May 3, 2013 | Small business, Strategy, Uncategorized
Yesterday I did a presentation to a group of owners of small businesses, people who seemingly compete against the odds from a point of weakness, as almost everybody is bigger, better resourced, has better technology, and are more connected, than them.
As a basis for the presentation I used Simon Sineks great TED talk, that articulated the ” Why How What” model, one I have been able to use quite often as a means to assist SME’s sort out what is really important, and what just seems to be important, as they try to navigate the competitive challenges they face.
Just after I had delivered my thoughts, a great post from Seth Godin popped into my feed, and it added a further perspective to the challenges. For these small business people, working as hard as they can, trying to be “picked” by their potential customers, from amongst the baying crowd of potential suppliers is confronting and often disillusioning. How do they stand out from the crowd?
Seth’s point is do not be a part of the crowd of supplicants, do not wait for others to pick you, pick yourself by being different, useful, and interesting.
This is as true for the SME around the corner as it is to the huge multinational, but when you think about it a bit, the elephant is pretty hard to persuade to change direction, to be sufficiently agile to respond quickly, whilst the little bloke is far more able to turn on a sixpence.
It just takes the will, vision and balls to be different.
Apr 19, 2013 | Branding, Marketing, Strategy
Ever noticed that people who seem to “really have it all together” are able to poke fun at themselves, take negative feedback as an opportunity to learn and improve, and surprise with their capacity to be absolutely, selflessly, honest?
It is often the same with brands, another example of the similarity of people and brands, of how brands take on human characteristics.
However, it is a revelation to see this astonishingly honest ad by Coke.
Is this the beginning of a trend, a measure of maturity of the Coca Cola brand that it is able to spend resources advertising the downside of consumption of the product, or just a mistake, like the appalling blunder with “New Coke” in 1985. Perhaps, my cynical side asks, it is because they make more money out of their other beverage products, and want to switch consumption?
It seems to me that despite all, it really is just a measure of the security that Coke management feels in the strength of their brand. It is a recognition that if they do not talk about the cause and effect between sugar beverage consumption and obesity, and all its problems, others will, and they better have a credibility and a stake in the conversation.
Mar 18, 2013 | Innovation, Leadership, Management, Strategy
Well, they can’t, not without people. It is the people who think, then act to get stuff done via organisational processes. It does not matter if you are BHP, or a two person consultancy, it works the same way. Indeed, if you are a one man business, find others against whom you can test your individual thinking, and it will improve.
The essence of “thinking,” really teasing out the guts of a problem or situation is to make use of all the available data and opinions, not just those that agree with yours, not just those that rise from a similar set of assumptions, and certainly not those that lead to a semi-predetermined outcome.
People avoid conflict, it is uncomfortable, they avoid being on the outside of the crowd, but guess where all the really new stuff comes from, so the challenge in enabling organisations to think is to encourage conflict of the mind, to welcome ideas that challenge ours, and embrace the conflict.
The worst thing I have seen in 20 years of consulting on strategy, marketing and improvement is silence. It is always a strong indicator that the organisation is not thinking, but looking to the bosses to make the decisions, because they know best.
Bullshit I say, give me the friendly, heartfelt noise of active debate any time.
Mar 14, 2013 | Governance, Innovation, Personal Rant, Strategy
Leaving aside the fact that it is an election year, and rhetoric is the usual fare served up, there remains an economy to run.
Lots of space will be allocated to “Innovation” plans, the Manufacturing jobs announcements a few weeks ago, the Arts creativity and Innovation plan announced yesterday, big announcements, lots of largely recycled money that probably will not be delivered, and hot air expended, but what of the real dilemma?
Governments govern, they (attempt to) create repreatable processes that exclude variation and eschews risk, whereas innovation requires a high tolerance for risk and failure, the absolute opposite of the risk appetite of Government. Distinctly oil and water here!
How do we encourage and support startups, the innovation lifeblood of the economy? The stuff we can dig up and flog at commodity prices cannot in the long run be anything but a race to the bottom of the price curve, and we will lose, as we are unprepared to accept the labour, environmental and public oversight deficiencies of our less fussy international competitors.
At a time when our exports of services are declining, can we ignore the opportunities in tech startups and services? When Google puts its money where its mouth is, and gets together with a few entrepreneurs with a track record of success as they have with the Silicon Beach Action Group, should we listen?
Mar 6, 2013 | Marketing, Strategy
Italian mathematician Vilfredo Pareto’s observations that resulted in what is now commonly known as the “80/20” rule, are well understood.
As a young marketer, Lord leverhulme’s wry observation that he knew half his advertising was wasted, he just wish he knew which half was which resonated with me. It also seemed to me that the balance of activity in the marketing departments I inhabited also fell into Pareto’s 80/20 rule, 80% of marketing was creative, and 20% was quantitative.
The last decade has turned that all on its head. We can now comprehensively measure the impact of our decisions, their cause and effect chains, and calculate an ROI, particularly in B2B. I venture that the balance has changed, and marketing is now 80% quantitative, 20% creative.
However, 20% of activity that is creative is more critical than ever, as it is the stuff that offers differentiation, an edge in the market, access to new customers and channels, a reason to engage.
Too many marketers I see are still avoiding the accountability offered by the analytical capabilities developed in the last decade, preferring to remain in the past. However, those who are really successful, the 20%, embrace the notion of accountability for their decisions, and track the returns on their marketing investments.
As a side benefit, effective use of marketing analytics offers greater profile to those seeking corporate advancement, the beanies who generally run the joint, love the numbers!
Feb 18, 2013 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Strategy
Marketers are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the ways they leverage understanding of how the brain works to build competitive advantage.
20 years ago most marketing positioning, segmentation and communication was based around demographic factors, but we have been increasingly understanding the linkages between a whole range of factors and individual behavior in a rang of circumstances as we have been able to collect and analyse data. This understanding has evolved to the point where the old fashioned demographic segmentation and positioning now looks like a Model T in the 2012 Paris motor show.
The evolving marketing skill is understanding how the brain works in order to gain commercial advantage, work that is based on academic medical research. But this research is just conforming what good marketers have known for some time, albeit intuitively. Simon Sinek’s simple “Why What How” presentation that has garnered almost 10 million YouTube views is just a marketers interpretation of Neuromarketing being applied.
Yesterday I did a presentation to a group of owners of small businesses, people who seemingly compete against the odds from a point of weakness, as almost everybody is bigger, better resourced, has better technology, and are more connected, than them. 