Jun 14, 2011 | Collaboration, Communication, Marketing, Social Media
“Immediacy” is perhaps the watch-word to describe the way in which our society works. Communication is so instant that we expect reaction to the communication to be just as quick, and this expectation of virtually instantaneous reaction can be a death trap for those not adequately prepared for it.
Just think what would have happened last week had the MLA properly prepared for the predictable backlash from the 4 Corners program. Rather than a muted response, David Palmer (MD) and other stakeholders in the industry should have been out there, TV, blogs, twitter, U-Tube, et al, with stories, pictures, and commentary that articulated the facts on a personal level, with emotion, and honesty.
There is an alternative view to the sensationally emotional 4 Corners story. There is a modest number of very good abattoirs that process a substantial majority of the animals sent to Indonesia, many of the smaller works, whilst not perfect, are working towards better standards, the local employment around the feedlots and works in Indonesia adds substantially to the local economy, the success of the investment MLA has made over many years to lift standards, the care Australian farmers and logistics suppliers take, and so on. Had this story been well told, we may not have had the level of knee-jerk we have had, and the attention would have been focused on how to improve the minority of the trade in Indonesia that is substandard, rather than a total ban which throws years of work, an important industry in Indonesia and Australia, and the relationship with the biggest neighbor we have against the wall.
Even better, knowing it was coming, use all the electronic tools of the immediacy generation to get the message out there in front of the 4 Corners program going to air to further mitigate the dumb, emotional knee-jerk we are now seeing in the community. Whilst a bit was done, it is bland, unemotional, scripted stuff with no emotional connection, and clearly sets out to arse-cover, rather than tell the story in a memorable way. It failed at both.
What was delivered to our couches last week was pictures of the worst of the worst, highly effective, emotional shock tactics that achieved their objective. The lesson for the rest of us is to prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best, because when the worst happens, your response has to be convincing and immediate.
Jun 7, 2011 | Communication, Social Media
Try this on U-tube, a recitation of stats that should leave no doubt that social media is mainstream, not a toy for the digital generation.
OK, we all know you cannot believe everything you see on the web, so halve all the numbers, quarter them, and it still does not make much difference to the only logical conclusion. Social media is not a fad, it is mainstream, it is a revolution, and it is gaining momentum as we speak.
Jun 1, 2011 | Customers, Marketing
Considering in a recent workshop the parameters of service innovation being delivered by the enterprise concerned, we boiled down the variables to just two.
- What is it that the customers is trying to achieve that using our product will deliver better than any alternative?
- How easy (or hard) is it to do business with us, and how can we improve the experience?
It really seems too simple, but sometimes the simple delivers the best outcome, complicating it just gets in the way of clear thought.
When we answered these two simple questions, the follow up activities were obvious, as were the costs, necessary changes, and implementation timetables.
May 25, 2011 | Change, Customers, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
Retailers have spent 50 years offering a wide range of options to scratch any shopping itch. They have trained consumers to expect, indeed demand, a wide range, but given their walls are not elastic, is it any wonder that that when the elastic walls of the e-tailer comes along, we do what they have trained us to do, check out all the options and buy the one that best meets our needs.
Another perspective is that retailers to date have had all the power, what got stocked had a chance of sale, so retailers charged suppliers to have their product on shelf, and charged more for the best sales positions, in effect mixing the picking of winners with extraction of cash from suppliers. Now, suppliers have another option, one where the usurious practices of bricks and mortar retailers is mitigated, and a product has the opportunity for sale on its merits, not just on the pocket size of the supplier.
Is it any wonder the shift to net shopping is gaining momentum, the retailers have only themselves to blame that they did not see the shift happening, or just wished it would go away, and failed to use their capital and position to carve out a position for themselves.
May 19, 2011 | Communication, Customers, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
It will be worth watching the way Microsoft goes about leveraging their $8.5 Billion (should have paid Aussie dollars?) purchase of Skype, there will be a swarm of lessons to be learnt:
- Integration of a “free” service into a product/profit business model. This challenge will create sufficient tensions and cultural speed bumps to keep the academics busy for a long time. History is against Microsoft, most purchases like this that seek to integrate differing cultures fail to add value in the long term.
- Skype has a huge customer base, but is only marginally profitable, turning that around without risking the loss of the existing customer base who want a free service will be problematical
- To what extent is this the foundation of a marketing effort by Microsoft to protect their hugely profitable Office franchise from cloud based competitors like Google Docs, and how will this all pan out?
- Will the existing Skype customers continue to support the service now it is part of the “evil empire”
- How will Apple and Google react, both appeared to have been beaten in an auction for Skype. They both have communication products that compete with Skype, but few users.
- Can Microsoft assemble the capabilities to build new, risky, communication products that undergo a process of continuous improvement in the market with the input from users.
As a user of Skype’s free service, I am not sure how I would react to being charged, probably just “suck it up” but the commercial opportunities for conferencing calls using video must be immense, and the free service is a great entry point with a huge existing user base. Hopefully Microsoft sees it that way
May 12, 2011 | Collaboration, Leadership, Management, Marketing
I have been surprised a couple of times recently when I realised that two B2B businesses I was working with really had no idea how their ultimate customers used the products they bought from us. In both cases the products were sold through distributors, whose paranoia about both parallel competition and losing the businesses to a slicker option, because the distribution grass is always greener, prevented them sharing information.
Both the clients concerned were spending significant resources dreaming up new products and technologies, considering process, distribution and marketing options, but were flying blind because they had no idea of what was happening currently in the labs of the final customers .
Asking them how prepared they would be to endorse a pilot putting the flaps on the plane down when he did not know how high they were now brought the obvious response, but where is the difference?
OK, you may not hit the dirt in any way other than commercially doing it in a business, but it is just as stupid.
Blind-flying appears to often be a result of the pressure of the “just do something” attitude, appear busy and stressed, and then boss will leave you alone, but doing anything without understanding the starting point is just plain dumb.
