Oct 5, 2010 | Change, Communication, Leadership, Sales
Trying to get stakeholder buy-in for an idea that breaks the mould is very hard in most organisations as it challenges the dominating logic of the organisation, what has succeeded in the past, and made it what it is today.
This process can be helped by breaking the internal selling process into two parts:
- Gain understanding of the idea from a “technical” perspective, the what and why, to ensure the facts are clear, understood, and acknowledged.
- Then, seek to address the cognitive issues, the “do you agree with it” things, but having gained an agreement of the technical aspects, the “do you understand it” issues, it is much harder for someone to disagree when all is left is the emotive stuff.
Sep 19, 2010 | Customers, Marketing, Sales
Watching The Gruen Transfer a couple of weeks ago, one of the panelists quoted one of the oldest adages in marketing, ‘Sell the problem” as if it was a revelation. Fact is, addressing the problem is often forgotten as marketers become so entranced by the features of their products they forget to define the reason somebody would buy it.
People do not buy solutions to problems until they see the solution as costing less than managing the ongoing costs and inconvenience the problem generates, it therefore follows that the best way to sell is to develop the understanding of the relative size of the problem to which you have the solution.
This is the basis of “SPIN” selling, (Situation, Problem, Implication, Need pay-off) which is still the best sales book ever written, outlining a selling process that focuses on what a sale delivers to the buyer, and the best way to get there.
Sep 2, 2010 | Change, Customers, Marketing, Operations, Sales
We spend lots of time dreaming up new stuff, but there are almost always things that we take as given, things that we do not question, usually because they are so basic, that we never think to do otherwise.
Many years ago, a part of my responsibilities was for the marketing of Ski yoghurt in Australia. At that time, all 1kg yoghurt came in round tubs, it was easy, cheap, all the filling equipment was designed for round tubs, as it was the cheapest shape to produce and print, anything else was a dumb idea, and would cost a motzza. I changed Ski to a rectangular tub, and sales tripled overnight, and the market was changed. Consumers for a number of simple, practical, but to then unspoken reasons, preferred a rectangular tub
The whole industry had been dependent on the manufacturers of the filling equipment, who supplied machinery designed to deliver the least cost option, nobody was silly enough to even consider an added cost alternative, so round tubs were the standard, all operational equipment was optimised for round tubs, and the suggestion that you should retool a factory for an alternative was never considered. It’s just that consumers when given the choice abandoned the round tub overnight, and retailers, reaslising a rectangulat tub offered better shelf utilisation, were happy to put them on shelf.
When looking for opportunities, consider the things that are just “there” that are part of the fabric, and are as a result taken for granted, and find one to change.
Aug 19, 2010 | Customers, Marketing, Sales, Small business
Commodity markets have two things in common:
- There is plenty of business to go around, that is why it is a commodity market. In a mature, saturated market, the challenge is to attract some of the business that is around, not build a new market.
- Customers focus aggressively on price, usually because none of the suppliers in the market give them a reason to focus on anything else, and it is an easy common denominator.
Finding a sustainable point of differentiation is never easy, if it was, everyone would be doing it. The starting point is to understand what the commodity you sell is used for, understand how the product adds value to the customer, and restructure the offering around the source of value.
For example, hiring a car is an exercise in price comparison and the convenience of pick-up and drop-off, not much else. A hirer wants a car to give them mobility, flexibility, and economy of time, and money (compared to taxis). Why doesn’t someone charge by the Km after a small base charge to cover insurance and availability. Suddenly, the game is changed! Same with car insurance, we all pay the same differentiated only by the age and location of the driver, and type of car, but cars are about offering mobility, and logically the more you drive, the greater the chance of a claim, so charge by the Km driven after a small base charge to acknowledge the other variables. What about advertising, why not charge by the response, putting some responsibility on the medium to deliver what it promises, even something as basic as printing services, differential pricing based on turnaround times, response rates (even for printed leaflets, brochures, and so on) is possible.
When you charge for the value delivered, as seen by the customer, rather than just the production, the market loses the second of the characteristics noted above, and differentiation has emerged.
Aug 3, 2010 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Marketing, Sales, Social Media
Social network marketing is a fundamentally different beast to “traditional “marketing. When talking to marketers, they usually see social media as being in effect free, the challenge is to get the message spread, often by being outrageous, generating awareness for little money compared to traditional media.
To my mind, it is much more complicated than that. “Word of Mouse” on social media has to be earned, and that is really challenging, requiring intimate knowledge of the marketplace, customers, their behaviour, and what is likely to positively engage them. Traditional marketing makes it easy to gain a general level of awareness, you just have to pay for it, but like most things that are easy, the return is very low.
Jul 27, 2010 | Customers, Management, Sales
Independent produce retailers appear to be resurgent, based on the quality of their offer to consumers.
For years anybody who has been involved with FMCG has known about the challenge of the “last 10 yards“, the distance between a supermarkets back dock and the selling face. Retailers talk about out of stocks, and lost sales, suppliers struggle with short lead times, demanding delivery schedules and the lack of accurate and collaborative forecasting.
Added to these are these challenges presented by fresh food, perishability, appearance, consumers determination to handle and “cherry-pick” the produce, and the nightly put-away. The major supermarkets would appear to be losing share to resurgent independents, as they have responded to the supply chain challenges with greener fruit, more resistant to damage, and offering a longer period to maximise the opportunities for sale. Downside is that green fruit is not much good to eat.
Produce is a difficult category where training and product knowledge is more important than in any dry grocery category by a mile. Why then are there casuals in produce? Last week I saw, not for the first time, a seventeen year old tipping a box of tomatoes onto a display like they were Lego bricks, surely some training would be useful? In this case, it was the last 10 inches that stuffed the tomato.
No wonder specialists who know their business, and can manage the challenges particular to a category are doing a better job than generalists, and consumers are responding.
