Aug 26, 2020 | Marketing, Social Media
The fundamental problem with ‘digital advertising’ is that there is little competition for ideas.
In the past, with limited availability of media, the competition happened before the public got to see anything, as those that controlled access to peoples eyeballs did the fact checking, curation, and idea vetting.
Now that is gone, and there is unlimited competition without the curation, the competition is for attention, then for head-space.
The competition for attention, now has infinite potential to consume the competition of ideas, hence we have the crap that just keeps coming at us in increasing volume.
There are some versions of curated content on line, where the ideas are curated and vetted as they were before, but they are struggling for survival in the sea of social sharks consuming everything around them of any value, and squirting out shark-shit.
And, that is all before the rampant fraud in the digital ad supply chain is considered.
Aug 24, 2020 | Leadership, Management
There is rich wisdom to be found in fiction, although you might have to look hard to find it. There are some writers who have used fiction to deliver timeless messages.
For example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had his protagonist Sherlock Holmes utter some really meaningful lines. Amongst these is the classic: ‘it is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Instinctively one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.’
This is confirmation bias at work. We see things that confirm what we already believe much more often and clearly than we see things that may erode or contravene our existing beliefs.
In digging for facts, data, you need to be able to ask smart questions, in some sort of order, to give some ‘shape’ to the way a problem is perceived.
- How and why is this issue a problem? Assembling observations, some informal information, input from customers, line workers, wherever the problem may be seen, to define that there really is a problem, not just someone having a moan.
- When does the problem show itself? Under what circumstances is the problem to be seen, are there patterns of behaviour or circumstances that seem to be correlated? Is there any foundation to see causation?
- Where is the problem showing up? This goes a step deeper to start defining the location of the problem, and the impact it may have.
- What are the impacts of the problem? What are the financial, cultural, value chain, and customer impacts of the problem?
- What is the priority in allocating resources to solve the problem? There are always more problems than there are resources to address them, and as a result, only a few get the attention they deserve. Make sure those limited resources are allocated in the best possible way.
- What return is delivered by solving? This is way more than a financial calculation, it needs to include an assessment of how the transaction costs may be moved around. What is the impact on workflow and stakeholder engagement as they see problems being identified and removed?.
- What other problems are uncovered by the consideration of the first one? Looking at a problem always uncovers others. Often in the process of understanding the problem, others that are the root causes show themselves for the first time. The ‘5 why’ tool is invaluable in understanding the root causes of problems, and should be in every managers toolbox.
Going back to Sherlock, one of the extremely useful observations captured the essence of Occam’s razor, when he said ‘ When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’
It is our job as leaders, to get at the truth, and communicate that truth widely, in a manner that it is clearly understood, and able to be acted on. So, the essential lesson, is to ask good questions.
.
Aug 20, 2020 | Governance, Management
The term ‘After Action Review’ emerged from the US military, which formalised it after facing a range of disasters in the field, from Vietnam to the Middle East. Finally, it became obvious they were repeating the same mistakes, consistently.
They should have asked an accountant earlier.
Standard good management practise after a capital expenditure project has been to review the outcomes of the planned expenditure compared to the expected outcomes. Variations in outcome to the plan needed understanding, to ensure errors in judgement were not repeated.
In my experience, it rarely happens well enough; too much corporate politics and ego are involved. However, the idea is not a new one; it just makes absolute sense, which is why you should build it into the performance management culture of your business.
Five simple questions, the first is easy, that is the plan, the following three are where the gold of improved performance hides when you dig hard enough, and ensure the lessons are well learned. The last drives future action.
- What did you plan to make happen?
- What actually happened?
- What caused the difference?
- What can we learn?
- What specific changes will we make next time?
Such a process, embedded in your performance management culture will deliver guaranteed results. ‘Rinse and repeat’ the question process after every project. No matter how small the project may appear to be, an AAR should be automatic, simply a standard part of the process. After a while, it will become second nature to observe the things that may cause the unexpected, plan for them, and take steps to remove them before they occur.
Therein hides one of the secrets of continuous improvement in profitability.
Aug 17, 2020 | Analytics, Marketing
The implication of the word ‘research,’ is that you are setting out to understand something. All too often over the years, I have observed situations where that is not the case.
Market research can be a money trap, consuming resources with little or no payback. It can also be a huge capability to be leveraged for great benefit when done well.
The challenge is that it is a set of interrelated disciplines from statistics, psychology, behavioural economics, and science, and therefore requires a wide breadth of skill and acquired wisdom to be useful.
Doing commercially productive market research is a bit like learning to swim. No matter how much you read about it, study wise texts, and observe others, until you get into the pool, immerse yourself, you will never really understand it.
Some things are relatively easy to research. Usually they are adverse outcomes that have happened, and have been quantified. The research is aimed at understanding the drivers of those adverse outcomes. More challenging is research that seeks to put a shape around the future. If this happens, what then?
Most material published on the topic is about the techniques, the templates to use. They are very useful, but fail to accommodate the realities that intrude in real commercial situations, that impact on a research outcome.
Following are some of the hard won lessons from doing marketing and market research over the last 40 years. The tools have changed dramatically in the last decade, the principals remain unchanged.
Not understanding the ‘scientific method’.
Most are familiar with ‘the scientific method’. Identify a problem, form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, adjust the hypothesis based on the results, rinse and repeat. However, most do not recognise the foundation of the scientific method is to set out to disprove an idea. This objective to disprove a proposition, ensures that all relevant information is made available. All contrary data, opinions and untested ideas are brought to the table for examination. It often happens that information that may be relevant is not considered. Ego, confirmation bias, existing standard procedures, and just lack of critical thinking clouds the process. Over the years I have seen piles of research that is setting out to prove a theory, and does so by, usually unconsciously, excluding data that might not confirm the proposition.
Failure to identify the problem/opportunity.
Useful research depends on providing answers to problems, or offering insight into the scale and location of opportunities. In the absence of clarity of the objective of the research, you cannot reasonably expect there to be any value delivered.
Asking poor questions.
Not all questions are created equal. Asking good questions implies that there has been enough work done to identify what is, and what is not, a good question. Also important is the manner in which the questions are asked. It is easy to generate different responses by seemingly subtle variations in the way questions are asked. Eg. ‘How big do you like the fruit pieces to be in your brand of yoghurt? This implies that the fruit in yogurt is in pieces, and ignores the possibility that the fruit may be added as a puree. Those who may prefer a homogeneous product using puree are thus precluded from giving an accurate response. Such a question would be relevant to the marketer of fruited yogurt seeking a point of differentiation, which would influence the product ingredients and choice of processing equipment.
Less than rigorous & neutral data collection & analysis.
We all know numbers can lie, we see it every day. Numbers can be used to support any proposition you choose, when managed to that end. The absence of rigor from research methodology and analysis, will lead to flawed conclusions every time.
Not knowing what you will do with the outcomes
In the absence of a clear use for the research, why do it? The answer to this is usually found amongst ego, seeking validation of a currently expressed position, or as a crutch to avoid making a decision. How often have we heard the phrase: ‘More research is required’
Selective use of results.
Selective use of research outcomes is standard practice in many places. Parts of the research that supports a proposition are used in the presentation of a position, and any parts that do not support the position are ignored. You see this all the time in the political discourse in this country. Politicians of differing parties, taking the same research reports and claiming opposite conclusions is common. Exactly the same process exists in corporate bureaucracies.
Lack of understanding of the techniques
You do not have to be a statistician to be able to understand the outcomes of data. However, you do need to understand what the terms mean, and the implications they carry. This applies from sampling techniques, to the tools of statistical analysis and results presentation. You must understand the principals sufficiently well to be able to ask informed questions, and recognise gobbledy gook when it comes back to you.
Not considering Anthropology & Context
Anthropology might seem a bit misplaced in market research, as it is the study of behaviour in varying cultural settings. However, consider how different the answer to a question about your work might be if asked while sitting at your desk absorbed by a task, to when asked the same question while on a holiday. Same question, different context.
These days we are often allocated to teams at work that are set up to solve problems, generate ideas, or just manage work flow. How different are our reactions inside those groups, to those to which we choose to belong outside the work context, and how differently do we behave?
Conducting research in the absence of such considerations can generate misleading outcomes. E.g. Conducting research on a new piece of packaging around a group discussion table will evoke responses, and a conclusion. How different might the reactions of those same people be when confronted by the new pack while shopping in a supermarket.
Failure to understand the drivers of Behaviour
Psychology plays a huge role in the development and reporting of research. Our brains are hard wired to reduce cognitive load, so can be easily tempted to accept a conclusion not supported by research. It is relatively easy to persuade others of the veracity of a conclusion, simply by the manner in which they are presented. E.g. Which milk is better for you: one that contains 3% fat, or one that is 97% fat free? They are identical products, but in research, a significant majority will answer ‘B’: 97% fat free.
Similarly in a qualitative group discussion, a proposition seemingly supported by most around the table can gather overwhelming support, irrespective of the accuracy of the proposition. This outcome has been repeated endlessly in first year psychology experiments, based on Solomon Asch’s 1951 experiment seeking to examine the power of a group to influence the expressed opinion of an individual.
What people say they do and what they actually do can be very different.
When you ask questions, they are answered from within the existing frame of reference of those being questioned. Their ‘mental Models’ dominate how they see things. Henry Ford was right when he quipped: ‘ He would not consult customers on what they wanted because he already knew, a faster horse. Steve Jobs expressed exactly the same opinion, in different words on several occasions, and was again proven correct.
Too much research is aimed at connecting the future dots to give a sense of certainty about the future, just to make people feel more comfortable. If we could tell the future accurately, we would all be at the local casino for a few nights until we got banned for winning too much.
Respecting the status quo too much
We humans are keen to retain the status quo, simply because it has been proven to work, and change involves risk. We are hard wired to avoid risk, a function of evolutionary psychology, when taking risks often meant you became breakfast for something nasty. The promise of a reward must be many times stronger than the downside of a behaviour before most of us are prepared to entertain the risk.
Presenting a research finding that is inconsistent with the well known view of the Managing Director is a risky undertaking that is often avoided. This is commonly called a HiPPO (Highest Paid Persons Opinion) and is pervasive. It is particularly challenging when the person concerned (often a bloke) is repeating the opinion of someone else. In consumer products, this is often his partner.
Poor presentation of results & Conclusions.
The errors I have seen in presentations are myriad. However, the worst are:
- Lack of clarity and simplicity in the conclusions, which limits useability.
- They do not answer the question. Generally this is because the question was ambiguous, unnecessary or stated a proposition someone wanted verified.
Every research project can be placed somewhere on the matrix in the header. The more right hand side and higher you go, the greater the degree of uncertainty is involved. In the bottom left quadrant, you are seeking answers that are quantifiable, things that have happened, that you are seeking to understand. Top right quadrant is the future, and contains things we do not know much, if anything, about. Often we do not even see them. Research that puts numbers against hypotheses that fall into this quadrant should not be believed. At best they are an estimate of a probability, at worst, just a WAG. (Wild Arsed Guess). What is important in these circumstances is that you understand the risks. Remember that old cliché, ‘plan for the worst, hope for the best’
Jul 29, 2020 | Customers, Marketing
It seems almost every business owner I meet claims to be customer centric, yet, ask their customers, and you get a different response.
Human nature is that we put priority on what is important to us, rather than looking at something from the other side of the equation. It is simply easier for us to compute, and in the short term, more satisfying, to think how well we are doing.
Go out to some customers, potential customers, and importantly, former customers, and ask them some simple questions:
- What is the most painful situation we might be able to help you with?
- How did we do last time solving it?
- How could we make it easier to do business with us?
- What would make us so compelling that price no longer mattered?
- How would you explain our value proposition to your neighbour?
- What would make you choose our competitor over us?
- How are we different to our competitors?
- What one thing would you change about the manner in which we service you?
- What words would you use to describe the relationship we have: supplier, partner, collaborator,
Rank yourself on these questions to gain a real picture of your customer centricity. If you are doing well, you are answering all the questions your customer may have, giving them the information they need to make decisions. The ultimate test is to be able to tell them that your product is not the ideal one for them, and recommend an alternative.
Do that, and they will trust you forever.
