Dec 16, 2013 | Branding, Governance, Management, Strategy
For perhaps the 1,000th time last week I heard the “strategy” question asked. It comes in many forms:
What is your customer strategy?
What is your google strategy?
What is your social media strategy? and so on.
All are valid questions, but the implication is that there is a different strategy for every bloody thing that is faced by a business, which to my mind is a degradation, perhaps commoditisation of the meaning of the word as it should (in my view) be practised. This type of usage is about the implementation of strategy, the manner in which you go about achieving the strategic outcomes desired, not about the formulation of the drivers of performance over the long term.
Equally, having an annual “strategic workshop” that sets strategy for the year is a nonsense, well, at best a budgeting session by another name.
“Strategy” is at once simpler, and more complicated than that, and comes down to five really challenging questions that must be lived, every day, by all in the enterprise. They are not the subject of some crappy off-site gab-fest in the slow sales period of the year if you are serious.
- What is the business we are in? (the old are we selling drills, or 20mm holes question, probably the most undervalued, and original marketing question)
- What does the enterprise do to add value?
- What are the behavioural drivers of the primary customers we are seeking to service
- What is our value proposition to these customers and potential customers?
- What capabilities are crucial, now and into the future, and how do we develop them to be differentiated?
When was the last time you seriously asked yourself any of these?
Nov 26, 2013 | Change, Governance, Management
There are now so many one person businesses emerging, SME’s that employ no-one on a full time basis, but call on contractors and specialists when necessary, that I think we need a new term:
“Solepreneurs”.
They are often entrepreneurs, but not in the generally accepted sense of someone doing something radically new.
Rather, they are seeking to innovate, fill a niche, provide a service, or just do a better job on a local level, or in a marginally different way, often personalised in a way corporations, loaded down with overheads, processes, and corporate egos cannot. The digitisation of the way we work has removed the transaction costs in so many ways that these solepreneurs now have marketing and administrative clout unimaginable just 20 years ago, sufficient for them to often be potent competitors to established businesses that perpetuate the myth of the corporation.
The local chambers of commerce and networking groups are filled with them, and whilst individually they are insignificant, except perhaps to their customers, together they are a potent force emerging in the economy.
I wonder when politicians and rule makers will wake up?
Better be soon, as the face of the workforce is changing rapidly, and the old ways of public administration simply do not work well enough.
Nov 21, 2013 | Governance, Management, Marketing, Strategy
The metaphor for business as war is widely used, and it does have considerable value when considering strategy, tactics, capability development and resource deployment.
Marketing is a base component of this mix. It requires you to see the world, product offer, through the eyes and behavior of others, your customers, and potential customers, and in so doing, observe and understand the value proposition of alternative offerings.
So, if there is a metaphor for the competitive aspects of marketing, it is act like your enemy, do to yourself what your enemy would if they had the information, resources and capabilities you have, with the intent of defeating you.
With apologies to the original, “do unto others before they do unto you.”
Nov 18, 2013 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Management, Operations
Perhaps unfortunately I was on the receiving end of a rant about design thinking last week. It was a passionate, articulate, and informed rant, but a rant nevertheless.
There is no doubt in my mind that design thinking is a competitively crucial capability. In this homogeneous and connected world, recognising the value that design can deliver, that it is an integral part of not just the physical products, but of enterprise culture and processes, is essential to commercial longevity.
However, design thinking has a fundamental flaw, a flaw clearly demonstrated by the “rantor” last week. As my old Dad used to say, “Son, you get 1/10 for thinking about it, the other 9 are for doing it”
My rantor was a thinker, but do not ask him to do anything creative. It is hard, dangerous (to a career) work to be contentious, advocate stuff outside the status quo, to be the questioner who backs up the questions with action, and most shy away.
We do need more design thinking, but we also need way, way more design doing, so stop hyping, and start doing.
Nov 6, 2013 | Alliance management, Branding, Marketing, retail, Small business
The agricultural supply chain that has dominated the way we get our food has evolved as a fragmented, opaque series of transactions that occur to fill the gap between the producer and the consumer. Many of these transactions add no value to the consumer, rather, they serve to capture value for some link in the supply chain.
As they add no value, it is fair to ask “are they necessary”, and in many cases the answer will be “No”, in others it will be that whilst it may add no value, it is a necessary cost, like transport.
Were we to set out to re-engineer the supply chain with consumer value as the driving force, what would we change?
Well, a fair bit, much of it as a result of the communication and data transfer capabilities that have exploded in the last decade. There is now absolutely no reason a grower cannot see where his product goes, each transformational stage, every point at which it is moved, and the costs and margins involved.
Whilst there are sensitive commercial implications in all this, the technical capability is there, and using those capabilities to eliminate costs and margins that do not serve the consumer will increasingly become the focus of competitive activity and innovation.
Wool is the archetypal Australian commodity, and it is also representative of the worst of commodity “marketing” where each link in a very complicated operational chain is a set of strand-alone transactions. However, even in this conservative, institutionalised chain, there are rays of light, enterprises like WoolConnect that have evolved over a considerable period, to deliver a transparent, collaborative chain that has eliminated much of the cost that adds no consumer value, becoming far more productive in the process.
I am working with a small group of horticulture growers and specialist retailers in Sydney on a pilot, a transparent, demand driven chain that responds to consumers, not what growers have on the floor, or what wholesalers think they can squeeze a good margin out of, but real demand. It is a fascinating exercise, one that is hopefully successful and commercially scalable.
This will deliver tree ripened fruit to consumers the day after it has been picked, and similarly, veggies harvested this morning, on your plate tomorrow.
“Sydney Harvest” brand, get used to seeing it in your greengrocer.
Innovation in a horticulture supply chain, who would have thought??
Oct 29, 2013 | Change, Management, Social Media
There have always been gatekeepers, those people who make the decisions about what you see, what you have the opportunity to buy, and weather or not you can participate.
The supermarket buyer determines what goes on the shelves, a faceless committee determines what constitutes the levels of “obscene” and therefore what is able to be published, and the bloke running the big dipper determines that no-one under 5 feet can take the ride. The examples go on.
The web is usually cited as the medium that has democratised information, made it available to all with a computer, and that is true, but it has also introduced a new form of gatekeeper: the algorithm.
Algorithms are simply instructions that determine what computers do with a piece of information, or set of instructions, they are the guts of everything we now do with computers.
Facebooks “Edgerank” determines what you see on your newsfeed based on an algorithm, Google uses algorithms to determine the order of responses to a search, sign up to a blog site, and an algorithm sends you a “thanks for joining” note of some sort, and it is the application of algorithms to the mass of so called Big Data that is enabling the extraction of individual behavioral information.
Don’t kid yourself, the gatekeepers are still there, and probably more influential than ever, just better hidden, so you better understand how they work.
