Nov 16, 2022 | Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
One of the standard assumptions about strategy is that it evolves from the top. Those at the top of the organisation have access to all the information and resources necessary to craft the strategy that will then be deployed through the organisation. Then, crucially, they have the power to make those critical resource allocation decisions that drive activity. Sometimes that strategic development process is assisted by people from a range of functions and levels, all given the opportunity to have their say, and be a part of the process.
When you think hard about it, this top-down dynamic, however it is constructed and communicated is a load of old cobblers.
It should never work that way if what you want is an optimised outcome.
The objective of strategy is to figure out how to outcompete the competition, current, emerging and potential. That implies that strategy should be born at the point of competition. This point is not the supermarket shelf, the procurement office of customers, or in the boardroom, but in the definition of the source of the competitive advantage you are creating.
Building competitive advantage is a long-term task that requires choices to be made about the way available resources are to be deployed. If the competitive arena is based on the outcomes of R&D, as it is a digital product, then you had better allocate the resources to ensuring you are at least amongst the best in the field. Similarly, if it is in the excellence of customer service, you had better build the infrastructure to ensure no customer is left waiting and wondering.
This sort of analysis consumes time and intellectual energy from a wide range of stakeholders, not just the few sitting around the senior management table.
Clearly there can be an internal conflict when a business has more than one offering that have different points of competition.
That challenge can only be managed by ensuring that there is a source of common leverage that can be applied to all the product portfolios. Usually this will prove to be a brand that has built the credibility necessary to be compelling in both arenas.
A current client has two competitive arenas with entirely different business models and sets of capabilities necessary to support them. However, the physical products are very similar, emerging from the same technology ‘home base’. The strategies being deployed are different, although there is some commonality in the value proposition, but tactically, they are entirely different. Two years ago, there was a third product range that seemed to be an obvious extension, but proved to be a major distraction, as the competitive coalface was focussed elsewhere. As we lacked the resources to accommodate three, the product category was exited. That has proved to be a good decision, albeit very tough at the time.
The moral is to craft your strategy around the competitive arena where you must win to be commercially successful. If you cannot win in a definitive manner, the better choice is to exit and deploy the released resources where the return for winning is higher.
This is challenging stuff, so call me whan a bit of wisdom from experience might help.
Oct 14, 2022 | Analytics, Innovation
We set out to measure things, to give us a sense of achievement, to allocate priorities, and simply to keep score as we proceed. It is an engineering perspective.
We do not have any way of objectively measuring how we feel, but how we feel is what drives our behaviour.
This would not matter if we all perceived the world objectively, but we don’t. We observe the world through the complex frosted window of our experience, context, opinions, and did we get our coffee this morning.
So, how do we dig away at this problem, and it is a problem, simply because we use objective means to make subjective decisions, and it sucks.
We ask better questions, and we ask those questions from as wide a variety of perspectives as we can. We must ask those better questions, and experiment, test stuff, be allowed to fail, as in the outliers you will find the unexpected. However, you must also expect the unexpected, you just cannot predict where it will be.
Bees, amazing insects that they are, have the process nailed. They have a behavioural characteristic scientists call the ‘Waggle dance’, which is a communication medium that leads others to the source of nectar. Bees must find nectar, that is the job on which their lives rely.
Depending on variables like the weather, location, season, and others, a percentage of bees, 10 – 20% ignore the waggle dance, and go off in a different direction. When they find a new source, they start the ‘waggle dance’ to attract other bees to that new source, thus keeping the hive healthy and well fed.
This is experimentation, sacrificing a small part of the current returns to build for the future.
As we consider how to best allocate our available resources, we can learn from bees.
Bees in blogs
Oct 6, 2022 | Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
We all understand what a post-mortem is: an analysis of why something after the fact. It deals with history, then usually when something has failed. We review the drivers of success less often than examining the reasons for failure, then allocating responsibility.
Planning a marketing program is in effect a ‘pre-mortem’, a plan of action that will, with good management, robust analysis, and a bit of luck and timing, deliver the anticipated outcome.
Logically, it makes sense to ask the sorts of questions typically asked at a marketing post mortem, when a plan has failed, before the failure, as a means to anticipate and answer the questions, offering an opportunity to fix the problems before they happen.
Based on the many marketing pre and post-mortems I have done, following is a list of the 10 essential questions to ask yourself and your team before pushing that great big ‘Go’ button.
Where did the revenue come from?
Growth is not possible in the absence of revenue, where did the revenue come from, and almost every marketing plan I have ever seen calls for growth. Less often do they articulate where it will come from., and the consequential reactions of those who might be losing out.
Current customers, new customers, channels, business models, products, technical achievements, geographies, and so on. However, do not just list them, articulate in some detail how it has happened. Again, that past perspective adds real ‘grunt’ to the conversations.
I used to refer to ‘Share of Throat’ when planning for FMCG. It implies that competition is not just the alternative products in the category, but everything that is competing at the consumption occasions. For example, a hugely successful new product was Ski Double-Up, launched in the late eighties. It brought new consumers, older men, into the market. It did not compete for a place on the breakfast menu, it was a healthy, convenient, and tasty snack product that filled a need in older men that frankly we did not fully recognise before launch. It opened up an additional avenue into men’s throats replacing pies and sandwiches.
Where did the capital come from?
Growth is a veracious consumer of resources, particularly capital. How did you fund that growth? Reinvestment of retained earnings, capital raising from friends and family, or from the markets, public and private, debt finance considering the necessity for assets as collateral? What alternative uses for the capital consumed were considered, and why is the investment in marketing a superior choice?
What is the dominant business model?
Are you a middleman, retailer, on-line item sales, subscription sales, did you achieve a position to monetise arbitrage opportunities, and so on. Digital has delivered a host of new and emerging business models to us over the last decade, but one thing that has become clear, if it was not already, is that differing business models do not live comfortably in the same house. Therefore, if your revenue streams come from different business models, the structure of your resulting business needs to be decentralised by those differing business models.
What is the ideal corporate structure?
Have you remained private, are you publicly owned, a partnership, Joint venture, franchise system? There are many options, and as in the previous question, siblings rarely successfully live in the same house.
What capabilities were required to succeed, and where did you find them?
This is a question in two parts. Firstly, what capabilities were required from individuals, technical, strategic, financial, and all the other factors that make human beings able to contribute? Secondly, what were the organisational, leadership and cultural factors that enabled the organization to leverage the capabilities the individuals brought in each morning as they turned up to work.
Which customers, markets, products, technologies, relationships, were critical to the success? The answers to these questions are at a ‘must know’ level. Why did those customers come to you, choosing not to go to a competitor? What is the factor that differentiated you from the others?
Which competitors proved to be the most potent?
Anticipating competitive action, and planning to accommodate the impact is a necessary part of every plan, as noted previously. This is perhaps the most common failure amongst marketing plans I have seen, and to be fair, written.
A long time ago I was with Cerebos, one of the brands I managed was Cerola muesli, at that time a successful brand, and I was keen to expand the brand footprint. I saw a gap in the market between muesli and corn flakes, this was 35 years ago, and there was not the wide choice we have now. We developed a half way product we called ‘Cerola Light and Crunchy’ and launched a test market in Adelaide.
At first, we did remarkably well. The logic we employed was well accepted, the retailer sell in easily achieved targets, and consumer off-take was strong after the initial burst of advertising.Then in came Kellogg’s with a look-a-like product, ‘Just Right,’ and their resources just blew us away, Light &Crunchy never had a chance in the face of the weight of the competitive reaction by Kellogg’s.
That is a lesson I did not forget. With the benefit of hindsight, it was obvious, poke a bear in the arse and he is going to turn around and give you a whack, and I did not anticipate the power of it, and I should have. Never made that mistake again.
Where did the new competitors come from?
New competition almost always comes from the fringes, and often outside the normal scope of most extrapolative planning. Looking widely at what is happening in other markets, and other technologies may offer insights to where new, and probably more potent competition may come from. Honda started in motor bikes with the Honda 50, selling it to students in California as cheap local transport. None of the incumbents, Triumph, Norton, Harley, saw them coming, they thought they were toys, being bought by people who would never buy a big bike. Blockbuster ‘owned’ video, and could have bought Netflix for $50 million, but thought them irrelevant, not even an irritation. 5 years later Blockbuster was broke.
What is the emerging source of customer value in the market?
Nothing new will be bought in the absence of a strong reason to switch from the incumbents, which always means new value has been created, somehow. How did your create yours?
What did we do wrong, and what did we learn?
You learn more from your mistakes than you do from the things you got right. Make sure ‘learning is part of the cultural DNA of your business.
When you have the answers to all these questions, found with the benefit of the virtual hindsight, you will be in a very powerful marketing position, able to write the plans that double-down on the things that will deliver the objectives and success
In other words, execute the plan.
Header credit: Talisa Chang via Medium
Sep 21, 2022 | Innovation, Operations
Yesterday, Tuesday Sept 19, 2022, I went along to the Modern Manufacturing Expo at the Sydney showground.
Expectations were high that I would be able to see the emerging technologies, techniques, product, and service innovations that might support the re-emergence of manufacturing in this country. Specifically, I was also looking for ideas for my clients.
Perhaps I was too focussed, and saw just what I wanted to see when I registered some time ago.
It took a bit to find the expo, as there was no signage at all. Instead, there was signage for the ‘Workplace Health and Safety show’. Confused, I wandered in to ask directions to the manufacturing show to find they were the one and the same.
So, I went into the pavilion hoping to find some of the inspiration and conversation I was looking for.
The manufacturing part of the show was in the back corner. A discarded program I found indicated the manufacturing part had 25% of the floorspace, but it seemed more like 15%, and then, there was not much to see.
My question, hopefully not too frivolous is, do we not need a vibrant and successful manufacturing sector in order to support the plethora of OH&S products, services, and associations? Where are their revenues going to come from if the manufacturing sector remains as constrained as it is currently? Judging from the exhibitors yesterday, OH&S has become the end, rather than a vital means to the end, which should be a vibrant, innovative, globally oriented manufacturing sector.
This is not to throw rocks at those who turned up, made the investment, and were there to generate awareness and leads from those in attendance, in addition to the obvious networking opportunities. It is simply a commentary on the lack of support from across the broad base of manufacturers and their suppliers, education, government, and service providers.
Perhaps it was just a lousy marketing effort by the organisers, the costs were too high (although the OH&S crowd fronted), or maybe it was just one too many expos?
At least my effort was rewarded by running into someone with whom I had a useful conversation about a topic that had nothing to do with manufacturing, and as he lives two streets away, I tend to see him around a bit anyway.
To my mind, the old question of which needed to come first was clearly answered yesterday, and sadly, we seem to have it the wrong way round.
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 31, 2022 | Innovation, Marketing
Processes are the means by which things get done. From the simplest thing like cleaning the coffee machine in the lunchroom, to launching a major new product, it happens by way of a series of activities culminating in the objective being achieved.
It makes sense to do the same thing the same way every time, assuming you get the desired outcome. Doing so delivers stability, reduced errors, and makes the processes transferrable between people.
Process stability is a fundamental foundation of being able to scale a business.
However, processes do not innovate. They can replicate the past with great productivity benefits, they do not take risks. They squeeze out creativity, as it is variation to the process, and therefore not allowed.
Let’s look more closely at innovation, which can be broken down into a series of repeatable steps, and thus becomes a process.
There are two types.
Incremental. This is where there is continual improvement, the adjustment of processes to deliver benefit. The preconditions of incremental innovation are twofold:
- First, you need stability to be able to execute on CI, and
- Second, you need the culture of experimentation, continuous A/B testing to prevail.
Break-through. This second category is, to me, real innovation. It can create new markets and demand, of the type Apple deployed with iPod, iTunes then the iPhone, and Henry Ford did with the Model T. You need to be able to see where there is new potential, new markets, new demand, and be prepared to throw the baby out.
The culture and processes that support these two types of innovation are very different, effectively mutually exclusive, so you must make a choice. Trying to do both inside the same corporate ‘shell’ rarely works.
The former requires alignment, stability, continuous improvement, and several other popular management cliches.
The latter will die under these constraining circumstances, it requires insulation, a ‘skunk-works’ of some sort to succeed, a culture that enables experimentation and the attendant risk, giving the efforts immunity from corporate ‘sameness’.
Scott Adams reflects this pardox beautifully in this 2012 cartoon used for the header.
