Will Apples ad barrier slow down Gooface?

Will Apples ad barrier slow down Gooface?

Oct 25, 2017 | Branding, Communication, Governance

In September last year (2016), Facebook conceded publicly that they had over-estimated the average  time viewers spent on video on their site by 60-80%. They did not tell us how long they had known of this ‘error’ but I suspect it was for  quite a while, as they aggressively pushed the ‘video first’ bandwagon.

It does not seem to have dented the volume of money going into the coffers of the GooFace (Google/Facebook) digital advertising duopoly, although it may have slowed a little after Mark Pritchard, the CMO of Procter and Gamble with an ad budget in the billions fired both barrels at the stupidity, complicity and fraud that underpins the digital advertising industry.

Digital advertising has been blighted not just by hype, hyperbole, fraud, but by tracking, and we know it is a blight, because something like 700 million devises now have ad blockers installed, and the big platforms are increasingly removing the ‘skip ad’ option that was initially in place.

GooFace make almost all their money from ads, and cross site tracking is a fundamental part of their arsenal, which they will protect at all costs. Making all sorts of claims supported by flimsy data, and more hyperbolic assertions (I suspect they will make tobacco companies look like beginners when they get a bit more practice) is to be expected. Apple  by contrast make almost no money out of advertising, so has loudly rattled the cage by announcing a new feature on an upgrade of Safari that  prevents cross site tracking.

Brilliant.

I wonder who will follow suit, as the march of subscription services without ads together with the blockers, must be biting deeply into advertising effectiveness, assuming we could see and analyse the data objectively.

Follow up Nov. 8, 2017.  Has the charm offensive stated?  This article in Marketing Week would suggest it has.

 

The getting of wisdom

The getting of wisdom

Oct 16, 2017 | Governance, Leadership, Management, Strategy

As I get older, the world seems smaller, more complicated, but smaller. This is not just the technology we all now have that has shrunk all the boundaries of our world over the last 20 years, putting the all the  information anyone has ever had at our fingertips, that is different.

It is one thing to have all  the information, it is quite another to be able to make sense of it.

There has been a progression from data to information, to knowledge that has been recognised and widely leveraged, but now there is another level to the cake, wisdom.

We all have access to the same information, can find those who have the knowledge to use it, but it is wisdom, born of experience and breadth of thinking that delivers the wisdom now so rare, but so sorely needed.

I like very much the philosophy of Charlie Munger who talks about mental models, ways of assembling knowledge and sifting through it, reorganising it to be seen from different perspectives that offer a different view. The more mental models you can bring to bear on a topic and body of knowledge, the greater the chance that there will be some insight that emerges unexpected from the model.

Charlie speaks of his mental models, and their source often, a man of few words, leaving most of them to his mate of 50 years Warren Buffet. However, in 1994 he wrote what has become a staple of business thinking , his ‘Worldly wisdom’ speech.

As a kid, we learnt stuff by experience, and using mnemonics,  devices to assist us to remember things. Rhymes, associations, colours can all play a role. Wisdom seems to me to be the opposite end of the mnemonic, the ability to see connections between seemingly unconnected pieces of information, and it is our mental models that enable these connections to be made.

By contrast what we have often these days are unrelated facts presented as a cause and effect, or a set of actions that worked in one place being expected to work in another, which may seem similar, but at a deeper level are not sufficiency similar to enable the actions to deliver the same outcomes.

We tend to be a society that believes, or wants to believe  in miracles, perhaps cargo cults, because it is easier than doing the hard thinking yards.

As someone who gives advice for a living, it is incumbent on me to have a clear framework from which to distil the information to have into advice that is tailored to the needs of those being advised. As often as not, the advice is not heeded, or taken in parts which sometimes hurts, as it reflects poorly on the end result, but it is the reality of making real change.

To be able to deliver the unwelcome news with confidence that it will hold, I need to have a range of mental models, models that come from the work done over 45 years in marketing, sales, operations, leadership, logistics and accounting, and be able to filter the information in front of me through the range of models in a routine and organised manner. Each model gives a slightly different interpretation of the facts, a different slant that requires consideration, so that each outcome is slightly different to the past, but best fitted to the situation to hand.

When you need a bit of wisdom, give me a call, perhaps I can help.

For context, vital in the consideration of Wisdom, the blurry photo is of a group of islanders in the Pacific at the end of the war. People on remote islands had become used to planes going overhead and dropping supplies to the troops. When the war ended, so did the dropping of supplies, an outcome not anticipated or understood by islanders. Physicist Richard Feynman gave it the name we all know: ‘Cargo Cult ‘in a speech in 1948. 

 

Is the supermarket business model developing terminal cracks?

Is the supermarket business model developing terminal cracks?

Oct 9, 2017 | Governance, Marketing, retail

Are the tiny cracks evident in the current supermarket business model just the beginning of what will become crevasses that will swallow supermarkets, or just annoyances that can be managed?

My view is the former, although we are currently a long way from Coles and Woollies being irrelevant to our lives, and as the dominating incumbents, they do have the option of anticipating and leveraging the changes as they evolve.

The current supermarket business model was built to leverage scale. That is its strength, the ability to centralise decision making and scale those decisions back through supply chains, and out into the consumers’ pockets. Scale has been the dominating characteristic of successful businesses since Alfred Sloan turned General Motors from a failing minnow into a monolithic hierarchical organisation in the 1920’s and 30’s.

The world however has changed.

Hierarchical organisations no matter how well optimised, cannot match the agility of local competition that is more organic in nature, adaptable in close to real time, and able to take advantage of the little cracks that result from the siloed management of the legacy organisation. They are simply able to adapt quicker to the changes in the competitive context in which they operate.

We see evidence of this all around us, from the turnaround in the US military capability under General Stanley McCrystal, to the organic growth of technology companies like Amazon and Google that are organised more as networks than they are as hierarchies, to the growth of local farmers markets, and pop up stores in the increasing number of empty retail spaces in suburban malls.

The siloed, hierarchical organisations of the 20th century have seen their best and are crumbling in the face of the changes in our ability to gather, curate and share information, and then act on it to create and deliver value.

While supermarket buyers optimise their net net prices with suppliers in return for mass distribution and shelf placement, local store managers are excluded from assembling a range optimised to their local buyers. By contrast, a local operator can optimise the range, but lacks the power to optimise the cost prices by virtue of their lack of scale, but that is changing slowly.

Then you have the innovations created by technology, the Amazon Go stores, exploding options to order and schedule delivery on line, the emergence of the ‘Internet of things‘ and artificial intelligence,  coupled with the social movements that are increasingly seeking product provenance as a purchase discriminator.

All this indicates to me that the capital intensive, centralised  supermarket is becoming a legacy model, just as the Department store is proving to be, demonstrated by the tsunami of bankruptcies in the US, and Myer in Australia announcing even more closures last week.

Photo credit: Gerard via Flikr

The three drivers of an effective business improvement project 

The three drivers of an effective business improvement project 

Sep 26, 2017 | Governance, Management, Strategy

 

For the last 22 years since leaving corporate life, I have worked at the intersection of Revenue generation, Operations and Performance improvement of medium sized manufacturing businesses.

My entry point is almost always sales and marketing. Businesses are struggling, and see the solution as more sales, so they look for someone who can wave a magic sales wand, and generate more revenue out of the ether.

Almost never happens that way.

Originally I studied to become an accountant. I got a piece of paper, but that did not make me an accountant. Luckily, I realised my mistake before it was too late, and moved across into marketing, in the days before anyone had really heard of it. Mostly they still do not know what it is, but these days, at least they have heard of it.

I found it was easy, and I was very  good at it, so had a corporate career starting in marketing and sales that covered all functional roles, except accounting, including general management with bottom line accountability for a substantial divisional business, reporting to the group MD .

However, I was a lousy employee, because while I got stuff done, made lots of money, I was a pest who would not play the corporate game of bullshit to the left, arse cover to the right, and never admit it when you  may be wrong.

So, 22 years ago I hung my shingle as a contractor, intellectual capital for hire, wisdom on 2 feet, and promised myself, ‘no more corporate bullshit’.

I believe that unless we actually make stuff, physically produce the products others want to buy, because it adds value to their lives in some way, generally by solving a problem of some sort, we will be stuffed in the long term.

After all, how many baristas do we really need?

My corporate and subsequent experience in revenue generation, which is what I choose to call Sales and marketing, operations, numbers, logistics, and general management of manufacturing businesses gives me a platform of experience that small and medium manufacturers in this country are sorely lacking, for a range of reasons.

I look for 3 things when I go into a business as an advisor, contractor, saviour, and occasionally ‘head-kicker’.

When you go to the doctor for a check-up, feeling a bit off, he checks your blood pressure, temperature, looks in your eyes and down your throat, anything not within the normal range, he digs one level deeper.

That is what I do when assessing a business.

I look for three things:

  • Business Architecture.
  • Rhythm & Flow
  • Culture

Get these three things right, and aligned, and there will  be superior performance.

A StrategyAudit business improvement project is all about these three things, and the manner in which they can be defined, analysed and brought together to deliver the improved performance required.

So, let me explain them, or at least my view of them.

 

Business Architecture.

This is where most people and advisors spend most of their time, where all the things you can get data on reside, so to some extent they are predictable, and as improvement is made, you can see it in the numbers.

It is relatively simple, but I see it as a pyramid, which I will explain.

Architecture is how the business is built, and managed. A business is like a building, it needs  foundations, upon which the infrastructure of  the business is built.

This pyramid broken up into the four segments reflects the sequence I follow to drive improvement programs.

Foundations.

This is the stuff that no matter what else you do, the foundations must be in place for success.

A lot of it is ‘underground’ as most foundations are, nevertheless, without a solid foundation, whatever else you build, it will  not last.

Operational accounts: cash flow, P&L, Break even calculations, your ‘Why’, regulatory requirements, Business Model, Resource availability and capability, and CASH,

Different businesses require different foundation structures.

If you are going into child care, the regulatory stuff is very challenging, not so challenging if you want to be a business coach.

However, one is absolutely essential, the number one in every foundation, one word: Cash.

It is also true that the foundations wear out, become depreciated, and without renewal, which is a continuous process, you will still fail.

The advent of digital has changed forever a number of these elements and I would contend is continuing to change them. However, the reality is that the principals remain the same, it is just that the speed at which everything happens has accelerated at unprecedented rates, and continues to do so.

Revenue generation.

Marketing & sales by another name, which brushes off the silo mentality prevalent to date, and highlights the importance.

Everybody knows that no business survives without sales, but the key is to be able to generate revenue by creating value for someone else, at a cost that for them is less than the value they receive, but for you is greater than the cost to provide it.

You would be astonished to see how many businesses did not know their cost of sales, or used some ancient absorption costing method pushed by accountants that became redundant as Jesus moved to the Bethlehem first grade side.

Customer profiling, lead generation and conversion, NPD & C, customer service, Key account management, value proposition, advertising, market research,  and the many other outward facing activities fall into this bucket.

Leverage & scalability

This is where the fun really starts.

Once the foundation is in place, and the revenue generation machine is humming along, you can realistically start to think about leveraging and scaling the successful operations you already have.

Leveraging and scaling existing operational and process capabilities into new markets, addressing the needs of new customers, and perhaps launching genuinely new products will deliver great rewards when done well. It is where mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures become contributors to business value rather than consumers of value. There is still risk involved, but from a solid base, growth can be substantial delivering great rewards.

Sustainability.

Sustainability occurs when the supporting three levels are working well, and working together. Most owners of medium sized businesses look forward to the day when they can take 6 months off, and come back to the business still humming along, not missing them at all.

The much touted ‘laptop lifestyle’ touted by get rich quick internet salesmen always allude to the day when you can be anywhere in the world with the laptop, and just check in, perhaps do a bit between sips of Pimms beside the tropical pool. This may be the objective, but it is rarely attained without the grind of building the business architecture.

 

Rhythm & Flow.

Rhythm & Flow is all about how  the management processes work to facilitate the delivery of value to customers in a commercially sustainable manner.

The development and deployment of strategy, the conversion of a lead to an order, the operational processes that manufacture products, the Customer facing processes, and so on, are all optimised when the flow is even and predictable.

Business might be organised vertically, but the processes that generate leads, service customers, and build products are all horizontal, cross functional. Your customers are not interested on your structure, unless they want to see the CEO to complain. They are more interested on getting the product they ordered on time, in spec, and at the price they expected, all horizontal processes.

At the intersection of the processes and organisational silo boundaries, you always get interruptions to the smooth flow of information and product, and a bit like rapids in a river, the intersection creates a little pool of chaos, too many of them and all you have is whitewater.

You would all have heard of Henry Winslow Taylor, and scientific management. While Taylors views of the people involved at an operational level are absolutely wrong, his ideas on the standardisation and optimisation of the flow through a factory are absolutely right. They formed the basis of the Toyota production System, which has led the transformation of manufacturing around the world over the last 35 years.

I seek to identify anything that interrupts the flow, creates a rapid, as in a river, which is just a small piece of chaos, and remove it, restoring a smooth flow.

 

Culture.

Culture is where it really gets interesting.

Culture is the way we do things around here, the mindset of the business, as reflected in the way people go about doing their jobs, setting their priorities, interacting with customers, suppliers, and their co-workers.

Culture trumps everything else, and is hard to define, almost impossible to predict, and minor irritations in one place can have major ramifications elsewhere.

The butterfly effect.

Measuring culture in any short term way is a waste of time, but over the long term, the value becomes obvious.

It is a bit like motherhood.

We all know we individually benefit, and society benefits when parenting is done well, but how do you measure it?

You cannot over the short term, but the impact is obvious over the long term.

The way I do it is to engage at all levels in as many ways as possible, finding my way into the nooks and crannies that exist in every business, to really understand how it all works, what people think, why they think and behave as they do, and evolve some strategies for improvement.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive review, it just represents the headlines from which a StrategyAudit investigation starts. Every assignment is different, every set of recommendations is tailored towards the solutions for  the specific problems and opportunities encountered during the investigation, and every change program tailored to the needs and capabilities of the organisation.

Cartoon credit: Hugh McLeod at Gapingvoid.com

The single most common question I ask myself

The single most common question I ask myself

Sep 20, 2017 | Change, Governance, Marketing

How do I demonstrate value?

As a senior marketing bloke in a large business, being heard around the board table was always a problem, as it is hard to quantify the impact of what you do. Try as hard as possible, there are still holes in the case, as the reality is that you are setting out to tell the future.

‘Do this, and that will happen’

While marketers are no longer seen as the corporate equivalent of ‘Zelda the fortune teller’ it remains hard to compete for scarce resources with those who are able to table hard data, and are able to quantify the holes in your logic, should they choose to do so.

While pointing out that one is in the past and cannot be changed, while the other is in the future, and therefore is able to be shaped by sensible and informed investment, there remains the uncertainty of the future. Success depends on the confidence that a management has in the ability of the marketer to assemble facts and suppositions into a credible projection of outcomes, in line with the risk profile of the corporation

It is even harder in consulting to small businesses. Every dollar spent on marketing with the promise of better outcomes in the future is a dollar out of the owners pocket. They have all been stung by the purveyors of various forms of marketing snake oil before, so are a wary and appropriately cynical lot.

I have concluded that the answer is a bit like motherhood, the value off which is only visible over a long period, but is then indisputable.

Photo credit Ali Alhosen via Flikr

Who do we sue?

Who do we sue?

Sep 15, 2017 | Governance, Management

I had never thought of the question ‘Who do we sue’ as being of strategic importance until a few weeks ago.

Having coffee with a friend who has worked for a long time for a US  multinational corporation that developed and commercialised a very useful chemical component technology, long since copied by low cost manufacturers  in China, he explained it.

While my friends employer retains a significant market share in the US, everywhere else it has almost disappeared, although perhaps ironically, pockets do remain in Asia.

His analysis was that the nature of US corporations is that they like to know who to sue should something go wrong. This was the one and only reason his employer retained their US market share. Their US customers knew their chances of success in suing a Chinese supplier in the event that something  went wrong were somewhere between none and a snowflakes chance.

Therefore they continued to pay double the component price to his US owned employer as a sort of unstated insurance.

They knew who to sue.