The grassroots essentials of marketing

Feb 19, 2020 | Branding, Customers, Marketing

 

What do we mean by the term ‘marketing’?

I suspect if I did a poll, there would be a scarily wide range of responses. So, let me repeat the definition I have evolved over 45 years, which would not be found in any textbook.

‘Marketing is the identification, development, protection and leveraging of competitive advantage that adds value’

This is different from the ‘purpose’ of marketing, which to my mind is to create the opportunity and motivation that, when conditions are right, will build relationships and create opportunities, that lead to transactions. That transaction might be a sale, a subscription, a vote, a referral; it can be many things, with the common element that it is an outcome of the so called marketing activity.

Let me use the metaphor of the expert gardener. 

This gardener has a process by which he/she manages their gardens.

  • They decide what it is they want, what the end product should look like, at least in general terms.
  • They pick the ground they will cultivate.
  • They prepare the ground in the manner appropriate for the outcome they have visualised.
  • When conditions are right, they plant the seeds.
  • They nurture the seeds and resultant seedlings until they are ready to harvest.
  • They repeat the process, incorporating the things they learnt on the way through.

This process is the same for growing broadacre grain as it is for growing a few decorative flowers in the back yard. As it is for marketing. The process is the same whether the product is a tub of yoghurt or a power station, a national effort, or a local one. Only the scale of the investment, implementation details, and time frame differ. Try to take a shortcut, and you end up with dead flowers, or at best, substandard ones.

So how does that rather vague stuff translate into your world of marketing the products and services of your SME?

When I first encountered ‘Marketing’ at University, 50 years ago, the core of it was ‘The 4 P’s of marketing’. Product, Price, Place, Promotion. Everything sprang from those 4 elements. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and the expressions used may have changed a bit,  the processes of achieving them changed radically, but the core remains.

The architecture of the 4 p’s of marketing are a bit like the Model T Ford. It redefined the notion of the car, and how to manufacture it. Over time, the expression of the car has changed enormously, but the basic architecture remains.    

However, to me it makes sense to see ‘marketing’ from the perspective of the customer, and to do so, we need to answer a few simple questions:

  • What is the problem my customer has that I can solve with my product/service? This will answer the further question of why should my customer do business with me and not my opposition, which is all about the value you can create while being differentiated from the competition. You need to define it from the perspective of the customer. The costs, of all types, created by the problem, and the benefit to them of a solution.
  • Who is my ideal customer? Your ideal customer will see your differentiated value proposition, as being made for them. This takes focus and always hard choices about who you will service, and who you will not; it is the customer Pareto at work. If you have defined both the problem and the ideal customer, i.e. the one who has more of the problem, or feels it more acutely than most, when they see your value proposition, their instinctive response is ‘at last, this is for me’, or something similar.
  • How do I apply leverage to my marketing investment? It is at this point you are considering which messages, delivered to who, via what media, and how do you do that while getting the biggest bang for your buck possible. It is where the marketing rubber hits the road.
  • How do I make a profit? Profit is a simple equation: revenue minus cost.

Still the same four items, or ‘P’s, it is only the articulation and perspective that has changed. The primacy of the ‘p’s remains.

The common denominators in each of the four, required for success, are choice and iteration. You must make often very difficult choices, implement, learn from that experience, and apply the learning for the next iteration. This need to make choices, and enable the manner in which you deploy your modest marketing resources to evolve based on the experience, is perhaps the largest marketing hurdle for every SME I have ever seen. Many SME owners have had a bad experience with marketing snake oil, and are reluctant to try again, and others who have hit on something that seems to work are reluctant to change anything, so you get a lack of optimisation, not as much leverage as you could.  

As you consider your marketing, given the small scale of business, and budgets available, do not let your thinking be dominated by the mass models of the past. These are simply not appropriate for you. Way more appropriate are small, niche models, an artisanal approach. Why? We have become sceptical, untrusting, demand to know the real provenance, and only rely on those we know personally, and trust because they have earned that trust.

The original social media, word of mouth, subsumed by digital for the past 15 years is making itself heard again. Therefore it follows that you, the business owner, need to be seen and heard, tell your story, use the digital tools, but be personal and human. However, this does not mean you should turn your back on digital, by any means. The data and tools we have now could not have even been imagined 15 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. The practise of marketing has changed radically, the foundations remain the same, just way more exposed and subject to interrogation and automation than they were, and you have to be in there just to keep up.

As Einstein said, ‘Everything should be as simple as possible, no simpler’. What could be simpler than providing a great product and service that solves a problem, and having those problem liberated people tell their friends, and most particularly those with a similar problem? That is how to market at the grass roots.

 

 

 

What is the core KPI of Marketing?

Jan 13, 2020 | Branding, Marketing

 

The answer just has to be ‘Sustainable Margin’.

An enterprise can only do three things to increase margin, however you choose to define that term.

  1. Lift prices.
  2. Expand sales.
  3. Decrease production and operating costs.

Options 1 and 2 are often seen as mutually exclusive, but truly successful marketers prove the opposite. The gold standard here is the Apple iPhone, 15% market share of volume, 85% market share of industry profitability.

Marketing has at least some control over the prices and sales efforts, but usually little over the operating costs.

None of these strategies are easy, neither are they short term.

It would seem that a focus on the drivers of margin will pay big dividends

What is the biggest driver of margin?

Brands.

The greatest store of economic value we have ever seen.

Would Apple have  been the first trillion dollar business without the premium held by the Apple brand?

No. It would be in the gutters scrapping with Samsung, that also happens to be one of its key suppliers from whom they buy screens. I bet that Apple headquarters is looking for an alternative supplier for some price competition, and that Samsung is investing in the tech in order to hold and enhance the margins they would be making from their wealthiest customer.

In a homogenising world where it is getting harder and harder to build a brand, a long term intangible asset it is becoming ever more crucial that you do so in order to protect margins and remain competitive.

Like Rome, brands are not built in a day, and you need experts doing the building.

 

Header photo courtesy Tom Shockey via Flikr.

What is the most challenging goal you could set?

Oct 14, 2019 | Branding, Management, Strategy

 

 

Simplicity.

We live in an ever more complicated world, and our instinctive response to external complication leads to internal complication in order to be able to manage the external.

Having ‘Simplicity’ as a driving goal, something to be strived for, has the potential to offer rewards from internal savings made by the reduction in ‘friction. It also delivers benefits to customers, making it easier, and more exciting to do business with you than an alternative.

These benefits translate into cost savings and revenue increases for the business, and added value for customers, a virtuous cycle.

It does not matter if you run the corner sandwich shop, or a multinational corporation, the challenge is the same, just the size of it varies.

Apple under Steve Jobs made Simplicity more than just a goal, it was the glue that held the culture together. Simplicity became, as Jobs said, the ultimate sophistication.

Mark Twain in writing a letter to his wife wrote ‘I have written you a long letter, because I did not have the time to write a short one.‘ This captures the essence of simplicity: it is hard, even for experts to achieve.

The power, as well as the challenge, is in the simplicity

 

Header Photo: courtesy Flikr and Jeannie Tseng.

 

 

 

The sad and entirely avoidable death of a great old FMCG brand.

The sad and entirely avoidable death of a great old FMCG brand.

Aug 26, 2019 | Branding, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy

Currently in my cupboard almost gone, is a bottle of detergent, a well known and trusted brand, formerly the market leader, been around for ages.

It will not be bought again by anyone in my household.

Here is what I suspect happened.

Sales of the brand were eroding as cheaper, usually house branded product ate into the volumes. Somewhere in the multinational that owns the brand there was a bright young thing charged with resurrecting volumes, a project to ‘test their metal,’ requiring a 20% increase for success to be declared.

He, or more likely these days, she, did the corporate rounds seeking inspiration.

The R&D people believed they could improve the performance of the product by utilising a new emerging technology, but it required an extensive  R&D program to clarify some of the technical issues. No budget available.

The Engineering people reckoned they could speed up the line, reducing costs by updating, at considerable capital cost, the existing machinery, making production cheaper and more flexible. This would  reduce the systemic out of stock problem caused by the long runs required to generate factory efficiencies. These factory KPI’s are completely disconnected to the increasing difficulty of forecasting sales as volumes erode and become more erratic. No capital budget available.

The accountants are arguing for a price increase as well as a reduction in retailer promotional spend, as the gross margins fall below their target rates. Neither tactic seems well suited to the problem at hand.

The advertising agency strongly recommended a multi million dollar integrated TV, Magazine and digital marketing campaign, designed to bring back lapsed users to the brand, while intriguing new users to give it a try. No budget available.

The marketing he/she concerned reckoned it would be easier and cheaper to make the hole in the top bigger, make the product flow faster, encouraging a quicker usage cycle and therefore increasing replacement sales.

On a spreadsheet it looks logical, sensible, and with a great ROI. Everybody was happy, especially the product manager, who could see the trappings of corporate success coming his/her way by Christmas.

Whoops: forgot the value conscious consumer, to whom the integrity of the brand had remained, until now,  an important consideration, and who is not stupid. She is my wife, (who still does the bulk of the shopping) and believe me,  she is absolutely unforgiving.

Being captured by the interaction of functional KPI’s, status quo management processes, and resistance to any change, is a common corporate problem. It is unsolvable by anyone other than the Boss, who is mostly too busy contemplating the forest next door (or their navels) to see the trees in the forest they currently occupy, and take some decisive action.

When your brand, marketing, and innovation processes need a reality check, call me to tap into the ‘experience bank’ in my possession. 

Consider your ‘Doorman’ strategy

Consider your ‘Doorman’ strategy

Aug 19, 2019 | Branding, Marketing

 

It appears that the role of a doorman in a hotel is to hold the door for guests, easing their way into and out of the hotel.

Ostensibly the role is simple, a smiley face, welcoming word, courtesy extended. However, when you think about it, there are many more roles played by the doorman, taxi getter, luggage helper, direction giver, polite conversationalist, security,  all the while, adding to the value by creating a human face for the hotel.

When  you get rid of a doorman, as many do, and put in automatic doors, it may be cheaper, but you lose the impact of all that humanity that adds value to guests and visitors. The result over time will be added pressure on margins, as regulars go to the hotel down the road with a smiling doorman who takes the trouble to learn their names, welcome them back, and offer friendly assistance.

A cheap hotel will not have a doorman, guests in that hotel would see it as an extravagance,  but the sudden absence of a doorman in a 5 star hotel would somehow signal its slide to 4 stars.

These days, your doorman can be a website, social media persona, the tone of your advertising, as well as the people at the ‘front line’ of customer contact.

A former employer had a receptionist named Janice. She made everyone with whom she came into contact, in person or over the phone, feel better about themselves, every day. We did  not pay her anything like the value she delivered, just by being her smiling, generous self.

How does your ‘doorman’ shape up?

 

Header photo courtesy ‘Frank’  via Flikr.

The cost of failing to build brands

The cost of failing to build brands

Aug 12, 2019 | Branding, Customers, Governance, Marketing

 

Direct marketing is highly tactical, it is a one on one communication from the marketer to the consumer. Within the boundaries of some limitations, the outcome of direct marketing can be quantified with a considerable level of confidence.

You either got a response, or you did not. It is tactical, short term, and transactional.

Because it is so responsive to short term quantification, and our digital lives are all about quantification, these tactical elements are now predominant. However, there is no evidence that tactical activity alone will build a brand, and plenty that an overuse of tactical stuff will actually destroy a brand.

By contrast, building a brand takes time, investment, a great strategy, and the nerve to continue in the face of debatable real time data, and short term expediency.

Just look at what has happened to proprietary brands in supermarkets. They have been destroyed by the power of the retailers demanding tactical promotional dollars, which is code for retailer margin protection. This has been given by suppliers, usually reluctantly, at the expense of brand building, simply because it is easier and expedient in the short term to comply.

Consider Meadow Lea. At its height, Meadow Lea had a 23% market share at premium prices in a crowded and growing margarine market. The great advertising supported by a range of customer focussed promotional activity that had built the brand, was stopped in favour of tactical retailer price promotions. Now, 20 years later, Meadow Lea is just a label on a few Sku’s in the chiller cabinet.

Imagine you are the marketing manager of a branded product, you have a finite marketing budget. You need to convince the CEO, who is an engineer or an accountant, that it is better to keep advertising for  the long term health of the brand, than give in to powerful retailer demands for various forms of retailer margin supplementation, which will retain distribution in the short term. This has been a very hard argument to win for all but a very few FMCG marketers. With the benefit of hindsight, it has been a vital one that was lost.  

Had the argument been won, and a balance between the two been found, what would have been the difference to the revenue and margins of both retailers and Meadow Lea Foods?? Most probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and consumers would have benefitted by  continued value innovation in the spreads  category, which has been stagnant for years.