Jun 24, 2022 | Customers, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Sales
In the past, for the orderly management and convenience of organisations, Sales and Marketing have been kept by management in separate functional silos.
In a time of flattened organisation structures and the ease of communication and data sharing, this no longer makes any sense at all.
The evolution of the silos to one functional area of responsibility will remove substantial opportunity for the transaction costs incurred by turf wars, miscommunication, and unaligned objectives, to be eliminated.
From a customer’s perspective, how you are organised internally is irrelevant, they are looking for the products and services that solve their problems or address their opportunities in the most cost-effective way.
The vast majority of interactions a customer will have with a supplier will be cross functional. Over the course of a transaction, they will interact with sales, technical service, after sales service, and logistics, probably sequentially.
The power in the sales relationship has moved from the seller, who had control of the information necessary for a customer to make a purchase decision, to the buyer. In past days, the sellers only delivered the information that benefitted them, but those days are almost gone. This process has been gathering speed since the mid-nineties, and now dominates every transaction beyond small scale consumer purchases like groceries, and even there, the need to be clear about the ingredients, their sources and provenance is pervasive.
Both sales and marketing silos have the same ultimate objective: to generate a sale, and preferably a relationship that leads to a continuing flow of orders. The combination of the silos into one, Revenue Generation, makes logical organisational sense in this new environment, as well as better reflecting the way customers interact.
Sources of revenue.
Isolating the sources of revenue is a crucial component in effectively managing the revenue generation function. Luckily, the sources can be summarised into three areas.
- Customers. Which customers buy what products, in what volumes, how often?,
- Markets. There are many ways you can dissect a market. Geographically, customer type, customer purchase model, product type, depth of competitive activity, lifecycle stage, and others.
- Product. Product type, mix, price points, lifecycle stage, margin, potential, and others.
Together these three axes form a three dimensional matrix from which your revenue is derived. The task of the RevGen personnel is to maximise the revenue today, and into the future, while minimising or at least optimising the cost of generating that revenue.
Type of Revenue.
Considering not only the source of the revenue, but also the type is a crucial part of the equation that will lead to long term profitability. Again, there are three broad categories into which all revenue can fall.
- Transactional. One off sales that require little else at the point of the transaction beyond a mechanism to execute the exchange of goods for money.
- Packaged. This category is by far the biggest, as it contains all sales that come with a ‘ticket’ of some sort. That ticket may be a guarantee of service, warranty period, assurance of quality via a brand, bundled pricing, promotional support, and many others.
- Subscription. With the emergence of the internet, subscription sales are growing rapidly at the expense of the packaged sales. This exchanges the upfront revenue of a sale for an ongoing revenue stream based on use, time, or both product and service. The emergence of the ‘cloud’ has spawned a host of new business models that use subscription as their base, but it is not new. Xerox used subscription for decades by leasing their equipment, then charging for usage on top. Similarly, Goodyear moved their sales of tyres to the airline industry from a sale to a usage model in the 80’s to sidestep the simple fact that their tyres were more expensive, but lasted longer. This encapsulated the price sensitive nature of airline purchases, with the savings over time because their tyres lasted for more landings than did the opposition.
Thought about these variations all have resulted in an exploding range of business models over the last 20 years, making the task of managing the generation of revenue way more complex, and therefore also opening opportunities for those who can think creatively about the task.
When you need some creative outside experience in this complex menagerie, give me a call.
Jun 15, 2022 | Communication, Marketing
The first Elvis festival in Parkes, NSW, was in January 1993. The brainchild of a couple of Elvis fans running a restaurant in the town, who thought it might be a bit of fun. A couple of hundred people showed up.
Every year since then, except the last two, it has grown. In 2009, 9,500 showed up, at the last one in January 2020, 25,000 showed up, supported by a worldwide online audience.
How does this happen, across all the boundaries we usually use to define who we are? Colour, religion, ethnic origin, age, social status, wallet size, and so on. The Elvis festival cuts across all these boundaries.
All humans are attracted to ‘people like us’. This is how we define ourselves. For the Elvis festival to succeed, all they had to do was define ‘people like us love Elvis’s music‘. The rest was easy, well, not easy, but on some sort of cumulative automatic pilot. For Elvis fans, defining themselves that way breaks down any other barrier between them and other Elvis fans.
There is a bloke at the local Gym I go to who from time to time creates a real stir. An Elvis fanatic, he does an occasional show at the gym for fun, during one of the classes. He dresses up and sings along ‘karaoke style’ to recorded Elvis music. He is terrible, but does not care a bit, and the classes end up being a huge, dancing, singing, sweaty party.
It is infectious. Few in that class would describe themselves as an Elvis fan, but the communal vibe breaks down all the barriers.
When you want to create alignment in your organisation, attract customers, or just be noticed, find something that everyone you want to communicate with can relate to. Find the hook that enables them in some small way to say to themselves: ‘that is for me‘
Jun 13, 2022 | Customers, Marketing
Manufacturing Week was last week in Sydney. I spent Wednesday there, snooping for solutions to problems most of my SME manufacturing clients may not yet recognise they have, and just looking for ideas.
Found one that might be useful, but it was hard going, very hard going.
There were 170 exhibitors in one of the ICC halls, ranging from the small 9 square foot booths to enormous installations that must have cost tens of thousands just for the floor space. On top of that there was the cost of the installation of the gear, manning the stands, and all the associated costs.
Every stand had the name of the company emblazoned somewhere.
Not one stand, not one, had any reference to the problems they solved.
Why?
It is useful to have the names up there. Many visitors would find their existing suppliers to have a yarn, complain about service, look at the new versions, or do a deal. However, those like me, with a problem to solve, the name of the company is of little use.
How much better would it be for them to have up in lights the problems their products are uniquely designed to solve?
I had a look at several participants websites, and they make the same mistake.
They almost all have an ‘About us’ page. It might make them feel good, but I am not interested in the family history, or the great awards they have won, I only care about the problem they solve for me.
They all fail my 3 second Vegemite test, and as a result have wasted at least part of the investment made in being there.
Where are their marketing people hiding?
Having thrown a brickbat, it is also fair to acknowledge that there was some pretty impressive stuff on show.
Header photo courtesy university of Woolongong.
Jun 8, 2022 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
Much of the volume of paper dedicated to pontificating about strategy these days seems to focus on ‘Purpose’. Sadly, we do not have a workable and agreed definition. What we do have is confusion about the meaning, particularly when you consider the other strategic pontification generators ‘Mission’ ‘Vision’ and ‘Values’
What are the differences, and how do they improve enterprise performance?
In my view, spending time worrying about the differences, and similarities is time wasted. All are words that should lead to four outcomes that will improve performance.
Strategy.
They all provide a framework against which strategic decision can be measured. ‘Does this decision enhance our performance in a way that assists to deliver whichever of the labels you choose to use.
Differentiation.
A well articulated statement of strategic intent, called by whatever labels you choose, supported by overt action can, and does offer the opportunity for a differentiated product offering that will be hard for competitors to copy. This generates incremental revenue, at enhanced margins when done well.
Human resources.
Most people would prefer to work for a company that makes a positive contribution to their community as well as offering competitive pay and opportunity. I have an acquaintance who used to recruit for a tobacco company. His experience was that they had to pay well over the odds, and accept a modest performer in order to keep bums in the seats to get the job done. BTW, I dislike the term ‘human resources’ but have yet to come up with a better one that does not sound confected.
Culture.
This often misused word gives a sense of direction, focus, behavioural norms, common ideals and risk management that enables the building of momentum. ‘Culture’ is the essential glue that holds enterprises together.
You do not need a strong purpose, or either of the other two to have a successful enterprise. Most have survived and prospered to date without one, but there is no doubt in my mind that it helps enormously, however you define it.
Header cartoon credit: Courtesy Scott Adams and Dilbert.
Jun 6, 2022 | Change, Collaboration
Fragmentation of supply chains is the reality post covid, and now with the turmoil in Europe, evolving attitude of the world’s factory, China, Brexit, polarisation of the US, and the increasingly fragile geopolitical world order.
Many businesses I see have spent considerable effort internally, progressively optimising their own operations. Very few have spent anything like the same effort externally, optimising the interactions with others in their supply chain with the objective of increasing the strength of the whole, rather than just increasing their negotiating leverage.
Making one link in a chain stronger is great, but it is the strength of the weakest link that is critical.
One of my SME clients faces this dilemma.
His business is in a rapidly growing segment of a very large and well established market. He is the last link in the chain to the client, and has done an excellent job over the last couple of years building the foundations that will enable him to scale at an increasing rate. He has a number of suppliers for a key part of his offering, to which he then adds the value to the end client. Each of those suppliers has their own set of challenges, but the common feature is that they are modest sized, often relatively new businesses, all are underfunded, and management structures and discipline are generally poor. To varying degrees, and in differing ways, they present barriers to my client’s growth.
Question is, how does my client inject the ‘improvement DNA’ into his suppliers, so that they can grow together, make the pie for both parties bigger?
Collaboration is the easy answer, it is just that the distance between where they are now, and a fruitful collaboration is significant.
In my experience, there are four critical steps to be taken. These are not always sequential, although the deeper you become involved, the harder it becomes to extract yourself should that be necessary.
Pick the right partner.
Choosing a partner for a long-term collaboration is not unlike picking a partner for life. None is going to be perfect, and it will take time and effort, but in the absence of the right foundations, it will not work. Jim Collins in his book ‘Good to Great’ offers the advice to: ‘start with the who and then focus on the what’. Seems to be good advice.
Your chosen partner, and making a choice is essential so that you can focus resources where they will have the greatest impact, must be aligned with your strategy, and vision of the future. Only then can you engage collaboratively in the journey.
Learn together.
We humans learn better in groups than we do individually. The greater the variety of input and perspective the better decision making. Quicker recognition and wide acknowledgement of errors, and understanding of why they were made, leads to more robust recovery from those errors, and growth.
Leverage each other’s strengths
Every relationship requires ‘give and take’. When you assist a partner to improve their operations, you will benefit. That benefit may not always be directly evident, but indirectly it will be there. Reciprocity is a powerful motivation, on top of the commercial benefits that accrue from optimised operations. Often it is the case that the strengths of one partner fills the hole left by the weakness of the other, greatly benefitting both.
Measure together.
‘What gets measured gets done’ holds true, although you must be cognisant of Goodhart’s law. This states that when a measure becomes an objective, it ceases to be a good measure.
Both parties should be on parallel and intersecting continuous improvement efforts. Where these intersect there is significant opportunity for mutual improvement. Most often that is where there are shared measures. The most common I have seen are ‘DIFOT’ (delivered in full on time) and production scheduling and inventory measures. For example, years ago a business I worked for built a small number of measures that had shared production scheduling and inventory measures across the two collaborators. The result was a radically increased rate of ‘flow’ between the raw material and production scheduling of one party and the inventory and volume offtake of the other. Both parties benefitted enormously.
Such collaborative efforts, when they are successful provide the most effective antidote to the fragmentation of supply chains. While your competitors struggle with the fragmentation, you and your collaborators can leverage your success into market share and sustainable profitability.
