Archive for the ‘ Strategy ’ Category

Is there a crack showing in the shiny Mac Apple?

No one would disagree that Apple is a company that get a lot of things right.

  • In 2011 over half of their revenue will come from products that did not exist four years ago. We can safely say that ticks the innovation box.
  • Any company about whom people tweet the following ‘Glad I helped Steve Jobs reach sales targets this month. Feeling quite proud’ has definitely ticked ‘the army of fanatics supporting them’ box!
  • An organisation that successfully launches a new product (iPad) and an upgrade to a core product (iPhone 4) within months of each other gets a tick next to the commercial box.
  • And as for differentiation, there are more ticks than I can mention here!

So why was I feeling uneasy as I left the Mac store on Regent Street this Saturday? My experience there raised some key questions to which I don’t have an answer, but  that does make me wonder if there is a crack starting to show in that shiny little Mac Apple?!

Let me tell you what I mean.

Saturday 2 AM my computer dies and at 9 AM I’m at the Mac store on Regent Street only to be told that the next appointment in the Genius bar for technical support is on Friday at 18.00.

One week to get technical support! ‘This is wrong on so many levels, and it also shows some structural problems. Below are my top line observations.

  • If you’re a life style brand, promoting a way for people to live their lives, then you can’t at the same time turn around and say that it’s OK to be without you for one week.
  • This is even more the case if your product provides some form of utility. I run this fluid world with my business partner and i can safely tell you none of our clients would be happy with me being out of action for a week.
  • Customer service that offers technical support one week later is just not good enough for a premium priced product – it’s not actually good enough for any priced product in this category!
  • Not one member of staff I spoke to disagreed with me, a one week wait is just unreasonable. If your own staff can’t support your customer service level, then as an organisation you do have a problem!
  • It’s clear when you’re in the store that Apple is an organisation that prioritises sales and marketing. The look and feel of the store as you know is great, there are more sales people walking around than I have ever seen anywhere else, and they are happy letting people be on facebook all day long because ‘we’re nurturing future customers’. The problem is that ONLY a handful of people working in the Genius bar, and a sales force that can’t handle even basic trouble shooting, does nothing to nurture your present customers with a pressing problem!
  • And finally, when your staff speaks less than gloriously about you as an organisation to customers, in this case I had to listen to comments like ‘we’re becoming an IBM’, then you really should sit up and listen! Not to mention that the staff also seems totally unaware of the risk taken when speaking so honestly to a stranger (I mean really have they never heard of journalists, bloggers, facebook fans twitterers?!)

I did end up getting help though. One of the young men I spoke to squeezed me in. I had to wait three hours for it all to be sorted out, but it did get sorted (these chairs are really not that comfortable by the way)!

The issue is that the reason my trip to the Apple store was a success had nothing to do with Apple as an organisation, and everything to do with one person breaking a rule. Not a sustainable solution to what I think could be a major problem – a focus on product development and launches on the possible expense of customer service and staff motivation.

I propose Steve Jobs takes a trip down to one of his Mac stores, accompanied by a broken computer and a pressing dead line. I think it would do him some good, but then I suspect they would make an even bigger exception for him than for me :)

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
06/21
CATEGORY
Branding
Customer Experience
Organisational Behaviour
Strategy
Thoughts
this fluid world
3 comments

Having an army of fanatics = game, set and match!

I’ve been asked to speak at a panel at EGR Live (eGaming Review brand) covering the topic ‘Marketing on a shoestring budget’. My role on this panel is as ‘someone who knows about social media’… and it got me thinking.

Everyone loves seeing an underdog make it. And in marketing land an underdog is someone with little or no budget. So when Paranormal Activity, a movie with a production budget of $10,000 and no marketing budget, makes it into American theatres through an active approach to social media, we pay attention, we pay attention and we want some of that magic too!!!

I love stories like this, but I fear that it gives people the wrong impression of the role that digital and social media should play in marketing.

Marketing does not = advertising, we must therefore look at marketing from a broader perspective

The main reaction marketers have when they think of marketing on a shoestring budget is free advertising, and the solution to this is social media and SEO.

This is a limited view of marketing. If, as a marketer, you truly want to decrease marketing cost you MUST look at marketing from a broader perspective. If, as a marketer, you truly want to be part of the social media tidal wave you MUST look at the role digital and social media can, and should play, in the entire marketing mix.

Some companies are getting this right, and ‘qu’elle surprise’, they are also the same companies we keep reading about in the trade press and hearing about at conferences. The reason they’re such success stories is because they do NOT look at social media as a way of decreasing advertising budget, they look at social media (and with this I mean the power of people) as something that can affect their entire marketing mix. Let me give you some examples, and I know you will be familiar with these.

And finally Zappos, a company who gets it right throughout the value chain, has during the past 10 years grown from almost no sales to more than $1 billion in annual gross merchandise sales. This has been achieved primarily by repeat customers and word of mouth.

These are all examples of excellent marketing, and in some cases of advertising on a shoestring budget!

Create an army of fanatics

There is another thing these companies have in common; they have what Jonathan MacDonald, my business partner at this fluid world, refers to as an army of fanatics supporting them. An army of fanatics are people that produce and create for you, talk about you, promote you, sell your products, and in tough times defend you!

Shift marketing investment to earlier stages of the value chain

When we at this fluid world work with organisations that are looking at decreasing their marketing budget (often through social media), we recommend that they shift their investment to an earlier stage of the value chain, in addition to focusing their attention on creating an army of fanatics, rather than on how to advertise as cheaply as possible. Why? Because we know that this will save organisations money across the board.

We recommend:

  1. They tap into the zeitgeist “the spirit of the times”, soak themselves in the cultural and spiritual climate, live breathe and eat what people do, think and talk about
  2. That they create extreme value, be it in utility, convenience, enablement, connectivity, coolness or reward; within and around everything they do. This can only be achieved if stage one is taken seriously, and done well
  3. After having created something extremely valuable make sure it’s ultra findable. The distance between inspiration and satisfaction must be reduced toward instantaneous. Be everywhere! Yes this is where search comes in – but only as a part of it
  4. And finally make sure it’s super shareable. It seems such an easy concept but the efficiencies of distribution become significant when people who like something can share it with others. The ‘viral’ campaigns we see working best are those that have an instant way of sharing between people. This accelerates the advocacy effect of armies of fanatics

Gaming is all about armies of fanatics

As you can imagine, creating an army of fanatics is easier said than done, especially if you’re in the business of selling sugar water or you are, for example, an energy company…

But if you’re reading this and you’re in gaming, than you’re incredibly lucky because you’re in an industry that by nature is made up of fanatics! People who game love gaming, people who game breathe gaming! You already have the army of fanatics to tap into by default. They are there, waiting to connect waiting to play (literally!).

So what does that mean to you? It means that your job is to make them YOUR army of fanatics!

Look at Zynga, the makers of FarmVille, and FishVille, with 230 million users each month (using a limited advertising budget) and Mafia Wars with its 12,104,521 facebook fans (as of 2nd of June 2010). These are games that have created and tapped into fanatical armies at great success!

This, by the way, requires following the same recommendations outlined above. Gaming is the perfect environment for a brand to create THEIR army of fanatics, and for social media marketing to prove itself in every part of the marketing mix.

If the gaming industry gets it right, I believe it could do to social media marketing what porn did to the Internet – accelerate its success!

And for whoever does this well, it will be game, set and match!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
06/14
CATEGORY
Advertising/Media
Challenge the obvious
Competitive Advantage
Marketing
Social Media
Strategy
Thoughts
this fluid world
Write comment

We don’t need ‘heads of what’s in vogue’; we need great marketing and communications practitioners!

My last blog ‘Do we need strategists? Hell yeah!’ mentions hiring ‘heads of what’s in vogue’, and I would like to discuss this topic a bit further.

When I say ‘head of what’s in vogue’, yes I do mean Head of Digital, Mobile and now Social Media (in addition to the next thing that will come along).

Do not get me wrong, every new channel, discipline and/or opportunity should be acknowledged and recognised for their potential importance, and the possibilities they may bring.

I’m also all for recruiting necessary skills, and for assigning roles and responsibilities (the buck has to stop somewhere), and finally I have no problem with those roles and responsibilities coming with a title.

What I do have an issue with is agencies and organisations reasons for assigning a head of Digital/Mobile/Social Media. From my experience when such an appointment is made it’s for one of the following reasons:

  • Everyone else is, so it must be important, hence we should hire someone too
  • We’re not sure we buy into it, but we do need to be seen as doing so (by the trade press and our clients)
  • We don’t really have time to think about it so we’ll hire someone to delegate the responsibility to
  • Hey, maybe it will lead to a new revenue stream
  • Hiring someone is as good as a change, no? (and yes a lot easier!)

What seems to only rarely be on the agenda is hiring someone to do what is desperately needed, manage the necessary mind-shift to affect real change, rather than just contribute to a campaign, or meet with senior clients (pixie dust).

For that to happen the new Head should spend his time:

  • Figuring out the role of, for example digital, mobile and social media, in the communications and marketing mix
  • Identifying its best use in achieving business objectives and marketing goals, this per category, stage in product life cycle and per campaign
  • Ensuring awareness and REAL understanding of the topic within the agency/company
  • Making sure everyone in the agency/company understand its role, value, and knows how to use it and what to expect from it

What is needed is to ensure that the right measures are taken to make what is new part of business as usual, so that it becomes EVERYONE’s responsibility.

Because without this happening we will never have what is truly needed and that is great marketing and communications practitioners that can adapt to any change and capitalise on any opportunity (be it a channel, platform or disciple) that comes their way!

So if you hire anyone hire a ‘Head of figuring things out’, a ‘Head of understanding people’, a ‘Head of getting stuff done’ – or alternatively hire smart generalists with deep knowledge and experience for a day, a week a month (we love those in this fluid world so if you’re one, or looking for one, get in touch)

Hire them and let them loose in your organisation with a simple brief, ‘to find answers, to find solutions, to achieve great marketing and communications that is channel, platform or disciple agnostic’ – hire them to achieve companie’s business and marketing objectives (this would be a strategy rather than sprinkling pixie dust).

I’m afraid this will not happen if we keep hiring Head… after Head… after Head of ‘whatever is in vogue’!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
05/31
CATEGORY
Advertising/Media
Challenge the obvious
Marketing
Organisational Behaviour
Strategy
Thoughts
Write comment

Do we need strategists? Hell yeah!

A few weeks ago I read something quite depressing … apparently there is very little demand for strategists on the conference circle…

Does this mean that our industry has little interest for strategy in general? Does this mean that strategy has been replaced by things we can see, we can touch, things we can play with?

It would explain a lot.

It would explain why most of what we see awarded, rewarded, celebrated at our conferences, and written about in our blogs, are a series of activities and tactics which at beast sprinkle pixie dust but rarely lead to an increase in sales, or a major shift in brand perception (Yershon and Jmac I know you’re with me on this one :) )!

It would explain why people believe that facebook is a strategy, it would explain why people treat a platform like mobile as if it was a strategy, and it would explain why companies keep hiring a head of ‘anything that is in vogue’.

It would also explain why, when standing in front of a corporate audience, people look blankly at you when you ask them if they know what their company strategy, and/or vision is.

It seems like the future of strategy is under threat, and strategists are an endangered species.

This is serious, I mean very serious. We are in a period of change, a period of flux, and I can’t think of a time when strategy is more needed than during a period of change and flux!

Sun Tzu wrote of war “All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved”.

Be under no illusion, business and marketing over the next couple of years will resemble a war, a war where only the ones with a clear and solid plan of action (a strategy) will survive.

And be under no illusion, the organisations you see celebrated and hailed on a regular basis for their digital campaigns, for their innovative use of technology and channels (for their tactical activities) …

… the organisations you see achieve victory in changing, confusing and scary times …

… these organisations are the same companies that, like Sun Tzu, have a solid strategy to back up everything they do.

Strategy is the difference between sprinkling pixie dust and achieving a real impact, strategy is the difference between ad hoc success and a sustainable business, strategy is the difference between winning and losing the war!

Don’t take my word for it, but do take Sun Tzu’s – and next time you organise a conference, do roll in the strategists, it’s by involving them that real, valuable and long-term activities will emerge!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
05/25
CATEGORY
Strategy
Thoughts
1 comment

Want to be a good strategist? Keep challenging your assumptions and general conventional wisdom!

I love when I catch myself seeing the world through old glasses. It’s not a proud moment when it happens, but it’s an important one. Realising I run the risk of being out of date is a harsh wake-up call that generally keeps me on my toes for a year or so… and this morning I had such a wake-up call.

For all my life I’ve seen Sweden as a modern, innovative, creative country, and also one at the forefront of design! I even wrote a blog about it called ‘What’s up with Sweden and all its innovation”. In it I describe why I believe a small country like Sweden (a country I lived in until the age of 18) has produced so many big brands, and why it’s responsible for so many disruptive innovations.

So you can imagine my reaction reading the below title from Tyler Brûlé’s (Editor and Chief of Monocle) column in this weekend edition of the FT.

A decline into Swede nothings!!!! I nearly spilled my Cortado as I jumped off my seat! What is the man talking about?! Has he never heard of IKEA, H&M, Tetra Pak, Volvo, SAAB and Ericsson?!!!

I kept feeling annoyed until I got to the following caption ‘Swedish goods and services used to be a refreshing constant in my daily life but somehow they vanished – no cars, no telecommunications, no media, no hotels, no airlines. H&M and IKEA might continue their global assault (along with the odd crime author) waving a small blue and yellow flag, but increasingly Sweden Inc seems a little less potent’.

It made me think…Ericsson was founded in the late 19 century, Volvo in the 1920’s, IKEA and H&M in the 40’s, Tetra Pak in the early 50’s. Many of these organisations had their glory days in the 90’s, which also happens to be the last decade during which I lived in Sweden!

I’m embarrassed to admit that I had not questioned my assumption and beliefs about Sweden being an innovative country for over 15 years, and in these times that may as well be 100 years!

Not the end of the world I know. But take a break and think about yourself as the manger, strategist, consultant, and or leader you are, and then think about how often you challenge your assumptions or the conventional wisdom around which you base your decisions.

Not as often as you should, of that I’m sure…Now think about how that affects your decision-making!

There is no doubt that to ensure relevance, to ensure quality of advice and decision-making, we need to ask ourselves regularly (as in on a daily basis):

•    How long have I been doing, and why do I do things this way?
•    When did I decide what I believe on a certain topic to be true, and is it still?
•    Is what I do/think still valid?
•    What has happened that could/should change my assumptions?

There is nothing new about this… yet most of us fall into the ‘assumption trap’. To avoid this we must challenge our thinking by surrounding ourselves with people that are different to us, that come from different backgrounds and have different experiences.

I’m lucky to be part of this fluid world, and to have a business partner and clients who don’t allow me to have too many moments like this morning. Because of this I usually don’t need Tyler and the FT to remind me of the fact that I don’t drive a Swedish car, and that my phone, clothes and furniture aren’t Swedish (I mean really Liri!!! – pretty obvious!)!

Having said that, It’s with a bit of sadness though, that I bid farewell to my innovative Swedish legacy!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
05/16
CATEGORY
Challenge the obvious
Disruption
Innovation
Strategy
this fluid world
1 comment

If you don’t control your value chain, control your communications!

This is the final piece of a series of three. The first ‘A bad piece of meat will always be a bad piece of meat’ discusses how people select suppliers,  the second one, ‘In this collaborative world, if we own the royal mile, then we have to accept that our suppliers are our responsibility!!!’ discusses how organisations are responsible for the actions of their suppliers since they own the final customer touch point, or what we at this fluid world call the royal mile.

This piece deals with when all else fail, control communications.

I’m prepared to accept that there are times when you are forced to cooperate with organisations whose actions are not under your control. If you happen to find yourself in such a situation, then you must be responsible for, and take control of the one thing you do have power over – your communications.

Let me give you an example.

A few years ago I bought a TV from John Lewis.

Anyone who has had the pleasure of buying anything in John Lewis’ electronics department will know that it’s a pure pleasure. The waiting time to be served is short, the staff helpful and polite, the advice based on customer need and not on the desire to up-sell, and the choice available more than acceptable. So far all good (and yes under the control of John Lewis).

However it all goes horribly wrong just a few days later (while I’m still in the post purchase anxiety of ‘do I really need a new TV?’ period – and also within the time frame when I can bring the TV back).

A letter arrives in the post, it’s not a ‘we hope you enjoy your TV’ message from John Lewis, but a threatening letter from the TV license people.


A letter treating me like a criminal because I have just bought a TV and, according to them, don’t have a license for it. No consideration that I may have bought it as a present for someone, or that I may actually have a license (which I did!) – just a threatening letter full of assumptions.

In one second my warm and fuzzy feelings for John Lewis disappears! Warm and fuzzy feelings I had because of an excellent service that I’m sure cost John Lewis a lot of money to deliver on! “But this has nothing to do with John Lewis” I hear you say!

But it does!

I understand John Lewis legally have to inform the license people when someone buys a TV from them.  I also understand that they have no control of the letter that is ultimately sent to their customers (although if I were them I would fight this one all the way to court!).

What I DON’T understand is why they did not have the courtesy to inform me about this legal obligation, and about the letter that would arrive at my doorstep a few days later. What I don’t understand is that they don’t try to separate my experience with them, with my experience with the TV license people. What I don’t understand is that in a situation where they can’t control the actions of an organisation they are forced to cooperate with, over whom they have no power, they don’t control and manage what they do have power of, the communications.

All it would have taken is a “We would like to inform you that we legally have to inform the organisation responsible for TV licenses about your purchase, and that you will be receiving a letter from them within a week”.

Just one simple phrase, yet a phrase that would mean a 100% disassociation from an unpleasant experience that is about to happen, one that could damage their brand, one phrase that would leave the customer with the feeling that John Lewis is on ‘their’ side!

As an organisation you must have a clear understanding of what you can and can’t control. As an organisation you must have a clear understanding as to the possible damaging scenarios around what you can’t control. As an organisation you must make sure that you use communications in your favour to avoid any negative associations from the behaviour of any of those suppliers/collaborators.

But use communications as a last option, control and prevention will always be more powerful! And after all, if Apple can force Vodafone to make each customers open the iPhone package themselves when they buy a new iPhone because ‘it’s part of the customer experience’ (bearing in mind that I as a customer can’t get Vodafone to do anything) – then everything is possible!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
05/09
CATEGORY
Customer Experience
Marketing
Retail
Strategy
Thoughts
Write comment

A bad piece of meat will always be a bad piece of meat!

I don’t often go to Tesco to buy real food. Not only because I find it annoying how the people working there always seem to insist on packing the eggs first…and finish with the very heavy bottle of sparkling water….but mainly because I have a Waitrose around the corner (and really why would you go anywhere else?).

Well the other day, being in a hurry, I made an exception and popped into Tesco for some meet and vegetables. Nothing wrong with this meet, I think you’ll agree! I would go as far as saying a nice pair of steaks, and at an amazing price (£5 if I recall correctly)!

Well not so much! Getting ready to start cooking for my brother I opened the package, grabbed the steaks, and there it was, the whole ugly truth!

I will never understand why companies think deceiving customers in this way is a good idea. Yes you have succeeded to flog an item, or if you are a consultant a project…but the truth is a bad piece of meat will always be a bad piece of meat!

I usually put more thought into where I buy my dinner, and the one time I didn’t I ended up having to run for take away. Far from a disaster I agree, especially as I prefer Sushi to steak any day!

However, and on a more serious note, I’m often amazed at the criteria used by an organisation when choosing who to partner with, or who to hire as a supplier or consultant, where the stakes are a lot higher than buying meat.

There seems to be three extreme camps.

1) The decision of who to work with is often based on a shiny exterior like a fancy website, a cool office, or a flashy presentation at a conference, this without questioning the depth of the offer, or the long-term validity of the solution (yes the steak looks great!).

2) Or the decision is based on price, without much consideration for the lost opportunity of working with a lesser quality supplier, or the potential negative impact to the business following inexperienced advice can have (the steak was cheap!).

3) And finally, the selection criteria is based on size or brand name. We want to be seen to work with the biggest agency, consulting firm or organisation, ignoring that the high price tag that comes with working with these companies does not necessarily reflect the quality of the advice or work, but rather the high cost structure (OK so this one may not be relevant I hear you think, after all ‘every little helps’ is possible because Tesco is big – yes, but then what about quality?!).

Please don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that any of the above will automatically lead to a disastrous outcome! Often it doesn’t.

What I’m saying is; when you base your decision of where to buy your meat simply on being in a hurry, and on the basis that it looks good from the outside, and when you think you got a real bargain because of a cheap price tag, don’t be surprised if you end up having to throw it away and run for Sushi.

If you choose your suppliers based on the wrong criteria, there is a chance that  you will end up wasting a lot of time, and money, in addition to potentially damaging your reputation.

So don’t do what I did, instead choose them based on their reputation and experience, in my case that would have meant going to Waitrose!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
04/25
CATEGORY
Strategy
Thoughts
1 comment

When it’s broken don’t fix it…smash it and re-build it!!!

If it’s broken don’t fix it…smash it!!!
I had the pleasure last week of seeing a senior representative from a publishing company speak.  I say the pleasure because his presentation could not have been more different than what one would expect from an incumbent in a threatened industry.
Not only was it honest, inspiring and realistic, but it left you with some hope that maybe, just maybe there was a future for this company, one based on a willingness to challenge themselves and to innovate.
Innovation is often stopped because of one of the following reasons.
High cost structures prevent investment in areas that do not generate an ROI above a certain size. The first slides in the presentation covered the organisations office move, and described the details around a serious down sizing project. No more plush offices, and today only a third of the size it used to be was not described as a problem but as an opportunity to integrated between departments, to collaborate and to embrace the future.
A focus on the past (especially if it represent ‘the good old times’). It’s rare to listen to someone dismiss any strategy beyond 18 months as pointless due to the pace of change in today’s business world. It’s rare to hear someone discuss how their newly developed purpose statement (or vision) will be irrelevant 12-18 months from now. It’s even more rare to hear someone do so with a confident smile, rare, but incredibly inspiring!
An unwillingness to cannibalise on core products. I was amazed to listen to someone who openly spoke about how their new digital products would decrease the circulation figures of their off-line product (for you who are not in advertising, advertising revenue it dependent on high circulation figures). This is of course not a secret to anyone, but how many are prepared to not only accept it, but to barge ahead under that premise?
The immediate revenue from a new idea is seen as too small compared to the revenue derived from core activities, and is therefore rejected by the incumbent. I saw no sign of this in the presentation, instead relatively modest revenue figures achieved from sales of an app was referred to with the respect that can only come from someone who understands that times are changing.

I had the pleasure last week of listening to a senior representative from a publishing company speak about their digital strategy.  I say the pleasure because his presentation could not have been more different than what one would expect from an incumbent in a threatened industry.

Not only was it honest, inspiring and realistic, but it left you with some hope that maybe, just maybe there was a bright future for this company, one based on a willingness to challenge themselves and to innovate.

So why was I so inspired by what I saw?

Change and innovation is on everyone’s lips, innovation appear in many mission statements, change and innovation is a priority for most senior managers…yet change and innovation is rare. Everything I heard during the speech showed how much this department has embraced the need to change, and how much it was working hard at breaking the innovation barrier.

Broken barrier

Change through innovation is often stopped because of one of the following reasons.

A high cost structure prevents investment in areas that do not guarantee a revenue above a certain size. It was interesting to see how the first slides in the presentation covered the organisations office move, and described the details around a serious down sizing project. No more plush offices, and a department a third of the size it used to be. This however was not described as a problem but as an opportunity to integrated between departments, to collaborate and to embrace the future.

A focus on the past (especially if it represents ‘the good old times’). It’s rare to hear someone entirely focused on the future. It’s rare to listen to someone dismiss any strategy beyond 18 months as pointless due to the pace of change in today’s business world. It’s rare to hear someone discuss how their newly developed purpose statement (or vision) will be irrelevant 12-18 months down the road. It’s even more rare to hear someone do so with a confident smile, yes rare, but incredibly inspiring!

A fear of cannibalising the core product. I was amazed to listen to someone who openly spoke about how their new digital products would decrease the circulation figure of their off-line product (for you who are not in advertising, advertising revenue it dependent on high circulation figures). This is of course not a secret to anyone, but how many are prepared to not only accept it, but to barge ahead under that premise?

The immediate revenue from a new idea is seen as too small compared to the revenue derived from core activities, and is therefore rejected by the incumbent. I saw no sign of this in the presentation, instead relatively modest revenue figures achieved from sales of an app was referred to with the respect that can only come from someone who understands that times are changing.

Facilitating change and innovation is at the heart of what this fluid world does, and it’s working with, or being exposed to people like this that makes us love what we do.

So to anyone out there busy smashing the present in favour of the future , I say “I can’t wait to see what you build!”

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
03/07
CATEGORY
Advertising/Media
Challenge the obvious
Competitive Advantage
Innovation
Strategy
Thoughts
Write comment

The risk that comes with reducing the possibility for serendipity…

The Observer published an excellent article today called ‘Democratic, but dangerous too: how the web changed our world’.

It crystalised something that has been bothering me about the Internet, or to be more precise about the way it’s often used in marketing, and therefore the effect it’s having on how we are seen as people.

The article says it so much better than I would, so here it is.

‘The surveillance implications for this [the internet] are clear, but there are wider cultural implications when the money people behind the scenes get their rewards for feeding us exactly what we want. Amazon’s recommendation engine, Last.fm’s social music service, even news sites such as the Huffington Post, reduce the possibility for serendipity by serving up what they think we want, channelling us into a loop of confirmation.’

It seems that in the early years of the Internet it gave people the chance to break away from being able to be put in predefined boxes… and then through our own behaviour, some tracking, some ad and information serving… there we are again, back to being categorized and put into bland boxes.

bland box

The author Douglas Rushkoff put this brilliantly when he said: “The more like one of my kind of person I become, the less me I am, and the more I am a demographic type.”

I guess this sounds like a marketer’s dream, a world where we break people down into categories so we can do our job. To me it sounds like we are missing something important.

It feels like marketers are missing the opportunity to really understand me. This has the unfortunate outcome of me having to live in a world where people continuously make assumptions about me. I bought a book about birds, I must be a bird watcher (not so much!). Ignoring the individual means that marketers live in a world where they continuously miss the point of, and the opportunity brought by the Internet.

It also feels like marketers are missing out on the opportunity that comes with randomness….the more people cross fertilise between topics, the more they have their views and opinions challenged, the more they stumble upon different things, the better the quality of their ideas. And in a world of co-creation this is not just relevant to employees, but also to customers. Ignoring this means that marketers live in a world where there is a risk of marketing myopia, not just on a corporate level, but on a social and cultural level, a myopia that  could lead to a decrease in the quality of ideas, and therefore also of the products, services and solutions organisations offer.

It also seems that by fixating on what people are doing (and on putting them in boxes), marketers are not paying attention to what they’re NOT doing. In a world that only pays attention to the do’s, all we will achieve as marketers is incremental innovation; rather than radical innovation. Nothing wrong with incremental innovation, but not exactly the key competitive advantage companies should strive for!

I’m not saying the Internet is not a wealth of information and inspiration. It most definitely is! I’m simply stating that the social and cultural risk that come with reinforcing similar behaviour (mainly driven by a wish to control), could mean that rather than capitalising on the paradigm shift caused by the Interenet and going forward, we will start going backward.

A good marketer allows his curiosity to go everywhere (and therefore also the people he interacts with), a good marketer does not just follow people’s behaviour (or competition’s) and act accordingly, they lead the way, often without information or data, a good marketer gives people not only what they want, but also what we need, and what they never knew they wanted…

…but most importantly, a good marketer celebrates individuals and individualism (not boxes)!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
01/24
CATEGORY
Advertising/Media
Competitive Advantage
Innovation
Marketing
Marketing Myopia
Strategy
4 comments

Who owns the customer, who owns people?

Anyone who has worked with a Telco company, or any other organisation in a data driven industry, will recognise the following comments…

…“I will accept cooperation as long as we own the customer”…

…”If we choose this direction, won’t we loose control of the customer?”…

Also, anyone who has been part of a restructuring, or a cost cutting exercise, will have heard management refer to employees as resources. Business’ feel so strongly about this they even named a department after it – Human Resources.

The best thing that could happen to marketing in 2010 is if everyone working in this industry could accept that people, customers, consumers and employees are not a cog in the marketing machinery!

Charles Chaplin Modern times 1936

Note: the picture is of  Charles Chaplin in the brilliant movie; Modern times from 1936

This however would require a fundamental mind-shift, it would mean that when we go to work we should all remember that…

People can’t be owned People have always had a free mind, and a free will, but now more so than ever. They have the freedom, and the platforms to create, to express, to share, to support and to exclude, but most of all they have the freedom to choose. Simply owning some data and a database does not mean you know the person whose data you manage, it does not mean you own something real, and it definitely does not mean you own that customer!

People can’t be controlled And more importantly why would you want to? What has ever come out of controlling anything, apart from narrow mindedness and marketing myopia? As a matter of fact I would give up the notion of owning anything in today’s marketing world (customers, consumers, brand, IP, employees, ideas….). Not only because you will find it very hard to survive in this business world if you don’t, but because you will miss out on one of the great phenomena of this decade – true collaboration, and this across nations, industries, companies, departments, and disciplines!

People are not resources Human they are, resources not! They are all different, unique, interesting, and if you let them, if you give them the right support, if you create the right environment…they are your best chance of a sustainable competitive advantage! How? Through their ideas, their innovation, their ability to think in a non-linear way, their commitment – it is through all this they will affect NPD, operations, distribution, customer service, marketing and sales. That’s what makes them individuals, that’s what makes them humans and not resources!

So in this world where we focus so much on data, and on resources…let’s remember that what backs it up is people, employees, consumers, customers. Get to know them, for real, respect them, work with them, work for them, allow them to make a difference…and often, very often celebrate them!!!

But whatever you do don’t try to control them, don’t try to own them, and don’t ever think that you do!

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »
2010
01/10
CATEGORY
Competitive Advantage
Marketing
Marketing Myopia
Strategy
THE EDGE
Thoughts
1 comment