4 easy questions to help get stuff done

4 easy questions to help get stuff done

Sep 15, 2016 | Governance, Leadership

Taking action is the hard part of getting stuff done, the talk is easy, but when the rubber has to hit the road, then you see who is really adding any value.

The 4 simple questions I ask are:

Who is responsible?

Who is accountable?

Who is to be consulted?

Who is to be informed?

Lack of an answer on any of them is a sure indicator of a hole that will swallow some of your efforts.

Last night I was at a forum hosted by the local council for sporting organisations in the region.

The forum had no real objective beyond some institutional need to ‘consult’ , a useful process, but the organisers seemed to have no idea about the framework on which they were seeking input.

As the answer to each of these 4 questions was “nobody’ or ‘not sure’ I do not expect to smell the rubber any time soon.

9 reasons to be wary of marketing automation

9 reasons to be wary of marketing automation

Aug 16, 2016 | Governance, Marketing, Small business

Marketing automation is the new game in town, it builds leverage onto marketing investments. Absolutely right, and I am a believer. Scott Brinkers amazing work illustrates just how rapidly it is advancing.

Automation delivers the opportunity for huge leverage when used well.  For small and medium enterprises it offers the opportunity to look and act like their much larger competitors, and win by outmanoeuvring them with their inherent agility.

However, there are risks not being talked about very much, if at, all in the rush into the automated tools.

  1. A tool is not a strategy.

There is so much smoke and mirrors and just plain bullshit being sprayed around by the vendors of many tools that the basics risk being ignored. When you need to drive a nail, the tool you need is a hammer, not an all singing, all dancing, multipurpose expandable screwdriver. Digital tools are all driven by algorithms and logical progressions, based on assumptions. Problem arises when the tool does not accommodate the myriad of behavioural realities that occur in the real world. I am seeing automation seen as a strategy way too often, without due consideration of the context in which the tool will be used, and the outcomes that can reasonably be expected.

2. Ownership delivers leverage.

Those who ‘own’ the tool are able to use the output to further their particular perspective. Outcomes predicted by some tool often takes on a credibility greater than it should simply because somebody has done the number crunching through a tool. These things do not think, they do as they are told, so being constructively critical of outcomes that appear at odds with common sense is usually a pretty good practise. The next time I see a course of action that sits uncomfortably with my instincts being pursued just because it appears justified by some algorithm will not be the first. Getting the balance between the wisdom of experience and domain knowledge and the output of some algorithm wrong is akin to letting the kids loose on a 1000cc racing bike. Great for a while, but destined for a nasty prang.

3. The danger of complication.

Steve Jobs has been credited with the words “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication’ which is simply an extension of what we have known for ages. Einstein said (amongst many other insightful strategic observations) ‘Everything should be as complicated  as it need to be, and no more’. Automation has within it the opportunity to overcomplicate, when the simple is all that is needed. I still have (SME) clients to whom Excel pivot tables represent automation of their sales analysis, and sometimes that is all that is needed. Setting out to implement a ‘marketing stack’ in this sort of environment, with this existing level of digital sophistication will only lead to tears.

4. Business is not absolute.

The formulas in a tool are absolute, they do exactly as they are told. As noted, business is not absolute, there are multiple shades of grey all over the place, often confusing and conflicting. Digital algorithms are yet to be able to learn and apply the judgements born of that learning to a situation facing them, and indeed, in analysing adequately the situation confronted.

5. Marketing ROI.

Marketing has long suffered from the accusation, that it is all smoke and mirrors, supposition and judgement along with the long lunches, and too often the accusations have had some merit. “Where are the numbers?’ is a pretty common question when marketing is chasing its slice of the available resource pie, and in their absence, Marketing is the first to be cut in a squeeze. Now there are tools that supposedly, and in fact do deliver an ability to do reliable calculations, they are often grasped like a drowning man will grasp anything that floats by. Pity an attractive lead weight can be tarted up to look like a life jacket.

6. Financial ROI.

Implementation of marketing technology is no cheap exercise, as anyone who has had anything to do with this stuff will attest. The cost of the software is only the beginning, and the time taken to project completion usually confounds even the most pessimistic forecasts made in the blush of the original ‘let’s do it’ decision. In many instances I have seen, taking some of the money thrown away in marketing automation, and putting it against genuine customer oriented activities would generate a far superior ROI.

7. Automation for its own sake.

Automating a crap process just leaves you with automated crap. One of the most common mistakes I see is believing that an implementation will solve a problem, when in my experience, automation just makes an existing problem worse, harder to find, and more expensive to fix. Never automate until the existing processes are working seamlessly, or alternatively, when you automate, throw all existing processes out the window, and start with a completely fresh page. The danger here is that without a rigorous outside intervention those that allowed the former processes to resemble a dog-pile will be the ones writing the new routines. Usually not sensible.

8. Automation is different to decision making.

Automating can deliver information that provides the data required to make informed decisions, but cannot in itself make decisions that require judgement. At best an automated decision tree can be an ‘if that then this’ logic sequence. If ever you needed convincing of this; just look at the May 2010 ‘Flash Crash‘ of the Dow Jones. The decisions surrounding resource allocation are challenging, requiring a multidimensional view of the options that balance the relative outcomes, risks and rewards.

9. It all becomes too easy.

Let’s face it, life is really busy and stressful, so when there is an answer provided that has corporate  credibility, the easy way is to go along with it, not rock the boat, and often not run the gauntlet of questioning the status quo.

 

My thanks to Tom Fishburne for the header cartoon. You continue to demonstrate the power of the cartoon to make a serious point.

Census night melt-down was expected

Census night melt-down was expected

Aug 11, 2016 | Governance, Leadership

Human beings are pre-disposed to trust, is it a part of our evolutionary DNA, we need each other to survive. We all know we are stronger in a group, relate to those similar to us, who share similar histories and beliefs, and who are held to us by shared relationships.

We need to feel that someone we know and trust ‘has our back’

British anthropologist Robin Dunbar proposed in the 1990’s that there was a cognitive limit to the number of relationships an individual could hold at any one time,  of 150, now known as Dunbar’s number.

However, and it is a huge ‘however’, trust has to be earned over time, it is never just given without thought and an emotional commitment. It is this emotional component of trust that leads to the  depth of emotion when we are let down by someone we trusted, because it is not just a let down, it is a betrayal.

Tuesday’s census was a debacle. It makes absolute sense (no pun intended) to collect the data electronically, unless of course the arrangements made to receive the information are inadequate. Predictably as soon as the servers crashed, the inevitability of which was widely assumed outside the cocoon of Canberra, nobody was prepared to recognise the stuff-up for what it was. The Canberra two-step blame game was in immediate view.

‘Of course it was  not a stuff up, it was the hackers’ is not a defence that allays any of the cynicism of the population, sick to death of the self serving bullshit fed to us in the expectation that we will just keep on believing.

Our so called leaders wonder aloud at the drastic decline of public trust in our institutions over the last 25 years, and I wonder why they are so publicly naive, as few of them are completely stupid.

Trust comes with consistent over-delivery on undertakings. We listen to the words, but it is the actions that really count. It is no different in small groups to the whole community, business and elsewhere, we trust those who do as they say, and say as they do.

Our political institutions in all their manifestations have consistently and significantly over-promised and under-delivered over the last 25 years, and that is the sole reason we do  not trust them, and the census night debacle has been met with a collective sigh of resignation to the inevitable.

Credit to Larry Pickering for  the header cartoon

PS. Two further thoughts that occurred during the day.

  1. How reliable will the data really be? I can hear the blathering now, assuring us that all is well, but where have we heard similar assurances before?
  2. Will those who failed to fill in the forms on Tuesday be fined, or perhaps they will the sue the Bureau of Stats for making false promises? Make false promises in advertisements and public utterings in the private sector and you have the the consumer protection grizzley’s after you.

 

 

Has Woolworths done enough?

Has Woolworths done enough?

Jul 29, 2016 | Governance, Leadership, Management

I have been around long enough to see Coles and Woolworths swap places a couple of times. It seems that just like most blood sports, there is room only for one at a time at the top. This is understandable given that between them they have 70% plus of grocery sales, depending on whose numbers you use.

While Woolworths are still on top by most measures, Coles are rising like a phoenix from the ashes, and Woolies are desperately trying to halt the slide they embarked on several years ago.

Mondays announcement of job cuts, store closures, and a $967 million write-down has been a while coming, and must be a bitter pill following on the heels of the decision to exit the Masters hardware business after  incurring significant losses.

They have been progressively winding down the Thomas Dux, business, which in my view will prove to be a short sighted decision, symptomatic of the strategic malaise that has haunted Woolies after a decade of stellar performance.

The announcement also indicated 4 of the ‘Metro’ branded stores will close, presumably because they do not deliver the required return. While those stores, like Thomas Dux, might not be performing to expectations, they should both be seen as experiments at the edge, in anticipation of the acknowledged trends slowly transforming our lifestyle. In the case of Dux, a desire by a small but growing number of consumers for the unusual, products of superior quality, with clear provenance, and for Metro, the convenience for commuters, and CBD dwellers.   The potential strategic research value of both, assuming they were well managed (which Dux was not towards the end) would be well worth the slightly less than benchmark returns, as in reality the absolute numbers would be tiny.

Nipping on everyone’s heels is Aldi, whose success over the last 15 years or so has been substantial. There are now 423 stores, and Aldi is currently opening 4 or 5 new ones a month. The Aldi business model is hard for Woolies and Coles to beat with their current set-up, so they probably should stop trying, and find another way. 1000 Aldi Sku’s vs 12-20,000 in Woolies and Coles keeps Aldi  transaction costs low, as does the uncomplicated trading terms with suppliers. In store, Aldi pay far fewer staff very well by comparison, and by observation lead and motivate them very well, benefiting from the resultant productivity. Meanwhile they generate store traffic with the low prices, and quirky weekly specials that promise to be sold out quickly, creating a sense of shopper urgency. In addition, their fixed overheads on stores would be much lower than the two gorillas due to the smaller floor space, and less expensive locations.

After all the financial engineering is done, I trust that Woolworths management and more importantly the front line staff will remember that it is the little things in the stores  that really counts to their customers as they spend their money. They could  not care less about the head office  shenanigans, they can always go down the road when they see better value for their ‘hard-earned’.

 

 

 

4 questions every business owner should ask themselves. Now.

4 questions every business owner should ask themselves. Now.

Jul 25, 2016 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Strategy

In principal, business is simple, sell something for more than it costs you too produce it. After that it gets more complicated, but is always tangled up with the word “Value”

It is a word with many meanings to different people in different contexts.

How do we create value?

Value, like beauty in the eye of the beholder, is in the eye of the user. Value means different things to different people in different circumstances, and figuring out how to add value to that customer under those circumstances is the secret sauce of success. The key to value identification is always to be able to see the offer you are making through the eyes of the customer.

How do we deliver value?

‘Value’ is only valuable when it delivers a benefit. If you have the only part in town that will fix a problem, that part only has value installed, it is no good in your toolbox.

The means by which you deliver value varies, and the business models available have exploded. Supermarkets have an entirely different model to a grocery home delivery service. While the products may be the same, and from time to time the customers the same, the circumstances under which they are used will never be he same.  AirbnB would not have been possible 10 years ago, two sided markets were simply too cumbersome except in capital intensive applications like a stock exchange. Similarly, the availability of digital versions of books, along with the spoken and traditional print versions deliver the value of a book in different ways.

How do we capture value?

Business is about getting paid for  the value delivery more than it cost you to provide it. Again, digital changed the game, just ask anyone in the newspaper business. Deep consideration of the most appropriate business model is required if you are to capture all the available value, and leave your customers happy enough  to go again.

Will it be the same tomorrow?

Almost certainly not.

And the day after tomorrow, there will have been substantial change. How you react to or better, anticipate the change will be the measure of how commercially sustainable your business really is.

One more really important thing to remember.

Businesses are inanimate collections of assets and processes that can do nothing by themselves. They need people to make them work, to create the environment that accommodates the four factors above. The old cliche of people being our most important asset has never been truer than in this current environment of accelerating change.

Is technology killing advertising, and ruining our lives?

Is technology killing advertising, and ruining our lives?

Jul 20, 2016 | Governance, Leadership, Marketing

A while ago I asked the question ‘Is the net killing marketing creativity‘ and came to the conclusion that the instant gratification now apparently demanded in all phases of our lives has indeed killed creativity.

Perhaps tritely I put it down to the not so bright amongst the marketing fraternity taking the easy way out, because it was the only one they could see.

However, the question does require some greater consideration.

That technology has overtaken us is indisputable, giving us the potential for focus and reach in addition to great  performance metrics, but creativity requires more than just speed. It requires subtlety, deep understanding of those with whom you are communicating, a capacity to see yourself through the eyes of others, and a willingness to be different and take risks.

It is in these latter areas that advertising is failing, badly.

For the uninitiated, ‘Martech’ seems to have caught on as the phrase of the moment, very intelligently pushed by my colleague Scott Brinker on the Chief Martech blog.

A subset of the Martech environment is the ‘Adtech’ tools, which have automated advertising, the most obvious but far from the only manifestation of creativity. Whether it  be on line or in an analogue environment, only the means of delivery has changed, not the need to engage, entice, intrigue and advise readers.

The ad industry has certainly been damaged, although great swathes of it have just got what they deserved, being mediocre purveyors of wasted investment, and unwilling to see the writing on the wall, although it was their wall.

The technology has been abused, and consumers have turned off it all, and the evidence for  that is everywhere.

Over 400 million people, 22% of smart phone owners use ad blockers to insulate themselves from advertising, and the number is currently higher on desk-top devices.

Web advertising has evolved quickly into the digital version of the crap that fills your letterbox, direct response, discount coupons, price promos, untargeted rubbish. Where is the recognition that advertising has a higher purpose, it is an investment in the long term, things called ‘brands’.

Remember them?

And as for advertisers, they are slowly waking up to the fact that up to 40% of their ads are being seen only by robots, and last I looked they do not buy much. In addition, the media placement is now often done by so called ‘programmatic buying’ which is a way of removing the insight and intuition of people from the process, saving money and pocketing the difference. While sellers tout the value of programmatic buying, and in some circumstances it does have merit, the major benefit is their pockets, not the advertisers marketing outcomes.

More fool the marketers I guess, they are getting what they deserve.

I will show my colors here, as little investigative reporting as we have come to know it being done in the digital space. Where would Australians be without people like Kate McClymont of Sydney’s SMH who almost single handedly, and against great odds provided the impetus that led to the conviction of Eddie Obeid for fraud, and exposed the predation of members of the Catholic church clergy in Newcastle that led to the current Royal Commission. Google and Facebook have no interest in this sort of journalism, paid for by advertising, and benefiting the society we live in.

As for consumers, we have had our privacy thrown against the digital wall. My kids seem less concerned than me, but nevertheless, I am bothered by the implications, as well as those bloody ads for stuff I do not want that follow me wherever I digitally go.

And as for the digital security of us all, when hackers find 138 holes in the pentagon web sites, good luck with the security of your google account.