Mar 30, 2010 | Innovation, Management, Social Media
A while ago, I blogged about the ownership of IP, the individual Vs the employer, and quoted the case of a designer who left Mattel for their competitor, MGA Entertainment, created a competitor to “Barbie” and ended up in court over IP ownership, and lost.
Now one of the key innovation drivers at Apple, Tony Fadell creator of the ipod, is leaving Apple for alternative pastures.
Steve Jobs is not known as benevolent, so we can expect some fireworks, and perhaps some further definition of the ownership rights of individuals who dream up great “stuff” and of their employers . This may not all be in the public domain, as sensibly the parties will have tied up the IP ownership & “money stream” issues, but we will watch with interest, and be certain that there has been some sweat in the Apple boardroom.
Mar 28, 2010 | Branding, Management, Marketing
Building a brand is a “one bit at a time” exercise.
Most aspiring brand managers look at Coke, Google, Microsoft, the local leader in their market, and think about how they can take them on, and win.
The process is useful, but the reality is that you can’t do it in one big bang, it is one brick at a time.
There are many metaphors, I like thinking about the process as a bike race. You need to be in there and fit, and have the support team all pulling for you, there will be ups and downs, opportunities to go faster downhill, and hills you have to really work at to get over, but over the distance, you if build up momentum, experience, consistency, manage the risks and take the opportunities, you may earn a place in the peloton, and if you are good enough, and your timing is right, you can get to the stage finish first. Then, there is just tomorrow.
Building a brand is similar.
Mar 28, 2010 | Management, Sales
The only way to win is to attack, you can prevent being beaten by defense, but as any football coach knows, defense will not win.
Same in business, you need to understand your strengths and weaknesses compared to the opposition, and exploit the strengths, whilst covering for the weaknesses.
Having an intimate understanding of the key customers, those who will spread the word of your product or service is as good as having the opposition playbook
The only way to get a crystal clear picture of the oppositions position is to experiment, continually ask the questions of them by experimenting, testing, & understanding their response, be restless, and inquisitive, probe, analyse, question, form and test hypothesis. Sounds a bit like the scientific method, and continuous improvement.
Mar 23, 2010 | Branding, Management, Social Media
The phenomena of social media is one that businesses need to understand, and be ready to respond when, rather than if, it gets difficult.
The Nestle Facebook page has been overrun by new “fans” after the publicity surrounding their practices of using palm oil sourced from Indonesia from areas with questionable sustainability practices. On Twitter when I checked a short time ago there were many entries, most about the palm oil, and all of them unhappy.
Justified or otherwise, businesses need to be on the front foot to be able to respond positively, and proactively to the potential of social media to undo brand integrity overnight.
The destruction of a brand, or in Nestles case, many brands is much easier than their construction,
At some point, all organizations will come under the scrutiny of groups utilizing the tools of the social media if they leave any openings at all, and these groups are currently better organised, better focused, and better able to mobilise support. Being proactive is no longer the task that should be given to the graduate trainee, but should be a board issue, as it is a major risk to the Intellectual capital and therefore value of a business.
Mar 11, 2010 | Leadership, Management
I often see businesses rewarding one behavior, whilst seeking an entirely different one. A Managing Director I worked for many years ago used to bang on about the long term the strategy, and values of the organisation, whilst beating (metaphorically) the daylights out of anyone who missed the monthly budget. Guess what people focused on.
When you align the rewards, and we are not just talking about money here, other things are usually more important, particularly recognition, with the desired outcomes, it is very powerful, but a misalignment is usually destructive.
When I trained my dog, I pushed on his bum and said “sit” when I wanted him to sit, and gave him a doggy biscuit when he sat. The desired outcome and the reward were aligned. Had I said sit, and given him a biscuit when he barked, the behavior outcome would have been different.
People are a bit more complicated that dogs, but you get the message.
The link will take you to a classic article from 1975, that relates stories of situations where one outcome is required, but the reward is for a different outcome. It is as valid today as it was in 1975, and I like the stories.
Mar 3, 2010 | Innovation, Management, Strategy
The great pressure for “innovation” comes at least partly from the buy in of senior executives in the notion promulgated by numerous thinkers that the only really sustainable competitive advantage is the capability to out innovate the competition.
However, in the rush for new products and processes, some have forgotten the real outcome of successful innovation is cash, and common sense, discipline, and experience get thrown away in the rush for the newest thing, that more often than not adds little value to the customer experience.
