Will the Facebook Metamorphous just deliver another uglier duck?

Will the Facebook Metamorphous just deliver another uglier duck?

 

I cannot let the name change of ‘Facebook’, to ‘Meta’, go uncommented.

They are not the first to undergo a name change, for a range of reasons. Mostly they are to escape bad publicity, sometimes because it made some strategic sense to do so given the nature of the business had changed, and I suspect a few because of a brainfart in the boardroom.

Google changed to Alphabet, Philip Morris changed to Altria, Tribune Publishing (owner of several major newspapers in the US) changed to Tronc, then changed back to Tribune Publishing, (unexplainable) Blackwater changed to Xe Services, then on to Academi (no escape from a nasty history) Quikster changed to Netflix, and the list goes on.

Meta is an odd word, being self-referential, and often the first syllable of other words that mean change, such as metamorphose, and metabolism. It is also a word the few late teens I know use as an expression of surprise, or pleasure: even they cannot adequately define it.

Nearly 5 years ago, I wrote a post focussed on the ‘Moats‘ Facebook had built around itself. This latest move is one that adds a further dimension to the moat analogy, throwing a wide moat around the whole Facebook empire, while at the same time, attempting to separate the individual components of the castle inside the moat into (supposedly) more independent entities. It least, that may be the theory, although I see no change happening inside the moat, just more defence of the status quo.

Perhaps it is just a defensive move in response to the series of damaging leaks to the New York Times and other outlets by former senior executive Frances Haugen. Make the eggs that much harder for regulators to unscramble?

I watched Mark Zuckerberg explain the change in a video, and remain somewhat confused. He claimed the driver of the change was his vision of the future, and the technologies that will deliver it. I am very wary of that fluffy, tech friendly story. The current technologies and impact of all the Facebook stable of products are very similar. They collaborate to deliver some really nasty stuff kept hidden amongst the many useful tools. All this in the name of ‘connection’.

Will Meta take some of the pressure off Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg? I doubt it, but I also suspect if you asked Zuckerberg, and managed to get the truth out of him, he really could not give a toss.

 

 

Q: What do you think is the biggest source of Innovation? A: ….

Q: What do you think is the biggest source of Innovation? A: ….

A gem of insight from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella happened in the last minute of this interview by HBR editor Adi Ignatius:

What do you think is the biggest source of innovation and why? Is it diversity, technical skill, humanity, employee equity, something else’? Ignatius asked on behalf of a listener to the interview.

SATYA NADELLA: Empathy. To me, what I have sort of come to realize, what is the most innate in all of us is that ability to be able to put ourselves in other people’s shoes and see the world the way they see it. That’s empathy. That’s at the heart of design thinking. When we say innovation is all about meeting unmet, unarticulated, needs of the marketplace, it’s ultimately the unmet and articulated needs of people, and organizations that are made up of people. And you need to have deep empathy.

So, I would say the source of all innovation is what is the most humane quality that we all have, which is empathy.

Empathy. There you have it, from one of the most successful CEOs of the last 20 years.

Being able to put yourself in the shoes of someone else, seeing their problems, motivations, opportunities, hopes and dreams from their perspective.

Satya Nadella has completely rebuilt the culture of Microsoft from the ground up since becoming CEO in February 2014, following Steve Ballmer. In that time, the share price of Microsoft has risen from $36 to $332 today, making its market capitalisation a few billion short of 2 trillion $US, and second only on the share market popularity contest to Apple. Nadella seems to know a bit about what drives success.

Empathy.

It was a really simple answer to what can easily be treated as a complex question requiring a long and detailed answer, employing technical terms, cliches and jargon to impress and further complicate. Instead, he used one simple word, with a short and simple explanation of why he used it.

If I asked your employees and colleagues how much empathy you displayed, what would be their answer?

Should Marketing expenditure be capitalised?

Should Marketing expenditure be capitalised?

Effective managers are sensitive to the differences between working capital and investment capital.

The former is the money it takes to keep the business running, to generate the transactions, fill the gap between the sales registered in the P&L, and the cash coming into the bank this month. The latter is the money that needs to be invested to keep the business competitive, renewed, and more likely to have a long and successful life delivering competitive returns to stakeholders.

Peter Drucker observed that: ‘The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer’ which is often used as a quote.

The full quote was: “Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two, and only two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.”

He was right, as usual.

Without customers, you do not have a business.

Marketing activity of any sort is an investment in future sales.

The creation and long-term engagement with customers, is just as much an investment as one in a piece of capital equipment. Marketing consumes funds over time that are necessary to generate the cash coming into the bank consistently and predictably.

Marketing investments are in effect, the working capital of revenue generation. However, they are treated as expenses in the profit and Loss statement, which leads to them being regarded as a variable expense, rather than an investment.

You could mount an argument that a major proportion of the marketing budget should be capitalised, as an asset, not depreciated as you would with capital equipment, but offset by a deferred revenue liability.

In a past life, in charge of significant marketing budgets, I have been on the losing end of the argument that cutting marketing expenditure in tough times is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing. The net result has been to erode brand position, revenue, and margins over time, as well as not being able to take advantage of competitors similarly dumb decisions to reduce marketing investment.

The research evidence to avoid such cuts is overwhelming. However, while the marketing budget resides in the P&L, it will continue to be a balancing item for annual EBIT, rather than playing the long-term role of building commercial sustainability.

The four parameters of your ‘Current Situation’ audit.

The four parameters of your ‘Current Situation’ audit.

 

The starting point of any review process is to define the current situation.

In every case, the trends are as important, and often more important than the immediate position, as they are often leading indicators of what might happen into the future that will impact your planning.

The trends give a picture over time of the success or otherwise of the organisation, which leads us to examine some areas in more detail than others, asking ourselves the ever-harder questions.

The four parameters are also cumulative and absolutely interdependent.

  • Strategic.

Under the ‘Strategic’ heading there is a wide range of areas for examination. The most obvious are:

Regulation.

No enterprise can survive, legally, if it is outside the regulations that control it.

Looking not only at the regulations that are in place now, but what might come down the pipe at you is important, in some cases critical.

For example: if you are exporting manufactured products into the E.U. it is likely that in the near future, there will be a tariff added to any that already exist to accommodate the imbalance between there being no carbon tax in this country, while there is one in the EU. In addition, the recent submarines decision will likely disrupt any movement towards increased access to the EU.

Competitive environment and your relative place.

What is the reality of your competitive position?

Being tough on yourself, ensuring conformation bias plays no role is important.

Strengths and Weaknesses are internal to the enterprise, while opportunities and threats are external.

Strengths and Weaknesses are always relative to those of your opposition, and/or what customers are demanding.

Just because you think you do a great job, and you may, it is not a strength unless it is a better job, in customers eyes than the opposition can deliver.

Similarly with weaknesses, if customers do not care, then why does it matter? Only consider weaknesses that impact on your competitive performance relative to the opposition, and to what the market is looking for.

Customers.

As Peter Drucker noted, ‘The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer

Your business relies on them, they should be the centre of everything you do, think and say.

Understanding the nature, shape, and trends in your customer base, what needs you are meeting, what needs may be there that you are not meeting, why they are customers of yours, and not someone else’s, what they think about the service you deliver.

Customers must see the value you deliver, or they will walk.

Similarly, it is reasonable to ask yourself ’are they the customers we want?

Measuring customer ‘stickiness’ is the key to a successful business, so much so that if you did nothing else, it would serve you well.

Three measures I use:

Share of wallet. (SOW)

How much of the money a customer spends on products you could provide, do they spend with you? What is your share of their ‘wallet’?

This always opens very interesting thinking and discussions about the scope of the wallet. E.g., Imagine you are an insurance company with a big share of the car insurance market.

Should your wallet also include home, life, professional indemnity? Or do you niche even further to vintage and collectable cars?

These are the strategic decisions that need to be made before a marketing plan can evolve.

This analysis does not have to be confined to individual customers, it may be applicable to a cohort of very similar customers, to give you a SOW of a market segment.

There are some tough choices here, you have limited resources, and need to apply them where you will generate the greatest leverage.

Leverage is a word I use a lot. We all know what it means: doing more with less.

Customer retention, churn, and lifetime value.

How long do customers stay with you, how much do they spend?

Both measures are useful when applied to differing groups of customers, geographic, demographic, or any other parameter that defines the behaviour of a group.

You cannot do enough work in this space, the better you know your customers, the better able you will be to serve them, increase your share of their wallets, keep them as custumers, and have them refer you to their friends and networks, still the most powerful form of marketing there is.

Lifetime Value is a good measure, simply the sales to a customer X the average life of a customer.

Customer Pareto.

The 80/20 rule is immensely valuable. Measuring the profitability, revenue, or margin, perhaps the three of them, offers insights to performance and highlights areas for improvement.

A catch with this approach: it will tend to focus attention on the currently most valuable customers. However, most of your best customers started out as small first timers. Some will be more strategically valuable for one reason or another, so do not let the Pareto discard them prematurely.

Market competitiveness.

Michael Porters competitive analysis tool has passed the test of time.

It is a little outdated now as the complication of all the new digital channels adds complexity, but the tool remains extremely useful.

There is no business where there is not some value in thinking through the competitive forces driving your industry.

Product & market lifecycle.

All products go through a lifecycle, of some sort.

Launch, growth, maturity, decline.

Even a failed product has a life, albeit a short one.

Businesses go through a similar lifecycle, it always holds, in one way or another.

It is a useful tool to consider at which point individual products, product groups, markets, and businesses are situated, and the pattern of their growth and decline.

Where would you put EV cars on this graph? Mobile phones? Cigarettes?

Occasionally a product, or business bucks the trend, and comes back, the product changes in some way, and finds a new lease of life.

The BCG tool is well known. It is a tool through which to consider your product portfolio.

A dog, to be euthanised. A cow, to be milked, A star, to be nurtured and protected

Who knows, it will become a dog, or a superstar, you must decide what to do with it in terms of marketing investment.

Business model.

Your business model, is the means by which you turn your value proposition into revenue.

Clarity about your business model, and how to optimise the mechanics is a key component of considering your current situation, and how best to leverage it.

The strategies that will work for one model may not work for another.

E.g., The wholesale model is becoming redundant, as the net has opened the communication channels and opportunities for buyers and sellers to collaborate, and manage ordering and logistics, a role wholesalers used to fill.

Two sided and subscription models are the ones that have flourished with the net. eBay, Airbnb, Netflix, Amazon prime, all the SaaS software you use.

You must be clear about your business model, as experience suggests that two different Business models sitting under the one roof is very uncomfortable and creates friction.

  • Financial.

Every business requires money to operate, the ‘Working capital’ of the business.

Every business also has some fixed costs, even home businesses. Insurance, power, communications, and so on.

Every business that has any sort of manufacturing, from a simple transformation to complex manufacturing has the cost of goods sold, plus the equipment and labour necessary to do the transformation, as well as the fixed costs of factories. The processes to forecast and manage your money need to be robust and subject to continuous improvement.

Budgets.

Given we are talking about the future, we know it will not be as we expect, so the budgets flowing from your forecasts will be wrong, question is by how much, how well do we adjust, and how much did we learn on the way through.

I strongly favour rolling budgets, usually 3 months, which parallel rolling marketing review, and forward planning.

You have in effect two reporting dimensions.

Financial accounts.

The financial accounts are the ones we see in every annual report. There are statutory formats, lists of required information, and the definition of how varying situations will be treated. They are for public consumption, analysis and comparison, and come in three standard sections: Cash flow, Profit and Loss from trading, and the Balance sheet.

Management accounts

These are the reports used internally to manage the business.

They use the same raw data, and the same 3 core reports as the financial accounts, but go much deeper, and have an entirely different purpose.

The management reports are what you use to allocate resources, track their application, monitor the financial outcomes of the decisions you take, and manage the assets, tangible, and intangible, of the business.

For SME’s, the most important measure is your cash flow. Without cash, you are dead, so a detailed understanding of your cash position is essential.

Hidden within the management accounts are the seven financial levers that should be measured and managed. Price, Volume, COGS, Overheads, A/c Receivable, A/c payable, and inventory.

  • Operational.

Businesses are usually structured vertically. However, customers interact with businesses horizontally.

A customer has no interest in how you are organised, and how you work, their only interest is in having the product they paid for perform up to or beyond expectations, in relieving the itch they feel, solving the problem they have.

Putting the customer at the centre of your efforts, which is where they need to be in order to be successful, means that you focus on the horizontal, external customer experience, not the internal, vertical organisational experience.

Forget this basic fact at your peril.

Businesses are made up of a series of processes. Order to delivery, Cash to cash, Raw material to finished product, Acquisition of and retention of customers, and others.

Every one of these processes is critical.

  • Culture.

Culture is most often defined by repeating Michael Porters assertion that: “culture is the way we do things round here.” However, this leaves the question of what drives the way things are done.

Performance management.

The manner in which KPI’s are allocated, and usually they are financial KPI’s that dominate, is a critical consideration, as they are often in conflict, driven by functional considerations of no interest to customers.

For example. If your factory manager’s KPI’s are all about the efficient running of the factory, with no allowances for the downtime, experimentation, and pilot runs, that are necessary during the product development stage, you will have trouble getting a new product that is OK on the development bench validated through the factory.

This always leads to problems in the market.

A similar scenario comes from many salespeople, they often do not report to marketing, but are crucial in the marketing plan implementation.

Overlooking ‘Culture’ in the preparation and execution of a plan often sounds the death nell at execution time.

Flow.

Imagine a river, running unimpeded by rapids, narrow bits, waterfalls, and varying depth along its path.

It looks leisurely, smooth, but more water passes through than a similar river with all the impediments.

The latter just looks busier, more activity, turbulence, conflicting paths around the impediments.

Processes in a business are similar.

Smooth processes that hand a task over, one person to the next, one part of the process to the next at the critical time, with the minimum of disruption, the better.

More gets done.

Flow is a state that comes from a place of communication, collaboration, and continuous improvement.

All are enhanced by tools, but in the end, you need people to work together, communicate and continually improve to achieve that state.

Flow is an outcome of a positive egalitarian culture.

One of the most common problems I see in businesses as I wander around is constant never-ending firefighting.

That happens because adequate, repeatable processes are not in place,

Next time you walk into a new office, or factory, look for Flow.

You will know it when you see it and know further that this is a place with whom you want to do business.

Flow can be seen and felt, and it can also be measured by cycle time and throughput.

Culture is an outcome of all the interactions, big and small people have with each other.

‘The way we do things around here’

It is therefore critical that you hire the right people.

You can measure engagement, and how happy and fulfilled people are. A useful rule is to

Hire slowly, fire fast, and with great care. When you must terminate someone, it will have a profound impact on them. It is vital that you do it with empathy and make the landing for them as soft as possible. This will aid them immensely, but as important, is the impact on those who are left.

If they see the departed as a valuable member, they will be wondering if they are next. ’Why not me’ survivor syndrome, is a powerful psychological force. If they see the departed as a good riddance, the fact that you did it with empathy will also be noted and bind the remainers closer to the business.

Besides, when you feel you have to fire someone, it is usually your mistake in hiring them in the first place.

A further good measure is how time is spent. Keeping timesheets is not what this is about, it is a cultural behaviour that you leave time, block it out in your diaries if that works for you, to give your self-time to see what is around you. Most in modern businesses are so busy they do not allow the time to look up, observe, and see the opportunities that may pop up. We are so busy we miss them, confirmation bias dictates what we do see, so act deliberately to remove that inherent bias from time to time and look up.

For many SME’s, the opportunity to go to industry trade shows, forums, and formal networks of peers is a great way of doing this. Chance then can catch up with you.

Keep the bias to action without which you will get nothing done, but make the time to look around with clear eyes, meet new people, as opportunities are always attached to people, they do not float around looking for a place to land.

Bias for action, must be part of the culture.

Ask yourself the question ‘Do I really need more information, or do I need to simply act on what I have

Most decisions are reversable so long as you have good feedback loops and are prepared to recognise early that a course of action is not going to deliver expected results.

Marketing is always about making choices with incomplete information, do not allow yourself to be paralysed by the missing pieces, act and be prepared to back away, having learnt something new. Bias for action is a cultural thing, demonstrated by the leadership.

The secret sauce of a successful business is to have a successful culture, one that ensures that everyone knows that what they are doing today is correlated and contributing to the long-term achievement of the mission, strategic objectives, whatever you choose to call it. Every person understands the contribution they are making today, for that long term achievement of the goals.

Defining your current situation is like having a detailed map of the block of land you intent to build on before you start designing the house. The better the map, the more functional and useful the house design will be.

Take the time, and make the effort to do it well. An independent set of eyes always helps.

 

 

 

The demarcation of Accountability, Responsibility, and Authority.

The demarcation of Accountability, Responsibility, and Authority.

How can I be held responsible when I do not have the authority’?

Anyone in a management role has probably heard, and perhaps asked that question after some ‘do-do’ hits the fan.

‘Accountability’, ‘Responsibility’, and ‘Authority’ often become entangled in ways that leave management, improvement, and scaling of any set of activities challenging. The lines become blurred and ambiguous, which enables problems to be shovelled into a quiet corner, unresolved.

As with any process, ensuring shared clarity, transparency and understanding is the only way to improve.

The absence of such shared understanding means a problem will always be someone else’s. ‘Not my job‘ in the vernacular.

Following are my definitions, which may clear up the differences.

Accountability

Accountability means that someone is specifically held accountable for the activity or set of activities. That person is accountable to track the progress of the activity, process, function, whatever it may be, and give it a ‘voice’. If you cannot nominate one person who is specifically accountable, it will fall through the cracks.

Responsibility

Responsibility falls to anyone who has the ability and opportunity to respond proactively support an activity or process. Anyone who ‘touches’ a process has responsibility to do their best to ensure that the activity progresses as expected, and to remove any hinderances they may see. This is decision making at the ‘coal-face’, taking responsibility for outcomes.

Authority

Authority belongs to the person with the final veto power. There is always someone who has that final say. The larger the organisation, the further away from the day-to-day operational decisions that person is likely to be. Conversely, the bigger the decision, the closer they will be.

The processes and boundaries that determine the point at which a decision can be made will be an explicit outcome of the descriptions of each role, and the culture of the enterprise.

The differences between the meaning of these three words offers a huge expanse of quicksand, in which many people and organisations get stuck.

For example, in a previous life as GM of a large organisation, I had final authority over the expenditure of marketing budgets. The marketing manager had accountability for the development of marketing plans and their implementation across the functions in the business, and the authority to make relevant decisions within the marketing function. Product managers had accountability for the specific activities that took place in their brand portfolios. Operations management had responsibility to ensure that the products produced were up to specification, and when that was not the case, the authority to rework or dump as appropriate. Logistics management had the responsibility to ensure orders were filled on time and in full, and the authority to make decisions to ensure that was the case. We all had a shared responsibility to ensure that the customers who bought our products were serviced in a manner that had them coming back for more.

Back to the question asked at the top: ‘How can I be held responsible without the authority’. The answer is: ‘it depends’.

Everyone has the responsibility to manage their own activities on a daily basis, and be held accountable for the outcomes, but as you move up a corporate ladder, it becomes increasingly challenging to maintain the direct link. The more senior you are, the more you will be held accountable for things over which you have less and less direct control. That direct control is held at lower levels in the organisation.

The key to making this all work is to thoughtfully, consistently, and transparently delegate the authority to make the veto decisions, both Yes and No, as far down the organisation chart as possible. Counter intuitive as this may be to many, offering people control over their defined workspace and span of control, leads to quicker and more informed decision making. It also assumes that everyone understands the differences between these three words, and that there is consistent and explicit feedback on both the outcomes of decisions, and the manner in which they were arrived at and implemented. This requires that you pinpoint the job to be done, have a system of interlinking KPI’s, and that there is explicit and transparent performance feedback and management of both the process and those held accountable for the components of the process.

It also relies on having the best people in the right spots, willing and able to make the decisions necessary, at the right time. Of all the challenges faced by those at the top of an organisation, having the best people in the right spots to deal with the challenge of building commercial sustainability, is the most challenging of all.

Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert, again make the point.

Note: I realised after publishing that I had dealt with with this exact question previously in a post back in 2019. Fortunately, while the wording is different, the meanings ascribed to the three key words are identical. After 2000 plus posts, this accidental doubling up does happen occasionally. Perhaps it is a measure of importance?

2 legal ways to make obscene profits

2 legal ways to make obscene profits

 

 

The first is to have a monopoly, preferably a regulated one, such as a public asset that has been privatised.

Sydney’s Kingsford Smith airport was flogged off by the government to a private operator who makes obscene profits, not just from the landing rights, but parking, retail concessions, and every other opportunity to gouge. What are your options… catch a train to Singapore?

The second is to be in a market where the person shelling out the money for your product is not the decision maker in the purchase.

My dog does not care how much the food I deliver to her/him costs, the marketer is selling the stuff to me on the basis that my dog will prefer it, and it is better for them, and I am a bad person if I deprive my beloved pet of the best care possible.

The Australian publicly funded pharmaceutical benefits scheme is similar.

Once on the list, the pharma companies sell to the doctors, persuade them to prescribe their magic to their patients, who pay a consistent subsidised cost whatever the price of the drug to the public purse. Perhaps inconsistently, I am in favor of this scheme, despite the obvious rorting that goes on.

I am always caught between amazed laughter and despair when I hear a politician whining about the prices of some commodity, the ownership of which they have flogged off to private enterprise, who then proceeds to make a profit, because they can.

Just look at what has happened to power prices since the privatisation of the poles and wires, done in a strategic vacuum for short term political gain.

No matter the words used, what they have done is subsidise private profit from the public purse.

One that should get a mention but does not despite the disruption over the last couple of years is the  takeover of Healthscope, the operator  of the new French’s Forest hospital in Sydney’s north, by Canadian group, Brookfield in June 2019. Brookfield held a featured place in the Panama and Paradise papers as protagonists in tax avoidance via trusts located in tax havens.

The state government poured  2 billion dollars into the hospital in a so called partnership with Healthscope previously an ASX listed company, and closed the alternatives in the area, Mona Vale and Manly hospitals.

So much for the competition, and for the tax on the resulting profits.