Oct 17, 2013 | Branding, Category, Customers, Innovation, Marketing
Cottage cheese is a pretty dull category in supermarkets. A relatively tasteless, low calorie (therefore it must taste crappy, right?), price competitive, group of products.
Yes, so we thought.
Years ago, 25 years in fact, I was the GM Marketing of a major Australian diary company with the leading brand of Cottage cheese. I thought all of the above, and we struggled to make any return, let alone one that was a competitive use of the capital tied up.
We had very good data, for the time, remembering this is pre-internet. We knew who sold our, and competitive brands in what quantities, and pretty much to whom, as we had good U&A (usage and attitude) data. As a result we were able to segment the market pretty well by usage, demographics, geography, and basket. However, whatever we did, we had trouble moving the sales needle.
Almost as a last resort, we ran a small recipe competition on the side of the packs, easy, low cost, a prize draw of a holiday at a health resort on the Gold Coast. We got a few hundred entries, a failure by our pre-agreed metrics, so we thought we knew something else that did not work. However, because there were so few, we took the time (there was a young work experience person to utilise at the time) to write back to all the entrants saying thanks for entering, and sending them a few of the top recipes we had received, just to be polite.
The response astonished us.
A very high number wrote back saying thanks for the recipes, and telling us how they used the products, what was right and wrong about them, all sorts of information we did not have, or had not thought was relevant.
Turned out, cottage cheese was not a “calorie avoidance food” it had uses in all sorts of areas by all sorts of people we had not seen as in our market, in fact, had not considered. The job we assumed was being done by cottage cheese, deduced by looking at our data, from our perspective, was not the job that consumers were hiring the product to do.
Long story short, we slowly built a database, all done by hand and snail mail, so it was a significant resource sink, a cottage cheese club in effect that shared recipes, stories, and funny events. All pretty mundane these days with the tools available, but a major undertaking in 1988.
Our sales went up, our promotional spend with retailers dropped, our price sensitivity reduced significantly, and had several successful range extensions, and we suddenly were making very good returns.
The moral is, make sure you understand the job that consumers hire your product to do, make sure you see it through the consumers eyes, not yours.
Oh, and two more lessons,
1. Social media marketing is not new, just the tools now availabel make it easier, so now everybody is doing it.
2. Cottage cheese is really very nice, 20 years after leaving the company, i still buy and use the product, in all sorts of odd ways, learnt from the “clubbies”. Brand building by another name.
Oct 14, 2013 | Collaboration, Customers, Marketing, Social Media
Question: How do you know when your enterprise has become “Social”
Answer: When it evolves from a vertical, and functionally oriented enterprise with power emanating from the position descriptions, to one that is cross functional and project oriented, and power comes from capability.
It really has little to do with the deployment of social media tools, the bring your own device policies, the # at the sales conference, or the CEO’s profile on Linkedin.
Social businesses put the customer at the centre of what they do. They set out to innovate in the manner of delivery as well as the nature of the value they deliver to consumers, and they see the future sooner, and more clearly than others, simply because they are “connected” to their customers and potential customers.
Oct 9, 2013 | Customers, Management, Marketing, Personal Rant
Definitions of marketing abound. A bit like a scratch in the morning, everybody has one!
The lament of President Roosevelt that if you had 7 economists in a room, you had 8 opinions, is equally true for marketers, except that to date, most have used smoke and mirrors and snake-oil rather than data to support an opinion. Most usually, you get the “5 P’s” regurgitated as a definition of marketing, easy to remember, but unfortunately irrelevant since the time of Don Draper.
Asked a few weeks ago what my definition was, I said “Marketing is the identification, development, protection, and leveraging of competitive advantage” To me, this covers all the elements of marketing process, collaboration, customer value, management discipline, and innovation that go to make up modern marketing.
Whilst the context of every marketing challenge differs, and the potential solutions numerous, the discipline necessary to tease out the core issues are pretty consistent.
As it happens, a day or so later, I came across an alternative definition, expressed as a formula that I also like very much:
Marketing = the creation of unique value.
That seems to say it all, and very simply.
What is yours??
Oct 1, 2013 | Category, Customers, Demand chains, Marketing, retail
It is pretty trite to point out, again, that the reason businesses survive is to satisfy customers.
In fresh produce markets, this has been pretty much forgotten as the share of the consumers dollar that ends up in the farmers pockets has progressively dropped over the last 50 years from around 50% to now 10% for the lucky ones.
This is below in many cases the cost of production, so there goes food security, at least at the prices we have become used to!
This squeezing of farmers has evolved as retailers have built scale, and managed their logistics to deliver margin from produce, and consumers have favored convenience and price over product “eatability”.
Now however, it may be that the worm is turning.
Some consumers, certainly a marketable proportion, are turning back to favour freshness, product provenance, and taste, and are finding those characteristics in farmers markets, direct home delivery, and the few specialist retailers who have survived. These consumers are driving the evolution of a transparent “demand chain” which is putting some leverage back into the hands of farmers, if they can figure out how to remove the impediments to transparency, and the ticket clippers who inhabit the chain.
The tools of the web are slowly turning the supply chain of old into a demand chain, a supply process that responds to consumer demand, preferences, and habits. Farmers being able to communicate with those who consume their produce, and respond accordingly disappeared when we moved en masse to the cities, as no longer were we living in the small communities that enabled the communication.
Now however, that ability is back, so use it, and eat better!
Sep 27, 2013 | Customers, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
People instinctively like consistency and predictability, it allows them to be comfortable, and make judgments without too much risk of being wrong because the status quo has been maintained.
Helping out with a competitive pitch recently I was shown a list of the things that had to be covered, a checklist for the expected content of the presentations, a list of largely irrelevant , administrative crap, and we had only 45 minutes.
With some trepidation, we threw out the list, and built a presentation that demonstrated that the agency I was working with had the experience, and capabilities to break the challenges faced by the “pitchee” down into manageable chunks that could be addressed creatively, responsibly, and with a budget that was less than the one nominated, (which we knew was not gong to be forthcoming in any event)
We knew during the conversation that followed that the business had been won, despite the ignoring of the stated ground-rules. The sorts of comments that were made were that our approach had been “fresh” and “creative” and that we had “thought outside the box” all cliché’s, but nice nevertheless. However, what it really demonstrates is the we won because we were different.
Our competitors had followed the rules, and been boring as a result, we were not boring, had taken a risk that with hindsight was not a risk at all, so we won.
So, any time you hear something that sounds like “the client made me do it” translate it as “I did not have the balls or imagination to be original, different, and interesting”.
Sep 23, 2013 | Customers, Lean, Operations, Sales
It is amazing how people adopt to “lean” instinctively, without any planning, or knowledge of the cliches and tools spruiked by consultants (including myself). People are pretty sensible when left to themselves, they do not build waste into a system deliberately. Usually when failure occurs, there is a system in place that fails under pressure, or someones ego is involved.
On Sunday my local tennis club took our turn to have a BBQ at the local chain hardware store (Thanks Bunnings) in an effort to raise the funds to keep our historic grass courts going. Most grass courts have been beaten by the maintanence costs, and have been replaced by various low maintanence surfaces, but there is still nothing like grass, so we hang in there!
It takes about 10 minutes to cook a sausage (cycle time) so when we got going, the cooks organised themselves so that sausages were progressively rolled across the hotplate so that they were cooked by the time they got to the end, at about the time they were stuffed into a bun for a customer. They had a lean JIT process going.
As the morning progressed, and demand increased, the cooks responded by adding a second row to the hotplate, and varying the number of sausages being cooked (WIP)at any time in the second row according to the demand. It still took 10 minutes to cook a sausage, but only a few minutes to adjust the number being cooked as demand changed. This increase in the demand is reflected in what is called, in Lean parlance, Takt time, or the amount of time you have to allocate to a process so that it meets the demand from the market.
Nobody was directing this evolution of this simple BBQ production line, it was just common sense, so sensible people just made it happen. It occurred to me, not for the first time, that the various forms of waste that end up in operational systems are there largely because the demand is not clearly communicated to those running the systems, and so they just cover their arses with inventory, and allow silly practices to evolve and get in the way of demand transparency.
Left on their own, people will instinctively respond to the apparent demand, so why not just give them the information and let them get on with it.
