A better way to segment your customer base.

A better way to segment your customer base.

 

Every customer segmentation exercise I have ever seen is based on geography, demographics, some combination of behavioural characteristics, or all of the foregoing.

‘Young women, 25-35, single, who live in the Eastern suburbs, earn more than 80k, and eat out a lot’ sort of analysis.

Misses the point.

There are five types of customers in every business I have ever seen

Unhappy. These will often tell you and anyone else they can grab, of their unhappiness.  Usually these are users, rather than the ones who make the purchase choice. This means they can be a fantastic source of improvement ideas, but can also consume lot of your time with things that cannot be changed.

Satisfied. When a customer is satisfied, they go away happy and you rarely hear from them. The more time you spend understanding the drivers of their satisfaction, and doubling down on them, the better.

 Loyal. This group of people usually quite small will not go anywhere else and will generally pay premium to you in the knowledge that you will not fail them. In effect, it is in effect a risk mitigation strategy for them.

Apostles.  Apostle customers these are generally small subsection of your loyal customers and occasionally just a satisfied customer when conditions are right who are prepared to aggressively push your case to others in their various networks. These people are your best salesman and also your cheapest, although there is a cost get him to getting them to the point where they will proselytise on your behalf

Cheapskates. The fifth type, the one you can probably do without, is the one who dips in and out of your product, chasing the cheapest price irrespective of other considerations. It  also seems to me from experience, that they are also the ones who complain a lot.

Think about it.

I am prepared to bet there will be nuggets of value hiding in plain sight you can use.

Header credit: My thanks to the exiled Scott Adams, and sidekick, Dilbert.

 

Revolution by digital: A survival necessity.

Revolution by digital: A survival necessity.

 

‘Going digital’ sounds easy.

Sadly, it is not.

Almost every company I visit or work with needs, to one degree or another to be aggressively moving down the path towards ‘digitisation’.

Just what does ‘digitisation’ mean?

For most of my clients it means automating some or all of the existing processes driven by bits of unconnected software and spreadsheets, liberally connected by people handing things over.

It is a mess, and there is not one, or even a suite of digital measures that will address the whole challenge, despite what the software vendors sprout.

The world is digitising at an accelerating rate, so keeping up is not only a competitive imperative, it is a strategic necessity. Never more than now as ChatGPT burst onto the scene, compressing everything, and making the ‘digitisation’ drive one of life and death.

On of my former clients is a printing business, an SME with deep capabilities in all things ‘printing’ that enabled the company to be very successful, in the past. Their capabilities are terrific, cutting edge, if we were still in 1999.

If I use them as a metaphor for most I work with, there is a consistent pattern.

  • They did not see Digitisation as an investment in the future, rather it is seen as an expense.
  • There was no consideration of the application of digital to their product offerings, beyond the digital printing machines, and services beyond those that made them successful 20 years ago.
  • Their business model, beyond what is demanded by the two biggest customers, who between them deliver 34% of revenue, has not changed.
  • They have not considered digitisation of operational processes, beyond a 25-year-old ERP system. The system has not been adequately updated, and they only use a portion of the existing capability.
  • They have not modified their organisational and operational culture to meet the changed expectations of their customers, and the market.

No digitisation effort can succeed without the support of an operating culture that encourages ongoing change. Organisational processes can be modified by decree, but they will not stick. It takes everyone in the boat to be pulling in the same direction, in unison to make progress. This takes leadership, and a willingness to be both vulnerable internally, and a strong ability to absorb the stuff from outside. The leadership group must ‘get out of the building’. Not to smell the roses, but to see the lie of the land, and understand where the opportunities and challenges are hiding.

Coming to this point, where there is a recognition that change is no longer a choice, is where you are given one point out of a possible 10. Now you need to do something about it all to have a shot at the following 9 points. A daunting prospect for most.

The process has 5 easy in principle steps:

  • Map the existing operational processes so you know what to change, and where the gaps/opportunities are hiding..
  • Map and change the mindset of the people, so you understand the extent of the challenge.
  • Take small and incremental steps along a path that all understand leads to a digital future, which means that a lot of collaborative planning has been done.
  • Ensure that there are the necessary opportunities for all stakeholders, but particularly employees to grow and change with you. Those that choose not to, also choose to work elsewhere. There are no free rides.
  • Ensure the resources of time and money are allocated uncompromisingly to the long-term outcomes. It is just too easy to put aside something that is important but not urgent, for something that may seem to be urgent, but is not important to the transformational effort.

As noted, since the public release of ChatGPT in November 2022, the time before the liquidator comes around for those who choose not to change has compressed radically.

Most, if not all SME’s beyond the digital start-ups now cropping up like mushrooms after rain, will need outside expertise.

Consider that help to be an investment in survival, not a cost.

 

Header cartoon credit: Tom Fishburne at Marketoonist.com

 

The second best word to close a sale.

The second best word to close a sale.

 

 

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?

 

 

The disruptive impact of information ½ life.

The disruptive impact of information ½ life.

 

 

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.

 

 

8 things the leader of an SME can learn from a dead genius.

8 things the leader of an SME can learn from a dead genius.

 

One of Charlie Mungers better known quips was: ‘All I want is to know where I am going to die, so I’ll never go there’. He avoided that place assiduously, but last week, after 99 years, Charlie went there.

Perhaps by mistake, perhaps because even he recognised it was time, a very long innings behind him. However, he leaves a mountain of wisdom accumulated over that extended period, most of it as ‘wingman’ to Warren Buffett. While it was a partnership with Buffett as Chairman and Charlie as Vice chairman, Buffett credited Charlie as being the brains behind the strategic insights and wisdom that made Berkshire Hathaway such a profit powerhouse.

So, what can a local SME, struggling for visibility, relevance, and cash in an increasingly homogeneous and competitive market where size really does matter, learn from him?

Simplicity. We humans tend to complicate things. It is not usually deliberate, rather it is a function of our limited perspectives, reliance on others, uncertainty, risk management, and a host of other drivers we all feel. Charlie advocated simplicity. Break a problem or situation down into its component parts, and deal with them one at a time. Others might call it managing by first principles. Einstein noted that things should be ‘made as simple as possible, no simpler.’

Over the weekend I was reading through the updated Australian building codes trying to understand the complexities of the recent changes.  One of my clients must ensure the products he sells into the building trade not only comply, but he needs to explain to his builder customers the application of the codes to his products. The codes are so complex, differing across state jurisdictions, that builders who are bound by them often knowingly ignore them, relying on their suppliers. The codes are simply too complex for a small builder to ensure currency is maintained, amongst the other tasks necessary to keep their businesses nose above water.

Simplifying decision making processes by ensuring that the boundaries of authority, responsibility and accountability are clearly delineated through the business, is a goal to which we should all aspire.

Focus. Competing priorities means nothing gets optimised, and often many tasks do not get completed. Focussing attention on the things that really matter and giving them undivided attention for as long as the problem or opportunity warrants is a key lesson from Charlie.

Focussing also frees up our most valuable resource: time. By deliberately ignoring distractions, and leaving the lesser issues to others, or ignoring them completely, frees time to concentrate on the most important things, those that in the long term will deliver the greatest return.

No SME client I have ever worked with has been able to clear their desk sufficiently to devote the time and energy they should to the long term strategic foundations and health of their business. They simply wear too many hats, and often have difficulty delegating, assuming there is someone to whom they can delegate. The smaller the business, the harder it is, as those to whom delegation can be made, and the cash to pay for it, are in short supply.

The discipline required, both personal and in the business culture nurtured is enormously challenging.

Think and act for the long term. When you think and act short term you inevitably find yourself whipping around like the end of a bullwhip. Logistics managers understand the ‘Bullwhip effect’ better than most, as they see it every day in their supply chains. However, it is just as potent in the management of every other facet of a business. Seeing and responding primarily to the short-term fluctuations usually just compromises your ability to adjust strategically to the long term drivers of success.

Circle of competence. Many consultants have made a business out of advising clients to ‘stick to their knitting.’ It has been so prevalent it has become a management cliché. A circle of competence as Charlie saw it is a wider concept. While you are sticking to what you know, you are also seeing opportunities to leverage what you know in other domains.

This idea also applies to those stakeholders with whom you engage. By ensuring there is overlap in the circle of competence each brings to the table, you widen your own. This is at its core a strategy for successful collaboration.

Incentives. Understanding the power and application of incentives to shape behaviour enables individuals and groups to optimise the outcomes for which they are responsible.

For years we have seen research report after research report articulating the reality that after the basic needs of life, food, shelter, and companionship are satisfied, individuals start to respond to a range of other incentives. Some will sacrifice money for free time, others seek public acknowledgement of effort, security of what they have becomes more important than risking it for some possible future benefit. The list of drivers of individual behaviour goes on, and it is never just about money.

A friend who runs a successful bookkeeping business has recently gone to a four day working week. Several of her staff were against it, and subsequently left. The significant majority were happy to do their hours in four days, with Friday off. Productivity has jumped, as there is several hours each day when the phones are not ringing, causing distractions, so tasks are completed quicker, and with less processing errors. Contrary to the expectations of some, clients have also embraced the change, and remaining staff love having Fridays free to get on with their lives.

Understand probabilities. Success requires that we have a picture of what we believe the future will dish up, and we are able to respond today to put ourselves in a position to leverage those future events in our favour better than competitors. Given the only thing we know for sure about the future is that we will not be completely right about it, we need to understand probabilities. The better you can articulate the odds of some future state, the better able you will be to respond positively to it. Charlie was a great believer in what he called ‘Mental Models’. Being a voracious reader, he was able to see situations through a range of perspectives, and equate them to previous known outcomes, thereby giving him the opportunity to shorten the odds of an outcome he felt sufficiently confident to predict, and invest in to leverage.

Understanding your odds offers the opportunity to give yourself an appropriate margin for error for the investment you are contemplating. This applies equally to how you will spend your time today, to a major strategic choice.

Continuous learning.  Charlie never stopped learning, until last week. Much of the time freed up by his focus and personal discipline was spent reading and interacting with those he considered smarter than him in some domain, and satisfying his voracious curiosity. Every situation he saw was considered as a learning opportunity, particularly those that did not go as predicted. They enabled him to add to his wardrobe of mental models with another model through which he could see a situation to understand better the odds, and shape them in his favour.

Every owner of an SME I have ever dealt with understands the implications of the phrase: ‘work on your business not in it.’ Few achieve what they would see as the optimum mix, and it is always the ‘on their business’ that suffers. They are depriving themselves of the opportunity to learn by looking around, compiling mental models, seeing opportunities in other domains, and leading their employees and stakeholders.

Rationality over emotion. Successfully doing all of the above allowed Charlie to make rational decisions, avoiding the attraction of the emotions. He has been the living embodiment of what Daniel Kahneman would call ‘System 2’ thinking. He takes his time, removes the pull of emotion, seeks out the facts, and makes rational choices for the long term.

None of the foregoing practises are stand alone triggers for success. Each influences the others in a range of ways, offering compounding benefits. In taking the long term view of his investment choices, Charlie allowed that most powerful force in the universe, (according to Einstein), compounding,  to deliver for him. An investment of $100 and subsequent reinvestment of dividends in Berkshire Hathaway in 1978 when Charlie teamed up with Warren Buffet would be worth almost $400,000 today. This is an almost 20% annual compounding of value of the investment. It is 25 times the value today had that same $100 been invested in a S&P index fund. This is the effect of patience, long term thinking, and powerful mental models that increase the odds of success relative to other investment choices. Every owner and manager of an SME I have ever seen could benefit from the wit and wisdom of Charlie Munger.

Vale Charlie. If I was having one of those imaginary dinner parties where the most interesting people from history were around the table, you would be there.

 

Header photo: Charlie 5 days before his passing, holding forth in an interview with CNBC