Feb 12, 2024 | Branding, Communication, Customers
Last week I provided a template for a Customer Value Proposition. The template works well, but ‘Customer Value Proposition’ is a piece of marketing jargon which just means making a promise to your customers.
This presupposes that you actually know who your ideal customers are, and what sort of promise would be attractive to them.
In the January February 2024 Harvard Business Review there is an article called ‘The right way to build your brand‘ written by Roger Martin and two Co-authors. The article sets out research that proves the hypothesis that making a specific promise to customers is more attractive than a generic claim of some level of excellence. The specific promise is about the benefit a customer will receive with use of the product. A generic claim to greatness is just about the product.
It does not surprise that the first is more powerful than the second.
‘Your promise is your strategy’ is a sub headline towards the end of the article. When you think about it, the observation must be right. Strategy is a process of influencing factors over which you have no control in such a way that the subsequent behaviour of the customers benefits your enterprise rather than an alternative. Making a promise of performance in delivering an outcome desired by a customer is about the strongest driver of short-term behaviour I can think of.
Delivering on the promise, will build trust.
Right at the end the authors ask four crucial but simple questions that can be used to determine if a proposed advertising campaign is worth investing in:
- Is the campaign based on a clear unambiguous customer promise?
- Were customer insights used to identify a promise the customers value?
- Is the promise framed in a way that is truly memorable?
- Were product marketing, sales, operations, and customer service involved to ensure the promise will be consistently fulfilled?
To me, this sounds like a comprehensive framework by which to decide if a proposed communication campaign is a worthwhile investment.
Jan 15, 2024 | Collaboration, Leadership
‘Do not ever patronise me again.’
Those words are seared onto my brain, coming from the mouth of a new boss many years ago.
I had not long been employed and wanted to make an impression. Therefore, every conversation was a combative one, a conversation I set out to win, seeing that as a way to impress.
As the conversation which took place in my office ended, the new boss for whom I had quickly built a strong regard, stood up and walked out. He turned around just outside the door, and walked back a couple of paces, and uttered those words.
‘Do not ever patronise me again’.
He then turned on his heel, and walked out.
I was both astonished, and very concerned. It was only after a painful re-run and examination of the conversation that I realised he was right.
I had, completely unwittingly, patronised him.
What had driven that destructive behaviour?
It took a while for me to understand my own behavioural characteristics. In those days I went into every similar conversation with a point of view that I was prepared to defend aggressively. While I was always prepared to adjust my position in the face of good arguments, this was deeply hidden. In addition, I failed the most significant test of a good debater.
I failed to listen.
My ‘tin-ear’ did not hear a word that was said in any context other than: ‘with me or against me’.
No such thing as active listening, understanding the basis of a differing view, or reflecting on the quality of the foundations of my own.
Later that day I did go into the boss’s office and apologise, acknowledging my mistake, and thanking him for bringing it so painfully to my attention.
We worked together very productively for a decade after that incident in two different companies. We had many debates, and rarely was the outcome black and white, right, and wrong. It proved absolutely that two heads are always better than one, assuming the heads are aligned to the same objective.
Header acknowledgement. My thanks to Dilbert and Scott Adams.
Dec 20, 2023 | Analytics, Marketing
This is an indulgence, but who cares, it is that time of the year.
I do not spend too much time worrying about numbers, this blog is my personal ‘journal’ of the stuff I am thinking about. If others get some benefit from that great, if not, nobody cares.
However, contrary to the above, there are some lessons for me in the numbers, and learning from the past, and improving is what it is all about.
The obvious skew in numbers that arises from posts early in the year having more time to gather readers than those posted later, has been ignored. Most posts see the vast majority of views in the first week or so, so timing should not be a huge influencer. However, there are a few exceptions to that rule.
Number 8 on the list is a post on the business model of supermarkets written in 2014. This has been in the top 10, usually the top 3 every year since. Number 7 is a thought starter on the budgeting process, that annually added job everyone except accountants hate, which was posted in January 2020. Every other post on the list is from 2023.
There are a few common characteristics of the top posts.
- Most promise a silver bullet of some sort in the headline. This may attract readers, but sadly, does not make the meat of the post any better. I can only hope that having been attracted, some might take some value out of the post.
- They are generally shorter than the average. This may reflect the focus and promise of the headline, or alternatively, I just did a better editing job.
- This characteristic is both a surprise and a worry to me. Apart from the two posts from previous years, and number 10 on the list, all have as a header a ‘Dilbert’ cartoon. Perhaps the presence of Dilbert is a strong motivator to readership? There was no intent here, and that correlation (or is it causation?) came as a complete surprise to me.
- Almost half the readers come from the subscription list, which is not big, about 35% from LinkedIn, and the balance from search engines, mostly from Google, but a surprising number from random engines. Readers come 70% from Australia, next biggest is the US, followed by (presumably) taxi drivers in Mumbai looking to emigrate, and a few from places I have to consult an Atlas (remember those) to find.
- Linkedin attracts a varying number on the platform, from a few to in some cases many thousands. The ‘views’ which misleadingly just counts the number of feeds a post has been shown in, bearing no relationship to being read, varies between a few, and many thousands. I only take account of the number of comments and reposts as an indicator of value, with a lesser value on ‘likes’. Linkedin discourages links leading off the platform by sticking offenders in ‘Linkedin gaol’, meaning they squeeze the algorithm so fewer people on the platform have the chance to see it. Suffice to say, I expect my gaol sentence to be ‘life’.
- As I run my eye down the full list, there is an increasing number of posts from previous years, some delivering very regular cadence of readership, years after publication. This is gratifying, and indicates that unlike a newspaper, a useful blog post is not just tomorrow’s fish wrapper. One that does continue to amuse is ‘Public Sector Flatulence’ published in 2013. It can go months without any readers, then suddenly, and suspiciously coincidental to some politicians brain-fart, it generates a bunch of views, and the odd comment.
For those interested, the list from top to number 10 is:
The simple choice marketers must make.
Plans never reflect what happens, so why bother?
The single key to great success.
Enduring culture change demands action.
The easiest and most effective way to build carbon emission compliance.
How to maximise the return from your investment in sales personnel.
5 Key factors to consider when planning your budgeting process.
3 essential pieces of the supermarket business model.
Equity or loans: The entrepreneurs funding dilemma.
The two key building blocks of strategy.
Thanks to all my readers, have a safe and merry Christmas, or whatever it is you celebrate (a valued friend is a Hindu, and Hindu’s traditionally marry on the last Sunday of the month. Guess what he and his wife of 30 years are celebrating)
Note: Given the number of links in the post, Linkedin will send me to their gaol for life, ensuring as few as possible casual lookers get to see the posts. So, please encourage those who might be interested to subscribe on the StrategyAudit site. That way they can continue to have the chance of seeing the outcomes of my addled musings.
Header courtesy of Dilbert, and Scott Adams, again. It just seemed right.
Dec 13, 2023 | Customers, Marketing
The best word in sales is ‘Free’, it will close more often than any other, by a long stretch. However, being free also implies there is no value to the buyer, and in any event, it is not really a sale, as there is no money involved. At best a ‘freebie’ is a ‘bait’ of some sort that may lead to a sale.
As a freelancer, I am tempted often to give away a lot of time and advice for free, partly to demonstrate expertise, which may lead to a sale, and partly because I am asked, and am able to do so to help. It is also partly because I find it difficult to just say a flat ‘No’
Recently I had some assistance from a professional to address a health problem. It was someone I knew quite well, and have helped a bit in the past. As I turned up for the appointment, I was asked if I had some time afterwards so the professional could, as it was stated, ‘pick your brain‘ in a specific area where I have deep expertise. As it happened, I did have the time, so said it was OK.
The upshot is that I gave away an hour delivering expert advice, while paying full tote odds for the appointment and professional advice I had gone there to obtain.
Stupid me.
I should have used the second most powerful word in Sales.
‘No’
It is hard for us to say ‘No’.
We all like to be liked, we like to be asked, and to be seen as an expert, and we do not like to be seen as ungenerous, or even a jerk.
However, is my time and expertise of any less value than the professional I was talking to?
As humans, we also want what we cannot have, wanting something just out of reach is a driver of behaviour. Saying ‘No’ moves the opportunity to learn something,, or get something that is just out of reach further away, making it more attractive, and adding to the perceived value of that something.
Watch what happens at contested auctions, as the price goes up, those remaining in the bidding become more desperate to win.
There are many ways to say ‘No’, but the essential element is that it must be clear.
If you apologise, say ‘Sorry’, the door remains open, and you feel a little guilty, when there is no need for you to apologise.
If you say ‘I can’t’ does that mean you cannot now, but might at another time?
If you offer a range of excuses, the ‘No’ remains ambiguous, and everyone is confused.
Remembering that ‘No’ makes you more attractive, you do have options.
- Just be firm and say ‘No’ I do not do that.
- Redirect. ‘No’ I do not do that, but here is someone you could ask.
- Redirect back to you. Again, several sub options:
- ‘No. However, email me a few simple questions, and I will try to answer them quickly.’
- ‘No, but I do offer calls up to 60 minutes for $XXXX fee.
- ‘That is a complex question, usually only answerable after a detailed examination, for which my project fee is $XXXX.
Use one of these, and the chances of some sort of conversion are real.
Unfortunately, in this case I did not follow my own advice, and so know that the hour I spent outlining the solution to the problem will not be valued and implemented, so we will have both wasted our time.
At least, I got a blog post out of it, so maybe there was some value after all?
Dec 11, 2023 | Change, Communication
Following on from a previous post about the value of information, it seems relevant to ask how long any value created lasts.
We are all familiar with the notion of the ‘1/2 life’. The time it takes for radioactivity of an element to decay by 1/2. Uranium 238 has a 1/2 life of several billion years.
What about the 1/2 life of information?
The 1/2 life of a daily newspaper is arguably 1 day, today’s news is ‘tomorrows fish wrapper’. For 99.9% of blog posts, and most other so called ‘content’, it is about 2 seconds. This seems odd in what is supposedly the ‘Information age’, why is the life so short in most cases, and what make the difference for the 0.1%?
The answer seems to be: It depends on the utility of the information, which is partly a function of the ‘friction’ or resistance which is applied to its transmission.
Businesses, and most institutions are structured to be top down in functional silos, a system that evolved before digitisation of information arrived at our inboxes. This enabled the scaling of effort and the most efficient allocation of resources. A 20th century solution to the challenge of information transfer and leverage.
In the 21st century, with digitisation, the structures of the 20th century are redundant. They are simply too slow to be competitive in an environment where the action happens at digital speed on the ‘front lines’ of customer interaction. It takes too long for the siloed decision making processes to work. Customers will now move quickly to someone who is able to satisfy their need on the spot.
We have to turn our power structures upside down, and give the front lines the authority to make on the spot decisions within a much broader remit than was previously the case.
This creates huge complications for organisations, as the status quo is upset. The power people at the top have worked to achieve all their lives is diluted, and for those at the bottom, suddenly they are being tasked to take decisions that last week were being referred up the chain.
There is a driver of activity, always present, but to date well in the background for most. This is the ‘operating rhythm’ of the market in which they compete. When their decision cycles are slower than the operating rhythm of the market, the market will go elsewhere, or at the very least, opportunities will be lost.
Getting ‘inside’ the operating rhythm of your market, being able to respond quicker than the market reacts, is an emerging key to strategic success.
The 1/2 life of information is now in the hands of others, those who really count, by being customers.
That is why the OODA loop, conceived by US fighter pilot John ’40 second’ Boyd in the 60’s is so relevant to 21st century competition.
