Feb 4, 2013 | Marketing, Strategy
LAB, Lemming Avoidance Behaviour, or simply, avoid being like everyone else.
Whilst we are in the age of the “wisdom of the crowd” there is a profound difference between that wisdom and simple herd behavior.
We are not lemmings, but so often we exhibit their behavior, following the crowd, just because being a part of the herd is more comfortable than being an outlier, unless of course, we find the proverbial cliff. Standing out from the crowd, turning left when the rest turn right, making ourselves a target, is unnatural, because it is dangerous, and deep in our brains there are the evolutionary barriers to being different. They served a real purpose when there were sabre-toothed tigers outside the cave, but as the tigers are gone, the dangers are elsewhere.
Today, the danger is in conformity, blandness, commodity, to day, you need to stand for something that others value, something remarkable, something that makes a difference to others. The absence of difference, implies lemming behavior, and I believe to be successful, LAB is mandatory.
Try it, get the adrenaline pumping, feel the buzz, and have a chance to succeed.
Jan 30, 2013 | Change, Marketing, Small business
I wonder how anybody could be in the slightest bit surprised that Coles and Woollies are raking in the profits from petrol retailing, as has been reported recently.
We have allowed a virtual duopoly to emerge and duopolies behave in pretty predictable ways, for the benefit of shareholders, that is the way the system works. Oh, you will not be able to nail collusion, or any of the other nasty anti competitive behaviours on them, probability is they will not be happening, as they are not necessary with a duopoly, simple self interest will drive profitable behaviour. The opportunities to cross merchandise, cross promote, and leverage operational logistics costs that exist just enhance the attraction of it all.
The scale of the major enterprises makes competition from local businesses a huge challenge. Pundits like me can wax on about the opportunities the small agile enterprises have, how the net has given them the flexibility and transparency to take on the big guys, but when it truly is David Vs Goliath in a local market, the little guy will rarely win. He will be swamped by the “man” who can simply ignore as a short term irritation the slower traffic, lower basket value, squeezed margins, and any resident reaction that occurs, that would mean death to the smaller operation.
I feel for the small guys who have made a huge effort to compete, but being in a commodity market means that scale counts, and in the petrol market, Coles and Woolies now own it, as they do groceries and hardware, with office supplies evolving down the same path. I bet they cannot wait to get their hands on the still regulated pharmacies and newsagents, where the regulation has enabled a cosy club for small businesses to exist.
Jan 29, 2013 | Marketing, Small business, Social Media
Groups, networks, friends, and even loose 2nd and 3rd party connections via social media all have similar characteristics when viewed from a distance. Groups of people interconnected in some way.
However, the real value of a group is its density, how close they are, and how mutual are all the links, how much they share, and of crucial importance, how much they contribute rather than just being conduits.
A small group is able to self regulate easily, there is little tolerance of free-riders, there is a high degree of “density” among the members. However, a large group is poor at identifying and excluding free-riders. The number and strength of connections between individuals in the larger group are much less, and weaker, there are those in the group who have no connection with each other beyond membership of the group: the density of the group is much lower.
A high density enables stuff to get done, the group can co-ordinate the actions of its members. But there is a paradox here, a large group can also co-ordinate, and in a short time, but only in the negative, it can be somewhere to stop something, to protest, a very simple, single purpose, but it cannot map a course of action and follow it. A dense group can map a course, follow it, and if dense enough, accommodate changes in direction.
Consider how easy it is for a group of three friends to agree to go to the pictures next week.
They agree a time and film to see that suits them all.
Now consider the added complications of adding an extra three friends to the party, all that extra schedule matching, as well as the varying tastes in film. How much more difficult this would all be if the added three are just acquaintances of one of the original three, unknown to the others.
Density, not numbers is the key to social success, in media, as well as in life.
Jan 24, 2013 | Branding, Marketing
“Graph Search” may offer the potential of a financial bonus to the beleagured facebook shareholders sucked in by the IPO hype, I suspect it is, but what were they thinking when they dreamt up the name?
A brand is supposed to convey a promise, be a memorable badge for the product, and in the case of a sub brand, add to the whole. Writing this post, and the one a few days ago, I had to return to the facebook page several times to remember what the silly thing is called.
Graphs?
Greater?
Giraffe?
“Grape search” (cab sav anyone)
I know that to insiders, a “graph” is a metaphor for the map of a persons networks, a diagram that represent all the friends, comments, reviews, updates, and connections, but not everybody is an insider.
Perhaps they shoul have snuck down the road and thrown some money at the branding boys at Apple, they seem to know what they are doing.
Jan 17, 2013 | Branding, Communication, Social Media
The value of Facebook has tanked since the IPO last year, largely because after the hype, people wondered how the returns would be delivered when the obvious source, advertising, does not really work on Facebook.
However, Facebook is in the throes of launching an extensively re-engineered search facility, “Graph Search“. This facility will enable placement of extremely focused advertising in situations where the search being conducted is for things other than friendly e-conversation. This change potentially removes the barrier to successful adverting on Facebook, the disinterest in anything commercial when interacting with friends.
This Wired article on Graph Search offers detail, but essentially, the new search facility reflects peoples networks as a graph, or network chart, and the search capability can interrogate the network, and answer questions, with extensive auto-complete suggestions based on your previous activity.
Google cannot get at the data held by Facebook, that is a huge resource of people, networks, preferences, links, and reviews that can now be leveraged in searches conducted from within the Facebook community.
Similarly, the power of Linkedin is the connections between people and their work. Want to see who is connected to someone at a competitor, supplier, potential customer, and so on? now Facebook will be able to do it, perhaps better than Linkedin, particularly for the under 35’s.
An underutilised aspect of Twitter is the search capability, when used well, it is an enormously valuable addition to a Google search, and contains links that enable a deeper dive from any starting point in a topic. Other services like Pinterest also now chase the available advertising dollars, making media choices a complex nightmare.
Graph Search makes the battle for on line advertising even more interesting, and will add some extra lead into the saddlebags of newspapers as they try to monetarise their offerings. News Corp is in the middle of splitting their operations, separating newspaper film and television assets globally, restructuring to enhance revenue generation options, already having paywalls in place for their newspapers. Fairfax is expected to introduce some level of paywall sometime in the next few months in an effort to stem the bleeding.
As the search capabilities improve, and paywalls emerge, the attraction of free sources of information will increase, with the minor irritation of the presence of advertising. Facebook now appears to not only to be in a position to cash in on their huge network, but to potentially extensively disrupt the current web and remaining legacy media advertising options.
Jan 2, 2013 | Branding, Change, Marketing, retail, Small business
This is the first post of the new year, so it seemed appropriate to hop on a hobby-horse, the indiscriminate use of the word “iconic”, in all sorts of situations.
My beef today is specific to the food industry.
The call to receivers to sort out “Rosella” has created a lot of noise, of the “another “Iconic” Australian food business goes to the wall” type.
Whilst it is true that the Rosella brand has been around for a long time, it has not been owned by an Australian company in my memory in the food industry, which is disturbingly long. Rosella was owned by the British/Dutch multinational Unilever for many years, who sold it to the Dutch trader Stuart Alexander probably 15 years ago. They failed to give it the breath of life, and on-sold it to the South African group that ultimately owned Gourmet Food Holdings, as their vehicle to assemble food brands. They also owned Aristocrat, which in my memory was owned by an Australian family who actually cared about their products. Problem was they had a factory in Chatswood in Sydney, now prime real estate, and insufficient marketing grunt to maintain retail real estate,
So, what makes an “Iconic Australian business”?
I might be persuaded that “Rosella” was an Australian brand, as you could not buy it anywhere else, but certainly not that it was an iconic Australian brand, or Australian business, which is the other epithet often used.
To me “iconic” has a number of dimensions:
Longevity.
Market share, but more importantly than share, the potential to shift markets due to consumer trust and loyalty.
Consistent delivery of value to customers/consumers.
Over time, it has managed to evolve so that it accurately reflects the core proposition of the brand in a manner relevant to the customers/consumers of each of those times.
On all but the first of these parameters, Rosella fails the test. Ask yourself “who will miss Rosella?” and the real answer is very few.
So why the hand-wringing?
Simple. The demise of Rosella in another example of the decimation of the Australian food manufacturing industry, particularly the small manufacturers. Here we are, in a geographically enviable location close to the burgeoning Asian markets, with advanced R&D, skilled workforce, high and transparent standards, able to produce commodities at world competitive costs, but we are failing to feed our own people from our own resources, huge amounts of manufactured food is now imported, (more than $10 billion last year) and the trend is accelerating.
We have White papers dealing with the Asian century and our place in it delivering cliches, and task forces examining the woes of the food manufacturing industry, and making grand recommendations, but not much activity that is useful, so I guess we have to kid ourselves to feel better.
Happy new year, I hope it is “iconic” for you.
