Mar 17, 2014 | Communication, Governance, Management
Trust is a word that keeps on coming up, everywhere.
Increasingly in a complicated world we are looking for those we can trust, to do business with, to have as friends, or just to share a cup of coffee.
I have just completed a project of chain re-engineering that did not deliver all the hoped for outcomes, but during the debrief process, the word “trust” and its foundations that in this case proved to be a bit fragile, loomed large. Similarly, a friend of mine is selling her house, retiring to the south coast, and she appointed an agent from a small number in her local area, and as it happens, one of the unsuccessful bidders was also a friend of mine, someone who I would get to sell my house, when the time is right, because I trust her.
Got me thinking about the components of trust.
It seems there are four headline components, which is good for me as a consultant, as I can conjure up a quadrant and deliver it as a deep intellectual exercise. However, the reality is that it is common sense, just like most consultants quadrants, but common sense that paints a picture, that delivers a perspective, and makes you think.
- Engagement. You do not trust those with whom you have no experience, who have not earned that trust. You may think they are trustworthy, but would you confide your pin number to them?, there is a difference. Engagement of the type that generates trust happens over time, is a two way process shared equally by both parties, and is devoid of ambiguity and hidden agendas.
- Integrity. It becomes clear over time that the positive behaviour that builds trust is not just for the benefit of the chosen few, but is based on a “personal code” of some sort that extends to those not closely engaged. The individual or enterprise concerned consistently puts the interests of those with whom it interacts above its own short term interests, and it acts the same way to everybody, irrespective of their status. They “walk the talk,” always.
- Operational excellence. This sounds business-like, but is just as applicable to individuals. Summed up it simply means that they never over-promise and under-deliver, what you get is what you saw and at least what you expected, but usually is more than you could have reasonably hoped for.
- Fit for purpose. The product or service is the right one for the purpose for which it has been delivered, and there has been an effort to ensure that the purpose has been defined sufficiently by both parties to ensure that the product was the right one for the circumstances.
Back to my chain exercise. When I look at it dispassionately, the parties had insufficient opportunity and incentive to build the trust in each other that was necessary. Individually, they trusted me, as I knew them all, spent considerable time articulating the process, and have a history with several, but they did not know each other well enough to offer the real trust we were looking for.
And to my two friends who did not do business. The house seller went with an alternative that offered an up front incentive, it seemed to reduce the cost of selling. When the process is over, her house of 30 years which is the only substantial asset she owns has been sold, I suspect she will wonder if the agent delivered her a buyer that just made his life easy, a cut price, quick and easy sale that delivered him an easy commission, in return for the added costs he incurred up front, all wrapped up in the clichés of the real estate agent. Had she trusted my agent friend, it is quite possible that she would have delivered them a buyer, just the right buyer who wanted the house because of what it was, not because the price was great, the cash benefit of which would have been to dwarf the up front saving that was made.
During the research for this post I put “trust” into several dictionaries, and the options for a definition are many and varied, according to the context. No wonder we have difficulty.
Mar 12, 2014 | Collaboration, Communication
“You complete me” a really cheesy line, made famous by the Jerry Maguire movie, but relevant elsewhere.
Communication devices have exploded over the last decade, most of us now have multiple tools by which to communicate, but just how well are we doing it?
Pretty poorly by my count.
We spew stuff out, and sometimes some of it comes back on us, good and bad, but are we actually communicating?
Isn’t communication supposed to be a two way process, something that engages the parties, grows, informs, adds value ?
Tools are only useful when well used, communication devices by themselves are just objects, they need people, stories, and emotion to be of any value.
Communication tools need people to complete them.
Mar 5, 2014 | Marketing, Small business, Social Media
Recently I have been talking to SME’s about their engagement with digital tools, and getting some pretty disturbing responses.
Many when asked will say they are engaged, because their phone is connected to google maps so they can find their way home at 3am. Not setting out to mislead me asking the question, it is just that they do not know what they do not know.
Several pieces of research around suggest that around 40% of Australian SME’s do not have a website, and a large proportion of those who do are not using them as much beyond an electronic brochure. The “last updated” box is the giveaway, even if from the content it is obvious.
At the other end of the scale, there are a few who have just so much data and options at their disposal, and often so much conflicting advice coming in, that they are paralysed with indecision.
Somewhere along the line I recall a comment, probably by Avinash Kaushik where he said something like “given me an extra hundred dollars to spend any way I like on data, and I would choose to spend $10 on the data, the other $90 on people who could understand and use it”.
Sorting the quality insights and ideas from the tsunami of stuff coming at us is the marketing challenge of the century. Automating it is only half the task, the GIGO effect takes over very quickly, you have to really understand it.
For the beginners at this stuff I advise just two measures:
- Bounce rate,
- Conversion rate.
All the other metrics that you can develop and that are now freely available can be hugely valuable, but knowing these two is a bit like knowing where the brakes and accelerator are in your car, essential for productive progress.
Quality of visitors beats quantity every time, and these two measures together give you that insight.
Mar 4, 2014 | Customers, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
Innovation is a process, mostly it is managed for better or worse with some sort of stage-gate process.
Sensitive project management of innovation is vital, the context of the project, the culture, management engagement, business model, the source of resources used, funding, and all the rest are critically important, and blend into a system.
However, one vital consideration often under-considered, or missed, in development projects is the evolution of the Customer Value Proposition.
Concentrating on the product, its specifications, the technology, operational considerations, design and engineering, and all the rest are vital, but ultimately, it is the customer who puts their hand in their pocket, and allocates, or otherwise, their scarce resources to your products. They will only make that choice in your favour when it is in their interests to do so.
Why is it then that the foundations of the value proposition, the identification, characteristics, interaction, and measurement of the drivers that will deliver customer value and therefore sales are often ignored, or glossed over? In my experience, it is usually because the developers fall in love with their products and designs, not really considering them from the customer perspective.
The value proposition usually evolves during the design and pilot process, but only if it is allowed to.
Sensibly, there is a second stage gate process, one that is parallel to the product development, the value development process which critically translates the product features into customer value as they evolve.
A test of the success of the value development process is the depth of the debate about price. A successful VDP will preclude almost any debate, and certainly the most often used determinants of prices, being cost and competitor activity, will be relegated to the bottom of the pile of considerations.
Feb 25, 2014 | Branding, Change, Collaboration, Demand chains, Marketing, retail
A pilot program I have been recently involved with, setting out to assist the evolution of a” Sydney Harvest” brand of local produce has not delivered the results hoped for.
After years of agitation by produce growers in the Sydney basin, beset as they are by aggressive competition from the chain stores, lack of scale and high operating costs as a result of being in semi urban areas, governed by urban concerns, the pilot was created. It was a collaboration between a small number of Sydney basin growers, and specialist retailers aimed at delivering the freshest and best possible produce to those discerning and demanding customers who choose to shop at the specialist produce outlets.
The value proposition was simple : “You know it is fresh, because it come from down the road, you know the retailer, and here is the grower, guaranteeing product provenance and farming practice sustainability”.
In considering the reporting of the exercise, part of the shortcoming of the pilot was that there was little commitment beyond the verbal from the participants, even though the verbal commitment was strong. This is very common in the early stages of collaborative exercises, everyone says “yes” and waits for others to do the lifting. The emergence or otherwise of a “champion” someone who takes on the challenges at a visceral level, can be the main bellwether of success.
Watching a presentation by Seth Godin last night, he articulated just the situation we had.
There was no “connection” between the participants beyond the superficial, the human connection was not there.
Godin calls Connection “The asset of the future” and in a connected world, it would be hard to argue against this proposition. He further identified 4 pre-conditions of connection occurring.
- Co-Ordination. There was co-ordination in this pilot, but it was managed from the outside, by me, there was little skin in the co-ordination part of the game by participants.
- Trust. Trust evolves over time as a result of behaviour, it is never given, it has to be earned. In this case, we underestimated hugely the role to be played by trust, and the preconditions necessary for its evolution.
- Permission. Seth is talking about permission being given by the subject of a marketing effort, so this pilot is a different set of circumstances, nevertheless, whilst” permission” was given in the sense that all signed up to the pilot knowing exactly what was going to happen, and the role they were expected to play, when it went away, nobody missed it. The “permission” whilst given was nothing more than a superficial “OK”
- Exchange of ideas. In this case, whilst there was superficial buy in, the subsequent behaviour did not include interaction amongst the participants. They were too busy and pre-occupied with the normal business to put the time aside to exchange ideas, and get to know on a human level the other participants ,exchange ideas and experiences, and learn from each other.
This stuff is really, really, hard, and the only way we learn is by jumping in and having a go.
Feb 24, 2014 | Branding, Governance, Marketing, Strategy
There is a lot to learn from the SPC imbroglio, the feds must be delighted to have got away with their IR/”no more handouts” agenda intact as the Victorian government bailed out not only SPC, but their federal colleagues, albeit not a good look for the state version and federal version of the same party to take a different position on a matter that both are saying is fundamental to their philosophy.
But what can we marketers take away?
- Every conversation has many sides. Jan Carlzons great “Moments of Truth” idea from the 80’s hold true in the C21, but the moments have been multiplied by the proliferation of connected devices. Not only do we need to have to have those we used to call “front line” troops on the hymn-sheet, but we have to have everyone on the sheet, as the conversation is now much wider, and almost totally uncontrollable, unlike the past. Best you can do now is have a credible seat at the table. I wonder would Sharman Stone have had the same impact 25 years ago as she has had over the last few weeks? I suspect not. Her message would have been the same, but her ability to access consumers, interest and advocate groups, and the public would not. She may have got a sound bite on the evening news, perhaps a radio interview, and the local paper would have run it indefinitely, but would the rest of us have been aware of the Gaffs the PM made about the workers entitlement, the connections made with the car industry, the Cadburys decision and Tassal decisions? No.
- We do care about local industry. SPC sales soared after the publicity, Australians do care that local industry is being decimated, but not enough to buy more cars. Is the cause of agriculture is closer to our national psyche than cars? Perhaps the cost of a car Vs the cost of a can of peaches had something to do with it. It will be interesting to observe how a renowned marketer like Coke extends the effect. I doubt they will be able to, as they will just revert to the tried and true, the plan, and what has gone before, when the context has changed completely. Having the cultural agility to completely change the message is usually beyond hierarchical organisations. I would radically alter and expand SPC consumer communications to keep the mood alive, and the retailers on side.
- Marketing needs to be agile, and connected. Following the above point, the production of annual marketing plans that feed into strategic plans, with budgets, accountabilities, media plans, and all the rest remains a vital task, with the huge caveat that things move so fast these days, that marketers need to be prepared to respond instantly to stuff that emerges. That single twitter post highlighting a product failure cannot be left alone, you may choose to do nothing, but ignoring it is not an option, you risk the classic “United breaks guitars” response.
- Marketing is the driver of everything. Marketing used to be just another functional responsibility, usually seen as a poor cousin to operations and finance. No more. Those enterprises that continue to see Marketing as the producer of the ads and promotional material, diviner of new products, and artistes of the long lunch rather than an idea that is the responsibility of everyone to be a part of, the driver of perceptions, and the voice of the market inside the enterprise will not be long in the business.
How does your place rate?
