Jul 17, 2013 | Governance, Management, Marketing, Small business
Small business owners work harder, and often take home less than their employed peers. I see this all the time, again and again, in all sorts of contexts.
Ever wondered why?
In my experience, most go into business because they have great skill, contacts, and experience in the domain of their choice, which makes them great engineers, plumbers, food scientists, but does not necessarily suit them to be CEO.
The flip side is, do you need specific domain knowledge to be the CEO of an enterprise in that domain?, the answer clearly is no.
Most get confused about the purpose of their activity. Competent chefs try to run restaurants, simply because as a chef they can pay themselves only chef rates and remain solvent, but being a restaurant owner, perhaps a string of them, is where the money is.
Get your priorities right.
Want to be a rich chef, but love to be “cheffing” ? Probably can’t do both.
So many exchange the cooking for shuffling paper, suppliers, lease contracts, worrying about staffing, and doing the marketing, then wonder why the restaurant fails.
Fire yourself as the CEO, and hire a professional manager, while you do the cooking. After all, you would not even consider hiring an apprentice to replace you in the kitchen as you try to run the business, would you?
You can still own the business, and eap the benefits, you just do not have to run it day to day.
Jun 29, 2013 | Change, Innovation, Marketing, Small business
We have a Department of Innovation in Canberra, and similar departments or at least functions in every state jurisdiction, and piles of industry bodies and associations, all mouthing clichés about Innovation being the savior of the economy, and the way of the future. “Innovation leads to new industries, and more jobs” type of windbaggery. Whilst it is absolutely true as a headline, without the substance of an answer to the question: “How” it remains just a press release, and worse, a consumer of public resources with little real potential to add value, and ther promised jobs.
If innovation is step one, and jobs is step three, there must be something in the middle, a step two that enables the creation, growth and commercial sustainability of the enterprises that create the jobs.
This video of Steve Blank, one of the motivators of the Lean Start-up movement likens the efforts of government to innovate to the South Park episode where gnomes are collecting underpants in the expectation of profit.
I see this so often, a leap of faith which is really a failure of logic. To get to phase three, and profitability takes more than a good idea, available resources, and fast talking, you also have to have a process to deliver value to customers superior to their existing service or product.
Jun 25, 2013 | Change, Governance, Management, Marketing, Small business, Social Media
Governments and their regulation centric thought processes always lag the digital developments that are accelerating in our world. Typically, they are regulating to close the barn door well after the horse is across the paddock, and failing to consult those who understand the processes, so do a lousy job. Just look at the failed supermarket and petrol price “initiatives”, web site filtering, and utter failure to communicate the case supporting the NBN in anything other than clichés, amongst other failures.
Well, there is another revolution on our doorsteps, one that governments must be salivating about, if they recognise the opportunity to rope us in, as the Prism revelations in the US have demonstrated.
It is pretty obvious that recognition software is about to be a general reality, as it gets rolled out in various forms on mobile platforms. Voice, face, and biometric recognition are all technologies that are in existence, and when Apple, or Samsung stick it on a mobile platform, whooppee, off it will go, and with it, the opportunity to collect huge amounts of personal data beyond that which is collectable now. Facial recognition and digital trickery combined will enable every face (just double click anywhere in the linked photo) in a photo to be identified, by simply tying to a social media database.
Bingo!
What will be done with this capability?
The old “I have nothing to hide” argument is looking limp in the face of such absolute ability to identify the where, who, who with and when capabilities being delivered to just about anyone with a camera and computer. Where are the new barriers of “personal information”?
Clearly commercial uses abound, as do those for the administrative and legal tracking of individuals, but it is the nefarious uses this degree of identification can be put to that are scary.
Jun 21, 2013 | Branding, Marketing, Small business
We pay a fortune for lobster, it is a delicacy, but it is not long ago that lobster was poor peoples food. If you had nothing else to eat in New England in the 18th or 19th centuries, you would go to the beach and scrounge some lobster, and rules were in place to limit the amount of lobster masters could feed their indentured servants.
I remember as a kid that chicken was a delicacy, an occasional festive meal, Mum fed the Roberts tribe rabbit in a variety of ways as a cheap staple, bought from a bloke who went door to door down the street selling the previous nights haul.
How things have changed. Chicken is a commodity, flogged in supermarket specials, and rabbit is on the menus of the top end of town restaurants, attracting very high prices.
Marketing is all about managing the context and expectations a customer has of the value that can be delivered by your product offering. Preparing and consuming rabbit at home is now uncommon, but change the context to a restaurant, and suddenly the expectation changes, and rabbit is a sexy, modern dish that has attracted the chefs attention and skill, so is something very different to the skinned offering at the backdoor of my childhood.
Setting out to change expectations, often by changing the context as well, is at the core of the marketing challenge. Changing nothing, and competing on the existing commercial battlefield is just flogging stuff, and becomes a contest of price, not value.
Update: March 2015. This article from Entrepreneur magazine tells a similar story about lobster, and the way context and time changes perception, plus a very useful infographic.
Jun 10, 2013 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, Small business
Most customers could not give a rats arse about your vision, values, your customer value proposition, and all the other stuff highly paid consultants rant on about (obviously not me).
What they do care about are the little things, the ones that affect them.
I bank with the same bank I have since they were the only ones who would lend me money for a house 35 years ago, and have just not bothered to change, I usually buy the one brand or petrol, not because it makes the car run any better, but because they are around the corner, and the restaurant I go to most is a little suburban French place that does seasonal vegetables in an ever changing vinaigrette as a side. I love it.
I used to always buy my books (yes, I still buy real books) at the same bookshop where one of the staff seemed to be able to read everything that came through the door, and was able to steer me towards stuff I might like with considerable accuracy. Now however, the store owner is cutting costs, staff has been reduced, and the recommendations of the 15 year old casuals are just not up to the mark.
So, before you spend all that money on the marketing consultants with the new bag of clichés, and web enabled tricks, exercise a bit of common sense and consider the small things, why people come to you, why they choose you instead of the place down the road or over the web, how do you deliver value to them, and what keeps them coming back.
It helps to ask, most people are happy to answer honestly, and the simple fact that you care enough to ask is valued.
Jun 6, 2013 | Branding, Demand chains, Innovation, Marketing, Small business
Coles limited engagement in an “anti factory farming” campaign is indicative of the strategic and marketing tightrope the food industry in this country is walking.
On the one hand we have an effective duopoly of FMCG retailing exercising their power to increase their returns to shareholders, and service their customers by both maximising margin and minimising costs. A core part of this strategy is to absorb the proprietary brand margin by aggressively allocating shelf space to housebrand products that are just globally sourced copies of the proprietary Australian products.
On the other hand we have an Australian dollar that has effectively given a 50% price subsidy to the international competitors to the Australian supply chain, at a time when all other domestically sourced input and overhead costs from labour, power, various rates and taxes, freight, and risk costs have all increased substantially. Double whammy!
An added complication is often that the (usually young) buyers in the retailers take the “fast moving” part of the FMCG literally, and fail to recognise the time and investment often required to reflect even a minor change in their product specifications through the supply chain. The consumer end may be fast moving, but when it takes 7 years to mature a fruit tree, and many generations of animals to reflect spec change in the end product, it can be anything but fast moving.
Now Coles have, quite legitimately, moved to build a sort of “animal provenance” into their produce supply chains, as a competitive positioning strategy against Woolworths, increasing the costs of their suppliers, as well as requiring added investment by suppliers for which they need a reasonable chance of a competitive return. This is at the same time they have reduced consumer prices substantially (consumers have been very grateful) in some markets like milk. Whilst Coles, and Woolworths who followed them, may have sacrificed a bit of margin, the supply chain has borne the brunt of it, despite some spin to the contrary.
The small guy has little chance of succeeding against these odds unless he is very smart, and does not have all his eggs in the chain basket, as just competing on the grounds dictated by the chains is a no-win choice.
There are however, strategies that can be deployed to succeed, but they require a re-engineering of the supply chain into a new beast, a Demand Chain that is driven by consumer demand, not supply, and is managed through a chain “community” where information is shared, and is agnostic in some way of the power of the big chains.
Having been a bit gloomy so far, it is however encouraging that the big two retailers are now differentiating themselves competitively, as consumer niches that can be accessed by agile and innovative suppliers. will evolve.
PS. Just after posting, it was announced that Simplot had put its Bathurst and Devenport plants into a wind-down for closure, and McCains had cancelled potato contracts with three big growers. if we needed more evidence of the parlous state of food processing, it just arrived.
