The events that unfolded during the BP oil crisis of 2010 made us, at this fluid world, question what could have happened if an organisation such as BP had a different approach in terms of preparation, positioning and attitude.
Our belief is that a different outcome, in terms of communications and speed in finding a solution, could have been possible. Due to this we spent the summer of 2010 developing an alternative scenario based on a combination of the changing communications world we live in, the thinking, tools and methodologies of this fluid world, and learnings from the BP case.
The document comes in two parts:
Part one: a summary of the main events of the two first months of the BP crisis, with a focus on the communications side, to set the scene for our scenario.
Part two: a scenario presenting an alternative approach that is collaborative, transparent, responsible, open, honest and rapid.
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.
Product development: LEGO with its software ‘Design By Me’ allowing people to design their very own custom made LEGO sets
Price: Open Source Foundation with its promise of being better quality, higher reliability, more flexible at a lower cost
Distribution: Kogi BBQ has several trucks serving Korean food in LA and uses twitter to tell its customers where they can find their van’s each day
Promotion: (the aforementioned) Paranormal Activity
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:
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
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
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
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!
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’!
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!
If you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and developing TV advertising, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champaign).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…desperate to take yet another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The conditions we live in today are completely different from what they were a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet, few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to outer disposal and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is to build fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing.
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary flexibility to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which the survival of their organisation depends on.
djojsIf you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and developing TV advertising, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champaign).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…desperate to take yet another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The conditions we live in today are completely different from what they were a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet, few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to outer disposal and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is to build fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing.
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary flexibility to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which the survival of their organisation depends on.
If you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and designing TV advertising around it, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champagne).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…and desperate to, via digital, take another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The world we live in today is completely different from what it was a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of simply replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense because it wont be easy). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to our disposal, and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is not to ‘figure out digital’, but to figure things out, continuously…How? By building fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing (or to create it).
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary fluidity to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which their survival depends on.
Actually nothing mad about that…if I can say so myself.
This Saturday I was finally able to make it to the hairdresser. As I sat down to wait for the lovely Jackie I heard the lady next to me say:
“I really want a change, but I don’t want a fringe, I don’t want to cut any of the length of, I don’t want it layered, and I don’t want to colour it’….
For all the men reading this, short of hair extensions she pretty much listed the only ways in which you can change your hair!
As I was hearing this I felt like I was sitting in a conference room listening to a client brief….
“We want to change, but we don’t want to use any new channels, we don’t want to change the budget, or the partners we work with, and it would be great if we could keep a lot of the creative, oh yeah and whatever we decide to change we need to be sure that the new way will work”.
Can such a brief be successful? I would say it depends on what you mean with ‘we need to be sure it will work’. If the goal is in fact to change then I can categorically say that no, it won’t work!
The reason is very simple, all you have to do is look at the definition of change.
According to Wikipedia it’s ‘the process of becoming different’.
So change by definition means you have to do something different. Doing something different also means taking a risk. No client brief, be it to a hairdresser or an agency which starts of by listing everything they are not prepared to do will ever lead to change, and hence never lead to anything different.
Change is not a phrase, it’s not a request on a brief! Change is a frame of mind…it’s a way of being, a way of thinking, a way of managing, a way of assessing opportunities, it’s about trusting your instinct and the people you work with…it’s a lifestyle…
All this is what will allow you to change, to do something different! Just look at the companies we keep talking about, writing about and admiring…look at Google, Apple, Nike and ask them how many ‘we can’t do’s’ there are in their briefs.
So when Jackie turned up and proposed the one thing I had decided I did not want, a fringe – there was only one answer I could give her…hell yes, go for it Jackie, cut me a fringe!
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.
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!”
A few days ago I had lunch with the very lovely and smart Mike Nutley, Editor-in-chief of New Media Age. Taking a break from his pasta, Mike made a very true statement.
“Most MD’s don’t want to hear that the world is in flux, they don’t want to plan around ‘not knowing’, or around ‘not being sure’.”
I hate to say this… but can you blame them? ‘I’m not sure’ and ‘I don’t know’ is not very helpful when you try to forecast, resource, be profitable, monitor competition and keep The City happy… and it’s really not helpful when you try to write a three, five, seven or ten year plan!
This fragmented and confusing world is even more frightening for anyone running an advertising or media agency. They’ve had it relatively easy for quite some time. If you think about it, any agency that figured out how to do a descent TV ad when TV moved into our living rooms has been able to dine out on that learning for almost half a century! Listening to many of these agencies today it’s clear that they are hoping for a repeat of that performance by taking one giant (digital) leap into the future, and subsequently reap the benefits of that one-off learning and understanding of digital for some time to come.
And again, can you blame them? It sure would make working life easier for a lot of people if that was a possibility!
The truth however is that a company can no longer be in the business of forecasting, of committing to certain results, of ensuring specific ROI’s, monitoring competition or of recycling solutions, and it can most definitely no longer be in the business of creating three, five, seven or ten year plans (or 30 second ads).
Why? Because the world just does not look like that anymore, and it never will again! Also, there is no one giant leap into the future, there are only a series of continuous steps.
“Then what business should we be in?” I hear you say.
Obviously you should be in the business of delivering on your core product/service, and obviously some of the activities mentioned above will continue to be part of your life for some time to come.
But at the core you should be in the business of two things, and that is:
1) creating value – as in extreme value!
and
2) evolving – as in continuously!
If you put that at the centre of everything you do, and if you put your heart and mind into doing it brilliantly, then I believe the rest will follow. You won’t need to run after competition; you’ll be creating the path everyone will want to follow, you won’t need five year plans as grabbing opportunities when they come your way will be part of your competitive advantage, you won’t need to worry about who you should hire a year in advance (and for what role) as you will have a flexible employee network at your disposal…you won’t be… sorry I won’t go on (as I frequently do when I’m passionate about something), as this is a conversation better had over a coffee.
But suffice to say that I believe this so much I existed the agency world to start this fluid world (with Jonathan MacDonald), a company who helps organisations do just this. Whether we work on creating the ideal corporate culture, building people capabilities, designing new business models and revenue streams, advising on organisational structure or on creating new products and services, our focus is always on those two things; unlocking extreme value and building in flexibility, or should I say fluidity, in all our solutions.
Take a look at our site (click on pic) it will give you an idea of how we think and also of some of the work we have done.
I know “Most MD’s don’t want to hear that the world is in flux, they don’t want to plan around ‘not knowing’, or around ‘not being sure.’”…but I can’t help but believe that it’s by doing just that that they will become more competitive, and it’s by doing just that that they will develop better (and therefore more profitable) business models!
What can I say, I definitely believe this unpredictable future is bright, I really believe it’s orange!
Go ahead pick it!
…or maybe it’s blue, yellow, red, green … who knows, but I’m looking forward to figuring it out … as we go along!
I have had a few people ask me this question in the last week or so.
I can think of many instances where you COULD find yourself in that position. Trying to win a new client, trying to break into a new industry, participating in a cross department project meeting where people are talking about logistics, technology, complicated research methodologies, or the latest and most popular…trying to be someone’s business partner…I think you get the picture.
However I can’t think of any instance where you SHOULD allow yourself to be in that position.
I understand that in today’s ultra competitive world it’s hard to resist trying to be everything to everyone – in the hope of keeping a client or winning a new one. I understand that with all this uncertainty about ones role in the future it’s easy to try to do as much as possible in the hope that something will stick. I also understand that it’s hard to be honest about not having the answer to a client question, or an opinion about a topic.
But the truth is if a client knows more than you, then you are not adding any value to the process/project/meeting…and frankly if you are not adding any value then you should not be there… be it to sell, or to contribute as part of a greater team… and my guess is if it’s already your client, your future with this client will not be long lived!
The thing is whatever you are, whatever you do, and why you are there should not only be clear to the client and everyone in the room (in addition to being recognised and valued), but it should be completely clear to you! For this to be possible you have to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what you do, the value you bring, what your role is, when your skills are needed, and when they are not… trust me when I say answering those questions with 100% certainty is incredibly hard, (try it!!!) but the truth is if you can’t see it, there is no chance of anyone else seeing it!
This is why I firmly believe that companies should have some generalists on their books, people with a broad set of experiences, a lateral way of thinking, the ability to analyse and process on the spot, and to navigate a whole host of topics with confidence and gravitas that only comes from knowing because you have been there, and of course someone who also has the kind of curiosity that would kill the cat!
These people are hard to come by, rarely hired (as they don’t fit a box), their ROI is not always tangible, but to me they are, especially in this environment, the most valuable resource you could have… and they will definitely give you The Edge when it comes to knowing more than your client (so at the very bare minimum, bring them in on an ad hoc basis)!!!!
It was about 16.00 yesterday…I was at the Social Media event organised by figaro digital (thanks for the invite Jonathan!), at the Hospital Club when I realised I wanted to be a Dyson!
To be more precise, I was listening to Alan Moore’s, the author of Communities Dominate Brands: Business and marketing challenges for the 21s, presentation on social media, when it happened (sorry Alan I promise your presentation inspired me in many other ways ).
It’s not often I’m jealous, or envious, and it’s not often I see a statistic that makes me go WOW (apart form the size of the profit losses of the likes of Nokia, and most of the daily newspapers of course…).
But yesterday I saw a statistic that made me jealous, envious and go WOW all at the same time! Dyson it seems (according to the presentation) controls 50% of the worldwide market share for vacuum cleaners!!!
50%!!! This means one out of two vacuum cleaners that are bought in this world is a Dyson. If you are buying a vacuum cleaner there is 50% chance you will come home with a Dyson. Ok, Ok I know you get the point, but I’m still trying to get my head around it.
If I was running a company that manufactures and sells product I would want to know how, how do I get 50% market share?! Or maybe it’s just me and my fixation on a little thing called competitive advantage!
Either way I decided to check it out, and apparently ‘all’ you need is the following:
A persistence and determined entrepreneur – Dyson made more than 5,000 vacuum cleaner prototypes before the final Dyson was launched.
+
A whole load of passion and positive attitude – even when other manufacturers refuse to license your design, over and over again.
+
Total respect for design and the key role it plays in product development – even if your product wont be seen by anyone, and is used to clean floors and carpets.
+
A fundamental belief that investment in new technology is the only way to keep ahead – in other words to constantly look for a sustainable competitive advantage, even if you are market leader.
+
A willingness to explore (to quote Mr Dyson “Reinventing yourself is a fragile thing. You can’t prove it’s going to be a success, but if you don’t do something new, you will die.”.
+
If you are an entrepreneur, or a creative, hire a commercial sidekick – in Dyson’s case this was Richard Needham, former Tory Northern Ireland and DTI minister.
Mix it all up and what do you have?
A company that revolutionised the entire vacuum cleaner market by changing the nature of a relatively boring product into an aesthetic lifestyle product, a status symbol.
And this my friend is apparently how you gain 50% market share!
Now if that’s not a company with The Edge…then what is!
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
