The most misused management quote ever

The most misused management quote ever

May 30, 2016 | Leadership, Management

Benjamin Franklin said many worthwhile things, and a few bits on nonsense. However, amongst the best known, and perhaps most quoted is:

“If you want something done, give it to a busy person”

Absolute bollocks!!

Acting on that advice is in my view a failure of leadership.

You are in effect saying that it is OK to load up somebody who is already at or near capacity while other ‘resources’ remain idle, or at less than capacity.

People are not machines,  but like machines, everyone has a different capacity. Exceed that capacity and you just get inefficiency, poor quality and even breakdown.

We do not do it to our equipment, at least not deliberately, so why on earth would it be OK to do it to our people, and perhaps even worse, our best, most dedicated and productive people?

This little rant was instigated by a business owner I met and with whom I was exchanging views on management and leadership. Needless to say, he will in all probability (now) never be a client.

Is the supermarket model being disrupted, and nobody is noticing?

Is the supermarket model being disrupted, and nobody is noticing?

May 11, 2016 | Branding, Governance, Leadership, retail, Small business

Business models are being disrupted all over the place.

The new centre of business models has become the customer, and the way they perceive and receive value. It was supposed to be this way in the pre-digital days, but really  was not, because the sellers held all the cards. Now however, the power has really reverted to where it should be, to those who drive the value chain by their purchase choices.

AirBnB has become the biggest single retailer of short term lodging on the planet, and they do not own a room, Uber is the biggest taxi service on the planet, and does not own a car, newspapers have been replaced as sources of news. There are many examples, and all are of business models that have arrived in the last few years with a common theme.

They have replaced the linear, sequential business models of the past, where there was always a choke point dependent on physical infrastructure that exerted control, with a model where the physical  infrastructure is simply a logistical resource to be deployed to deliver a service, the real product is information.

Information on availability, product provenance, performance, and many other factors of value to customers, including, you guessed it, price.

It is a two sided model, enabled by technology that is making the logistical control of the infrastructure redundant in the face of consumers having information at their fingertips. The competitive advantage has moved from the physical infrastructure to between the ears of employees and consumers equally.

Employees create and deliver the information that enables consumers to make decisions, which then dictate the physical logistics driven by those decisions.

Meanwhile,  the supermarket  retailer model has not changed  much.

They have huge amounts of capital invested in real estate and physical assets, it has made them  really successful, so the tendency is naturally to do more of the same, just try and do it a bit better.

They have chased, very successfully, productivity of  the assets, a financial measure of success not a sustainable measure of success with customers. As a result they are losing their customers to discounters, specialist retailers, and various direct models that offer an alternative value proposition.

It seems to me that Woolies have walked away from, or simply not understood this evolution of their business model.

Their Everyday rewards loyalty card was gathering momentum, building a picture of their customer base and their individual behaviour, critical information that would over time deliver a capacity to engage on a highly individualised basis. However, it was clearly costing a bit, so they took the short term route, and reduced the cost to them, and therefore value to their customers, gave it a new name and sat back thinking consumers would not notice.

They did, and nobody came.

Woolworths took a short term financial decision that has apparently bitten them in the bum. A bit like the ones they took that killed off Thomas Dux, and led them to misunderstand the market when they bet the back paddock on Masters. Pretty clearly someone in the top floor of the majestic head office out in the hills, can read a spreadsheet, but probably does not know what goes on inside customers heads when they are contemplating a purchase, and making a choice about the manner in which that purchase will be made.

Perhaps new CEO Brad Banducci will claw back some of the customer centric culture that gave Woolworths the wood on Coles for so long, but he better move quickly, as the momentum has shifted against them, and it will be hard to regain.

 

Train dogs, educate people.

Train dogs, educate people.

Apr 26, 2016 | Governance, Leadership

That phrase, ‘you train dogs,  but you educate people’ was used to me years ago by Harvard professor Jim Hagler, making the point that education involves nurturing the ability to think and question while training is simply  enforcing a repeatable routine.

Both have their place, but getting the two mixed up and expecting training to take the place of educating leads to failure.

There are thousands of information products out there, courses of many types that promise to deliver a learning outcome, which is usually passive income so you can sit on a beach and make money while sipping G&T’s

You  have seen them.

They offer training, and often use that term. They are the digital equivalent of buying a book, on a topic, and once you walk out of the bookstore (are there  any left?) the author, publisher and bookstore owner have no further obligation to you, the responsibility is all yours.

By contrast, getting an education takes time, and effort, and there is a responsibility of the institution to teach you, and ensure that you not just know the topic, but can think creatively and critically about both the topic and related material. You cannot walk into the university office and buy a degree (although recent revelations might just make that assertion obsolete)

Education is a two way street, shared by both parties, as distinct from information provision, which is a once only transaction.

Key difference is when you need help, is it there? Most on-line courses are just information, with no help beyond technical assistance to download the stuff, if you are lucky.

There is a big cost to education, not just money, but time and effort, the cost of training is often low.

I would rather spend $2000 on education, really learning a topic,  than $200 on a training course.

This rant was set off by another of those very well crafted pieces of sales copywriting that landed in my email last week promising to give me a passive income of ‘at least 5,000/month’ for life. All I had to do was part with $779 now, or an easy $150/month for 6 months, and it would be mine. Easy, great ROI if it actually worked.

Utter bullshit aimed at deluding the easily deluded.

Marketing’s lean future

Marketing’s lean future

Mar 23, 2016 | Governance, Leadership, Lean, Marketing

The best marketers I employed in days past as a honcho in a corporate environment were pretty much always from a professional background of some type. Those with engineering, science, architecture training, and with a bit of sales thrown in were almost always better marketers than those with marketing degrees.

Having just a 40 year old (had anybody heard of marketing 40 years ago) marketing degree, this both intrigued and disturbed me, and it took a while to understand “why” it was so. It became clear that those trained in the professions had an instinctive approach to problem solving, commonly called the ‘scientific method’. By contrast, those with just marketing degrees tended to jump from problem definition straight to a final solution, missing all the nuances and understanding to be gained from the interim steps, and often getting it horribly wrong as a result.

“Lean thinking” 35 years ago was just a babe, an approach to operational improvement that has transformed the way manufacturing operations around the world are run, and delivered huge benefits to our way of life. It is absolutely based on the scientific method.

More recently however, it has been realised that lean thinking has applications far wider than just operations, and office work flows are rapidly transforming as a result. The next obvious cab off the rank is marketing, traditionally a qualitative, smoke and mirrors part of a business, and marketers have been their own worst enemy.

It often seems marketers sit around, drink coffee, and go to lunch a lot, and as a result of allowing that perception to survive, (and it has been true in an unfortunate number of cases) , we get what we deserve.

If people do not understand the role of marketing, particularly those who allocate resources and measure performance, no wonder there are problems, but there are some pretty simple solutions taken from lean thinking.

Have an objective

Map the processes

Form hypothesis

Test and measure

Rinse and repeat.

From the perspective of managing this process, it is essential that two criteria be met:

  1. There is great transparency of the whole process across functions, everyone these days is “in marketing”. Leveraging the resources available by the collaboration enabled by technology will evolve as standard practice, for which transparency is essential.
  2. It is OK to be wrong, you can learn more for your mistakes than from what works well, but to learn  there must be understanding of the flaws in the tested hypothesis coming from the failure. In addition, there needs to be a robust process of due diligence both before and after the experiments are done. Saying it is OK to be wrong is not a license to be sloppy, as I have seen from time to time.

Marketing has been very late to the technology table, and as a result the size of the gap between the ‘leading edge’ and what most small and medium businesses are doing is huge, and getting progressively ‘huger’. There is a real danger of just leaving it in the too hard basket, but that would be a mistake.

Marketing technology offers the opportunity to leverage resources and widen the impact, the core principals of marketing remain unchanged, indeed become more important as we increase the leverage that can be applied. For small and medium businesses these technologies are the competitive tool-box they have been seeking.

It is my prediction that inside a decade technology decisions will be driven by marketing. If you cannot locate, understand, engage, and deliver value to your customers in a digital world, you will not survive. This post from the ‘Martech’ guru Scott Brinker detailing the 2016 marketing technology landscape says it all.

Lets see how that goes as the technology landscape continues to evolve.

What makes some leaders, and others just managers?

What makes some leaders, and others just managers?

Feb 2, 2016 | Leadership

In my 40 years of commercial life I have seen a few true leaders, and many, many more managers.

Unfortunately.

The leaders are not always those at the top of organisations, more often that not, those are just the successful managers. The leaders can be scattered through an organisation, from the top to the bottom, they are the ones to whom others turn when a decision has to be made, a difficult choice articulated, and when someone is required to step forward and be the one to take a risk.

When you  meet one, you usually just “know it”.

Just because you are the boss, does not make you a leader.

Sometimes in fact, I think that being the boss is a counter leadership factor, simply because being the boss means others will do your bidding, the institutional power invested in the position dictates that you have the call.

On many, this conferred power has the effect that they confuse the notions of leadership and management. Their egos are boosted, they feel good so the self confidence that feeling good brings impacts those around them, and they receive the deference of the group, and feed on it.

They listen to their own voice and fail to recognise that it is their voice, and not necessarily the voice of the group.

Leaders by contrast make those around them feel good, they inspire  action by demonstration, they acknowledge that they are a part of a group, not  the embodiment of that group, they give before the receive, of their time, energy, experience, and expertise.

Leaders would never sacrifice those around them for  the numbers, but they would be prepared to sacrifice the numbers for  the people, and others recognise that, and respond by acknowledging their leadership.

The leaders among us are often unsung outside their immediate circles, sometimes we find ourselves participating willingly in something without knowing who started it.

Most of us are aware of “Movember” probably know somebody who has grown a  moustache for charity, but do we know who started it? Probably not, but he was a leader.

He is an unsung hero, unknown apart from his immediate circle, nevertheless, a leader.

A mate of mine, Julian Day  is one such unsung hero. I know he is a leader because he always gives before he receives, that makes him a leader, and I am proud to call him a mate.

This time however, there are some accolades coming from outside his immediate circle. This is based partly on his success as a provider of professional services to the IT industry, and creation of the highly regarded Consensus  awards acknowledging the success of others in that industry.  However, his mission in life is to do something bigger than just have commercial success, so he has created the Waterline Challenge.

I have watched over the past few years as Julian has wrestled with the complex challenges of creating a national charity event, one that will direct the money raised to the need, and not to the charity administration. The commitment of his time and energy has been enormous, but more importantly, he has been able to assemble a stellar group around him ,also prepared to commit their time and energy to the event. He has led the charge, put himself out there with nothing to gain personally.

The catalyst for this post is the publication of a book, “50 unsung business heroes”  in which Julian is  worthy inclusion.

Well done old mate!

 

 

The (almost) impossible task of brand building momentum. A personal story.

The (almost) impossible task of brand building momentum. A personal story.

Jan 29, 2016 | Branding, Customers, Innovation, Leadership, Marketing

What is  a brand?

When you think about it, a brand is a just a promise embodied in a product.

A promise of performance, and delivery of value.

It survives and grows, retains and builds relevance and attraction only when the promise is delivered.

Finding the promise that can be delivered in a way that is sufficiently different to make an impact is really difficult.  Making a promise that is the same as everyone else’s promise, and the brand becomes indistinguishable, just another label on the shelf.

30 years ago I was heading a marketing group that amongst other successes, relaunched ‘Ski’ yoghurt in Australia. The relaunch was a huge success, and over the following 3 years, our national market share went from single figures to well over 35% in a market growing at double digit rates.

There is a lot of patronising bullshit around about the way to build a brand, advice that sounds nice but is usually just a template that promises an outcome, a bit like the paint by numbers paintings an old aunt had adorning her walls. Not very good, and certainly not original.

So, I thought that the hindsight afforded by the almost 25 years since that  Ski relaunch might be valuable as you consider your own brand building exercise.

Following are the lessons I took away, often with the enlightenment that comes with hindsight, as the appearance of organisation and planning is a bit of a fiction, the real situation was considerably more chaotic as we juggled competing priorities, competitive and financial pressure, and all the jostling and risk mitigation that goes on inside big businesses.

 

Be different.

At the time conventional wisdom was that the fruit in yoghurt had to be mashed, the product homogeneous, that lumps of fruit were not good. All the research told us that consumers wanted their fruit yoghurt to be consistent with the fruit mashed and evenly distributed, and the launch of Yoplait a few years earlier had kick started a genuinely competitive race and significant market growth.

We relaunched Ski on the proposition  of taste. The best tasting yogurt, the only one with pieces of fruit. It completely distinguished us from the then market leader, Yoplait, and all other brands, and gave consumers who liked or did not mind whole fruit in their yogurt a real reason to buy Ski. Of course, some rejected it, but many did realise after trying that they did prefer it, and whilst there was a lot of supporting activity and pack changes, the market share of Ski zoomed. A few of the small producers copied us, but the market leader could not, as their whole manufacturing process was designed to deliver a homogeneous product.

The value of true differentiation backed by a brand promise that was carried out and of value to at least some consumers was clear.

Across the range Ski was so different that  it created new segments within  the yoghurt category, segments we owned because we created and named them, and which made competition hard and expensive for our opposition.

 

Get onto a roll.

When you have a line-up of innovations that do add value, you can roll them out progressively and the competitive impact is cumulative, you leave the competition struggling to catch up with your first one, and spending valuable marketing resources to stay in the game while you roll out the second, and third iteration. I would not claim that Steve Jobs knew anything about Ski, but that is the exact strategy that Apple used from the launch of the original iPod on.

In our case, we relaunched Ski with the different product as noted, but we also changed the naming conventions that had prevailed. For example, the low fat version changed from Ski Low Fat to Ski DeLite. Worked a treat, and went some way to redefining the low fat category. The next ‘roll’ of the dice was to relaunch the 1kg size into the now common rectangular packs. To that time all 1kg Packs had been round, as they were operationally easier and the packs were much cheaper. However, we noted that most female buyers, and they made up 90+%  of purchasers, could not easily handle the product in one hand, they did not fit on most refrigerator door racks, and were less than optimal on the retail shelves.

When we changed all this, sales of 1kg exploded, and gave us new retail distribution. We then followed up with Ski Double-Up, a product that had a range of ‘toppings’ in a separate compartment  of the pack, and a completely different yoghurt that emerged from the combination of new strains of culture and operational process innovation,  that revolutionised the market again, creating an entirely new category.

Your customers may not be who you think they are.

Innovation is a powerful way to attract fringe, lapsed or just reluctant buyers into a market. When we launched Ski Double-up the typical consumer was young, educated, and female.  Consumption by men of yoghurt was only about 20% of female. Ski Double-Up changed all that. Not only did it attract more men, they were significantly older in profile, those who would not touch ‘yoghurt’ as it has been with a barge-pole. They tried Double-Up, liked it, tried other versions, and became regular and loyal consumers, adding significantly to the scope and scale of the Ski brand.

 

Start with ‘Why’.

Defining the ‘Why’ of your brand is a foundation of all branding activity. The best articulation of “Why’ is the now famous TED talk by Simon Sinek.  A brand without a clear and distinctive ‘Why’ is just a label. Sinek uses Apple as an example several times, because as he says, ‘everyone gets it’ and they do. Apple is a branding icon, but not the only one. Recently I stumbled across a new brand from a start-up, one that is breaking new ground on a number of fronts, competing against some of the biggest and best marketers in the world, but will (I suspect) succeed on the strength of their “Why’. It is whogivesacrap toilet paper, purchased by consumers  direct rather than via retailers, with a very clear ‘Why’. Many, almost certainly most will not buy into the why, but enough will to make the brand and business a success, and they will do some good in the process.

The corporate benefit of ‘Why’ is that everyone in the business can buy into it, and the resulting culture can become a very powerful motivator and driver of performance. In our case, the ‘why’ was that we were producing a natural, healthy product, our workforce has all been taken into our confidence, and they were our market research as we ran taste group after taste group in the factory during the development process to get the variables right. When the products became very successful, those people  saw what their contribution had resulted in, and took great pride in it, making a huge contribution to improving the production efficiencies .

 

Sweat the small stuff.

Details matter, a lot. Steve Job’s obsession with the experience of opening a shipper containing an Apple product contributed  a core part to the brand identity of Apple. With Ski we pioneered amongst other things a  process that used a new and expensive printing process that both accommodated the square shape of the 1kg tub, and delivered crystal clear graphics. It was expensive and difficult, but  the attention to the detail that could have been dismissed for cheaper more utilitarian solutions paid huge dividends in volume, and profitability albeit at skinnier margins.

 

Be brave & committed.

Nothing really useful will evolve from just doing the same thing as others, but just a bit better. Being different means taking risks, being brave, pushing the envelope, all those clichés that mean someone has to be brave enough to open the door to the unchartered. That takes guts, rare in todays corporate world,  but around aplenty in small and medium sized businesses.

When we changed Ski 1kg to the rectangular tub, there was no way back. Over a week long factory shutdown, the old machinery for  filling the round tubs was removed, and the new rectangular filling machines installed. Had the change failed, there was no way back.

The steps we took with Ski were all brave at the time. We changed the dynamics and shape of the market, a seemingly obvious step,  but at the time it was sweaty palms all around.

 

You have to be smart.

The marketing group had some very smart people, but more than that, it was a collectively smart group. There was great collaboration and support, and the longevity of the group was substantial, which had offered the opportunity to make a few mistakes and learn from them. At a time when the average tenure of marketing personnel was about 18 months, we averaged 6 years, giving us a significant depth of market understanding and intelligence. Just as important, or perhaps more so, we had the support of the CEO of the division who was prepared to support and encourage the things we did, and I am sure his palms were sweatier than any others, although at the time it never showed. His confidence in us, and support in keeping the corporate drones at bay never wavered. Innovation is impossible without that sort of support from the top.

 

It is really hard to continue to succeed.

This is a warning.

If you succeed, when the applause is over and the credit appropriated, the corporate gnomes come out to play, those who do not understand the dynamics of a brand. If you go into a supermarket today, Ski is an also ran, it looks like it is back to single figure market share, a shadow of its former self we had built. The brand we developed was raped by the accountants and sycophants who killed the golden goose by greed, short ‘termism’ and stupidity, rather than continuing to nurture and invest. The temptation to do so will be strong, and it takes a CEO with brass ones to resist the siren call of the throngs and maintain the investment required.

That rot had started a year or so before I was toddled off. By that time the corporate structure had changed a couple of times, and I was unable to keep the support that had enabled the success in the first place in the face of the changed structure and personnel. Unable to stay quiet in the face of the short term lure of the margins instead of continuing the investment for the long haul, I insisted on being the resident ‘Cassandra’  and ended up paying the price.

As I wrote this post I had to shake myself that it was 25 years ago.

Seems like yesterday.

A lot has changed in the marketing landscape, but the essentials remain the same.