Oct 16, 2023 | Change, Leadership
There is a notable omission amongst all the verbiage, finger-pointing, hollow triumphalism, and handwringing emerging after the predicted result of the referendum became a reality.
That omission is the failure of marketing, at least by the ‘Yes’ supporters.
The ‘No’ campaigners did get something right, in the ‘If you don’t know, vote No’ slogan. It was very effective, but was never truly tested in the public arena. It was just left to gather momentum.
Any student of marketing knows that facts and data by themselves struggle to gain and keep the attention of most. If you have ever sat in a presentation where the presenter was reading densely packed PowerPoint slides, you know what I mean, no matter how relevant, intriguing, or important the information being imparted, it fails to be engaging. Telling a story gains the initial attention of an audience, but that attention will be lost in the absence of a connection created by a few facts relevant to that audience. That connection is most powerful when it is both emotional, and quantitative.
Such a combination of the quantitative and personalised qualitative creates empathy that changes minds and generates action.
The ‘No’ campaign had a very good headline, gaining attention, and for many, was enough in the absence of any contrary facts or emotional magnet from the yes campaigners.
The ‘Yes’ campaign failed on both accounts. It did not have a headline, so failed to gain attention, and it did not use any facts to back up the weak and non-personalised emotional connection it set out to make.
At the disposal of the Yes campaign were plenty of facts. They needed to go no further than the statistics articulating the size of ‘the gap’ between education, health, and incarceration rates of first nations people and the general Australian population. What stopped them asking the question if these differences were acceptable to Australians? how would they feel if their child was statistically 14 times more likely to end up in gaol than a white kid, and would die 8 years before the average Australian? They failed to use these emotional doorways at all, at least in my line of sight.
It is easy in hindsight, but the foregoing has been obvious to any serious marketer for a considerable time. The politicians on both sides, and not only the elected ones, allowed the whole ‘debate’ and I use that word cautiously, to become a binary choice. Yes or No, argued in the absence of any basic marketing discipline or strategic thinking.
As an aside, it is my view that the referendum had reasonable odds of being the first in our history to pass despite the lack of bi-partisan political agreement. Australians are in general tolerant of difference. We could not be otherwise, and still be a reasonably successful multicultural and multi-religious nation. Those odds crashed to zero at the recognition that among the Aboriginal leaders, there was not only disagreement, but quite emotional and deeply held disagreement. Those in the electorate who had no strong pre-existing view, or base from which to create one, simply felt that if those who the referendum was about could not agree, who am I to vote for change?
Header photo courtesy SMH
Sep 11, 2023 | Change, Leadership, Lean
If there is a magic ingredient to success, it is captured in two words: ‘Leverage’ and ‘Compounding’.
We all understand the concept of leverage, using a small amount of force to generate a larger outcome.
Compounding is a little more difficult to understand, although if you currently have a mortgage, you are suffering the compounding results of higher interest rates eating away at your growth in equity as you pay the monthly piper.
Question is, how do you find and build on them to generate a sustainable level of profitability?
Our commercial entities are built on the correct assumption that you need leverage to scale. As you build scale, it becomes necessary to add management layers to leverage the capabilities of those the next level down. That is why our organisation structures are always pictured as pyramids, because they are, for the leverage they generate.
Leverage leads to compounding, and compounding leads to greater leverage: a self-sustaining cycle, until the system becomes gummed up with friction.
Friction in management terms ends up being hidden in the layers of authority necessary to act. The transaction costs, which are almost always hidden from easy view, can be commercially fatal.
Leverage also delivers power to those in a position to exercise it, and as we know, power is a drug with many side effects, some of them not so good.
Technology has changed the ratios between leverage and compounding, but not the basic arithmetic. They remain mutually reinforcing, but their management has become significantly more complex.
Sep 4, 2023 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
If strategy is all about choice, and I strongly contend that is so, the challenge for responsible management is to imagine first what those choices may be.
This ambiguous mindset requiring choices to be made with less than full information never happens by itself, as it makes people uncomfortable. It must be pushed, being uncomfortable must be made a significant part of the status quo, making change along with its risks and downsides a normal part of the culture.
Ask yourself what could be true in five years?
Chances are you will not get much right, but the process of thinking about and resetting the status quo to a state ready and able to welcome change will be immensely valuable.
In 1985, few predicted that microprocessors would be everywhere, from rockets to fridges, from phones to toys.
In 1995 few predicted the Internet would become ubiquitous, and in 2005 few predicted their kids would get all the news they could consume, and wanted to consume, from social platforms.
Ask yourself what could be true that would alter the shape and dynamics of your industry.
Step forward and embrace the possibility of those changes occurring in the way you manage your business. By so doing irrespective of how accurate you have been, the business will be much better able to respond to and leverage the change.
Aug 9, 2023 | Change, Operations, Strategy
Almost every SME I visit or work with needs to one degree or another to be moving down the path towards ‘digitisation’.
For some, this means considering how the sudden appearance of LLM trained AI will impact on their competitive position, for others, it is still how to write a simple excel macro, and move bookkeeping from Mavis in the corner to a cloud package.
Just what does ‘digitisation’ mean?
For most of my clients it means automating some or all of the existing processes driven by bits of unconnected software and spreadsheets, liberally connected by people handing things over.
It is usually a real mess, and the evidence of incomplete solutions, misinformation, and shattered hopes lie everywhere.
The world is digitising at an accelerating rate, so keeping up is not only a competitive imperative, it is a strategic challenge. To survive you must evolve at least the same rate, just to keep up.
On of my former clients is a printing business, an SME with deep capabilities in all things ‘printing’ that enabled the company to be very successful, in the past. Their capabilities are terrific, highly competitive, if we were still in 1999.
If I use them as a metaphor for most I work with, there is a consistent pattern.
They do not see digitisation as an investment in the future, rather it is seen as an expense. This means that the challenges are not considered to be strategic. There is no consideration of the application of digital to their product offerings, beyond the digital printing machines, services beyond those that made them successful 20 years ago, and their business models, beyond what is demanded by the two biggest customers, who between them deliver well over 35% of revenue.
They have not considered digitisation of operational processes, beyond a 20 year old ERP system, which has not been updated in any meaningful way for a decade, and they still only use a portion of the capability. The reason for this is simply a lack of internal capability and awareness, and the lack of cash to invest for the long term.
They have not modified their organisational and operational culture. No digitisation effort can succeed without the support of an operating culture that encourages ongoing change. Organisational processes can be modified by decree, but they will not stick. It takes everyone in the boat to be pulling in the same direction, in unison, to make the forward progress proposed by the digitisation nirvana. This takes leadership, and a willingness to be both vulnerable internally, and a strong ability to absorb the stuff from outside. You need to ‘get out of the building’ not to smell the roses, but to see the lie of the land, and understand where the opportunities and challenges are hiding.
The recognition of the critical necessity of change is where you get given one point out of a possible 10. The other 9 are reserved for taking action. A daunting prospect for most.
Following are the 5 steps necessary to become ‘match fit’.
- Map the existing operational processes so you know what you are changing. The starting point!
- Map and change the mindset of the people, so everyone understands the extent of the challenge to the business, and to them personally. This will prove very tough for some, so expect push-back.
- Take small and incremental steps along a path that all understand leads to a digital future, which means that a lot of collaborative planning has been done. Look for some low hanging fruit where early wins are likely.
- Ensure that there are the necessary opportunities for all stakeholders, but particularly employees to grow and change with you. Those that choose not to, also choose to work elsewhere. There are no free rides.
- Ensure the resources of time and money are allocated uncompromisingly to the long-term outcomes. It is just too easy to put aside something that is important but not urgent for something that may seem to be urgent, but is not important to the transformational effort.
Most need outside help to get this done. Usually that help in the early stages is not found amongst software vendors who have a dog in the fight. It is amongst those who have ‘been there, done that’. It will also be a resource hungry beast, but assuming you feed it, and you have the right mix of project management and technical capabilities, the investment will generate returns quickly, just not tomorrow.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld
Aug 2, 2023 | Change, Leadership
We live in a world of change, and the pace of change is accelerating.
Just think about the what has occurred over the last 50 years.
We have gone to the moon, created skyscraper cities, moved from manual labour to sitting punching computers, driving everywhere instead of walking, extracting multiples of productivity from mechanised farming, and polluting the planet in very creative ways.
Computer chips have changed us. Gordon Moore noted in ‘Electronics’ magazine in 1965 that the number of transistors in a silicon chip was doubling roughly every two years. This has held true for 60 years, becoming known as Moore’s Law. The smart money now is saying that after that geometric growth, we are reaching the end of the physical capabilities of the current technologies and materials, and something new is needed.
I keep hearing about quantum computing and neuromorphic chips. I have no real idea what these are, but it seems the experts are saying there are huge advances to be made, and the door is only just opening.
The impact ChatGPT has had since its public release in November 2022 is a case in point, proving Hemmingway’s notion that ‘the future comes slowly, then all at once’.
Genetic engineering has gone from a multi-billion multi-year effort to map the human genome, completed in 2003, to getting your own genome mapped in a week for a few dollars. The interaction of the genome, our biology and genetic engineering via another new technology, CRISPR, will change again not just us, but the manner in which we interact with the natural world around us. Early applications of this technology are fuels coming from algae, genomic vaccines for cancer and all sorts of human afflictions. Again, we are just at the door.
Material science is an emerging field compounding almost weekly. We have all sorts of carbon fibre composites in many applications, a range of durable, biocompatible materials for human parts replacement from joints to teeth and heart stents, and almost daily hear about advances in honeycombed graphene, ‘flow’ batteries, and flexible display materials.
I guess you just have to look at the drop in price of solar panels and the impact that has had on the generation of power to see the power of this branch of science. It takes a while to get started, to generate early economies of scale, then compounding really kicks in.
Wrights law at work.
While this is happening around us, the lesson is that it will change the world. Being prepared to accommodate the changes is way better than trying to adapt after the environment has changed, when you are chasing the ball, instead of being in front of it. The fact that change is uncomfortable for most is both a barrier and an opportunity.
Jul 28, 2023 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
So, Elon Musk surprised everyone, again, by killing Twitter and launching X.
Whatever X is.
Everyone in the marketing, strategic and management world generally seems to have had a go, except me, so here goes.
He must be effing crazy!
(Psst.. He is, but is it crazy smart or just crazy?)
Twitter had a range of problems, magnified since Elon sent the previous owners an offer to buy the joint for an absurdly large chunk of change. It was so large that the then board almost killed themselves racing to sign before he changed his mind and halved the offer. This might have been closer to the value, albeit still overly generous.
Having failed to wriggle out of the offer to buy, he then cut staff numbers 80% from the staff of 7500. Meanwhile ad revenue continued to tank, the rate just increased, dramatically.
Surprisingly, twitter still worked.
Estimates of the value of the twitter brand pre-execution vary a lot, but commonly vary between 5 and $6 billion. That is a lot to just flush down the dunney for no apparent reason.
Competitors must be rejoicing, particularly Meta that just launched ‘Threads’ as a twitter competitor, only to find the gorilla in the garden has been turned into a gnome.
Musk, and everyone else in this space has watched what WeChat has achieved in China, and into the Chinese diaspora, and wanted to emulate it. Given the original source of Musk’s wealth was PayPal, he would be in as good a space as anyone to make that happen. That makes sense, but why sacrifice twitter in preference to starting a separate company?
It simply does not make sense.
There are a few other things that do not make sense, until they did.
Re-useable rockets were not possible, until he did it.
Tesla electric cars at volume did not make sense until he did it.
Tesla as a public company would never make it, until it did. (Tesla now has a market value more than all other US manufacturers and Toyota combined, and continues to climb)
Gigabattery factories did not make sense until he did it.
Distributed recharging infrastructure did not make sense until Tesla reached scale and persuaded Detroit to sign up, a fortnight ago.
Based on his history, betting against Musk is a mugs game, no matter how little sense it makes to the rest of us.
