Nov 17, 2023 | Customers, Innovation
Ideas are usually great because they do one of two things, sometimes both:
-
-
- They focus on a deep and genuine need, obvious or not, to the casual observer.
- They remove a problem that causes irritation.
Great ideas have a common characteristic: they are focussed.
They do one thing exceptionally well. When you spread the impact, so they do more things less well, the utility of the original idea is diluted.
The ‘Penknife’ is a classic example. It evolved when writing was done with a gooses quill and ink. The quill required constant sharpening, so the small ‘penknife’ evolved. It folded, was small enough to be safely carried in a small pocket and did an admirable job of sharpening the quill.
As a kid, I had a penknife, it had a blade, corkscrew, a bottle opener, and something my dad told me was a tool for removing the stones from a horseshoe. Not all that useful for a kid living in Sydney in the 1960’s. One of my friends had a Swiss army knife that had a cutlery store contained in a body that was several times the size of my modest penknife. As a 10-year-old, I was envious of his Swiss army knife, and lusted after one until I recognised it did nothing well. It was also bulky, and the most used tool, the knife, was difficult to open.
So it is with many products, an innovative idea is ruined by added features that may be ‘sort of’ useful to a few, but just get in the way of the single function for which the tool was developed.
Ask yourself what is it that people are willing to pay for?
We needed that penknife; we do not need the horseshoe cleaner. There is a cost to adding it, which must be recovered in the price, but suddenly the knife is less useful for its primary purpose.
Sometimes, the feature laden penknife can hide the feature that if separated into a specific product might be extremely useful. My penknife had that corkscrew. It was not much value to me as a 10-year-old and did not work very well. My father had much better corkscrews that were designed for the job he wanted done and did it well.
Beware of feature-creep it might destroy your great idea.
Nov 15, 2023 | Collaboration, Leadership
As a kid I was a reasonable tennis player, having been coached by an expert and playing competitively from a relatively young age. Nothing outstanding, just competitive at a district level.
Aged about 16, my father who had been an outstanding player and myself started coaching on a Saturday morning on two local courts for a bit of pocket money. I discovered to my surprise, that breaking down, simplifying, and articulating to others the lessons I had absorbed from my coach, to enable me to communicate with those I was in turn coaching, made me a better player.
Recently in a (business) coaching session with one of my clients, we discussed for the 3rd or 4th time the concept of break even. How a break-even point is calculated, the discrimination between fixed and marginal costs, and the management value it delivers. The conversation started because it became evident that despite the previous conversations, my client did not understand sufficiently well to be able to implement in his business.
Therein lies the secret.
The discussion involved him explaining the concept of break-even back to me, while drawing a typical break-even diagram. It took prompting and discussion, but by the end it was clear he understood the meaning and value of calculating his break-even point.
The secret was him explaining it back to me, and demonstrating that he understood by drawing an illustration of how and why it worked. It required him to break down in his mind the elements of a break even into its simplest form. Then, explaining it back to me, as if I was someone who had absolutely no understanding of the idea. Drawing the diagram, enabled the understanding.
This simple act of writing down an explanation is the value that writing this blog delivers to me. I often start a blog with an interesting idea which requires research and building of understanding before writing it down in its simplest possible form. Through that process, understanding builds.
If you cannot explain something in a way that a 10 year-old can understand, you probably do not understand it well enough yourself. The greatest exponent of this technique of using illustrative metaphors to explain complexity in simple ways was Albert Einstein.
Nov 3, 2023 | Communication, Marketing
Over the course of writing 2,500 plus blog posts and many articles and presentations while reading widely on the advice to copywriters, usually published by those desperately seeking to sell some sort of course, the commonality of advice is clear.
- Without an attention grabbing headline you are toast. David Ogilvy noted: ‘On average five times as many people read the headline as read the body copy. When you’ve written your headline you have spent $0.80 out of your dollar”. Find a way to insert your key benefit into the headline
- Have an early hook in the copy. This could be a question, surprising fact, contentious observation, a statement of the bleeding obvious, or even a one line joke. All of these will encourage the reader to get further into the copy.
- Employ the bouncing magnet. Everywhere use the device of bouncing from positive to negative, to positive, back to negative, back to positive. For example, copy selling a cash flow service might read as follows:
Imagine a future where your business is thriving, cash flow is strong, and financial freedom is beckoning.
Sadly, the reality for many business owners is quite different.
Cash flow problems seem endemic.
Payment of unexpected expenses, slow debtor payments, losing a significant order, can make life a nightmare.
Don’t despair, we’re here to help you regain control.
Our proven financial management solutions have empowered many businesses to turn the cash flow challenges into opportunities for growth.
It is a fact that many financial advisors and software tools promise the world and deliver little. You’ve been burnt by these claims in the past.
Our approach is different.
We do not offer quick fixes or empty promises, we provide a tailored, data driven plan that aligns with your unique business goals and challenges.
You have a right to be hesitant given the previous promises made and broken.
That is why we offer a satisfaction guarantee: if within 60 days you are not experiencing a noticeable improvement in your cash flow, we will refund your investment in full.
Take control of your financial future today, join our satisfied clients who have seen their cash flow transformed, and dreams become a reality.
- Consider the ratio of copy to surrounding whitespace. Blocks of dense small font copy tends to be intimidating and uninviting to the casual visitor. It is much better to have lots of white space surrounding the copy with numerous paragraph breaks to make the reading of it easy and inviting. If you need evidence of this, copy the above cash flow tool sales pitch, remove the paragraph breaks, and see how less readable it is then!
- Say more with less. Enough said.
- Recognise the first draught will be rubbish. First draft is what you’re setting out to say, the 3rd or 4th is how you really want to say it. There are editing tools in Word, and other commonly used writing software and AI is throwing up new editing and copy improvement tools like mushrooms after rain. Use them to assist the development of your copy. Good writing like anything that is good takes time and effort on top of some level of talent for the task.
I try and do all this in my writing, but generally I’m only able to reach a level I would consider OK. I’m a scribbler rather than a copywriter. However as a means of organising and extracting from between my ears all the stuff going on, it is an absolutely necessary exercise. The quality of the writing in technical terms is an entirely different matter, and ultimately up to the reader
PS. Where do I buy that cash flow tool?
Oct 27, 2023 | Collaboration, Communication
Throughout human evolution, we have existed in small groups, tribes and clans. Individuals have worked together for the common good of the small tribe, and often, perhaps most often, been at odds with the tribe across the river.
British anthropologist Robin Dunbar introduced his theory that humans can maintain stable social relationships with no more than 150 people. This is a theory now so well accepted that ‘Dunbar’s number‘ has almost become a cliché.
The phrase ‘Stable Social Relationships’ has particular relevance in the age of social media platforms. How many friends do you have on Facebook, connections on LinkedIn, followers on Instagram?? For many, it is way beyond 150.
Question: How do you maintain ‘Stable Social Relationships’ with that number of people?
Answer: You cannot.
Social media gets the blame for all sorts of things, rightly so, but it is not the fault of the platforms, it is the fault of evolution.
Our application of technology has run well ahead of our evolutionally capacity to manage it and retain the relationships that made us the most successful species ever.
It seems to me that the growth of private messaging, reversion to personalised even handwritten notes, and emotional engagement of ‘Local’ things is a response to the ‘platformisation’ of our social relationships.
I think it is a trend that will continue and grow.
Now we have the relative unknown of AI coming at us like a train, changing again the basis on which we interact.
Dr Dunbar has little advice on that score.
I wonder if ‘friends’ will ever include Robbie the Robot?
Oct 16, 2023 | Change, Leadership
There is a notable omission amongst all the verbiage, finger-pointing, hollow triumphalism, and handwringing emerging after the predicted result of the referendum became a reality.
That omission is the failure of marketing, at least by the ‘Yes’ supporters.
The ‘No’ campaigners did get something right, in the ‘If you don’t know, vote No’ slogan. It was very effective, but was never truly tested in the public arena. It was just left to gather momentum.
Any student of marketing knows that facts and data by themselves struggle to gain and keep the attention of most. If you have ever sat in a presentation where the presenter was reading densely packed PowerPoint slides, you know what I mean, no matter how relevant, intriguing, or important the information being imparted, it fails to be engaging. Telling a story gains the initial attention of an audience, but that attention will be lost in the absence of a connection created by a few facts relevant to that audience. That connection is most powerful when it is both emotional, and quantitative.
Such a combination of the quantitative and personalised qualitative creates empathy that changes minds and generates action.
The ‘No’ campaign had a very good headline, gaining attention, and for many, was enough in the absence of any contrary facts or emotional magnet from the yes campaigners.
The ‘Yes’ campaign failed on both accounts. It did not have a headline, so failed to gain attention, and it did not use any facts to back up the weak and non-personalised emotional connection it set out to make.
At the disposal of the Yes campaign were plenty of facts. They needed to go no further than the statistics articulating the size of ‘the gap’ between education, health, and incarceration rates of first nations people and the general Australian population. What stopped them asking the question if these differences were acceptable to Australians? how would they feel if their child was statistically 14 times more likely to end up in gaol than a white kid, and would die 8 years before the average Australian? They failed to use these emotional doorways at all, at least in my line of sight.
It is easy in hindsight, but the foregoing has been obvious to any serious marketer for a considerable time. The politicians on both sides, and not only the elected ones, allowed the whole ‘debate’ and I use that word cautiously, to become a binary choice. Yes or No, argued in the absence of any basic marketing discipline or strategic thinking.
As an aside, it is my view that the referendum had reasonable odds of being the first in our history to pass despite the lack of bi-partisan political agreement. Australians are in general tolerant of difference. We could not be otherwise, and still be a reasonably successful multicultural and multi-religious nation. Those odds crashed to zero at the recognition that among the Aboriginal leaders, there was not only disagreement, but quite emotional and deeply held disagreement. Those in the electorate who had no strong pre-existing view, or base from which to create one, simply felt that if those who the referendum was about could not agree, who am I to vote for change?
Header photo courtesy SMH
