Apr 3, 2025 | Branding, Marketing
I should define ‘Lousy’.
A lousy ad is one that fails to build on what has gone before. In the absence of anything before, it fails to leave a positive impression in the mind of current and any potential buyer who falls within the profile of the ideal customer.
When a lousy ad is recognised, it is usually dropped, but often against much corporate bleating.
The accountants will bleat that the ad cost x to make, the media cost y, and the other costs such as POS material, money flung at ‘influencers’ digital agency costs, and so on, cost Z, giving a total cost to the marketing budget as X + Y + Z = big sunk cost.
The product manager in charge will bleat that the ad did not have time to work, or that it has been misunderstood, and the initial reaction of the intended audience misleading.
The operations people will bleat that they have stacked inventory to the roof in expectation of an increase in demand.
Everyone has a reason.
Brand advertising, as distinct from the ‘get it now for a give-away price’ advertising is all about influencing behaviour in your favour, now, and into the future.
The greatest outcome is that a ‘purchase habit’ is formed. This is to my mind different to the standard definitions of ‘brand loyalty’ which usually include a set of trade-offs in the consumers mind that settle on the brand to which they are loyal most often.
Habit is different.
Habit does not include that internal conversation. It is the autopilot that lifts the product from the shelf, and simply does not consider alternatives.
When you materially change a product, even in a superficial way, you force those habits to be questioned. Elsewhere I have recounted the greatest marketing mistake I ever made by disregarding this truth, which I did not at the time consider.
Publishing an ad, or any sort of media or marketing collateral that is inconsistent with that basic assumption of the habit, will risk the volumes and margin of those most habitual customers.
There are sometimes good reasons to update.
Times and the world change, so brands must also evolve to continue to reflect the worlds in which customers live. When that strategic choice is made, the astute marketer will ensure there is a highly visible ‘line of crumbs’ between the old and the new to minimise the potential disruption to normal service.
Failure to define that line will result in nothing good.
Consider the recent advertising for Jaguar, trumpeting a rebirth of the brand.
Pity the cars will not be on the market for some time, although I suspect even if they were, the sales register would not notice.
Elsewhere I have panned it, but to continue, it breaks any connection anyone, potential Jaguar buyer had with the brand. This ‘New jaguar’ nonsense means they must start from scratch, if not behind the starting line, to establish a set of behavioural drivers that result in the choice to buy a Jag instead of one of the many alternatives.
Are you building your brand, or giving money away?
Mar 31, 2025 | Marketing, Strategy
Most businesses confuse price with pricing.
Price is just the number you slap on the tag. Pricing is the process that gets you to the right number, the one that optimises today’s profit while building tomorrow’s success.
Unfortunately, most businesses treat pricing as an inclusive way to do cost-plus calculations. The finance team sets a target margin, the sales team references the market leader, and the final number is more wishful thinking than strategy.
That is not pricing. That is strategic abdication.
Real pricing is deliberate. Strategic. Ruthlessly focused on outcomes.
You see strategic pricing in odd places.
That wine list at your favourite restaurant with the most expensive bottle first on the list. It is not an accident, done alphabetically, or random. That $500 wine is not there to sell, although occasionally it might. It is there to make the $70 bottle that costs $30 in the grog shop next door, look like a bargain.
Rolls-Royce does not put their cars into motor shows anymore. Why park next to a $30k Toyota and look ridiculously expensive when you can park next to a $10 million jet and look like a ‘pocket change’ purchase by comparison.
It’s called context, and it matters. Dan Ariely nailed this in a classic experiment using subscription costs to the Economist, and his MIT graduate students as the research fodder.
First version:
- Web only: $59
- Print only: $125.
- Web + Print: $125
Result? Almost everyone picked the combo. The web + print option made it look like they were getting a version for free.
Second version:
- Web only: $59
- Web + Print: $125
This time, far fewer picked the combo. Why? No dummy option to anchor the deal.
That’s the decoy effect in action. It works because humans do not make rational decisions. We make comparative ones. Smart pricing taps into that.
Great pricing is not about squeezing the lemon. It is about understanding your customer, your position, and your objective.
Most small businesses leave money on the table by setting their prices too low, hoping never to lose a sale. However, you need to lose a lot of sales to make up for the positive bottom line impact of even a very small increase in the average price.
Want to prove that to yourself?
Track the impact of a 1% price increase through your P&L. Assuming you are using actual costs instead of some sort of confected percentage calculations, the whole amount of the increase will drop to the bottom line as increased profit.
You will never just slap a price on a label again.
Mar 20, 2025 | Branding, Change, Marketing, Strategy
We no longer own stuff, increasingly we are renting it in one form or another.
That lack of ownership discourages brand loyalty and makes defining the boundaries of a contested market all that much harder to do in a way that reflects the psychology of potential customers.
Years ago, while marketing fast moving consumer food products the logic was, we did 90% of the prep work in the packet. The strategy was to suggest to the overworked stressed woman who in those days did all the cooking, to add some garnish and therefore feel she owned the result. The best example is cake mix. Almost everything was done in the packet, all a cook had to do was add an egg, beat it with a fork, and stick it in the oven.
We’ve taken that idea much further now.
One of my sons lives in the inner the suburbs of Sydney and does not own a car. When he needs one, he simply uses the app and within a few minutes walk, there is a car waiting for him.
What we’ve lost in this process is the sense of ownership, the psychological comfort that something was ours. This spreads past the ownership of a car to things like music.
I have an irrational attachment to a couple of 50 year old vinyl records that played a significant role in my young life. The music on those records is ‘mine’. I do not play them anymore, don’t even have a working record player, but separating from those old vinyl records and their memories by association would be painful.
The challenge for marketers now competing in a subscription and rental driven world is how you replace that sense of ownership. If you can figure it out in your product category, you will win.
Mar 7, 2025 | Customers, Innovation, Marketing, Small business
I have started seven businesses, so I have some entrepreneurial form.
One I sold, one delivered profits over a 5-year period, but circumstances led to its closure, several did the dead cat bounce, and a few more struggled a bit before common sense cut in, and one, StrategyAudit has been going for 30 years. On top of my own gigs, I have been involved, engaged, and accountable for many, many more as a consultant, interim manager, and contractor.
After all that effort, sweat, broken dreams, conflict, disillusionment, and frustration, mixed in with some ‘I told you so’s’ what have I learnt?
Timing is crucial. Two of my dead cats were just timing: I was too early, and others since have done similar stuff and made a killing, proving that a good idea is rarely yours alone. Connected to this, but not in a causal way, is that it always takes longer than you think. Take your worst case time-frame, the one that cannot happen, then double it. If successful, that impossibly long time frame might be close. We never hear of this from the start-up porn inhabiting the web.
You are never too old. Ray Kroc was a 52 year old appliance salesman when he had the brainwave that led to McDonalds. In Australia, the age group most likely to start a business is 35-39 years old, comprising 19% of start-ups. The likelihood of extreme success keeps rising until the mid to late 50’s, so Ray Kroc is not an outlier. This is contrary to the common perception of the hoodie wearing entrepreneur who only needs to shave once a week. In my case, all my efforts except StrategyAudit were born before I was 40, the earliest, not counting my efforts to make a bob while still at school and University, was when I was 22. StrategyAudit was born from necessity when I was 44.
Focus and commitment are mandatory. Entrepreneurs by their nature are curious, perceptive, and usually see things from an uncommon perspective. As a result, they are easily distracted by the new shiny thing, or great idea to bolt onto their baby. Sometimes these great bolt-on ideas come from early users, whose opinions carry considerable weight because they are so important to you. The internal struggle with this fragmented attention and less than absolute commitment is often a real problem. In my case, it probably cost me at least two potentially extremely successful businesses. I have often wondered at the role of ‘necessity’ in the game of unicorn chasing.
Boot-strap or take equity partners. Every start-up is short of two things: cash and capability. It is enormously tempting to address one of both or these by taking in partners by one of the many avenues open. Often this is the right thing to do, it usually makes scaling quicker and easier. The downside is the loss of control. Most entrepreneurs have some level of ‘control-freak’ in their DNA, and struggle when they go from having the final word, and having to take on board the views of others.
Capability shortfall. No entrepreneur can cover all the capability bases required for a successful business. That leave the choice of how, when, and sometimes if, you fill the gaps. Getting this wrong causes all sorts of terminal events. Often these are around cash flow shortages, particularly when the enterprise appears to be rapidly gaining ground and being successful. However, all the other functions that must be executed by a growing business are equally vulnerable. These days it is sometimes little more than finding and keeping the right people who operate at whatever ‘coalface’ you service.
Solve a problem felt by others. Solving a problem only you have will not lead to a business unless others have the same one. Equally solving a problem you think others have, when they do not feel the impact of it, or your solution costs more than the problem costs them, is not useful.
Round pegs and square holes. In most SMEs seeking to scale, or even just survive, the choice of personnel, and the jobs they do is critical. Make a mistake and it can be terminal, as SME’s do not have the cushion of scale to absorb those mistakes. The adage of ‘hire slowly, fire fast’ is especially important for SME’s.
Too little marketing. Marketing is an investment in future cash flow. Often this is really, really hard when current cash flow is in the toilet. It is profoundly different to the conversion to a transaction, usually called sales, which is just the end point of the process. When you just have the end point, with too little or misdirected effort at the wider functions of ‘marketing’ in the revenue generation process, you will have a mix of productivity suck-holes and opportunity costs that will not show up in any standard set of accounts.
Too little attention to the numbers. The ‘numbers’ critically include the financial numbers, but they are not the only ones that should be monitored, managed, and leveraged. While I obsess about cash with those I work with, cash in the bank is an outcome of a wide range of other things that have gone as anticipated, or if the bank is empty, not as expected. The most critical ones fall into two categories:
- Internal numbers. These are the numbers over which you have direct management control. They range from the costs of manufacturing and service input, to the overheads resulting from the costs associated with keeping the doors open every day. Inventories, cash conversion cycle time, capex and the timing and quantum of expected returns, personnel productivity, and many more consume cash and importantly for an SME, time.
- External numbers. Critically, these are the numbers around the behaviour of customers. They will vary depending on the product you are selling, but customer acquisition costs, referral rates, lifetime value, and repeat purchase rates will all directly impact on the cash in your bank account. They also should include some consideration of the market context, trends, competitor assessments, and regulatory considerations.
Importantly, and often overlooked until too late is the most fundamental number of all: Sales revenue. None of the above is the slightest bit relevant un the absence of revenue. Go after it early and hard!!
There you go, 50 years of hard-won wisdom in a 5 minute read. Call me when you need more.
Feb 28, 2025 | Marketing, Strategy
‘Find a niche and own it’ has been a mantra of mine for years.
SME’s who have done this can do very well.
What it implies is that you have gone out and found those few people who overvalue what you do very well.
Defining what you do better than anyone else is the start.
You do not have to be the best in the world, you just have to be the best available to your ideal customer. For many SME’s that is a geographic market, for others, it may be personal service, or a particular blend of coffee beans the delivers a specific flavour, every time when made by Tony the barista.
When you excel at something that a potential customer overvalues, that is a recipe for success. Price will become a secondary consideration.
My eldest son paid his way through university buying and selling guitars, and valves for amps. He knew guitars and their value, so was able to make a few bucks on the arbitrage. However, he knew valves to an extraordinary level of detail. His market was highly specialised Blues guitarists in Sydney, those few insisted on valve amps rather than the modern electronic units. They came to him explaining the sound they wanted from their amp, and Geoff would assemble a valve set that delivered. It was a very narrow, deep, and specialised market and price was never a determining factor.
As University neared completion, he had to ask himself if there was a market in the niche, rather than just a niche in the market. His conclusion, yes there was a market in the niche, but the infrastructure and investment necessary to make a real commercial go at it, rather than just be a side gig for a uni student was more than he was able to make. As a result, he wound it down, and got a ‘proper job’ after graduation.
Briggs and Stratton is one business that years ago identified, leveraged, and now owns a global niche for mobile, small capacity internal combustion engines designed for outdoor use. Lawn mowers, outboard motors, pumps, and mobile generators all use B&S motors, often supplied and branded with the end product. For example, Victor lawn mowers in Australia is a venerable brand. The motor is branded Victor, the engine is actually supplied by B&S.
As their markets ‘electrify’ power systems (engines and batteries) for mobile machinery, it remains to be seen if they can retain their position.
When you are the only solution to a burning problem, even when only a few have it, price becomes increasingly less relevant as the urgency of the problem increases.
The marketing challenge is to identify and highlight the problem to which your solution is the only one possible.
Header drawing by DALL-E
Feb 18, 2025 | Marketing
In a world of homogeneity, marketers that focus on delivering customer value via the ‘product P’ in the four P’s’ will win in the end.
The age of cost cutting the minutiae to drop a fraction more to the bottom line is over. As Zig Ziglar once said ‘when the crowd is zigging, you should zag’.
Years ago, as product manager for Fountain tomato sauce Management constantly pressured me to reduce costs. At the time Fountain was runaway market leader at premium prices In New South Wales and had solid share in Queensland and Victoria. The challenge to reduce costs came down to replacing the tomato content with something else that was cheaper. To reach the arbitrary reduction goals, we had to skip on tomatoes which represented about 60% of the ingredient cost, and 35% of Cost of Gods Sold.
We were skimming those tomato ingredient costs, compromising the product quality for what amounted to a few cents.
Over the years, cost-cutting had reduced Fountain to the point that it was no better and little different to the alternative products on the market. Fountain had maintained the ‘Rich Red Fountain Tomato sauce’ advertising position for 40 years, although it had become progressively untrue.
No ‘richer’, no more ‘red’ than any other tomato sauce on the market.
It had seemed to cost-cutters over the years that a slice off a cut loaf was never missed. Until, suddenly, the loaf was no longer of any differentiated value.
In frustration I asked the lab to make up a sample from the original recipe and put it into the latest taste-testing. The difference between the original recipe and the current one, before any further cuts, was dramatic. The panel, which included the MD chose the old recipe as being by far the best option.
While the planned round of cuts was shelved, no further move was made to restore the original recipe, and for being a smart-arse, my career opportunities were suddenly limited. Subsequently the combination of an ordinary product, and an eroding brand position resulted in Fountain becoming just another commodity product in a market it used to dominate.
That erosion of market position and long-term profitability could have been avoided by a very modest reinvestment in the product, and associated brand equity.
