The 2,000th StrategyAudit blog post

The 2,000th StrategyAudit blog post

 

2,000 posts published. A milestone, achievement, a joy.

I tried to do a count of the notes, links, ideas, half written posts, and completed but inadequate posts in my One-note files and gave up. It is in the 10’s of thousands, over 12 years (March 2009 was the first post) of scribbling, reading, thinking, feeding my curiosity. It looks like an idea to publishing ratio of about 1.5%. Yikes!!

A blog is a personal possession, something owned, that continues while the owner cares enough to do the work. Individual posts also have a life of their own. Posts published years ago are still generating pageviews every day. The old saying about newspapers being tomorrow’s fish wrappers does not apply to digital content, especially posts that are specific to a niche where people remain interested and engaged.

Learning from history is no less important for a blogger as it is for someone important.

There are numerous posts that are read often, that are old. I do not know who is reading them, and what if anything they are doing as a result, but the sheer number of times the same posts are opened indicates something useful.

Several have gone ‘viral’ if I use the term simply as a comparison to the averages I see, but in the grand scheme, are little more than a pinprick.

However, there are some lessons:

  • I am a much better scribbler than when I started, albeit still some distance from being a ‘writer.’ This has come with practice, study of others I admire, feedback, and sweat. I have learned to eliminate the beginner mistakes, which centre around clarity and certainty of meaning. Things like long sentences, using three words when one will do, and words that make me appear smart because they have lots of syllables.
  • When people read my musings, they do not get any artifice, or window dressing, they get me, and what I think, devoid of the trappings. Every word is original, every perspective mine, distilled over almost 70 years of life and 45 years of commercial experience. If nothing else, I have been consistent since the first post. When I look back, some of the early posts leave much to be desired, but others, many others, I am proud to have written and put out there for others to take away what they will.
  • While I do range widely, across business, politics, economics, and the occasional personal rant, the focus of the writing is for those running SME’s. Things I see that impact their lives and businesses. This brings them back, not all the time, not for every post, but regularly.
  • SEO is (relatively) unimportant. It is easy to be seduced by vanity measures of likes and even shares of posts, the feedstock of SEO. However, the real measure is the degree to which readers really engage with the posts and respond in a meaningful and thoughtful manner. I am a small, sole trader, without the funds, or indeed desire to be anything more. Readership has come one person at a time, over time. While it is important to do the simple things to give yourself the best chance at being found, spending lots on SEO in the absence of something useful and worthwhile to say, just makes more money for Google.
  • New shiny things while important at a point in time, are not important over the long haul. The value of a post on a topical issue that goes away quickly is limited, while the value of a post on an issue of long-lasting impact is, by definition, long lasting. The name of the thing is after all StrategyAudit, implying both long term and quantitative.
  • The pressure of the status quo is immense, it demands conformity, which is the antithesis of what is required for innovation. Those we need in organisations to question the status quo are labelled as troublemakers, or they are bypassed in one way or another. Most choose, sensibly, to be a part of the status quo, to conform. It enhances career, pay, status and privilege, why wouldn’t you? Because, at some point, good people look at themselves in the mirror and if they do not like what they see, they move on. In the war for talent, this is the worst possible outcome for the organisation. The solution for organisations is to explicitly encourage the weird, to seek out the outliers, those who do not take cover behind the barriers of the status quo and bureaucracy. Encourage them and make it comfortable for them to be different, to think differently. It is these people, along with the owners and managers of SME’s, to whom I direct this blog.
  • Headlines matter. David Ogilvy’s dictum that a headline represents 80% of your advertising expenditure applies equally to blog posts. A great, informative, value adding post with a lousy headline will do a dead cat bounce. By contrast, a modest post (hopefully not too many of them) with a great headline will generate more views, but little engagement. The challenge is to do both.
  • In an increasingly competitive market, people’s time and attention is the one truly non-renewable resource we have. At a networking event about a year ago, chatting to a small group of people I had not met before, one person was looking at me oddly. Later he asked, “Do you write the StrategyAudit blog’? When I answered in the affirmative, he told me he had been reading it for a decade and thanked me for the insights he had been able to glean. Until that moment, I never knew he existed, as he had not ‘engaged’ in any way, other than to read what I published, and occasionally he told me, share it amongst his networks.
  • There is no direct correlation between project commissions (sales) and the publishing date. It has never happened that someone contacts me and says here is an assignment based on a post you have just published. However, what has happened many times, is that after a conversation, I can follow up with a post on the key topics discussed, often several, written over time that address various aspects of the topic discussed. That establishes my level of knowledge and authority, and has led to many, if not most of the engagements over the years.
  • Any brand that believes it has any power to dictate to consumers will disappear, if it has not already. Power is firmly in the consumers hands, and it is the job of marketing to answer questions that emerge along the journey to a transaction and relationship. However, any marketer who believes that consumers want to have a relationship with their brands is soft in the head. Consumers do not care about your brand, only about what it can deliver, the problems it solves, so you need to be explicit about that.

 

How do so many get written?

I am often asked how it is that I produce so much, and so regularly.

My standard answer is that I am simply curious, and writing another blog post is a way to salve that curiosity. I see blog post everywhere, in the questions I am asked, in the stuff I read, and in the things that I think about, usually sparked by something unexpected, and unplanned.

After that, there seems to be a process that is fairly consistent.,

I record the thoughts, ideas, links, in any form they occur in One-Note. It is a library of random stuff broken into categories, of which there are now about thirty, including subcategories. Sometimes stuff gets lost, but it remains there, able to bob up, and the whole mess is searchable.

Every post goes through a process, usually several times as it is refined, often over an extended period. I have a thought that adds weight to something I have recorded before, so I find the original and add it.

At some point, the nascent post gathers clarity. The point it is making, and who that point may be of benefit to, it is then the process becomes serious, and editing occurs.

I try to use simple language, rather than displaying my vocabulary, and I try and use stories that illustrate and make the point. A relevant story, and often those are personal, are better than a page of statistics. Readers do not engage with stats, unless they happen to be a stats nerd, and very few of them read my stuff, but a story that makes a point and is personally relatable makes an impact.

I edit aggressively, trying to reduce the number of words, a task at which I often fail. I also always use the tools provided in Word to check spelling, punctuation, and structure, then when it seems OK, I have the ‘read’ tool read the text back to me, often many times as more edits emerge. At that point, the post is stuck in a ready to post folder, in which it may live for some time before it seems ‘ready’ enough to be published.

What I do not do, which is pretty dumb, is follow the stats of posts in any more detail than at a macro level. You see, they are for me, they are selfish. Writing makes me better at what I do, as it forces clarity and structure in my mind, if someone else benefits, great, but the object has become selfish.

How is StrategyAudit differentiated from the millions of others?

Many blog posts out there are written with the explicit objective of generating income from a transaction of some type. It often seems like good stuff to someone just looking for advice and input, and it can be. Problem is that the advice is often untested, and almost certainly untested in the context of the person seeking the advice. This makes it at best, fragile. I get ideas and perspectives from all sorts of sources, the books read, the conversations I have, the blog posts I read, webinars I watch. Each of those titbits ‘feeds’ OneNote, acting as a general information resource. Nowhere in the StrategyAudit blog is there a call to action for any sort of transaction, no affiliate sales, no ads. If I recommend a book, it is because I think it is worth your time. The only benefit to me is that I may have contributed to someone else’s growth, someone I will never know existed, but nevertheless, I contributed in some small way.

The things I write about are all things I have done. I am not speculating about what might work, the things reflected in the posts are things that I have experienced, it is a toolbox, but everything has its place in the box, and each tool has a specific purpose, a context in which it is best used. Never do I set out to deliver something that I cannot do to an expert level. For example, I often have people wanting me to execute the plans to leverage social media. I know how to use all the tools, but I am not an expert, I do not have the skills to optimise the spending of your money. I know and understand the principals, know which tools to use, but then choose to get an expert to execute.

StrategyAudit plays the long game. It is wrong to think of a post as being tomorrow’s fish wrapper. There are many posts that have taken on a life over many years, every day they deliver people to the posts, and then to others. The longevity of a blog post is a surprise to most, certainly it was to me. The great benefit is that it becomes clear what topics my readers are interested in, so I tend to focus my thinking on those topics.

I also admit to several hobby horses: the paucity of thinking around the funding and organisation of education, the shambolic nature of our politics and the apparent absence of any real oversight, transparency, or moral compass. My views on these are mixed in with the observations and advice that hopefully make the StrategyAudit blog useful for small and medium businesses, particularly those manufacturing a product.

What is the value of a blog?

A single blog, not much, in the absence of something truly extraordinary. It is the accumulation of the knowledge that comes from researching and writing posts where the value lies hidden.

Einstein observed the compounding was the most powerful force in the universe, he was right, and it applies to everything, including blog posts. The caveat of course is that every post must be of value to someone, and compounding is a two-edged sword, working in reverse as well as forward.

Is blogging still relevant in the digital ecosystem that has expanded in an astonishing manner? Well, yes. At least in my view. Despite the numerous new channels, and more opening every day, the discipline of a blog is a value adding activity which can be leveraged onto other channels.

There are many ways you can make money from a blog, at least a successful one with longevity. Not only can a blog lead to consulting assignments, speeches, and accumulated wisdom assembled into a book, there are other opportunities. None of the following tactics have been used: Advertising, affiliate links, sponsored posts, product sales, simply because they pollute the intent of the writing. The reality is that you only make worthwhile money with a big following, which this blog does not have. The price for selling my soul to any of these so called ‘monetisation strategies’ is nowhere near big enough, and never will be.

 

Some predictions.

Years of intimately observing the changing competitive, strategic, and regulatory environment, leaves you with a set of parameters by which to make judgements and predictions of those future things that are unquantifiable, until they have happened. Marketers are charged with predicting the future so that they can enable the alignment of assets of their enterprise to best generate leverage and outcomes. Therefore, predicting the future and placing bets is a part of the responsibility. So, here goes, in no particular order:

Hyperconnected but lonely. We have become the most connected population in history. We have also become the loneliest, losing the connections to small groups that ensured survival as we evolved. This downward spiral will reach ‘bottom,’ and we will find new ways to reconnect with small groups that offer the physical and psychological safety we need. While we have become hyperconnected and lonely, we have also become polarised, driven by the echo chamber of digital platforms that have emerged. I remain optimistic, that the ‘reconnection’ will reverse this disturbing trend.

Digital currencies will create an existential threat to the existing Sovereign borders. There are many ‘crypto currencies’, and hundreds more will be created by anyone with the digital grunt, and ability to create a market for them. Facebook seems publicly to have backed away from its announced ‘Libra’ digital currency, and associated payment and trading enhancements. However, given the reach of Facebook, and the potential of ‘Fintech’ to disrupt the cash generation capacity of ‘pre-digital’ business models, (banks & insurance specifically) I suspect it will re-emerge in some form. Irrespective of the involvement of Facebook, or indeed, any of the other ‘digital unicorns’ the potential for crypto currencies to change the face of commerce and the fiscal health of sovereign economies is, in my view, significant. We had best be prepared.

Social media regulation. It is probable we will see some sort of regulation of social platforms. Twitters recent decision to ban all political advertising is at absolute odds with Facebooks hypocritical position that to do so is an invasion of free speech. I detect an increasing level of public disquiet, so at some point, years too late, regulators will bumble towards regulation of social platforms. The recent Australian experiment which remains legislated, to collect money from digital platforms to keep newspapers alive is an absolute dog, and will be, hopefully, repealed, and replaced by something sensible.

Ageing population. The population of the first world is getting older, and more expensive to keep alive, while the number of people generating taxable income reduces. This creates pressure for a substantial reordering of the status quo in the broad range of industries called ‘health and aged care’. There are numerous models around the world, some work better than others, but all hide enormous inefficiencies and inequity that will become the focus of much innovative attention. The consortium of Amazon, JP Morgan, and Berkshire-Hathaway, set up to address the challenge, closed in early 2021 after 3 years of operations. The managers cited data collection and aggregation as the central obstacle. Given the nature of innovation, I suspect this consortium which burnt $100 million, petty cash to these giants, is just the first experimental foray into the jungle of regulation and self-interest that drives profitability in this huge industry. More will follow.

Climate change is not an opinion. We need to recognise in our marketing activities and positioning, that climate change is a reality. Irrespective of what the dinosaurs running the place may think, the science demonstrates clearly otherwise. The Greta Thunberg’s of this world will be running it soon and will reasonably expect my generation to have made a start on saving the place as best we can.

Customer centricity. You must now be customer centric in everything, as it is the customers who have all the power in the lead up to a transaction. No longer just talking about it but making customers the reason for every activity. This exchange of power in the purchase process will not be reversed. If anything, it will leak into our wider social and political lives, and demand change. In a word, ‘transparency’ will become the objective, and the more it is denied by the status quo and vested interests, the nastier the argument will become.

Artificial Intelligence. Machine learning of various types will continue its march into marketing decision making. Machine learning (ML) is a subset of artificial intelligence, relies on progressive ‘learning’ from trial and error, which delivers increasingly accurate interpretations and predictions against a defined goal. As more data becomes available and is subject to the algorithms, the predictions become increasingly more accurate. ML is a valuable tool when the objective is clear. It is less effective when the objective ambiguous or morally complex. For example, self-driving cars must gain approval from stakeholders outside the data, regulators, insurance companies, and others. In addition, it must be capable of making moral decisions, such as ‘will I collide with that old man or that child’ when no other option but those two is available. We have a long way to go yet, but the advent of quantum computing over the next 20 years will be a game-changer.

Digital access. Around 35% of people on the planet do not have access to the internet, for an array of reasons. Often the infrastructure is not in place, or affordable to those effectively ‘net disenfranchised’ billions of people. Over the coming years this inequity will be addressed, probably by private enterprise. This huge cohort represents the largest opportunity to level the growing inequity in the distribution of wealth on the planet.

The successful become the victims. Success means others will copy what has made you successful. However, to be attractive, you must be sufficiently different to attract attention, and revenue from those who lead the success. It seems to me that this means that the newcomers will look for a segment in a market being served by the initially successful innovator, into which they can deliver a better outcome. There are many examples, Skype, the first mover, has attracted a host of competitors that have delivered growth for themselves and the total market by focussing on a niche and delivering a better outcome than Skype. PayPal has spurred a welter of Fintech innovation, as has YouTube. Locally, it seems to me that the two dominating real estate platforms, Realestate and Domain, are in for a rough time, as competitors emerge that do a better job in specific segments, as well as adding on other services like funding.

The Chinese second long march is digital. China has jumped a couple of generations of digital evolution, and across broad fronts are now the innovators, pushing aside Silicon Valley. Tencent, WeChat, Taobao, Alibaba are all part of an ecosystem that is combining online and offline in ways not seen before. Get used to it, our grandchildren will be living in a world where China has taken the preeminent position occupied by the US in the 20th century. Their system will evolve, history suggests that social and political change comes from the middle classes. China has done an astonishing job in lifting millions from abject poverty to middle class security in a generation, and therein lies the seeds of the changes that will become necessary. The outcome is unlikely to be anything resembling too closely the current so called ‘Democratic’ west, which for the opposite reasons has its own evolution happening, as the divide between the haves and have nots increases.

Surveillance: Is it creepy/scary/intrusive, or just another way to better deliver service. Every click on a website, social platform, email, is stored and used to target you for advertising, based on behaviour. Rapidly emerging is facial recognition, voice control, adding to the data points. At what point does this become dystopian rather than a means by which to serve us better. All these developments are by either robotic engineering people, who instinctively believe machines are better than the humans at decision making, as they are less messy, and more decisive. Those who do wish to build control over the activities of individuals, Putin, rocket man, various mullahs, and others will also continue to deploy surveillance until there is a general revulsion that creates momentum for rolling back, which in some places could be bloody.

The role of brands. The brands we grew up with, which were mostly consumer brands are largely dead, killed by house brands, price, global supply chains, and lack of any emotional connection. A few have survived. Those few are the few that have built a genuine connection that is more than just a brand, it is the transparent commitment of the owning body that is the core. Those few are immensely valuable in a world where ‘intangibles’ is increasing towards 90% of the valuation of a business.

In Australia, banks and large financial institutions have trashed their brands, which offers a huge opportunity for renewal by smaller community banks and ‘Fintech’. It seems to me that ‘Fintech’ is taking over in the absence of agility by the incumbent banks, which will lead to regulatory challenges. Similarly, energy companies, what an opportunity to invest in a transparent manner in renewables, measures to mitigate climate change, long term investments that lead us to trust the corporation behind the brand. Dairy companies in Australia all have brands, but they are owned by multinationals apart from Bega and Norco. Again, what an opportunity to leverage the ownership of those enterprises as the holder of Australian values, as the opposing brands are just labels owned for the benefit of someone else.

Relative economic growth rates. Experts predicted a world pandemic, with the benefit of hindsight it was a safe prediction given the number of times it has happened before. Question is, how will this shape the post pandemic world? My bet is that the debt that has accumulated in the west, together with the evolution of crypto currencies and the reshaping of global demographics will see the relative decline of today’s successful economies and the rise of those in Asia and Africa. They are currently less constrained by debt, ageing infrastructure, sunk costs and a resilient status quo. They will undergo an increasing level of education and gain low-cost digital accessibility which will drive their relative productivity improvement to catch up with the old West.

That is enough from me. If you have read all this, thank you. It has been a bit self-indulgent, but it is StrategyAudit’s coming of age, so why not?

Has the evolution of marketing been sufficient for sustained success?

Has the evolution of marketing been sufficient for sustained success?

 

If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.

On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.

There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market.  So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of todays fish wrapper from yesterdays newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.

There is a welter of research, and opinion that confirms the notion that marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations. Most however have a dog in the fight.

I asked myself the question again, after a  stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes it has changed’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.

Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create, and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just a decade ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.

Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, chief marketing Officer, Chief Engagement officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles.

The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not previously present, but still reporting functionally.

Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all.

The role of marketing is to tell the future, and then to adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.

The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.

In the past, marketing was a relatively passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table, which demands that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.

Look at it from the other perspective.

Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.

It has changed somewhat organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.

Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares, tactics are just that, short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is generally limited in the short term.

The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this status, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, and drive that priority by removing the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, which are not directly accountable to marketing.

Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more, as they are the future tellers. Those who generally occupy that office are the engineers and accountants who are really good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.

Who is next in your corner office?

 

 

The money is not in the list.

The money is not in the list.

 

Every second self-appointed digital marketing guru who offers to help me, making the offer in a mass email, proves the point in the headline.

They have a list, bought from somewhere claiming to have a ‘relationship’ of some sort with me. However, they still manage to spell my name, or that of my business incorrectly, are mistaken about what my business delivers, or make exorbitant claims about what they can do for me. There are many ways to demonstrate they know nothing about me, my business, or the sorts of challenges I face. ‘Spammy’ emailers seem to find them all.

The money is not in the list.

The money is in the message.

Had they delivered an offer to my inbox that might be of interest, I may have read it, and you never know, taken it up. However, being specific requires work, and the tailoring of the message towards the pain points uncovered by that work.

Doing the work means the collection of data, building a profile of the me and my business, presumably falling into the bucket of ‘ideal customer’ for the specific product being sold. They must ensure there is alignment between the problem the product seeks to solve, the pain points being felt, and the communications being sent. Failing in any one of these means the email recipient falls into the 99.9% who make the 0.1% success rate possible.

Again, the money is in the message, not in the list.

Header cartoon credit: Dilbert and Scott Adams. Again. (Sorry, could not resist that one)

 

 

 

The 11 reasons so much marketing is crap.

The 11 reasons so much marketing is crap.

 

I have been at this ‘marketing’ game a long time, long enough to know that the bits you see, as a customer, prospective customer, or just by accident, are only the tip of the iceberg.

For many so-called marketers, what you see is the whole iceberg, they are ignorant, wilfully, or otherwise of the underlying factors that go into making a success of the process of ‘marketing’.

Despite the market research, social tracking, customer satisfaction measurement, and all the other stuff that we can do, the customer is often ignored.

Why is it so??

  • There is little ‘fit’ between the market and the product/service being offered. This is usually because there is no ‘seat in the boardroom’ for customers. This should be the responsibility of the marketing people, but they so often revert to cliches and fluffy qualitative assertions that they are ignored. I really like the practice of Amazon, where there is an empty chair in every meeting, signifying the customer.

 

  • Products are designed back to front. Businesses assemble the resources they have available, and build products they think customers will buy, rather than identifying customer problems and working backwards to assemble the resources that solve them.

 

  • Marketing is usually seen as a subordinate function.  The heads of the accounting, engineering, and operational functions are more likely to wield corporate influence than marketing. Partly this is the fault of marketers, who have systemically failed to speak the language of the boardroom. Marketing, which is about the future, tends to speak ‘qualitative’ whole other functions are all about the past, and can speak authoritative ‘quantitative’. This difference makes them more believable, as our brains like the certainty of quantitative. Partly also it is a failure of leadership. How many CEO’s are you aware of that have ‘marketing’ as their core skill?

 

  • KPI’s rarely involve customer metrics of any value. I am a huge fan of tracking performance, but measures that do not relate to the manner in which the job done satisfies customers is a metric that is only looking internally. Some are necessary, but most are not, in my experience. Then, you see the occasional customer metric touted, and it is the number of likes on a social platform, vanity measures that again mean nothing. In fact, such measures are worse than nothing, they are misleading.

 

  • Marketers by their nature are looking forward. This tends to enable them to be blinded by the newest shiny thing that emerges. This constant response to the shiny object serves to erode any focus and consistency of brand building, customer awareness and loyalty. When you are constantly moving around from video to podcasts, clubhouse, Tik Tok, and all the rest, you become hard to follow.

 

  • Poor key strategically important customer definition. Too often marketers are unable to focus on the niches where the really powerful returns hide. The old cliché that you cannot be all things to all people prevails. The more important to the few who will buy your products and nothing else you are, the better. The temptation however to try and broaden the appeal, just a bit, to get a few more customers just dilutes the power of the value proposition.

 

  • Innovation is messy, suboptimal, and experimental. Marketing and strategic development, whether it be of product, brand, customer groups, geographies, always has significant elements of trial and error, risk, and the inevitable failures. In enterprises that run on continuous improvement and optimising processes, this ‘messiness’ is unacceptable, and so is minimised. The result is the evolution of the enterprise stalls for lack of innovation, and marketing cops the blame. The corollary is that marketers are intimidated by their KPI’s and the status quo, into not making waves, so are always playing safe. This results in bland, undifferentiated marketing that has little impact.

 

  • Marketers are not often the smartest people in the room. It seems to me to be a sad fact that this is often the case. From the outside, marketing looks easy, so those who do not seek or are unable to make the grade into professional training often seem to gravitate to marketing. Of the outstanding marketers I have seen and hired, many seem to come from a professional background. Scientists, lawyers, accountants, engineers, looking for something that values their creativity in bigger doses than their first profession. Running a marketing function in a large company for some time, I always went looking for these people when hiring, although it did take me some time to figure it out.

 

  • Marketers fail to engage the other functions that are critical to success. Marketing is the only function that needs the co-operation of others over whom they have no functional control, to be successful. While this is a great test of leadership, it most often ends in tears. How often have you seen an operations manager whose KPI’s are all about factory efficiency, take a hit because the marketing manager wants to do a factory trial of something the ‘Ops’ people regard as a fantasy?

 

  • The pace of superficial change is faster now than ever before. However, human behaviour does not change easily. The tools we use are becoming like our underwear. The reasons we wear underwear do not change, but the brands, types, cuts, and colours of the underwear we buy can change easily. This profound difference is most often shovelled under the carpet, kicked away by the seeming attraction of an apparent change in short term choices we make, which are at odds with the underlying drivers of behaviour. The unfortunate added outcome of this is a dilution of the creative impact of advertising communication. When you have to produce volumes of ‘content’ on a short term timetable, the impact of that communication is necessarily diluted. We fail to give the creative part of the communication process sufficient time to generate the attention and magnetism required in a frenzied world of fragmented communication.

 

  • DIY syndrome. Marketing, like everything else has become increasingly fragmented, and specialised. No one person can cover all the required bases, any more than a doctor can be a specialist in more than one narrow niche of medicine. Yet many fail to recognise the competitive necessity of engaging specialists for specialist tasks. This can be addressed in large companies by very specific job descriptions and skills of those employed, but in SME’s, it requires often expensive specialists to be engaged on an ‘as needed’ basis.

The good news is that all these shortcomings can be overcome. The bad news is that it takes large doses of experience, leadership, and time, to do so

Header cartoon credit: www.TomGauld.com in New Scientist.

Where is the SKAM in Marketing and Sales

Where is the SKAM in Marketing and Sales

 

In many major companies, there has been a number of new positions created in the last decade to try and accommodate the changes in the strategic and competitive environment.

Among them has been the ‘Chief Revenue Officer’ (CRO)

In some cases, this reflects the need for increased collaboration and sometimes convergence of marketing and sales. In others, it is just the fashion, the latest management fad.

This seems to be particularly the case in businesses where another of those-acronym driven fads has evolved, ABM, (Account Based Marketing)

The barriers to the integration of Marketing and Sales are high, and deeply set into the functional status quo of most organisations, and highly resistant to change. However, the emergence of digital tools has accelerated the trend, and the recent Covid challenges have been a catalyst for further and quicker evolution than would otherwise have been the case.

For years I have been advocating ‘Alignment’ of marketing and sales to the needs of specific customers, and the ways to achieve that outcome.

Removing the Marketing and Sales labels has proved to be useful to the integration. The emerging combined function recognises that the responsibility of each is simply Revenue Generation, or ‘RevGen’

The first substantial consulting assignment I had 25 years ago introduced my client, a domestically owned multinational supplier of ingredients to the food industry, to Strategic Key Account Management. (SKAM)

We went through a process of identifying the specific needs of key customers, and tailored our marketing and sales effort, to the expressed and often jointly uncovered needs of customers, with whom we engaged in the process.

Those workshops and subsequent implementation efforts are as relevant now as they were 25 years ago, probably more so. It is now just a component of Revenue Generation, a descriptor of the best way to make profits by delivering value to customers.

The core assumption of SKAM is that that only by doing one or more of the following, could we be successful.

      • Assisting our customers to increase their sales,
      • Actively reducing their costs,
      • Increasing their productivity.

We set ourselves the task of identifying how we could achieve at least one of those three things, preferably two, and focussed our efforts on delivering those outcomes.

Predictably, it was a successful initiative, customers loved the collaboration. Inventory levels reduced, as customer service levels and responsiveness increased, generating increased trading profits.

Perhaps it was too successful, as the business was then sold by its parent company, at a very high multiple to a multinational competitor.

Should housebrands be illegal?

Should housebrands be illegal?

 

Retailer ‘brands’ have taken a huge toll on the ability of proprietary marketers to profitably market their brands and build markets in FMCG.

A proprietary marketer may spend several years and make a huge investment in product R&D, market research, advertising and listing fees in various forms in order to get a product on shelf. They carry all the risk in this exercise.

Retailers carry no risk beyond the inventory risk when they choose to stock a new product. That inventory risk would normally be mitigated by the supplier, at least partially in the deal to secure initial shelf space.

Retailers have at their disposal detailed information about the performance of every product on their shelves. Volumes, margins, behavioural data such as what consumers have in the same basket, what products have been removed by consumers from their basket, and price sensitivity and elasticity.

Based on this information, they can reverse engineer formulations, and have a contract manufacturer supply a direct copy very quickly, with very little risk.

An innovative proprietary product will normally be supported by advertising, which will also often benefit the housebrand product.

If a small manufacturer copied a product and launched it into the market, perhaps via alternative channels, the proprietary marketer may have the option of legal action for passing off. It is illegal to mislead consumers, yet this is happening every day on supermarket shelves, in the name of choice.

It seems a different set of rules applies to the major retailers who have all the power in the relationships.

Over the time I have been watching FMCG markets, the level of investment in product R&D, and brand building has declined substantially. Many brands that had created and built markets have virtually disappeared. The investments previously made in product and brand growth  have been directed towards retailer profits, and to be fair, consumers have benefitted by lower prices in some product categories. The downside is the lack of innovation and category building which delivers benefits over the long term, that has occurred as a result.

I do not have an easy answer to the dilemma faced by marketers, and it would be suicide for any manufacturer to sue Coles or Woollies for passing off a housebrand, but in an idle moment, it may be a question worth asking?