Feb 29, 2024 | Change, Leadership, Marketing
If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.
On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.
There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market. So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of yesterday’s fish wrapper from the newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.
There is a welter of research and opinion that confirms the notion marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations.
I asked myself the question again, after stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.
Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just 5 years ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.
Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Engagement Officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles. The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not present 5 years ago.
Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all. The role of marketing is to tell the future and adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.
The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.
In the past, marketing has generally been a passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table. This requires that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.
Look at it from the top down.
Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.
It has changed organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.
Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares. Tactics are short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is limited.
The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this role of leadership, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, as well as being able to remove the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, that are not directly accountable to marketing.
Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more as they are the future tellers. Those who currently occupy that office are usually the engineers, lawyers, and accountants who are good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.
Who is next in your corner office?
Feb 26, 2024 | AI, Governance
The astonishing ability of the new AI tools to increase productivity relies on being able to ‘learn’ by mining pools of data, then detecting and projecting responses based on statistical outcomes of that mining.
The next step, Generative AI, Generative Artificial Intelligence, is the point at which the artificial systems can reason, much as we do. This happens by making ‘neurological’ connections between apparently disconnected data, depth of domain knowledge and experience, breadth of more general knowledge that provides a ‘thinking canvas’ and context. These add up to instinctive responses we sometimes describe as pure ‘gut feel’.
There is however, a middle point.
‘Deep mind’ is a research unit now owned by Google. Their models evolved as AlphaGo and subsequently AlphaZero. These models cracked the barrier that seemed uncrackable, the ‘4-minute mile’ of computing. By beating the best humans at the complex game of Go, it demonstrated the ability of an algorithm to replicate in some form, the neural networks we have in our brains. In short, it can learn from its own experience, not reliant on outside data.
Crossing this Rubicon opens whole new territories to be explored.
It is in effect a ‘rolling probability’ calculation, each step using an estimation of the outcome of the previous calculation to deliver an adjusted outcome, in an ongoing process.
This is how we learn: from our experience.
As a kid I remember my younger cousin crawling towards a campfire surrounded by rocks. The immediate response of most was to grab him to prevent him getting burnt. However, my aunt stopped us, pointing out he would not be badly hurt by the mildly heated rocks surrounding the fire. However, when he touched a heated rock, it would create a memory-response loop that connected the fire to a modest hurt, thus ensuring he would automatically adjust his behaviour, and not go near another fire.
That incident stuck in my memory, and it reflects the way these AI tools are evolving rapidly towards ‘thinking’.
The dystopian view is that such developments over a few decades will see the machines take over. I prefer to think that we humans will find a way, as we always have, to overcome such threats. I guess my great grandchildren might know the right answer.
The header was created with help from DALL-E in about 3 minutes using a short series of prompts.
E&OE: A few hours after posting this post, I stumbled across this post on Medium that might bring forward the passing of the Turing test by a machine back into my lifetime. It records the evolution and current state of Googles 1.5 Pro tool, claiming it is to Current ChatGPT4 what a Model T is to a Ferrari.
The pace of change is astonishing, logarithmic, which makes it hard to comprehend by normal people..
.
Feb 23, 2024 | Communication, Marketing
Blog posts live on, as does anything posted to the net.
Sometimes they come back to bite us, sometimes they merge from a long hibernation to live again.
Last thing you want is for that Facebook photo from that wild party at university to emerge a decade later when interviewing for that ‘ideal job’.
On the other hand, a simple idea in hibernation for a decade can suddenly wake up and add new value. For someone, its time has come!
It happened yesterday.
A simple blog post from 14 years ago that has hibernated without being disturbed for most of those 14 years woke up yesterday, and went ‘ballistic’.
(Ballistic is a relative term, but in the context of the billions of posts out there, and the usual readership numbers of StrategyAudit, it was ballistic)
Whoever you are that stumbled across this old post, and obviously shared it to your networks, thanks, and I hope you are able to leverage the idea to your great benefit.
Feb 21, 2024 | AI, Change, Governance, Strategy
Often, I hear the term ‘Digital Strategy’ used as if it were an end result, some discrete set of activities to be completed.
To my mind, this is a misuse of the term.
As it is usually used, ‘Digital’ is all about the devices, the technology, whereas the value in digital is elsewhere. It is in the ability to get things done, differently, more quickly, efficiently, and in a distributed manner by those best able to complete the activity with the minimum of organisational friction.
It is about the business models enabled, the understanding of customers, ability to visualise the unseen, and communicate it clearly. It is not about the RFID tags, VR, and all the other enablers of digital, it is the outcomes that count.
Your strategy may be enabled by digital, but you do not need a digital strategy any more than you need a telephone strategy. They are both just tools to be leveraged.
Management of these changes is confronting, there is not a lot of precedent to go by. This is particularly the case now following the explosion of AI onto the scene. There is a lot of advice around, often delivered by those with a stake in selling you another product or service. However, it seems to me that there are a few simple parameters worth considering.
Functional Silo thinking is poison. The communication enabled by digital is inherently cross functional, better reflecting the way customers and suppliers see us and want to interact. Functional silos have little to do with optimised outcomes anymore. They have outlived their purpose and value.
One step at a time. While the pace of change is getting faster, and the pressure to keep up increasing, we all know what happens when we try and run down a hill really fast, we end up arse over tit. Matching the speed of change to the pace that your enterprise can absorb the change is pretty sensible. Of course, if you are the slowest in the competing pack, it may be better to get out while you can.
Digital is a team game. Hand balling digital responsibility to the IT people is a mistake. You will end up getting what they think you need, which is rarely what you really need. The real challenge is engagement of people not really focussed on digital. The primary example is in the space of marketing automation. Suddenly it exploded, way beyond the capabilities and experience of most marketing people, who are nevertheless now investing more in tech than the IT people. It is essential that the right capabilities are built in the right places. Finally, everyone affected, which is everyone, needs to be in on the secret, with all the options, challenges, and opportunities transparent. The unknown is the father of all sorts of ugly children.
Think long term. Digital transformations are not just about which software you will install to automate a process. Is more about what the business may look like in 5, 10 years, and what steps do you need to take over that time to reman relevant. Technology, much of which may not yet be available, will play a vital role in that evolution, but they remain tools of the evolution, rather than the main game.
Header credit: My thanks to Tom Gauld in New Scientist.
Feb 19, 2024 | Uncategorized
AI can put words in the mouth of any public figure and make it virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. It can create pictures that even experts cannot pick as digital facsimiles.
How can we trust anything we see or hear?
To date we have been able to pick the fakes by a range of tiny details. Spelling mistakes, poor grammar, or inconsistent details in a ‘photo’, but those days are now gone.
What will they be replaced by?
Trust?
How do you build trust on a base of quicksand?
Slowly. Carefully. Piece by piece. Showing up routinely and being consistent in the messaging by whatever means those messages are delivered. Always being both totally transparent and sometimes painfully honest, and always humble.
Beware, the blaring trumpet of confirmation bias will be blasting our senses from here on. Somehow, we must build an immunity and antidote, or we will be lost as a cohesive community.
The header of this post is the AI generated ‘photo’ by Boris Eldagsen that won the creative category at the Sony World Photography Awards in 2023.
While it was ‘early days’ in the public life of AI, the fact that experts failed to pick the ‘fake’ is disturbing. How are so called average people expected to be able to pick between the real speeches, transcripts, and photos of public figures when the experts make massive blues like this?
The experts disagree. Who knew?
AGI, or ‘Artificial General Intelligence’ is the point at which the magic of circuits has the ability to learn and respond to something for which it has not been taught. In short, it can think. It is a field of science that is being funded in the billions, weekly, and is a huge step forward from where we are now, with what is becoming ‘normal’ AI.
AGI pundits think AGI by 2030 is not just achievable, but a lay down misère, while the other camp think ‘probably never’.
Whichever camp emerges the winner, AI is with us, and is not going anywhere, except further into the corners of our lives.
Get used to it!
