumstances, unwarranted.
Had the whole thing been left to common sense with no dozy sign carrier removing the need for common sense to apply, none of this would have happened.
In most situations where people are in a position to make a decision, let them. There will be errors, and mis-steps which will lead to learning, and attendant improvement. Providing a framework for decision making empowers people to do the right thing, offering a sense of responsibility and accountability they will not have in a highly regulated environment.
Substituting common sense, courtesy, and respect for others with formalised rules applied by institutions is part of what has led us to this state of perpetual anxiety and selfishness.
