The chronicles of a customer: Volume 6 (How many Vodafone employees does it take to answer a customer query?)

I’m going to keep this blog short as I have learned from experience that any time spent complaining about mobile operators is time NOT well spent since it falls on totally deaf ears!!! But I do have a burning question I would love an answer to, and that is, “How many Vodafone employees does it take to answer a customer query?”

Well let’s see. I realised on Saturday night that I could not make or receive calls on my iPhone, nor could I send or receive texts. Why I wondered?

The answer according to Vodafone tech support, after one hour of playing around with the iPhone, and restoring it to factory settings, is, “We have no clue”.

The answer according to staff at the Vodafone store on Oxford Street is, “Many people are having this problem right now, one of the masts are clearly down”. Why I was not informed about this before spending one hour on the phone? Well apparently “The Vodafone systems are not up to date and we often know something is wrong because customers come in to the store and complain”. Aha … Since my phone miraculously worked in the store I asked if there was a reason for that “No”, but a change of sim card was going to solve the problem. The minute I came home, despite my brand new sim card, the phone stopped working again.

Back to Vodafone phone support “All ten masts are working perfectly – we have no clue why the phone is not working, and why the store would say our systems are not up to date”. Their solution to me trying to access my voice mail from a land line is to send me a pin number, yes you have guessed it, to my phone. The irony of solving people’s broken phone problems with a text was completely lost on Vodafone tech support, and the interest of feeding this problem back to the organisation was 0%!

Back to the Vodafone store to see why the change of sim card did not work, where a slightly annoyed employee tells me this is a widespread problem, “And I really have to wait”. All of a sudden the phone works again, but I’m still ensured there is no booster in the store.

At this point all I want to know is, do I keep my phone, or do I buy a new one? But the answer is apparently to wait.

This morning the phone is still not working, so off to Vodafone store on Marylebone High street I go. Qu’elle surprise the phone works again, and I’m informed that the stores do indeed have boosters. I’m the second customer today that has been in the store with the same problem, and the new theory is that, “Vodafone is testing the 4G service for the Olympics and that is having an effect on 3G signals”. For how long? No one apparently knows, nor do they know if using a different smart phone would make a difference… and oh yeah, it could still be my phone.

So the answer to, “How many Vodafone employees it take to answer a customer query?” is clearly, it makes no difference as each and one of them will give you a different answer.

But like most things broken in an organisation, it should not be blamed on the foot soldiers but on the management of the organisation. So here is what I recommend Vodafone does find a consistent answer to.

  • Where is the feedback loop from the stores to Vodafone tech support? One thinks they may be able to learn something from the people on the ground.
  • Where is the internal communication? If in fact this is caused by 4G being tested, why has this not been communicated to everyone at Vodafone to ensure proper customer support.
  • Where is the proactivity? If testing of anything is to take place that may affect my service, where is my e-mail informing me of that fact so I can avoid spending hours trying to find an answer, and so I can plan ahead?
  • Where is the logical thinking? How can the only solution to receiving information in any way related, or caused by, a broken phone be by text, I mean really?
  • Where is the internal training of staff? If I, the least technical person in the world, can figure out from two trips to the store that they may have a booster – how come this is not common knowledge.
  • Where is the consistency? I think this point is self explanatory to anyone reading this blog.
  • Where is the reliable information? I still have no clue what to do. What I do know I can’t do however, is make a phone call or text.
  • But more than anything I would like to know where my three hours spent on the phone to Vodafone, and in their stores, are and can I please get them back?

Thank God I’m off to Amsterdam with Jonathan MacDonald this evening to deliver on a project, finally someone who actually understand mobile to give me a straight answer!!!!

P.S I should have known I would not be able to keep this short – it’s a Mobile operator story after all

Previously published chronicles of a customer

The chronicles of a customer: Volume 1 (companies saving the best deals for new customers)

The chronicles of a customer: Volume 2 (companies ensuring life is admin hell!)

The chronicles of a customer: Volume 3 (don’t accuse a customer of lying)

The chronicles of a customer: Volume 4 (we are people, yes even on-line)

 

The chronicles of a customer: Volume 5 (A reward is not a favour!)

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2012
04/23
CATEGORY
Customer Experience
Customer service
Internal Communications
Organisational Behaviour
The chronicles of a customer
Thoughts
1 comment

The democratisation of brands – a white paper

At this fluid world our clients regularly ask us about the fundamental changes that are happening to the branding environment. These conversations formed the genesis of a paper called, ‘Brand democratisation – an analysis of the paradigm shift that is the socialisation of brands’.

The paper gets to the heart of how and why the branding environment has changed, and what that means to organisations. It outlines the characteristics, challenges, risks, and opportunities of the current branding world, in addition to providing deep insights into, and signposts of, how the future branding landscape is being shaped, and the ways in which organisations need to think, prepare themselves, and behave to best capitalise on this new order.

Please click here or on picture above for a free copy of the white paper – enjoy :)

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2012
04/03
CATEGORY
Advertising/Media
Branding
Challenge the obvious
Disruption
Marketing
Social Media
this fluid world
Thoughts
Write comment

Retailers can’t only blame it on tough times

Rcapital has predicted that the number of retail insolvencies in the UK in 2012 is likely to surpass the number of 349 registered in 2008, itself the highest number on record since 2002. 

VAT payment, increases in rent and margin erosion, a general increase in cost and competition from online retailers are seen as the core reason for this*.

I agree that the reasons mentioned are making business in general difficult, but these are not specific to the retail industry, every business suffers from these realities, and yet companies are surviving, and companies are making a profit. I believe the main reason behind many retailers having to close their doors is the same as why many other organisations are having to close down, and that is a lack of a relevant purpose. The latest victim to this reality is Kodak who earlier this year filed for bankruptcy. Its purpose had been to sell cameras and film, and when the world started to change it put its bet on the printing market – a purpose that did not resonate with a digital world. 

I increasingly struggle to find reasons for traditional retailers to exist in the context of the role they play today, beyond a social one. I also struggle to find examples beyond Apple and Nike of companies who even try to identify a clear raison d’être on the high street. Let’s look at two recent examples from my own life, non scientific ones I agree, but telling non the less!

A few days ago I went to Selfridges, a department store in London, with the aim of buying a filter for my Nikon SLR. The price quoted by the sales assistant was £16.99. His answer to my observation that they only cost £1.99 online was, “I’m sure they do”.  Yes, the price difference is clearly outrageous, but even more so is how little the sales person cared, or how he did not even try to justify the enormous price difference.

I can understand an organisation not competing on price, we don’t at this fluid world, what I don’t understand is an organisation not competing on value. Value is compulsory, and even more so when a premium is charged. Any price tag must be justified, and one with a premium even more so.  If it can’t be justified then the products should not be sold, or the organisation will not exist for much longer!

A couple of weeks ago I walked into Inter Discount in Lausanne to buy my mother a cordless home phone. There were 1000 of them online but time was of the essence so I decided to venture in to a bricks and mortar to buy it. There were only two phones available, and I asked the sales assistant what the difference between the two phones were, his answer – “how should I know, I didn’t make them”.

I can understand a retailer not competing on product range,  in this digital age I  would actively recommend them not to do so, but I will never understand an organisation not offering good customer service! In this instance it’s even worse than bad customer service, they are missing out on the extra value they could offer beyond online, and that is personalised advice!

I’m sure anyone reading this will have their own stories that shows how broken off-line retail is. In my opinion retailers can continue to blame it on new competition, increases in rent and costs, and margin erosion, or they can accept that these are part of the challenges of being in business.  In the latter scenario, retailers would worry less about how to compete with online retailers in general, who will always have product range and cost to their advantage, and would instead be asking themselves some fundamental questions, such as:

What is the point of us existing, and how do we make a difference?

If the answers to these questions does not equal something that matters to the consumer, and with matters I mean something they are willing to pay for in a way that can sustain the existence of the business, then the follow up questions have to be:

How can we create real value, and in that context, what is our purpose?

If a solid and powerful answer to these questions can’t be found  then I suspect 350 retail bankruptcies is not a high number compared to what we will see moving forward. This, ladies and gentlemen, is of course not just a retail reality, but a fundamental truth of business. I have said it before, and I suspect I will say it again,  if one can’t define a clear and valuable purpose for an organisation, then it’s very likely this organisation will cease to exist in the near future.

*Source: UK retailers face carnage, WARC

 

 

 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2012
01/31
CATEGORY
Competitive Advantage
Customer service
Retail
Strategy
this fluid world
Thoughts
Write comment

A New Year’s toast

2011 was a tough year for many people close to me.

Loved ones passed away. 

Family incomes were lost.

Illnesses took over bodies and minds.

Relationships broke down.

Lives stopped making sense.

And some dreams died.

Yet through this river of sadness I saw pride, strength, and courage to keep going, and maybe most impressively during these times I saw the same people capable of laughter and generosity to others.

So to all these extraordinary people, and to people like them around the world, who not because of but despite everything found the strength in 2011 to smile, to help others, to say thank you, to keep going, it is to you I will raise a glass on New Year’s eve.

You are an inspiration to me, and I will take the strength I got from watching you over the last year with me on my journey in 2012.

Skål, santé, cheers, salud!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2011
12/31
CATEGORY
Thoughts
Write comment

6 things businesses should learn from F1 Grand Prix

Today I watched my first F1 Grand Prix, and as I was watching I realised there are many things in a F1 race we in business should be impressed by, and many things we should look to replicate.

You should really see a race for yourself and come to your own conclusions, but here are my top 6 things that wowed me, and why.

1) The clarity of purpose. The purpose behind being there is crystal clear to everyone. It’s as clear to the driver, as it’s to the team and the spectators. I don’t think there is a CEO alive who would argue that a purpose is not critical to business success … yet how many organisations have a purpose that is as clear to the CEO as it’s to the organisation’s employees, and more importantly to their customers? Yet a clear and well understood purpose is key to success and profitability. Ask anyone connected to Google if there is any confusion as to its purpose ‘to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful” and then ask yourself if your organisation’s purpose is as clear, and well understood.

2) The pursuit of excellence. Imagine if you had to, like in a Grand Prix, compete with your competitors in front of an audience where your organisation’s look, feel, quality, price, communication and service was directly, and in real time,  compared with the best of the best in your category. I bet you too, like F1 competitors, would put an insane amount of effort into ensuring your product offer is the best it can possible be. But wait, you already live in that world, it’s called the Internet, yet for some reason I don’t see the same dedication to excellence as I saw today during the F1 race. What would a world look like where you had to fire yourself if anything  you contributed was less than excellent? I suspect it would look like a world Steve Jobs would have loved to live in.

3) The abundance of passion. The previous point leads me to passion. If the passion in Ferrari’s, McLaren’s and Renault’s F1 central office is the same as it is in the pit, which i suspect it’s, then no wonder they are as successful as they are. I know what you’re thinking, some of us are not as lucky to produce, or sell, something people feel as passionately about as some feel about F1. All I will say to that is that it’s your job as a leader or an organisation to rally people around a greater cause, something that matters to them. How passionately do you think I felt about routers in the 90′s when I worked for Cisco? Not very is the answer to that question, but I did feel passionately about ‘changing the way we live, work, play and learn’, Cisco’s motto at the time.

4) The constant  learning. I fell in love with the data dash boards, and with F1 participants obsession with learning and progress. In the business world we need to ensure, not just access to relevant real time data, but organisational structures that can act on this data. In the business world we need to stop obsessing about what hasn’t worked, and therefore on what we should not do, and start obsessing about what has worked and keep building on that, in the name of innovation and change.

5) The speed and quality of action. How impressive are the mechanics in the pit stop? I desperately tried to find an example of where a car was worked on for more than 5 seconds and failed miserably. They impressed me on many levels, the speed in which they acted, their talent in knowing exactly what to do, and their extraordinary team work. Imagine an organisation where projects going wrong would be put through a speed consulting exercise where an extraordinary team, in less than no time would analyse, work on and solve the problem! How much time and money would be saved? How many more success stories would we have?!

6) The focus in communications. And finally, I love the communication that takes place between the team and the driver during the race. It’s short, it’s to the point and therefore powerful. Ahhhh the progress we would make in organisations if we learned to boil things down to its basics, to what really matters. I’m all for any initiatives that cuts down on wasting time, for example time spent in meetings. HBR reports that large Google meetings stay on time thanks to a visible ticking clock, and companies that have banned chairs in meeting rooms report that meetings went from 30-60 minutes to roughly 1/2 of that, while still delivering meaty content.

Yes, The Grand Prix insipired me, but then it’s no surprise as it show-cased so many things I have always believed in, the same things we work so hard on with our clients at this fluid world, many of which we proudly see compete, on a daily basis, in the Grand Prix that is The Business World.

 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2011
10/30
CATEGORY
Organisational Behaviour
Strategy
Thoughts
Write comment

Amazon’s Kindle Fire is not a disruptive Innovation

In his HBR article ‘Amazon’s Kindle Fire Is a Disruptive Innovation’ Rob Wheeler argues that the Kindle Fire could disrupt Apple’s iPad.

The reasons why Rob Wheeler sees the Kindle Fire as a potentially disruptive innovation are as follows:

  • it has less features, and is cheaper
  • it supplies low end customers, potentially cannibalising the high end tablet market
  • Apple may think an inferior product could never slay them, hence not act appropriately
  • Apple may continue to play the iPad game for years to come and focus on incremental innovation, i.e making better iPads

I’m of the opinion that the Kindle Fire is not a disruptive innovation, and I’m of the opinion that Apple does not run a great risk of being over taken by Amazon in that market segment.

Let me tell you why.

By definition the Kindle Fire is not a disruption

A disruptive technology is one that, when introduced, either radically transforms markets, creates wholly new markets, or destroys existing markets for other technologies.

Although the Kindle Fire undoubtedly has a market, it’s not radically transforming a market, this has already happened, nor does it destroy markets for other technologies, it’s simply capitalising on technologies already available.

A cheap product is not automatically a disruption

Competitors have always developed cheaper versions of an original innovation; think portable printers, DVD players, and digital cameras. This does not mean they are disrupting an industry and/or an organisation; they are simply competing through a different strategy. Call it a ‘me too’ strategy, or a ‘lower price’ strategy, or as I suspect is the case with Amazon, a ‘Gillette’ strategy, where the hardware is sold at a loss as the revenue is recuperated from another source, e-books.

Being expensive works if it’s a strategic choice

Disruptive theory describes a concept called ‘what goes up can’t come down’. What that means is that as an organisation grows, so does their cost structure forcing them to increase the price of their products and solutions. At this point they can no longer serve the lower end of the market, even if they would like to, and run the risk of being disrupted by a different solution answering the same need.

However, this is not the case with Apple. They are expensive because they are in the game of being the market leader in terms of innovation and distribution – this will always be reflected in the products you develop, markets you target and the price you charge. I don’t believe for a second that Apple is interested in competing on the lower end of the market. Not doing so is a strategic choice, and not a decision driven by the fact that their cost structure prevents them from offering cheaper solutions.

Corporate arrogance can be good

Rob Wheeler makes a valid point about how dangerous it is to think that an inferior product could never slay a giant. This indeed can lead to arrogance, organisational complacency and finally extinction think gaslights, Singer, and Kodak.

The risk of becoming obsolete through complacency happens when the incumbent is unaware of what is about to happen, example Nokia with the iPhone launch. I don’t believe for a second that Apple did not expect cheaper versions, or copies, of their product to be released. It’s basic business that when you innovate someone will launch a cheaper version, think DVD’s, digital cameras and printers.

Disruptors don’t just incrementally innovate

The idea that Apple will continue to play the iPad game for years and focus on incremental innovation, like Gillette does, is in my opinion unlikely.

The important question is therefore not how Apple will react to the Kindle Fire; the important question is what they will develop next! And let’s face it, Apple has shown in the past that it is a true innovator or we would not have the tablet. And Apple has shown in the past that cannibalising its own products in the name of innovation is not a problem to them, or the iPhone would not exist, clearly making the iPods irrelevant in the long run.

So I suspect Apple will be more concerned about what they are going to do next, than by how much market share is gained by the Kindle Fire.

Rob Wheeler ends the piece by asking what would the market gurus and Wall Street analysts think of Apple launching a cheap product to compete with Amazon.

I don’t know what they would say, but I do know what I would say, I would say the same thing to Apple as I say to all our clients at this fluid world, continue to ignore competition and do your own thing, continue to innovate, shape and disrupt markets, continue to develop shiny objects of desire as Jonathan MacDonald calls them, don’t be distracted by other market leaders pursuing their own strategy, which by the way is exactly what I think Amazon is doing.

But then I’m not a guru, nor do I work on Wall Street :)

Please click here for the HBR article and look out for the comment made by Jonathan MacDonald co-founder of this fluid world

 

 

 

 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2011
10/04
CATEGORY
Disruption
Innovation
Organisational Behaviour
Strategy
this fluid world
Thoughts
Write comment

Time to drop the media out of social media

A recent poll* of 100 executives representing some of the world’s largest companies found that 60% gave PR teams the primary responsibility for handling social media, with marketing departments on just 8%.

When asked why CMO’s and VP’ of Global Marketing from major brands gave reasons along the line of:

  • Convergence has created new opportunities to connect with customers
  • Social media allows brands to engage in, and influence, conversations people have about brands
  • More effective story telling is now possible
  • Social media has brought the opportunity to listen to conversations, and to participate in real time
  • PR departments can get stories onto multiple platforms

No disrespect to PR, it’s a discipline, when done well, I have absolute respect for. But handing over the responsibility of social media to the PR department shows an absolute lack of understanding of what social media is.

Yes, it can indeed do all the things just mentioned above, but looking at it in such a limiting way only makes sense in the same way as using a Swiss army knife just for cutting things does.

If you were to see what is happening as a social revolution instead of a media revolution, it would become clear that it’s affecting all parts of life, and therefore all aspects of, not only marketing, but business.

Reframing social in this way means it can no longer be seen as a channel, or a discipline specific opportunity or challenge, actually it means it can no longer be seen as an opportunity or a challenge full stop. Instead it must be seen as a fact, a business fact.

I suspect the term media in social media has a big role to play in the opinion that this is mainly a new comms channel, that and the lovely Facebook of course.

But if you ask P&G, with their crowd sourced R&D innovation initiative ‘P&G Connect + Develop’, (forecasted to be responsible for 60% of revenue this year) if they think it’s simply a comms channel, I bet you they’ll say no!

If you ask Ford, who sees social as a major sales generating activity, if they think it’s simply a comms channel, they too will probably say no!

And I’m almost 100% sure that if you ask Best Buy, with their twitter customer service initiative Twelpforce, if they think it’s simply a comms channel, they too will say no!

The examples I mentioned are all examples of organisations that have understood the fundamental paradigm shift caused by social. And this is why these organisations are not thinking about which department should be responsible for social media. Instead they are busy embracing social for the all-encompassing thing it is, and making it critical to their marketing and business initiatives!

Organisations could do worse than following these companies’ lead! But doing this would require them to reframe social, it would require them to accept the role social can, and should play, not only in communications, not only in the marketing mix, but throughout the entire value chain, it would require them to collaborate with people who undersand business, and it would definitely require them to drop the misleading word media out of social media!

Doing this would open their eyes to the true opportunities, and challenges, caused by social, doing this would allow them to design the right business strategies shaped in the context of today’s social business world, doing this would allow them to be competitive moving forward, but what it wouldn’t do is raise the question as to which department is responsible for social media!

For a blog on a related topic please read ‘How naive to think social media has hit a plateau’

* The Holmes Report

 

 

 

 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2011
09/28
CATEGORY
Advertising/Media
Competitive Advantage
Customer service
Disruption
Marketing
Social Media
Strategy
Thoughts
2 comments

The increasing disconnect between CEOs and marketers

73% of CEOs think marketers lack business credibility according to a study* conducted by The Fournaise Marketing Group**. Let me repeat that, 73%!!!

What is the main reason for this disconnect? According to the researched CEOs, marketers can’t prove they generate business growth.

So what is it in particular these CEOs struggle with? Well apparently:

  • Marketers focus too much on brand, brand values, and brand equity, not enough on financial returns
  • Marketers put too much emphasis on the latest marketing trends, such as social media
  • Marketers confuse top-line growth generation with cost cutting
  • Marketers can’t justify a requested increase in budget with incremental growth
  • Marketers share too much data that can’t be used to positively impact revenue
  • Marketers don’t think enough like business people; they focus too much on the creative

As I was analysing the results from the study, and thinking about my own experiences, I asked myself, what are the reason behind this? As you can imagine the reasons are many, and they change depending on the perspective one takes and the industry one looks at, but I believe some of the macro reasons are as follows:

Marketers are badly represented at board level. A study conducted by the CIM shows that only 14% of FTSE 100 companies have a marketing professional on their main board. This is a staggering low figure! The question is, are they not represented because they are not SEEN as strategic enough? Or are they not represented because they ARE’NT strategic enough. The reality is you can’t have it both ways. If you are a CEO you can’t exclude marketers from being represented at the most strategic level, and at the same time expect them to contribute in the optimal strategic way. And as a marketer you can’t fail to prove the effect you have on the bottom line, and at the same time expect to have a seat at the top table. Clearly we are facing a catch 22 situation, one that is not aided by the next point.

The business vs marketing chasm. It is often the case that marketers do not understand business. This is why things like facebook gets more attention from the marketing department than the rest of the business thinks it’s worth. It’s no accident that we at this fluid world have created a mini masters in business for people in marketing and advertising, aimed at raising their understanding of doing business in a changing world, and educate them on how they can have a positive impact on a company’s bottom line. The lack of business understanding clearly has an effect on the work the marketing department does, the strategies they choose, the campaigns they create, the data they collect etc. However, it’s also true CEOs don’t necessarily understand marketing. The reason could be that less than 20% of chief executives have a marketing background, the remaining 80% come from finance, operations, and general management. This results in a chasm between people that speak a different language, that have a different understanding of how the world works, and whose definition of results differ.

The sales versus marketing dilemma. I’m of the opinion that everyone’s job in an organisation is to increase sales, either directly or indirectly. I do however accept that the tools and timelines used to achieve this are different depending on department, role and function. Sales departments operate on a short-term basis, often by weekly or monthly sales targets. Marketing departments however tend to focus on more long-term activities such as building and maintaining brands. Yet, CEOs often confuse sales departments with marketing departments expecting both functions to have an immediate impact on sales, and clear measurements to show the tangible impact activities have had (driven by the expectations of The City). However, the tools used to increase sales, as we know, are more direct and focused, and therefore easier to measure than the ones in marketing. This, however, is not a reason to avoid measuring marketing activities, which leads us nicely on to the next point.

The fallacy that marketing cant be measured. In my opinion marketers fail to separate measuring creativity, from measuring outcome. The idea that creativity should be measured is something marketers have resisted for a long time arguing that creativity cannot be measured. To me that is missing the point. I don’t think any CEO is interested in micro managing, and measuring, every creative idea and/or thought that comes out of the marketing department. What they do need is some justification for the budget spent. In other words, the end result has to have a positive impact on sales. Yet not enough marketing campaigns are aimed at what matters to a CEO, (and I would argue to the survival of an organisation) increasing customer demand, sales, prospects, conversions and market share. And when they are, the KPI’s are not clear enough, and tracking is not put in place.

It is clear that there is not just one culprit responsible for the disconnect between CEOs and marketers.

CEOs have to learn to understand how marketing can assist an organisation strategically, so they can guide the function in a way that ensure greatest ROI. And marketers have to demonstrate that they add real value if they are to be taken seriously at board level.

How to achieve this? Well, that’s a subject in its own right!

 

* The 2011 Global Marketing Effectiveness Program in which more than 600 large corporation and SMB CEOs and decision-makers in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia where interviewed

** The Fournaise Marketing Group is one of the global leaders in Customer Acquisition through Marketing ROI

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2011
09/11
CATEGORY
Advertising/Media
Leadership
Marketing
Organisational Behaviour
this fluid world
Thoughts
3 comments

Facing reality is a powerful management tool

Now, tell me what’s so special about this Stradivarius?

To answer this question, allow me to share a story with you form Lisa Harouni, CEO of Digital forming. “Three years ago I visited a large European manufacturer of sports accessories and pitched them the idea of creating a superior product using 3D printing, and doing away with 90% of their supply chain”. Their CEO just said, “This is great, but you are essentially telling me that my whole supply chain is redundant. What you are proposing is not a solution but a threat” (Wired June 2011).

Now here is the really, really, really bad news for the CEO in question, 3D printing is not a threat – it’s a reality!!!

This article, however, is not about 3D printing; this post is about how managers should analyse, and react, to their environment.

Senior managers, and decision makers, are far too reliant on the thinking, and outcome, that comes from the way in which they have been told to analyse the environment in which they operate in. They conduct PEST analysis, (Political, Economic, Social, Technical) they analyse past trends so they can predict the future, and they always make sure they have a good old SWOT analysis at hand for when required (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, Threats) !!!

So when a big fat REALITY comes their way, they are incapable of seeing it, and instead they proceed to classify it either as an opportunity, or a threat. The problem I have with this is that it comes with the perception that you can capitalise on an opportunity, and avoid a threat.

Since reality is something that you can’t avoid, since reality is something you have to live with, I recommend that analysing realities is brought into every senior managers tool kit! I recommend a couple of realities are identified each year, and that scenarios are built around them in order to identify how to survive, no, how to thrive in the new reality (this by the way means suing whoever is responsible for the disruption is not an option!!!). There are people by the way who can help you with this. Our version at this fluit world is ‘advance scenario planning’. Either way the focus must be on understanding what can happen, the focus must be on future proofing, the focus must be on ensuring relevancy in a new reality.

In the case of 3D printing…. there is no avoiding… 3D printing is a fact, and it’s here to stay.

The only acceptable reaction from the CEO in question would have been to recognise the reality that was presented to him. The only acceptable reaction from the CEO in question would have been to act on that reality. Hence, the only acceptable answer from the CEO in question to Lisa Harouni would have been, “Oh my God, this means 90% of my supply chain will be redundant. The good news is you have given me a window of opportunity to create a superior product before my competition, and also to get my house in order to survive what clearly is a disruptive technology”.

By the way, this is something all CEO’s should think about today because; what does Midas become if people start printing their own car parts, what does DHL become if people no longer ship products because they are printing them, what does Amazon do in a world where aggregating, and shipping, products is no longer a valuable business proposition? Try it, there is a version of this for the industry, and company, you work in.

So what is so special about the Stradivarius mentioned at the beginning of this article? Yes, of course you’re right, it’s printed….(well, according to the Economist) but what’s really special about this Stradivarius is that it’s giving you a peak into a future reality. 

We have faced a wave of change similar to the one that we are likely to go through due to innovations, such as 3D printing. Each time the disruption is triggered by an innovation in information technology, which prompts a new form of organisation. So if you don’t adapt to the new reality, the people to whom they are a true opportunity, because they have no legacy, will do more than eat 90% of your supply chain, they’ll eat your lunch! And who knows, it may even be printed.

 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2011
06/23
CATEGORY
Challenge the obvious
Competitive Advantage
Disruption
Innovation
Marketing Myopia
Organisational Behaviour
Strategy
this fluid world
Thoughts
1 comment

You can’t afford making yourself, and your ideas, irrelevant

There is a lot of talk about how agencies need to make sure the brands they work for are relevant to their customers. Since agencies exist primarily to generate ideas, and/or execute on those ideas, it is fair to say that agencies core function is to generate relevant ideas (not just great ideas!!!).

This raises a crucial question, what is a relevant idea?

To me, and to all of us at this fluid world, a relevant idea is one that:

  • works for the client
  • contributes to achieving their business objectives
  • fits with the overall brand strategy
  • can be executed across all relevant platforms, and channels
  • resonates with people
  • is affordable

To achieve this it requires an agency to (among other things):

(Note: you can replace agency with organisation)

  1. have outstanding ideas. This is mainly the responsibility of the creatives who need to be curious, not only about the artistic side, but also about business, technology, media etc
  2. ensure these ideas are agnostic. This is a hard thing to do when an agency’s revenue depends on achieving results with available capabilities, and the full utilisation of existing internal resources
  3. fundamentally understand how a client works. A good account person should have this one nailed, if given enough time to do so…
  4. have a solid understanding of a client’s corporate, and business objectives, in addition to the business environment in which they operate, and compete in. As it stands today I’m not entirely sure of whose responsibility that is
  5. have a clear understanding of a client’s brand strategy. This of course is the responsibility of a good plannerpossess a deep understanding of all platforms, and channels. Again, I’m not entirely sure of whose responsibility that is
  6. have the ability to execute on ideas, across platforms and channels. This raises the same challenge as in point 2, an agency’s revenue depends on achieving results with available capabilities, and the full utilisation of existing internal resources, making this difficult

So in summary, relevant ideas need a relevant client, a relevant client need a relevant agency, and a relevant agency is one that is structured, staffed and resourced in such a way that it can generate truly relevant ideas.

There is no way, in my opinion, an organisation can do this successfully if they insist on all idea generation, and execution, taking place in house.

Relevancy requires an agency to, among other things, structure itself around idea generation and an understanding of people (not the client), it needs to facilitate internal, and external, collaborative idea generation, it needs to ensure the right people, with the right skill set can be brought together when needed, irrespective of what organisation, department, or discipline they work for, it needs to accept that a broad, and deep, understanding of many things is everyone’s responsibility, it must allow employees the time to make that possible, it needs to facilitate continuous learning and understanding to ensure creatives, planners and account people truly understand what is going on in the world, it needs to have flexibility built into everything it does, and it needs to structure budgets in a way that allows for all the above to be possible.

I know, doing all this is not easy, we are all battling with either marketing myopia, limited resources, and/or legacy, but believe me when I say it is happening. At this fluid world we have conversations with agencies, and brands, about one, or more, of these things on a weekly basis… For key aspects of what we are asked to assess, the vision, solution, idea generation, problem solving, perspective of the world, organisational structure, etc we have a ‘fluid relevancy test’…because if the ability to be relevant is not there, be it for an idea, a solution, or an organisation…then pretty much every idea you come up with, pretty much everything you do…becomes…well irrelevant!

So ask yourself the following questions; what would your vision be if you started from scratch, what would your business model look like, what products and services would you offer, how, and how much, would you charge, who would you hire, what processes would you put in place, how would you measure success, how would you structure your organisation, who would you partner with (I could go on)? Whatever the answer is…that is what you should strive to achieve!

Hard? Expensive? Well remember, every brand new company you compete with are in this position, and can do just what I have asked you to do. So my bet is  you can’t afford not doing it, because you can’t afford making yourself, and your ideas, irrelevant.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2011
05/16
CATEGORY
Advertising/Media
Challenge the obvious
Competitive Advantage
Organisational Behaviour
Strategy
this fluid world
1 comment