Apr 14, 2025 | Change, Communication, Governance, Leadership, Marketing, Strategy
When you look you see Hofstadter’s law around you everywhere, every day.
We all understand Murphy’s law, which accurately states that is something can go wrong it will, probably at the worst time. Murphy has a sibling, articulated by Douglas Hofstadter which states: ‘A task always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s law’.
Planning is a part of our lives. Some things are easy to plan, the consistent characteristic of these is that there are very few variables over which you do not have control. For example planning a trip to the supermarket, you can check what you need you control the time, the choice of supermarket, where you park, how you work the store, the choices you make between brands. Very few uncontrolled variables.
By contrast strategy is an exercise not just in predicting the future, but then making choices how best to deploy your resources in a way that enables you to shape the future to your benefit by exerting some influence over the range of variables over which you have no control.
Entirely different challenge, as there is never an explicit ‘right’ answer.
When we talk about strategic planning we are effectively mixing two incompatible factors. The uncertainty of the future and the forces over which we have no control, and the certainty of the resources we have to deploy, with uncertain outcomes.
Currently in this country we have a huge black hole called defence planning into which billions of taxpayers dollars are being poured, in the mistaken view that we are able to predict the future and therefore plan as if we could control the variables.
The better way is to have a robust strategy which enables flexibility in the way assets are deployed short term.
Projects tend to expand to fill a time available, while at the same time we habitually underestimate the time that is required to complete any given task, no matter how rigorous we are in the planning.
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.
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 24, 2025 | Analytics, Strategy
The ‘Power law of Distribution’ or ‘Zipf’ distribution, can be used as an adjunct to the much better understood Pareto principle.
There is a consistency to the structure of mature markets. There is a dominating leader, followed by a long tail of smaller competitors. The size rank of an enterprise inversely correlates with its market share.
This is the Zipf distribution at work.
Zipf comes from the study of linguistics, where the probabilities of the frequency of words occurring in a written piece was identified by American Linguist George Zipf in 1935. In summary, the characteristic of a Zipf distribution is that the most common item appears approximately twice as often as the second most common, and three times more often than the third most common, and so on.
For example, the most common word appearing in an English text is ‘the’ which appears twice as often as the second most common word ‘of’, and three times as often as the subsequent word. This relationship has been validated across languages and the sophistication of language use via the free Gutenberg Project, a free database of 30,000 works. The obvious use is in the statistical probability calculations used to generate the tokens that deliver us output from AI platforms. It also powers the language translation capabilities of digital tools.
Zipf distributions occur across many domains beyond language. Income distribution, population sizes, numbers tuning in to TV shows, and followers of so called ‘influencers’.
So, how do you use this when thinking strategically about how to break into a market where you are somewhere in the long tail of a Pareto chart?
It is a problem faced by most businesses in competitive markets. The big players get all the attention, leaving little for the small players to fight over.
The answer: Identify an existing niche and own it, or better still, create your own niche, and be the dominating player in a Zipf distribution for that market segment.
Fragmented markets with a wide range of competitive offers tend to consolidate over time into a small number of players that dominate. Typically, the number one competitor evolves to be double the market share of the next.
This occurred when ‘Meadow Lea’ emerged from the crowd of margarine brands in the late seventies. It became the dominant brand with a market share over 20% (at a premium price) with the next brand in line, ‘Flora’, having a share from memory that never climbed over 8%. Then came ‘Miracle’ margarine maxing out at about 5% before going down the gurgler.
‘Apple’ created the smartphone niche, which then became the whole mobile phone market. They led the emerging market in volume until Google released Android, and allowed anyone to use it. Apple no longer holds market volume leadership, currently they are around 15% volume share, but still hold profitability leadership at about 80% of mobile phone profit share, a clear example of a Zipf distribution.
Which would you rather have?
These ‘Zipf dominators’ do not happen by accident.
They are created by a combination of the identification of unmet demand, creation and/or leveraging of a market niche, and an emotional connection compounded by long term brand building.
When you are the second brand, chasing a Zipf dominator, life is tough. It will take strategic insight, investment, time, and perseverance to prevail. Critically, it also requires a deeply strategic analysis of customer behavior and needs to be able to see the ‘white space’ than becomes ‘Zipfable’
Header George Zipf courtesy Wikipedia
Jan 29, 2025 | AI, Governance, Strategy
The tech news of the decade blew up on Monday January 27, 2025.
Nvidia, the darling stock of the AI revolution dropped six hundred billion (17%) in market capitalisation in one day. This is the biggest one day loss in stock market history. It sparked a selloff of other tech stocks, leading to a sector drop of 5.6%.
Has the bubble burst, or is it just the theories of Clayton Christianson writ large, again?
The spark was the recognition of the impact of the Chinese AI architecture represented by DeepSeek R1 by the technical wizards and stock analysts.
Surprisingly, DeepSeek released a research paper outlining their approach to AI training. This details an architecture that dramatically reduces cost and complexity of training LLM’s while delivering results at least as good as OpenAI and comparable models. It took a week or so for the described technology and results to be absorbed and understood, culminating in Mondays panicked sell-off.
Is this a bubble bursting or just a sensible reordering of expectations?
Two factors outside corporate malaise have dogged my innovative efforts over the years, both of which are in play here:
- The notion that innovation takes place in an environment of constraints. While history demonstrates the truth of this, the stories we tell ourselves celebrate what appears to be great innovation emerging as a result of chaos. In this case, the restrictions placed on China getting the existing technology created restrictions they have beaten.
- What I call the ‘Christianson effect’, better known as the Innovators Dilemma, after Harvard professor Clayton Christianson is proven accurate time after time, after time. Again, Christianson accurately saw that a high cost solution to a problem would eventually be replaced by a much lower cost solution to the same problem. DeepSeek is just another example of the power of his observation.
The US under the Biden administration for security reasons put export bans on Nvidia chips, chipmaking tools, and development software. These bans covered US allies in an effort to isolate China from the Intellectual capital as well as the means to bridge the technology gap that suddenly appeared. It would appear that rather than accepting the ban and going home, the Chinese reacted by using the ban as a motivator to rethink the engineering of the guts of AI systems, and come up with a solution that addressed the two hurdles facing current AI:
- The enormous amounts of data required to train the models.
- The huge drain on power required to process even modest requests to the models for a response.
Both it would seem, are gamechangers, as the cost reduction probable for AI platforms is enormous.
The real question for those who run businesses that use this technology, or are starting to use it more generally in our lives, which is all of us, is what comes next?
Here is what I think, assuming the initial hype is close to the mark, and not another chimera like the Theranos scam.
- The huge allocations of capital being made by the big US companies, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta, will be put on ice. Nvidia has hundreds of billions of dollars in orders from these giants that it cannot currently adequately fill. Some if not many will be quietly cancelled.
- More billions allocated to build the infrastructure to accommodate the models, big chunks of expensive land, and power sources will also be slowed down. For example, the project called the ‘Stargate project’ triumphantly announced last week by the president involving a 500 billion dollar investment by the government will become just another Trump press release consigned to the round file. The project as outlined is a JV with Oracle, Microsoft, Softbank, and others to build AI capability in the US. It represented an equity investment by the government in the commercial leveraging of emerging technology, a first. I also speculate that the proposal to fire up a mothballed nuclear reactor at 3 Mile Island by Microsoft will require a rethink, although it may have just been at best, a thought-bubble.
- The disruption created by the DeepSeek technology will redirect the tsunami of capital towards Chinese technology, until the next innovation iteration comes along. This will both geometrically accelerate the rate of adoption necessary by business if they want to keep up with competitors, and make the current security concerns surrounding Tik Tok look trivial by comparison.
- The disruption might ‘democratise’ the use of AI in the sense that it will be more widely available once the costs are dramatically reduced. Alternatively, it may mean that the existing ‘moat’ controlled by the current crop of AI platforms, all American, will be replaced by a Chinese moat.
- Regulating AI in some way has been a topic of frantic debate since OpenAI launched Chat. To observe that regulators have no idea would be accurate. Now, instead of regulators being caught with their pants around their ankles, it is apparent that their pants, if they own any, are secure in the wardrobe. In a regulatory and geopolitical sense, we are spinning out of control.
- The rate of development of systems that enable humans to expand the reach and depth of the intelligence we evolved to have will be extended at a rate that is further accelerated by the huge reduction in cost that appears probable as a result of this Chinese breakthrough. We had better all start learning Mandarin.
As the old Chinese saying goes ‘We live in interesting times’
