Sep 2, 2022 | Marketing, Strategy
Some hard lessons will need to be learnt by the new crop of marketing managers who have never faced the evil of a recession, and even worse, one that has inflation as its bed-fellow.
Stagflation.
This is not supposed to happen, but it is, and we are seeing the first hints of it currently. Inflation growing rapidly, full employment, low interest rates lifting rapidly, we are facing an economic jigsaw that is defying conventional thinking.
Gone are the days when marketing could believe that failure was good, it was a learning opportunity for leveraging in the next round of potential failure. Increasingly the built in tolerance to failure will be tested, with an increased focus on pre experiment due diligence to reduce its incidence.
At last, we will revert to the core of business sustainability: Profit.
The absence of profit means that eventually, depending on the depth of your pockets, you will go broke. Nonetheless, marketing wankers for the last decade have been seduced by the comforting idea of ‘Purpose’. Often this seems to have overridden the old fashioned idea of delivering value to customers that leads to making a profit.
Every brand has a purpose they say. Heavens, I just want my washing soap to be an effective cleaner, my toothpaste to clean my teeth and leave a nice taste, my internet connection to work, and my car to start on cold mornings.
Having an explicit, relevant, and well understood Purpose is great. It provides a focus for the strategic choices that need to be made, and acts as an aligning ‘North Star’ for all stakeholders. However, purpose over profit is stupid, and the price of stupid is extinction.
Header cartoon credit: Thanks again to Scott Adams and Dilbert for clarifying and simplifying a complex question.
Aug 29, 2022 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
For some years academics have been mumbling to themselves about an observed phenomena they generally called ‘Flattening‘. The discussions have been centred around technology, but the impact can be seen in a much wider context.
The idea is that technology acts as the rising tide in the old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats. By rising the average level of the ‘water’ the differences between individual companies and industries are removed, that the offering becomes increasingly homogeneous until a new technology arrives, lifting the owner clear of the competitive debris.
There are numerous examples.
The emergence of the Internal combustion engine wiped out long established industries and companies in the horse drawn wagon, whip, and horse breeding and breaking industries of the time. As they disappeared the automobile industry and its supply chains emerged, now in the early stages of being ‘flattened’ in turn by electric vehicles.
Before the internet, information existed in small silos and did not move much, and then only slowly. Industries that relied on those characteristics were ‘flattened’ out of existence. Yellow pages, classified newspaper ads, and in their place emerged new industries. Google, Facebook, and the plethora of other communication and search platforms.
Let’s consider energy production.
For thousands of years people used wood or coal to heat their houses and water. In 1698 Thomas Savery patented a machine that drew water out of flooded mines by using steam pressure, then in 1784 James Watt patented the steam engine, which for the next 150 years powered most industrial development. In 1831 James Faraday created the first very simple electrical generator that converted mechanical energy to electrical energy.
So what you ask.
Look at the current environment with the concept of ‘Flattening’ in mind.
Internal combustion automobiles are in the early stages of being ‘flattened’. This has been initiated by Tesla, in parallel with the batteries required to run the cars, but which will have huge implications across the energy sector.
Coal, the dominant world source of energy has suddenly become a pariah. It is polluting the atmosphere with the attendant changes in climate, leading to rapid growth of renewables, both personal and commercial scale. New fossil fuel projects, especially coal, are now being locked out of capital markets as they see their investments being stranded. Only idiot governments with an eye to donors is keeping them alive via subsidy and barriers to entry of renewables.
The tide however is inexorable, and fossil fuel will be redundant soon. As Hemingway noted in the Sun also Rises, when one of his characters was asked how they went bankrupt: “Gradually, then suddenly’ was the response.
That is what is happening in power generation.
Renewables have been around for 25 years, slowly evolving as the technology improved. It seems to me we are at, or almost at, the ‘Suddenly’ point. In the absence of being in front of the wave of changes, we will be left behind in the technical race to build the new industries that will emerge, again.
Flattening is also happening in some way in your domain, it is the normal course of development. the challenge is to see the elephant and react to it in time.
Aug 15, 2022 | Leadership, Strategy
Strategy is an exercise of informed fortune telling.
What will happen if we do this? Is that better than if we do that? How will others react, do the ducks really all align the way they seem to?
A thousand questions we set out to answer to allocate our resources to best leverage the outcomes we plan/hope will emerge.
It is a messy business, full of uncertainty, mistakes, dead ends, and outright failures, most of which we hear little about. Instead, we hear a lot about the few successful exercises in strategy, the few that work as hoped, or as is usually the case, not as planned, but great outcomes.
We read about the success because people can analyse them with the benefit of hindsight, which delivers to those developing the strategy, some level of prescient certainty that they almost never deserve. Fact is, your strategy will never be spot on, the magic is in the ability to adjust on the run, while achieving the outcome for which you planned.
The strategic process benefits from being subjected to informed and critical thinking being applied to the inputs, both quantitative and qualitative. The greater the level of critical thought and diverse thinking that can be brought to bear on a strategic challenge the better.
The context of strategy implementation is always different to the context in which you do the planning, simply because it is the future, and things evolve in unpredictable ways.
I expect that in about 12 months there will be a rush of erudite papers and articles reporting on successful Corona instigated transformations. These will make the protagonists look like they had great foresight others lacked, when in fact, while they ended up with the lollies, they were as confused and muddled as the rest of us during the lolly fight.
They had the benefit of hindsight to clean up their bedrooms before anyone came along for a look.
Strategy is messy because it lacks hindsight
Aug 10, 2022 | Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
When are the funds for an innovation initiative generally available?
At the beginning of a project.
When are the funds for an innovation project generally needed?
Increasingly towards the commercialisation, or completion of a project.
To me, this usual pattern of financial resource availability is arse about.
At the initiation of a project, the resource needs are peoples time, lab space, and the commitment from senior management., The need for financial resources is usually limited. However, it is this time that projects need to gather momentum, which means financial resources and forecast outcomes are included in budgets, and formal planning processes. The best way to ensure a project is supported is to ‘boost’ the promised returns and shorten the lead times.
Unfortunately, this locks in expectations that have impacts on the way projects proceed.
A project that promises 25% IRR in 18 months will almost always win the resources race over a project that forecasts 30% IRR in 5 years. This sort of financial analysis is how choices are usually made, ignoring the strategic implications of the differing projects. This is because we have not found a way yet to reliably tell the future, and immediacy is a powerful motivator.
On top of that you have the favouring of evolutionary ‘innovation’ over ‘revolutionary’ innovation.
Most successful businesses become successful by incrementally improving products and processes over time, and are prepared to spend money to keep the evolution going. The challenge of this is that it crowds out the revolutionary innovation, the ones that have the potential to change markets, rather than just do more of the same but just a bit better.
The examples of these abound.
When I was working for Cerebos in the early 80’s, we marketed a muesli under the brand ‘Cerola’. It was in the days when there were only a few breakfast cereals on the market, unlike today. Similarly, confectionary was less fragmented. We came up with the notion of a muesli bar, a ‘healthier’ snack than anything then available, with the convenience and taste of confectionary for kids lunch boxes. We did extensive product development, several pilot plant trials, and a little market research. In the early stages I had done a forecast profit and loss, timeline, and we had established the capital costs necessary for the changes to the existing muesli line. These were included in the Cerebos budgets as project ‘M’. The numbers were modest, but at the time, pushed as far as I felt comfortable. When it came to the final go/no go decision, the project was binned, as the forecast IRR based on my modest sales forecasts did not meet the hurdle. A year later, Uncle Toby’s came out with pretty much the same product and positioning, and did my annual sales forecast in the first month. Opportunity missed, and lesson learnt.
Kodak, that well known exemplar of the missed opportunity, not only invented the digital camera in 1975, they brought out the first viable digital SLR, the Kodak DCS-100 in 1991. While it was bulky, and expensive, it was the first. In 1994 Kodak supplied Apple with the ‘Apple QuickTake’ manufactured in China to a Kodak design. Also in 1994, Kodak brought out the NC2000 designed for photo-journalists.
So, Kodak did not miss the digital camera revolution, they led it, but simply failed to see beyond the boundaries of the photography business model as it had evolved over the previous century. They saw innovation as an evolutionary process, not revolutionary, as that carried the risk that their existing hugely profitable model would become redundant. None of the senior management over that time wanted to fund the risk of shooting the cash cow upon which they all depended.
Cerebos by contrast were shackled by a short-term focus on an unrealistic financial expectation that ignored the strategic value of the opportunity to generate sales, and also to open a new market that carried and solidified the Cerola brand.
In both cases, a huge opportunity that emerged from the fringes of their markets were subjected to a muddle headed and front-loaded financial calculation, ignoring the strategic implications of the opportunity.
Header source: The extensive StrategyAudit ‘slide bank’ built up over 30 years.
Aug 8, 2022 | Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
Black and white thinking is easy, there is right and wrong, you decide which side of the fence you are on, and stick to it.
Luckily, life is not like that. Life is a mass collision of colours, ambiguity built on ambiguity, built on uncertainty. That is what makes it interesting, and worth living.
Following the previous post that offered 9 strategies for more impactful decisions, it seemed appropriate to observe that the great advice in that post is useless in the absence of being able to see a problem from a number of perspectives.
In other words, see all the colours.
Most problems we face in strategy development are wicked ones, where there is no obvious right and wrong answer, where there are nuances on top of nuances, second order impacts, and where definitive data is hard, if not impossible to find.
Thinking in a binary manner means that you dismiss all these opportunities for creativity because it is somehow inconsistent with your existing views.
This also means you lose sight of most of the stuff from the alternative choices, which is where the richness usually hides.
Differences of opinion cause tension, discomfort, and room for conversation which become challenging for a binary thinker.
Thinking and then communicating in a nuanced way is an enormously valuable skill.
Relationships that last can accommodate the differences caused by the grey areas. It requires that you can hold seemingly inconsistent ideas in your mind at the same time.
Binary thinking means you cannot hold those conflicting ideas.
The question every time in a disagreement, is the extent to which the tension created by differences in opinion are healthy.
We are used to seeing things in a binary manner, it is the automatic response, but we need to find a way to manage the inconsistency and ambiguity. We need to be flexible, as well as being driven by the rules.
The biggest challenges we face have the need to be able to dance with the facts, what works today, may not work tomorrow.
Overdoing structure removes the flexibility, and the opportunity to see things that may become important.
We think most problems can be solved, that is the base assumption we always have, but the conventional wisdom does not always work.
As a kid I lived on the beach, surfed a lot. The water pushed into the beach by the waves needs to get back out somehow, so you have ‘rips’. The area that allows the water to return from the beach. When surfing, you go with the rip, it will take you out, try and swim against it, you will just get tired and make little or no progress. You need to be able to swim at an angle, use the rip to take you out, then move across towards where the waves are.
This skill works in problem solving, finding bits of a problem that are resolvable, like getting a single wave in a session in the surf, you get the thrill of that great wave, use the rip to take you back to catch the next one. It is a process
Tension between people who hold differing views is healthy when managed well. This is when there is a recognition that there is no right or wrong answer to a wicked problem, just the better choice at this point. Then the differences in opinion can better hold the outcomes of the decision to account, it will increase the opportunity to pick up the problem molehills before they become mountains.
Ambiguity and bias can be used constructively.
Embrace your opposites. It indicates you recognise there are differences, give permission to voice the unfamiliar perspective. This is the opposite to just having people with you that agree, then there is no tension, no opportunity to see the differing perspectives.
One side of any question is rarely completely right, and the other completely wrong, we must be curious to see the reasons that the others see it differently.
This is how we produce creative new options that reflect life.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld in ‘New Scientist’ magazine.
Jul 11, 2022 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
When you look over commercial history, there is a cycle in scale.
A new industry emerges, then scales using the capital captured to build production and productivity, which in turn leads to scaled volumes, fed by sales and marketing dominance. At some point, a ‘tipping point’ of some sort emerges and industry fragmentation and change occurs.
Out of the fragmentation emerges a new set of products/services that renew the cycle of scale.
Perhaps the first modern industry that emerged from cottages, leveraging scale and branding, was Charles Darwin’s uncle, Josiah Wedgewood. The industry he created established a global dominance that lasted to 1940. After the war, Wedgewood was replaced by a host of cheaper, more utilitarian products emerging from a reconstructed Japan, and other low cost suppliers.
Early in the 20th century, there were hundreds of companies building their versions of horseless carriages. Henry Ford launched the first Model T in 1908, and built a further 15 million by 1927, almost squeezing out everyone else. Those that remained in the US merged to survive and became General Motors, evolving to be for a while, the biggest company in the world. They dominated until the mid 1970’s when the Japanese, followed more recently by Korean suppliers, almost destroyed them.
By the end of the 20th century there were few legacy car companies left. They are now in the throes of being disrupted by a new generation of electric cars. The incumbent manufacturers completely missed the emergence of battery stored electricity as a replacement for the internal combustion engine, leaving an open playing field to Tesla.
Today, Tesla is the biggest auto company in the world by market capitalisation, bigger than the value of the next 10 manufacturers combined. In terms of unit sales, Tesla is a relative minnow, demonstrating the capital markets view of the power of the trend towards EV’s. Few remember that cars and trams were run on batteries in the earliest days of ‘motorised’ transport.
You can track similar trends in all major industries. Media, communications, heavy engineering, retailing, technology, the only things that vary much are the speed and amplitude of the cycles, which are now accelerating at an unprecedented rate.
Picking where your industry sits in the cycle is an important strategic consideration, as it offers some insights about the types of investments required to stay competitive over the long term.
