Oct 11, 2009 | Innovation, Management, Marketing, Small business
It is easy to see opportunities outside the “home base” often easier than seeing them close to home. However, success comes with exploiting potential in existing markets before you “export” resources to chasing new ones. Chase market penetration, cost reduction, value and innovation in your home and adjacent markets before you bet the farm on a new one.
These closer to home opportunities are rarely as sexy as building a business in a new area, but often they come with less risk, and investment, and usually a greater payoff.
Innovation is front and centre in this process of leveraging the existing base, but it is the grunt work of implementation, continuous innovation in small ways, and focus that will win.
My definition of marketing, not found in any textbook I have read is:
“Marketing is the identification, development, protection and leveraging of competitive advantage”
I have found if you apply this definition to all the activities of an enterprise, looking at each for its contribution to at least one of these parameters, your marketing focus will be crystal clear, and the process of sorting out strategy, and the supporting allocation of resources will be considerably eased.
Sep 24, 2009 | Innovation, Management, Marketing
Seth Godin is once again ahead of the wave with the launch of Brands In Public.
The logic is simple, today, you cannot control the conversations that occur about your brand or business, they happen across the myriad of access points to the web, so the next best thing is to assemble the conversations at a common point, and give yourself the opportunity to participate.
Brands in public gathers the conversations, and offers a point of intersection between these conversations and the brand owner. At least, you then have a place at the table to counter the nonsense, put forward the facts, and perhaps add a bit of steerage to the process.
Wonderful idea, so obvious with hindsight, executed with simplicity.
Sep 23, 2009 | Marketing
Green marketing, Eco marketing, carbon aware marketing, food miles marketing, Cause marketing, all are segments of “marketing” that have potential appeal to an “aware” group of consumers that just a few years ago would have been lumped together, and considered to be “tree huggers” or “loonies.”
Reaching these small but committed groups of consumers, and engaging with them is not possible in any cost effective way with mass media, it requires the communication tools of the 21st century to engage with, and be relevant to the emerging consumers of the 21st century.
It has always been the case that individuals were all different, it is just that branding evolved as a means to communicate to similar “masses” in the absence of being able to communicate with individuals about what made them an individual, a market of one.
Nothing has changed except the tools.
Sep 20, 2009 | Management, Marketing, Strategy
Modeling scenarios has become a pretty big business, but notice that you often get only the numbers out of the end of the model, rarely the assumptions that drive the outcomes, and rarely a range of options.
This has been brought home again as I read the “strategic plan” completed at great expense on behalf of an industry body that covers a wide range of individual sub industries, each with their own characteristics and issues, albeit with some common drivers such as water availability, labour availability and capital generation.
Consultants at great expense produced a model that churned out numbers supposed to show the way forward, but which common sense says has a lot of dodgy assumptions going in, because what is coming out is unusable by any of the individual enterprises in the industries, or the industry bodies supposed to assist them.
Most commercial models I see set out to prove a point of view, and that point of view usually aligns with some preconceived notion of what the outcome should be. In this above case, the outcome was driven by the consultants need to tell the industry body what they wanted, not necessarily what they needed to know.
Scientific method by contrast works in the opposite way, it sets out to disprove a hypothesis, and by that means, advance our knowledge a bit, as you reconsider the hypotheses on the basis on one more thing you know does not work.
Bit more time consuming, but outcomes that are untainted by an existing perspective.
Numbers are only as good as the assumptions that drive them, so next time you are given an argument backed by numbers, don’t look at the numbers, have someone explain and debate the assumptions that have driven them.
Sep 8, 2009 | Innovation, Leadership, Marketing
The first syllable of the word “innovation”, describes how most organizations see the process. Look inside the business for better processes, better science, better customer service practices, better product offerings. Problem is, that way you are always seeing the world from within the boundaries set by the status quo that pervades the business.
Looking at the world from another point if view, from the “outside” is usually a better way to create something new.
Innovation thinking from outside requires new rules about collaboration, and where you can get ideas, and it requires a special sort of leadership to enable an enterprise to activiely seek those who “do it” better than you.
Procter & Gambles A.G. Lafley reinvigorated the company by actively seeking ideas from outside the huge P&G innovation machine, recognising that most of the great ideas will be elsewhere, and the skill of the organisation is to recognise and commercialise them.
The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz noted “we observe everything from a point of view”, and like much of his other writing, he was centuries ahead of his time, as the really successful innovators remove themselves from the shackles of the corporate point of view, to bring the outside inside their innovation efforts.
Sep 6, 2009 | Innovation, Leadership, Marketing, Strategy
Then notion of “industrial commons” as a metaphor for the clustering of firms of a similar type in an area put forward by Gary Pisano of Harvard Business School is immediately attractive, as it easily explains things we have all seen, without recognising the implications.
Pre industrial revolution, the notion of commons applied to the common land on which all villagers could graze their cattle, or carry out other communal activity.
In the post industrial age, it is about the manner in which particular skills assemble over time in a location that enables them to leverage the proximity of the intellect into goods and services. Silicon valley is the best known example, but there are many others.
This puts a simple platform under many publicly funded efforts to enhance “clusters” in my area of work, particularly in the production of high value specialty food products.
The growth of Orange in the central west of NSW as a fine food centre is supported by a wide range of agriculture, from broad acre cropping to intensive horticulture and wine making, further supported by mining operation which give some scale to the engineering services sector, and the University offering agricultural science amongst a wide range of disciplines. By contrast, nearby Mudgee has all the agricultural advantages, possibly more, but lacks the mining, university and the attraction to general tourism and passing trade, and so the clustering of food value adding has failed to gather the momentum of Orange.
The challenge in creating a “common” is the timeframe of the return on investment in the necessary infrastructure. Governments create and abandon a development program in sync with the electoral and economic cycles, commons will take a generation at least to gain traction, so governments should not be surprised to see their efforts largely fail, whilst next door, a “cluster” will evolve with little or no engagement of public funds beyond basic services, simply because it has all the natural conditions to thrive.
