Nov 6, 2025 | AI, Marketing, Uncategorized
Marketing loves a revolution, preferably one with fireworks, a celebrity CMO, and a paid Gartner report showing a hockey stick. Every new technology arrives promising to rewrite the laws of business.
Meanwhile, the laws never change.
Newton had it right centuries ago: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Marketing keeps proving him right. The faster we chase shiny new digital tactics, the harder the pendulum swings back to the fundamentals we pretended we no longer needed.
The Hype Machine vs. Reality
AI evangelists shout that everything has changed. They’re half‑right. The tools have changed. The speed has changed. The expectation of real‑time response has changed.
But the bedrock?
Know your customer, serve them relentlessly, and build trust you don’t squander.
Peter Drucker’s reminder rings louder than ever: The purpose of marketing is to create a customer.
That was true before AI, it will be true long after whatever replaces AI evolves.
Newton’s First Law: Brands That Stay in Motion… Stay in Motion
A brand with momentum earns attention even when the tools shift. Strong positioning and consistent storytelling generate their own gravity.
Campaigns used to last years. Now we rotate creative at the speed of TikTok. But the brands that last, the ones that compound mental availability play the long game.
Eyeballs come from activation.
Profit comes from brand.
The long term enables the short term. Always has, always will.
Newton’s Second Law: Force = Mass x Acceleration
Digital acceleration gives marketers more force: faster cycle times, instant metrics, and dashboards that look scientific.
The result?
Everyone is reacting. No one is thinking creatively from first principles, and trust is the casualty.
Trust is earned by performance as promised — repeatedly, and can be lost in one failed moment. That hasn’t changed since merchants first haggled in a marketplace.
Newton’s Third Law: Every Action Sparks a Reaction
The more we optimise for clicks, the more customers lose patience.
The more noise we make, the more deaf they become.
This is why brand building matters more today than ever, not less.
It gives people a reason to care before you give them a reason to click.
The fact that it is much harder to build a successful brand today amongst the tsunami of competition for attention makes success more rewarding when it is achieved.
Proof From the Pub
Advertising platforms come and go. Positioning endures.
Remember the Tooheys ads from the early eighties? “I feel like a Tooheys.” A social beer for a social moment. That construct worked because it tapped into a universal truth: reward, mateship, the end‑of‑day ritual.
Three decades later, after a long hiatus, the idea and variation on the 40 year old execution still works. The brand physics didn’t change. The accountants who inherited the brand 30 years ago did not know these basic laws of market positioning. However, it seems a marketer is back in the drivers seat, as the positioning is being renewed.
The Only Trend That Never Ends
Every marketer faces the same trade‑off: harvest now, or plant for later.
Short‑term activation makes the CFO smile.
Long‑term brand keeps the organisation alive.
Ignore the fundamentals and you may win the sprint, but keep them central and you’ll win the marathon.
The more things change in marketing, the more they stay the same.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
A Final Thought
If you want to avoid being whiplashed by every new tactic dressed up as a strategy, bring someone to the table who has lived through enough hype cycles to recognise what actually moves the needle.
A wise old head. With battle scars. Who knows where the shortcuts lead — and where the traps are hidden.
Give me a call before you change everything… and accidentally change nothing for the better.
Oct 1, 2025 | Marketing, Strategy, Uncategorized
Management attention is an investment.
However, I have never seen a calculation of that investment made without the benefit of hindsight. Considering the return on management attention (ROMA) seems to be a sensible element of investment due diligence.
As a consultant I’m always urging clients to focus their resources, time, money, expertise, operational capacity against a narrow field. This focus of resource is always superior to a generalised approach in winning in the short term.
Nowhere are military metaphors more appropriate then in a competitive commercial environment. Every general knows that to win the battle, he needs overwhelming force in a specific space.
However, every general also knows that a war is not won in a single battle. To win the war, you also must be able to adjust to changes in the context in which the war is being waged and respond accordingly.
Years ago, while working for Cerebos, I was responsible for Cerola muesli, now departed from supermarket shelves. In those days there were only a few major SKUs in the breakfast cereal aisle. Wheat Bix, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Rice bubbles, and a few other relatively minor SKUs. Muesli was out on the fringes, widely seen as ‘tree hugger food’.
As an extension to Cerola, we created a strategy that straddled the gap between those major cereals and muesli and named it ‘Light & Crunchy’.
We launched it into a test in South Australia. We believed we could build the Cerola brand to be more than just ‘hippie-food’ by creating a new category in the Cereal market. There was an unmet need, a potential gap in the market. That gap could be leveraged (we believed) with a good product and effective marketing programs to generate trial, which would lead to repeat purchase.
The early stages of the test were an enormous success. We easily got retail distribution, consumer trial and repurchase rates that were well above our benchmarks for a successful test.
The significant miscalculation made was not anticipating the weight of the response from Kellogg’s.
It came very quickly with a competitive product called ‘Just Right’, a direct copy of Light and Crunchy. Just Right still exists, which validates our identification of the unmet need. Kellogg’s competitive launch was supported by overwhelming advertising, consumer promotions, and instore promotional support. That massive, focused response by Kellogg’s simply blew us away, and killed any thoughts of continuing.
Kellogg’s saw our test launch of Light & Crunchy as a significant incursion into their territory. They had previously left us alone in Muesli. Research indicated that muesli, as it had been, was not competing for the same consumers who were purchasing Corn Flakes, Rice Bubbles, and Sanitarium’s Wheat Bix.
With Cerola Light and Crunchy, we changed that, and Kellogg’s reacted with extreme aggression. I had failed to anticipate the reaction, which was with the benefit of hindsight, absolutely predictable.
The real lesson was that we did not have what it took to be competent in the breakfast cereal market. While competence is a term that most would see as a measure of skill, in this instance it was more than that. It was a measure also of our depth of knowledge of the market, the competitive drivers that existed, and sufficiently deep pockets to wage a competitive war on Kellogg’s home turf.
Our attention was too focussed on the opportunity we saw in the market, but substantially lacking in attention to the wider competitive context. We had a skewed focus of attention, and the return on that lack of attention taught us a painful lesson.
‘ROMA’. Return on Management Attention, is always a strategic driver, rarely adequately considered.
Sep 22, 2025 | Uncategorized
Ask ten people how they use AI and you’ll get ten different answers. Some weave it into their daily work. Others haven’t touched it at all.
The word task is worth pausing on. Most regular users of ChatGPT and its cousins seem less interested in wholesale job replacement and more focused on automating specific tasks. Think of it as a digital assistant that takes care of the repetitive bits rather than a robot stealing your job.
The productivity impact is wildly uneven. Some see little or no gain. Others call it transformative. In most cases, it isn’t eliminating jobs outright, except perhaps grunt work like simple coding, but it is reshaping how people spend their time. Instead of vanishing, roles are evolving. People shift toward higher-value activities that build on what AI produces.
A recent OpenAI study helps quantify this shift, summarised in this graphic. The standout surprise: only 10% of users pay for a ChatGPT subscription. Given the billions being sunk into infrastructure by the LLM providers, that number points to a future where the providers are anticipating dramatic increases in usage, and are betting big with their Capex. It also means that business models will also change dramatically.
If you want to predict how AI will shape work, don’t look only at the tech. Look at how organisations themselves are changing. Structure and process are leading indicators. Change of the kind anticipated, and what we see starting to happen only occurs under strong leadership with a clear vision. Without the leadership, the power of the status quo exerts itself, and change becomes combative and the results disappointing. This will be the case with the evolution of AI.
MIT research reported in Harvard Business Review shows a brutal number: 95% of AI pilots fail.
That begs the question: what are the 5% who succeed doing differently? Academics, as they do, put their answer into a neat framework: the SHAPE Index. It highlights five traits: Strategic Agility, Human-Centricity, Applied Curiosity, Performance Drive, and Ethical Stewardship. The words may sound fluffy, but the underlying logic is sound. The real hurdle is moving from buzzwords to execution in organisations built to defend the status quo.
One thing is certain: sitting on the fence isn’t an option. AI is already changing the way we work. The only real choice is whether you shape it, or let it shape you.
Are you in the 95% waiting for AI to fail or the 5% figuring out how to make it work?
Aug 25, 2025 | Uncategorized
The NDIS has become the Gordian Knot of Australian public policy. Everyone at the roundtable last week agreed it’s unsustainable in its current form, but agreeing how to rein in spending will be a whole lot harder.
Minister Butler’s announcement of the Thriving Kids initiative is a move in the right direction, but it’s a single thread in a tangled ball of string. When you only pull one thread in a tangle, the rest of the knot tightens with unanticipated and always politically uncomfortable consequences.
This is not a system with one broken part. It’s a complex tangle of eligibility creep, opportunistic providers, diagnosis-driven funding, undercooked systems, inconsistent oversight with some fraud thrown in. Reforming just one part, no matter how well-intentioned, leaves the rest to fester. Every action taken to fix one issue nudges another out of alignment.
The OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, is built for this kind of problem. However, it will not be a single elegant cycle spinning at the centre of government. Rather, it requires dozens of loops running simultaneously, each targeting a separate piece of the mess, but in alignment with the objectives and activity going on in other loops.
Reforming the NDIS means defining the core issues to be addressed, managing priorities, ripping apart compounding complexity, and tackling the revealed challenges transparently, and one at a time.
The NDIS was created to support people with profound and permanent impairments. That mission is too important to be lost in mission creep and misallocated funds.
Observe: See the system, not Just the symptoms
The blowout in costs has become impossible to ignore. Nearly 10% growth year on year, with a target now of 4 to 6%. The Thriving Kids pivot aims to rehouse children with mild developmental needs in a different support stream. It addresses one of the most visible distortions, but it’s just the tip. It is also relocating those with mild learning challenges back to the states, who abrogated their responsibilities when the NDIS funding pool was opened for business.
Over the last few years, eligibility rules have stretched beyond recognition, plan managers are profiting with minimal oversight, administration systems are still working like it’s 2008, and there is enough friction between state and federal responsibilities to make any real-time response slow and clumsy. Fraud may not be rampant, but it’s visible enough to damage public trust.
Orient: Understand the performance barriers, drivers, and objectives
We are dealing with a big system in urgent need of a tune-up. To do the job properly, it must be broken into the component parts, and given the ability to evolve. Trying to reform the NDIS in one go is like jumping off a cliff and trying to build a glider before you hit the bottom.
Each major component: eligibility, fraud controls, provider oversight, participant experience, administration architecture and processes needs its own OODA loop. That will be how you handle complexity, not by centralising decision-making, but by decentralising learning.
The political reality is that every decision will create losers. Some of those will be legitimate cases who fall between the cracks. Others will be families who have relied on NDIS support, but whose circumstances were never quite aligned with the original intent of the scheme. Still others will be those who learned how to play the system.
The danger lies in pretending there are no trade-offs. You can’t trim billions without someone yelling. But you can explain why you’re doing it, and who benefits when the system works better.
Decide: Trade political safety for effectiveness
Reform doesn’t have to be elegant. It has to work.
The launch of Thriving Kids should be treated as a testbed, not a destination. Start small, measure obsessively, and be prepared to change course. At the same time, the government should quietly empower an oversight taskforce with real teeth. It must be able to audit, freeze funding, publish outcomes, and prosecute where necessary.
Eligibility needs rethinking. Not through the lens of diagnosis alone, but through function and long-term need. Payment structures must reward value, not volume. Plan management should be transparent, capped, and linked to performance.
The back-end co-ordinating processes must talk to each other in real time, not through some bureaucratic or political committee which obscures and compromises outcomes, as well as being friction in the system. Each decision here needs to trigger a loop. Decide. Test. Measure. Refine. Then decide again.
Act: Move with purpose and learn
Forget big-bang reforms. Focus on sequencing. Stabilise the pressure points. Target the areas with the fastest runaway costs. Act on what you’ve learned, not what the headlines say.
When those making the changes act, they need to ‘own’ the story and tell it creatively. Don’t let it be told by those who feel short-changed. Make the case publicly and repeatedly: this isn’t about austerity. It’s about protecting the integrity of something Australia needs for the long haul.
Jeff Bezos uses the analogy of ‘batwing’ doors. For some, and probably most decisions, you can move ahead, and if it looks good keep going, but if it looks dodgy, back away through the batwings. Only a few decisions will be ones that are not able to be reversed. Public institutions are lousy at admitting error, explaining the reasons, and moving ahead in a slightly different path. To properly ensure public trust in the NDIS, they need to get better at it.
Rinse and repeat. Treat Reform as a process of continuous improvement, not a political slogan
Reform is not a one-shot fix. It’s a process of continuous adaptation and learning.
Nested loops allow the system to flex and adjust without collapsing. The eligibility loop refines definitions as new cases emerge. The provider loop weeds out inefficiencies. The fraud loop works in real time to prevent erosion of trust as well as preventing funding being misused. The IT loop upgrades infrastructure to handle the load. The communications loop ensures the public stays informed and supportive.
These loops aren’t hierarchical. They’re interdependent. If one fails, the pressure leaks into the others, which is why each loop needs autonomy, clear reporting lines, and real decision-making power.
The NDIS funding problem will not be solved with a single grand plan. It must be outpaced by a smarter system of reform. That means moving faster than the problems emerge. Responding in weeks, not years. Watching data and acting, not waiting for headlines and doing a review.
This is a race against complexity, not ideology. If we get it right, the prize isn’t just a healthier budget, it’s a fairer, more sustainable system for Australians who genuinely rely on it.
I wonder what the chances of that happening are?
I suspect the can will be repackaged, and kicked down the road, again
Perhaps the hardest bit will be political resilience and determination to deliver the original objective of assisting Australians with profound and permanent disability.
Aug 22, 2025 | Analytics, Branding, Marketing, Uncategorized
The Pareto principle, the 80/20 rule with variation in the numbers, works in every situation I have ever seen.
Almost.
It is the exception that makes the rule.
Marketers use it extensively to allocate marketing budgets across competing arenas. Define your ideal customer, understand purchase cycles and habits, recognise different behaviours in different channels and circumstances, and allocate accordingly.
It always seemed to both make sense and work well.
Until it did not.
Research done by Andrew Ehrenberg, Gerald Goodhardt, and Chris Chatfield in 1984 produced a statistical model called the ‘Dirichlet Model‘. It is a statistical reflection of how consumers actually behave across FMCG categories. The model showed that rather than repetitive brand loyalty, most consumers buy from a small repertoire of acceptable options.
The model reveals that many people purchase a brand only now and then, yet collectively they represent a huge share of total sales. This counters the popular pareto model that assumes 80% of profit comes from the top 20% of buyers.
Hovering around supermarket shelves in the eighties, observing consumer behaviour, and interacting where possible, the truth of this counter intuitive behaviour was clear. However, the pull of Pareto was powerful, so we often had a foot in both camps.
It is the mid 1980s, and yogurt is the new category growth star. Ski and Yoplait dominate store shelves. Shoppers have their personal preferences, some lean strongly toward Ski, others swear by Yoplait, and many have their flavour favourite across both. (they prefer Ski Strawberry to Yoplait, but the Yoplait apricot to Ski) A few smaller regional players also vie for attention, but if there’s a promotion, most consumers happily mix it up.
As the marketing manager that included Ski in the brand portfolio of responsibility during these heady growth days, it was easy to assume the Pareto principle held: 80% of profits come from 20% of devoted buyers. Focus on those heavy consumers, turn the moderate fans into loyalists, and watch the profits roll in, right?
The Dirichlet model exposed the paradox, although at the time I had not heard of it. However, the numbers coming from store sales data and simple observation of consumer behaviour in stores confirmed the consumers disassociation from the theory of Wilfredo Pareto.
So, how does the Dirichlet model suggest fast moving consumer marketers build their brands against competitive brands and the power of retailer ‘pirate’ brands?
Acknowledge Mixed Brand Buying.
Even if you’re proud of your loyal fans, don’t be blinded by them. Ski-lovers might switch to Yoplait for a flavour your brand doesn’t offer, or vice versa. The data shows people happily shop around, even if they have a ‘Favorite.’ Acknowlede that behaviour while creatively giving consumers reasons to buy yours in preference to others.
Look for Wider Reach.
Heavy users are part of the story, but broad availability is often the bigger deal. If your products aren’t visible, buyers won’t remember you at that decisive moment.
Keep Things Distinctive.
You’re not just building brand awareness, you’re building mental availability. That’s how you stay top-of-mind when the shopper sees a new promotion or wants a unique flavour. Whether through catchy ads, recognizable packaging, or fun limited-edition variants, it’s all about creating mental triggers.
Rotate and Refresh.
Both leading yoghurt brands tested new flavours and replaced underperformers regularly. This strategy not only sparked interest among loyal buyers but also tempted the light or occasional buyer who came for the novelty, and might just pick you again next time. It also pleased retailers to have a supplier that explicitly had a ‘one in one out’ brand policy.
Ultimately, the Dirichlet model teaches us that brand loyalty isn’t an all-or-nothing affair. Even with strong preferences, people jump around.
Consider that next time you’re rethinking a marketing campaign. It might feel odd to invest in those who buy you only once in a while, but that large group can deliver a collective boost that keeps you on top.
Header by AI
Pareto killed by Dirichlet in blogs
The pareto principle holds in every domain I have ever seen, except one.
To build a brand, you must keep existing customers, increase their preference for your brand, and attract new customers.
A pareto allocation of marketing funds would imply that most of your budget should be aimed at the 20% of customers that produce 80% of your profit.
That allocation would work against you.
Truly loyal customers are less likely to go elsewhere than light or occasional buyers, and such an allocation does nothing to attract new users.
In this case, Pareto was wrong.
Aug 18, 2025 | Marketing, Uncategorized
It seems that everyone in marketing now worships at the altar of Lifetime Customer Value. The problem arises when the item is treated as a one off sale, bought only once, or very occasionally.
They pitch it in courses and webinars as the golden ticket to getting rich quick. Cynical, but true?
Forget generating monthly engagement and pushing free trials. If you’re selling homes or high-end cars, your customer isn’t looking to swipe their card again anytime soon. These are one off deals. So where does LCV fit?
Simple: it hides in plain sight.
For big-ticket items, the real lifetime value isn’t in repeat purchases, it’s in reputation. It’s in the willingness of your customers to recommend you. Think of it as latent value embedded in social proof.
That five-star Google review is nice, but what you really want is for that customer to feel like you’ve done such a remarkable job that they must become your apostle. They brag about you at dinner parties. They drop your name into WhatsApp groups. They drag their friends to your showroom. That’s when lifetime value becomes real.
It’s not easy to measure. This isn’t click-tracking or coupon redemption. This is a slower game, built on service excellence, and value delivery service which build trust.
A client of mine employs this strategy. They work their butts off to do a great job, they ask for referrals, ideally those happy customers make the initial introduction, delivering a bag of social proof, then they track the conversions.
It works.
The real game is delivering so far above expectations that your customer feels morally obliged to evangelise. ‘Reciprocity’ is a powerful psychological driver of human behaviour
Copy the strategy used by Joe Girard, legendary Chevrolet salesman, recognised as the seller of the most cars in a year, 1,425 in 1975. No digital gimmicks, just relentless service, the belief that every customer was special and deserved to be treated as such. For example, Joe sent hand written birthday greetings, suggested service times and ensured there was a booking made, organised loan cars, and generally created a huge well of ‘reciprocity obligations’ among his customers.
Drucker said marketing’s job is to “create a customer.” Joe went one better. He created customers who created customers for him.
That’s the LCV of a one-off sale: A loop where exemplary service fuels advocacy, which drives hot leads back into your funnel. It’s not a transaction. It is a tree that bears fruit that produces seeds, from which more trees grow, to produce more seeds, creating a marketing flywheel.
Track success over time by recognising that the sale does not end with the initial transaction. Delight customers, they become advocates, which creates new leads. Track those!
Forget loyalty schemes. Build apostles.
