Mar 20, 2025 | Branding, Change, Marketing, Strategy
We no longer own stuff, increasingly we are renting it in one form or another.
That lack of ownership discourages brand loyalty and makes defining the boundaries of a contested market all that much harder to do in a way that reflects the psychology of potential customers.
Years ago, while marketing fast moving consumer food products the logic was, we did 90% of the prep work in the packet. The strategy was to suggest to the overworked stressed woman who in those days did all the cooking, to add some garnish and therefore feel she owned the result. The best example is cake mix. Almost everything was done in the packet, all a cook had to do was add an egg, beat it with a fork, and stick it in the oven.
We’ve taken that idea much further now.
One of my sons lives in the inner the suburbs of Sydney and does not own a car. When he needs one, he simply uses the app and within a few minutes walk, there is a car waiting for him.
What we’ve lost in this process is the sense of ownership, the psychological comfort that something was ours. This spreads past the ownership of a car to things like music.
I have an irrational attachment to a couple of 50 year old vinyl records that played a significant role in my young life. The music on those records is ‘mine’. I do not play them anymore, don’t even have a working record player, but separating from those old vinyl records and their memories by association would be painful.
The challenge for marketers now competing in a subscription and rental driven world is how you replace that sense of ownership. If you can figure it out in your product category, you will win.
Mar 7, 2025 | Customers, Innovation, Marketing, Small business
I have started seven businesses, so I have some entrepreneurial form.
One I sold, one delivered profits over a 5-year period, but circumstances led to its closure, several did the dead cat bounce, and a few more struggled a bit before common sense cut in, and one, StrategyAudit has been going for 30 years. On top of my own gigs, I have been involved, engaged, and accountable for many, many more as a consultant, interim manager, and contractor.
After all that effort, sweat, broken dreams, conflict, disillusionment, and frustration, mixed in with some ‘I told you so’s’ what have I learnt?
Timing is crucial. Two of my dead cats were just timing: I was too early, and others since have done similar stuff and made a killing, proving that a good idea is rarely yours alone. Connected to this, but not in a causal way, is that it always takes longer than you think. Take your worst case time-frame, the one that cannot happen, then double it. If successful, that impossibly long time frame might be close. We never hear of this from the start-up porn inhabiting the web.
You are never too old. Ray Kroc was a 52 year old appliance salesman when he had the brainwave that led to McDonalds. In Australia, the age group most likely to start a business is 35-39 years old, comprising 19% of start-ups. The likelihood of extreme success keeps rising until the mid to late 50’s, so Ray Kroc is not an outlier. This is contrary to the common perception of the hoodie wearing entrepreneur who only needs to shave once a week. In my case, all my efforts except StrategyAudit were born before I was 40, the earliest, not counting my efforts to make a bob while still at school and University, was when I was 22. StrategyAudit was born from necessity when I was 44.
Focus and commitment are mandatory. Entrepreneurs by their nature are curious, perceptive, and usually see things from an uncommon perspective. As a result, they are easily distracted by the new shiny thing, or great idea to bolt onto their baby. Sometimes these great bolt-on ideas come from early users, whose opinions carry considerable weight because they are so important to you. The internal struggle with this fragmented attention and less than absolute commitment is often a real problem. In my case, it probably cost me at least two potentially extremely successful businesses. I have often wondered at the role of ‘necessity’ in the game of unicorn chasing.
Boot-strap or take equity partners. Every start-up is short of two things: cash and capability. It is enormously tempting to address one of both or these by taking in partners by one of the many avenues open. Often this is the right thing to do, it usually makes scaling quicker and easier. The downside is the loss of control. Most entrepreneurs have some level of ‘control-freak’ in their DNA, and struggle when they go from having the final word, and having to take on board the views of others.
Capability shortfall. No entrepreneur can cover all the capability bases required for a successful business. That leave the choice of how, when, and sometimes if, you fill the gaps. Getting this wrong causes all sorts of terminal events. Often these are around cash flow shortages, particularly when the enterprise appears to be rapidly gaining ground and being successful. However, all the other functions that must be executed by a growing business are equally vulnerable. These days it is sometimes little more than finding and keeping the right people who operate at whatever ‘coalface’ you service.
Solve a problem felt by others. Solving a problem only you have will not lead to a business unless others have the same one. Equally solving a problem you think others have, when they do not feel the impact of it, or your solution costs more than the problem costs them, is not useful.
Round pegs and square holes. In most SMEs seeking to scale, or even just survive, the choice of personnel, and the jobs they do is critical. Make a mistake and it can be terminal, as SME’s do not have the cushion of scale to absorb those mistakes. The adage of ‘hire slowly, fire fast’ is especially important for SME’s.
Too little marketing. Marketing is an investment in future cash flow. Often this is really, really hard when current cash flow is in the toilet. It is profoundly different to the conversion to a transaction, usually called sales, which is just the end point of the process. When you just have the end point, with too little or misdirected effort at the wider functions of ‘marketing’ in the revenue generation process, you will have a mix of productivity suck-holes and opportunity costs that will not show up in any standard set of accounts.
Too little attention to the numbers. The ‘numbers’ critically include the financial numbers, but they are not the only ones that should be monitored, managed, and leveraged. While I obsess about cash with those I work with, cash in the bank is an outcome of a wide range of other things that have gone as anticipated, or if the bank is empty, not as expected. The most critical ones fall into two categories:
- Internal numbers. These are the numbers over which you have direct management control. They range from the costs of manufacturing and service input, to the overheads resulting from the costs associated with keeping the doors open every day. Inventories, cash conversion cycle time, capex and the timing and quantum of expected returns, personnel productivity, and many more consume cash and importantly for an SME, time.
- External numbers. Critically, these are the numbers around the behaviour of customers. They will vary depending on the product you are selling, but customer acquisition costs, referral rates, lifetime value, and repeat purchase rates will all directly impact on the cash in your bank account. They also should include some consideration of the market context, trends, competitor assessments, and regulatory considerations.
Importantly, and often overlooked until too late is the most fundamental number of all: Sales revenue. None of the above is the slightest bit relevant un the absence of revenue. Go after it early and hard!!
There you go, 50 years of hard-won wisdom in a 5 minute read. Call me when you need more.
Feb 28, 2025 | Marketing, Strategy
‘Find a niche and own it’ has been a mantra of mine for years.
SME’s who have done this can do very well.
What it implies is that you have gone out and found those few people who overvalue what you do very well.
Defining what you do better than anyone else is the start.
You do not have to be the best in the world, you just have to be the best available to your ideal customer. For many SME’s that is a geographic market, for others, it may be personal service, or a particular blend of coffee beans the delivers a specific flavour, every time when made by Tony the barista.
When you excel at something that a potential customer overvalues, that is a recipe for success. Price will become a secondary consideration.
My eldest son paid his way through university buying and selling guitars, and valves for amps. He knew guitars and their value, so was able to make a few bucks on the arbitrage. However, he knew valves to an extraordinary level of detail. His market was highly specialised Blues guitarists in Sydney, those few insisted on valve amps rather than the modern electronic units. They came to him explaining the sound they wanted from their amp, and Geoff would assemble a valve set that delivered. It was a very narrow, deep, and specialised market and price was never a determining factor.
As University neared completion, he had to ask himself if there was a market in the niche, rather than just a niche in the market. His conclusion, yes there was a market in the niche, but the infrastructure and investment necessary to make a real commercial go at it, rather than just be a side gig for a uni student was more than he was able to make. As a result, he wound it down, and got a ‘proper job’ after graduation.
Briggs and Stratton is one business that years ago identified, leveraged, and now owns a global niche for mobile, small capacity internal combustion engines designed for outdoor use. Lawn mowers, outboard motors, pumps, and mobile generators all use B&S motors, often supplied and branded with the end product. For example, Victor lawn mowers in Australia is a venerable brand. The motor is branded Victor, the engine is actually supplied by B&S.
As their markets ‘electrify’ power systems (engines and batteries) for mobile machinery, it remains to be seen if they can retain their position.
When you are the only solution to a burning problem, even when only a few have it, price becomes increasingly less relevant as the urgency of the problem increases.
The marketing challenge is to identify and highlight the problem to which your solution is the only one possible.
Header drawing by DALL-E
Feb 14, 2025 | Governance, Leadership
Trust has been trashed. Governments, institutions, and entire communities have eroded it for decades. The decline started in the late ’60s and has not slowed.
We are heading into an election in a few months.
Last time, both major parties barely scraped a primary vote in the 30’s. In my lifetime, that number has dropped from close to 50%.
People no longer trust the system.
I’ve been around long enough to remember when this rot set in. The Vietnam War was the turning point. The official reports were a little more than wishful thinking and deception. Every night, TV screens told a different story from what the official version of what was happening told us. It was the start of an endless conga line of lies, misdirection, and cover-ups that continue today in Europe and the middle east, as well as everywhere else it seems.
As the lies piled up, trust in institutions crumbled. For years, the erosion was slow. Then, in the mid-’90s, the internet arrived and kicked it into high gear.
Suddenly, we had access to opinions, ideas, and facts that had been previously unseen by all but a few. Today, we carry the internet in our pockets. The moral authority that institutions once held is gone. They may still have legal power, but their credibility is best likened to an old fashioned snake-oil salesman.
The world has shifted from ‘Ownership’ to ‘Performance.’
Consumer behaviour and expectations have changed far more quickly than the institutions that supposedly govern that behaviour. Ownership is way less important than previously. It is being replaced as we speak by ‘Utility’. Increasingly we seek to control the outcome far more than we seek to control the means by which that outcome is achieved.
We don’t want to own cars. We want transportation. We don’t need DVDs. We want instant access to movies, music, news, and so on.
Business models have shifted from ownership to pay-as-you-go. The advantage is the reduction and often removal of entry and exit costs. Without sunk costs, we are free to move when we become dissatisfied for any reason.
People now pay for results, not promises. Performance, not possession. That means institutions of all kinds, including businesses, must be transparent and accountable.
Trust, Accountability, and the Business of Outcomes
I’ve spent 25 years as a consultant, building trust by guaranteeing outcomes. I’m not McKinsey with a glossy reputation. I’m an old bloke who’s been there, done that, and has the results to prove it. Clients trust me because I make them a simple promise: if I don’t deliver, they don’t pay. That’s real accountability.
Banks, politicians, corporations, service providers, every institution of every type, should take note. People aren’t buying your stories anymore. They are buying results, and they have the wherewithal to check your claims against the outcome.
Even churches face this challenge. Selling faith has worked for centuries, but evidence of the afterlife only comes after you’re dead. That makes customer retention an act of faith only. That said, religious institutions are among the best marketers in history. If anyone can adapt, they can. However, to an agnostic like me, they have not shown anything like the agility required to retain followers as the capacity for critical thinking and fact checking increases.
The bottom line? Humans need something to believe in.
If institutions want trust back, they need to earn it, not just tell us they deserve it.
Feb 10, 2025 | Leadership, Management
When most people hear the word dissent, they think, troublemaker.
And sure, dissent can ruffle feathers. It challenges the status quo, pokes at comfort zones, and often triggers defensiveness or knee-jerk loyalty to “the way we’ve always done it.”
But here’s the thing: dissent, when done right, is one of the sharpest tools in your decision-making arsenal.
Dissent can expose blind spots, cracks in logic, and perspectives you might otherwise miss. It’s also constructively contagious. When one person feels safe to question the narrative, others find the courage to share their own opinions. That is how real progress gets made.
Too often, dissent is misread as a personal attack. Instead of hearing a critique of an idea, people take it as a critique of themselves. Cue the drama, defensiveness, and derailed conversations.
This is a sensitive balancing act for leaders.
Effective leaders know dissent isn’t just a “nice-to-have,” it’s essential. If you’re surrounding yourself with “yes people,” you’re not leading, you’re herding.
Leadership means being secure enough to invite challenges to your thinking. It says, “I care more about the right outcome than about being right.”
I once worked with a leader who actively encouraged what he called “impersonal dissent.” It was not a free-for-all. It was a structured process where we played devil’s advocate on every significant decision. The thinking was simple: the more diverse the viewpoints expressed, the more we leveraged available relevant data, the better we would understand the problems, explore possible solutions, and therefore optimise the odds of a positive outcome.
One plus one was not just three, it was exponential in value.
But here’s the kicker: it wasn’t a democracy. When all the arguments were on the table, the leader made the final call. And when the decision was made, the dissenting voices stopped, by convention, the decision became a group decision which all supported. That balance between encouraging dissent but knowing when to move forward was key to our success.
I discovered the downside when that person to whom I had been reporting left the business. I was elevated into his role, now reporting to an MD of the group whose view of dissent was different. Being still young, and somewhat impervious to his displeasure, believing I had the runs on the board to claim the right to ask questions and argue a dissenting perspective, I did not last beyond the first ‘restructure’.
Header courtesy Scott Adams and Dilbert.
