Jul 1, 2020 | Branding, Marketing
My go to marketing guru, Albert Einstein said: ‘Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, and relocated’. This has become known as the first rule of thermodynamics.
Perhaps ‘Value’ has a similar characteristic?
Recently I needed to buy a pair of sunglasses. I wanted polarised ones, that sat on my nose easily, and did not look ‘dorky,’ whatever dorky is. I went to a specialist sunglasses retailer in a shopping centre near where I live. The cheapest that met my very broad specifications was over $150. Too much, so I went into a pharmacy a few doors away that had sunglasses, and bought a perfectly good pair of polarised, non dorky glasses for $30.
My instinctive reaction was that the specialist retailer was a rip off merchant, but on reflection, he was not catering to mean old buggars like me, he was catering to the young hip crowd, who saw value in the brand name, and fancy curving design. There was value for them in the extra $120, the value of being seen in an expensive pair of sunnies, the feeling it gave them of being able to pay that much for something to sit on next week,
The value was not counted in the dollars, it was in another set of forms, ones I did not value in this instance.
There is some sort of scale in our heads that measures ‘value’ to us, which will differ for each individual, and set of circumstances. The scale goes from the pure utility derived from the product, to an entirely emotive response.
The specialist retailer was not selling just sunnies, they were selling a feeling, and a sales experience, the street cred that comes from an expensive brand. The sense of ‘value’, whatever it may be made up of, makes the extra $120 for some, a good investment. That feeling comes from the context of the sale in the specialist retailer, combined with the investment made by the brand owners in building their own ‘brand story’.
In every purchase there is a trade-off between pure utility, and the price paid. The point of intersection is the value a buyer sees in that purchase at that time. A brand is the carrier of that value.
The pharmacist who got my money was just supplying me with the utility of sunnies. I wanted only to keep the glare of the sun out of my eyes, branding added no emotional value at that time, the value to me was entirely in the utility.
Jun 25, 2020 | Branding, Communication, Customers
Kids understand stories, it is the way they learn, the way they absorb the lessons of the past for later use.
Why don’t we use this instinctive capability more often in our marketing?
Take your kids to the pantomime, they love it.
They get excited every time the villain comes on stage. They boo, yell warnings to the hero, and hop up and down in frustration when the hero looks around as the villain hides.
Why does this matter?
When building a brand, you have to make choices. Who is your brand for, and just as importantly, who is it not for?
If you can explicitly state who your brand is not for, then those for whom it is for, will rally around and support it against the villain.
Simple stuff, hidden in the instinctive responses in our brains.
Watch your kids at the panto, and learn how to build a brand.
Define the villain, and the kids will cheer for you.
Jun 22, 2020 | Analytics, Customers, Marketing
One of the questions occupying my newly monastic mind over the past few weeks has been: ‘what changes can we expect in the revenue generation processes as a result of the ‘Bug?’.
In the lead up to this crisis, I have been considering how automated everything was becoming, at the expense of humanity.
There is an inherent conflict between the centralising force that is the ‘Martech’ (marketing technology) automated decision making processes, and the front line sales function. Martech investment requires that a range of decisions to buy and install various combinations of software be made that automates a selling relationship. The decentralised nature of the sales front line does not benefit from such automation, as people still prefer to buy from people, particularly in cases where the investment is large, or there is an emotional element to the purchase.
To my mind, it has become too clinical and automated in most large businesses. This creates opportunities for smaller businesses whose niche is perhaps more clearly defined, and who lack the resources and capability to leverage an integrated ‘Martech stack’.
The Bug has brought the question to the fore.
On one hand, we are now compelled by circumstances to interact using the digital tools, but there is a steep learning curve for many, and SME’s are rapidly discovering their capability shortcomings. On the other, human contact will become more valuable than ever, and those same SME’s may be in a better position than most large companies to be ‘Human’.
Where on the scale does your business fit?
Jun 19, 2020 | Marketing, Strategy
‘The bug’ has given us a once in a generation opportunity to make change. Things that may not have been possible, have suddenly become not just possible, but necessary.
While most of the focus is automatically on cutting costs, the greater long term benefit is in the optimising of current expenditure. Arbitrarily cutting costs, as often happens in extreme circumstances, always results in throwing out a few babies with the bathwater.
Revenue generation, the combination of sales and marketing budgets, is usually the first to feel the knife when times get tough.
However rather than just ‘cutting’ across the board, or making the obvious decisions by cutting the biggest items first, consider the opportunity to optimise, and how this will deliver cost savings. More importantly, such an exercise can increase the productivity and long term impact of the investments you make, as well as reducing costs.
Classifying all expenditure into ‘buckets’ so that you can then allocate a weight to their relative value, and concentrate on those from which you can extract productivity increases, is a sensible first step.
All expenses can be classified in two major axes:
- Fixed to variable or discretionary expenses. Those that are not able to be reduced or improved, to the extreme of expenses which are entirely discretionary, such as media spend.
- The second axis is tactical to strategic. The short term expenditure which can reasonably be expected to deliver a return in a very short term, to the other end of the scale, the strategic expenditures which are normally those that appear to be in the ‘important but not urgent’ pile.
The manner in which you go about optimising your expenditure will be a function of your competitive context, the financial and strategic position you are in, and the strategic priorities in place. It will also reflect the attitude of the person delivering the instructions. Therefore, it is also a measure of your effectiveness at arguing the role that investment in marketing has to the health of the enterprise.
Your fixed marketing costs are items like employee costs, marketing software licences, retainers paid to service providers, and are often overlooked, or just cut arbitrarily. In the absence of a critical review, mistakes will be made.
Discretionary costs are often heavily weighted towards media, and they are very easy to cut. This will deliver a short term cost saving while often compromising the commercial sustainability of the enterprise.
History shows us that those who continue investing thoughtfully in the tough times, benefit hugely as the better times return.
When instructed to cut costs, do so with an intensive focus on the relative revenue and margin generating productivity of the cost you are about to cut, and to the long term impact that will have on the enterprise.
May 25, 2020 | Customers, Marketing
Settling on a pricing mechanism for your products and services is a profoundly important element in a successful enterprise, but is often the last thing done.
Ask a few people internally, go and see what others are doing, or just add a margin to your costs and out you go, all of which will result in a less than optimal revenue/margin mix.
Settling on a strategically driven price is really fundamental to financial success.
When should I tell them the price?
My general advice is an old saying mumbled to me by my key mentor as a young bloke: ‘He who mentions price first, loses‘. ‘Anchoring‘ is a key concept in a sales conversation, reflected in this adage. In consumer products, this is cannot always be the case, walk into any supermarket, and the price is there for all to see, so our options are limited, as we have lost control of the conversation. That conversation happens in the buyers office, where there is usually an imbalance of power in any event. However, in B2B, we generally have control over price, so we can manage the conversation, in which case, the old saying holds. Psychologically, it feeds into another old, and often repeated saying, this time from Warren Buffett: ‘Price is what they pay, Value is what they remember’. Therefore, it makes sense that you allow the buyer to reflect on the value they will get by a purchase, and then price accordingly. On line, this is now being controlled by algorithms that look at your history, the history of those like you, product availability, and a host of other individually tiny, but cumulatively significant factors, and set the price quoted accordingly.
Should I have standard prices?
Are all your customers prepared to pay the same price? No, so consideration of differential price packaging should be a core part of your strategy. The challenge is how to apply differential pricing while retaining control of your price list. The most common categories of differences are demographics, geography and volume. Your local wine shop has trouble competing with the big chains, because they buy a few cases, delivered into their back dock, while the chains buy a few truckloads delivered into a central location for redistribution on retail demand. This increases their stock turn, by minimising pockets of slow moving stock, reducing average cost.
How many price options should I have?
Do not give each customer any more than three price options. Our minds tend to get overwhelmed by too many choices, three is the optimum. Those three options should be clearly articulated with the differences in value that is delivered by each. This strategy is almost universally used for on line sales of software services. They all use the three columns, with varying added services for an increased price.
In which order should I show price options?
Show the highest price first. Often this is counter intuitive, as the instinct of many sellers is to go low in order to ensure they secure the sale, which almost always leaves money on the table. It is way easier to go high, as you then have room to come down while perhaps removing pieces of the value offering that do not add value to the buyer, or that cost you nothing to remove, but seems to be a concession. By contrast, by going in low, you have nowhere left to go if the buyer is looking for ‘more’.
Should I show shipping costs?
No. Instead, shout ‘Free shipping’ which is a powerful motivator. ‘Free’ is one of the most psychologically strong motivating words, so use it by including shipping costs in your price. Amazon has used this strategy to devastating effectiveness by offering an annual subscription that enables free shipping via Amazon Prime, now in over 50% of US households. It also adds a distribution channel for other services, such as video streaming
How can I manage competitor pricing?
You cannot, you do not live in a vacuum, competition is a reality of commercial life. However, concentrating on the value of your offer rather than just the price will deliver the best results. Every purchase decision made has a context, winning just because you are the cheapest is a good way to go broke.
How do I manage price increases?
Carefully, but offering notice of a price increase is both proactive as a means of simply being courteous to your customers, and as a deadline by which they must purchase in order to get the current price. This can act as a powerful call to action.
Another of Warren Buffett’s quips is: If you have to have a prayer meeting before you put your prices up 10%, you have a lousy business’
The final word is that not every deal, not even those that seem to be ‘in the bag’, will come to fruition. The reason stated will often be ‘price,’ but that is rarely the whole story. Politely probing for the real reasons and learning from them for the next time, is a core part of the task of a quality sales process.
May 15, 2020 | Branding, Marketing, Strategy
The single word that delivers sustainable profitability.
That single word used to be
‘Brand’, but no longer, despite the role of
intangibles in the market valuation of an enterprise.
With the tectonic changes in business models over the last 25 years, it seems the focus has moved to ‘Control‘. This change applies even when considering the legacy business models of the last century that are being renovated to meet the demands of this century.
You can tell the value of your brands, and intangibles more generally, if you look at your balance sheet and apply an ‘industry standard’ multiple to net assets. The difference between that number, and the saleable price of the business is the value of your intangibles. If it is a public company, the market value is simply the current stock price, but more complicated if the enterprise is not listed. However, the accountants will tell you there are benchmarks depending on the industry and your position in it. Their valuation will usually be a single figure multiple of the free cash flow, plus the recoverable value of assets.
That calculation simply does not compute with the stratospheric valuations of the successful tech companies around, or the volatility of their stock prices, so something is missing.
A few of the ‘old industry’ businesses with deep branding, also defy that quantitative logic, but not many. P&G’s Tide detergent in the US, Vegemite here in Australia, Coca Cola, and a few others defy, for the moment, the trend to homogeneity.
The common theme amongst those whose valuations defy the accountants calculations, largely the ‘new age’ unicorns, is captured by that single word: Control.
They all have some level of control over the value chain that reaches the end customer.
Remember Netscape? It was the original web browser that delivered smooth browsing to web walkers. It was sensationally successful, paving the way for the web trawling we all now just accept as a normal part of life. Killed off by Microsoft, who at that time had a virtual monopoly over peoples PC’s via MS Office. Microsoft simply bundled Explorer into Office, free, and whammo, Netscape is dead. Microsoft controlled the distribution channel, so was able to squeeze out Netscape.
Domestically, the NSW dairy industry used to be a regulated monopoly, delivering monopoly power to the designated processors via control of the distribution channels, supposedly for social reasons. That monopoly ensured that there was no innovation, and nothing that would disturb the comfortable monopoly was allowed, until economic logic shone through, and deregulation occurred. In a day, deregulation demolished the control the processors had over distribution, and handed it over to those with the control of the channels: supermarket retailers.
That sudden change, for which the processors were largely unprepared despite years of warning, led to the current situation where there are now no domestically controlled dairy processing companies of any real scale.
Spotify, a genuinely innovative platform that has changed, again, the way we obtain our music, relies on Apple for its distribution via the Apple App store. It seems Apple is actively pushing Apple music, so the future of Spotify must be at huge risk, unless they can find a way to gain control of their distribution channel. Apple will squeeze them to death over time, and take not just the subscription revenue from the consumer, but also squeeze down the royalty payments to the music creators at the other end, building monopoly margins.
Nice work if you can get it!
Supermarket retailers around the world have played the same game for ages, nowhere better than Australia, where the two gorillas control somewhere around 70% of FMCG sales to consumers. Proprietary brands have all but disappeared, and most of those that remain have little real value, as the customers have been taught to buy on price by the retailers house brands. This has squeezed proprietary margins by restricting access to the consumers.
Monopolies are great, when you are the monopolist, oligopolies are almost as good, and when you reach unstated arrangements with the other oligopolist, the margins are terrific. Just look at Australia’s banks, who collectively are the most profitable in the world as a % of GDP. Their profits are boosted by the lack of competition, and small regulated number, while their duty of care to customers becomes almost irrelevant, despite their protestations to the contrary. Let’s not talk about Australian petrol retailing, another example of profitable oligopoly control.
Amazon controls a huge chunk of the on line market by direct access to consumers. Third party products sold via Amazon that are successful find themselves faced with Amazon branded competitors very quickly, as Amazon knows more about your financials than you do, and controls the relationship with customers. They will suck out the margins, competitive advantage and shareholder value.
The lesson: build vertical control of your distribution channels into your business model.
In years to come, there will be no alternative.
It will be expensive, and risky, and certainly different to the model those of us over 40 grew up with, but that is the new world of vertical competition we now live in.
