Nov 17, 2021 | Leadership, Strategy
Strategy is an essential ingredient for success. Without a clear, unambiguous, and well communicated strategy, there will be wasted effort, sub-optimal decision making, lack of alignment between functional responsibilities, and any number of other problems.
Therein lies the problem with strategy.
You spend time and money researching, developing, road testing and implementing strategy. You build a deep commitment to it, the CEO if he/she is doing their job well spends a significant percentage of their time building the engagement of all stakeholders in the strategy.
What if it is the wrong strategy?
What if one of the core fundamentals suddenly turns against you, or becomes irrelevant to the customer purchase decision?
Not only have you wasted the resources getting to that point, but the whole point is also to generate commitment. It is very hard then to turn around and say, Oh Crap, we got it wrong!
The inclination is to double down, work harder, not throw the sunk cost against the wall and change tack.
Blockbuster did not survive this challenge. Suddenly the core assumption that people would rent videos from a central location, then incur late fees when they finally brought them back, failed. When Netflix emerged as a subscription DVD by mail service, Blockbuster management saw it as an odd, fringe product that would never take on. Netflix management, virtually broke, offered to sell the business to Blockbuster for $50 million, an opportunity they declined. Technology caught up with Netflix, streaming became a viable option, and Blockbuster took only 3 years to go from king of the multi-billion dollar castle to broke.
Blockbusters strategy sucked. It assumed no change to the business model that had made them successful, could not pivot to a new model, and disappeared, because their strategy was wrong.
Kodak made the same mistake, and so did a local bottle shop that set out to compete with Dan Murphey’s on price and range.
Consider the strategic foundations of the current Australian Government’s commitment to the continuation of fossil fuel. Despite the spin of the last few weeks, their actions display that continuing commitment to the ‘Gas led recovery’ and options such as Carbon Capture and Storage, dismissed as fantasy by serious scientists. Business on the other hand recognises the inevitable failure of this strategy, and have been taking steps for the last few years to pivot their own operations. Now even the business lobby groups have publicly stated the government’s strategy sucks.
Tesla by contrast, founded in 2003, went public in 2010 for $17 a share. It took a few years before the strategy became an evidently powerful one. You could have bought a Tesla share in early 2020 for $70. That same share today is hovering around $1100. Tesla holds almost 80% of the US market for EV’s, 20% share worldwide. The market for EV’s is about 3% of total vehicle sales, but has doubled for the last three years: compounding is at work. All the major car manufacturers are fighting for a share, but I wonder if they missed the boat, In the US at least, you do not buy an EV, you buy a Tesla. A bit like Hoover, the brand becomes the verb describing the category.
The problem with strategy is that when it is well locked into the decision making and performance measurement of an organisation, it is very hard to change. Vested interests, personal, professional, and institutional all get in the way, and actively work against the change until too late.
To be effective, strategy also must be agile, subject to continuous evolution, as well as being the ‘North star’ of decision-making. The alternative is that you follow it into irrelevance at best, but often extinction.
Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams via the wisdom of Dilbert
Nov 3, 2021 | Sales, Strategy
Your pricing architecture should be driven by your business model.
Your tactical pricing decisions should be driven by the immediate competitive and market pressures.
They are different, and while not mutually exclusive, are, or should be, largely separate.
Business models generally evolve slowly, so pricing architecture changes slowly with them, but the tactical needs can vary daily.
Get the two mixed up at your peril.
Years ago I was in a meeting with the MD of the business I was working for, the GM of sales, and a senior manager of one of the retail gorillas, who was trying to extract substantial trading term concessions from us. The sales personnel had been under extreme pressure for some time, but had resisted successfully. The MD was ‘summonsed’ as a last resort by the retailer. Towards what became the end of the meeting, the retailer played the ‘ego card’. He observed that he had thought the MD had the authority to make decisions, but it seemed he had been wrong. The MD, sensitive to challenges to his ego, responded that he was indeed the man who had the veto authority, and proceeded to agree with some face saving but essentially useless caveats. This changed in a moment the pricing architecture of the business for the worse.
It proved to be a profound strategic mistake.
Sales people are often given the authority to vary prices tactically, but should never be given the authority over the architecture. Not because they cannot negotiate, but because they should be kept entirely separate to maintain the integrity of the pricing architecture and the connection to strategy.
In the story related above, the Sales manager had been explicitly denied the right to offer changes to the architecture without agreement of others in the senior management group, but retained complete tactical authority. This meant that there were agreed limits and trade-offs that he, and those who reported to him could make during a negotiation. This tended to hamper potential (read ‘promised’ by the retailer) volumes, but cushioned margin and ensured similar customers were receiving the same terms, within which the sales force was able to vary tactically to leverage our position as best they could. The MD by contrast had the power over the architecture, and the concession on the architecture completely moved the tactical ‘needle’ against us.
It is very hard in a highly contested market to move prices up, and very easy to move them down. The change in architecture moved the whole field for negotiation down which substantially impacted on long term margins. In addition, it also confirmed in the retailers mind that the ‘bottom line’ for the sales force could be further moved by challenging the architecture.
That business, sadly, no longer exists.
Nov 1, 2021 | Culture, Governance, Strategy
A gem of insight from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella happened in the last minute of this interview by HBR editor Adi Ignatius:
‘What do you think is the biggest source of innovation and why? Is it diversity, technical skill, humanity, employee equity, something else’? Ignatius asked on behalf of a listener to the interview.
SATYA NADELLA: Empathy. To me, what I have sort of come to realize, what is the most innate in all of us is that ability to be able to put ourselves in other people’s shoes and see the world the way they see it. That’s empathy. That’s at the heart of design thinking. When we say innovation is all about meeting unmet, unarticulated, needs of the marketplace, it’s ultimately the unmet and articulated needs of people, and organizations that are made up of people. And you need to have deep empathy.
So, I would say the source of all innovation is what is the most humane quality that we all have, which is empathy.
Empathy. There you have it, from one of the most successful CEOs of the last 20 years.
Being able to put yourself in the shoes of someone else, seeing their problems, motivations, opportunities, hopes and dreams from their perspective.
Satya Nadella has completely rebuilt the culture of Microsoft from the ground up since becoming CEO in February 2014, following Steve Ballmer. In that time, the share price of Microsoft has risen from $36 to $332 today, making its market capitalisation a few billion short of 2 trillion $US, and second only on the share market popularity contest to Apple. Nadella seems to know a bit about what drives success.
Empathy.
It was a really simple answer to what can easily be treated as a complex question requiring a long and detailed answer, employing technical terms, cliches and jargon to impress and further complicate. Instead, he used one simple word, with a short and simple explanation of why he used it.
If I asked your employees and colleagues how much empathy you displayed, what would be their answer?
Oct 26, 2021 | Marketing, Strategy
There are a number of common phrases used in marketing that should be redundant.
‘Go to market’ is often used before words like ‘strategy,’ ‘Plan’ and ‘Process.’
‘Product/market fit’ is increasingly used in the context of digital products, as in ‘seeking product/market fit’ with prototypes and ‘Minimum Viable Product’ tests before committing to the expense of production.
They have served their purpose but are now redundant.
Independently there has been a rise in the use of the term ‘customer centric.’
I seem to be hearing it a lot, even from those who have never seen a customer, let alone interacted with one. It is fast becoming a cliché.
At the same time, we have a phalanx of tools at our disposal that can segment and re-segment customer cohorts down to the micro level. These are used by those flogging digital space for ads, ‘micro-targeting’ and regrettably, often micro retargeting.
It seems pretty obvious to put these together and start thinking about ‘go to customer’ strategies.
Surely if the customer is truly central to what we are seeking to do, add value to their lives, solve problems, and make a bob delivering that value to them, we should be figuring how to talk to them as mentors and peers, rather than yelling at them from the sidelines.
Micro segments, or micro groups of customers with specific needs, problems, contexts, or indeed, lapsed customers, those who have dropped out of the ‘funnel’ in some way. We can now focus our efforts on understanding these people and re-engaging with them in a human way.
It is all about finding the places potential customers look for information, for engagement, and all the rest of the things they do before they actually make a purchase decision.
Customer centric means you go where the customers are, not try and force them into a funnel that assumes they all act in a similar manner.
These days with all the tools at our disposal, you need an ‘always on’ marketing strategy rather than the traditional episodic campaign communication processes.
Sep 22, 2021 | Innovation, Strategy
In the absence of pain, it is easier to do nothing, and just let things evolve.
This is human, we do not invest ‘just in case’, we invest to reduce pain, or more carefully, to leverage an opportunity. This is why big companies & bureaucracies are slow at reacting, the individuals who can lead change, those at the top feel little pain, in fact, accepting risk is dangerous, and invites pain into the room, so risk is avoided.
Look at any major event in history, the pain associated with it leads to change. Any war, epidemic, coup, they all lead to change. Often the change may have happened over a long time frame in the absence of the pain, but in its presence, the time is suddenly compressed.
Just look at the speed that mRNA vaccines have rolled out of labs and into peoples arms over the last 18 months.
The science of mRNA has been evolving slowly for decades. The first suggestion that RNA molecules that drive the synthesis of proteins, move around in a cell was made in the early fifties, and messenger RNA (mRNA) was discovered in 1961.
The first successful trials with mice of an mRNA vaccine were done in the early 90’s. However, the idea was not the target of significant investment, as it seemed alternative approaches were more promising. Over the last decade as the development of CRISPR technology made mRNA techniques potentially more stable, there was renewed scientific interest.
By early 2018 there was a body of scientific exploration that indicated that there was a significant opportunity for mRNA vaccines to be successfully deployed against a range of viruses.
Then along came Covid.
The rate of development accelerated dramatically because of the rapid and huge investment of both public and private money. By mid-2020 both Pfizer established in 1849, and Moderna established in 2010, were conducting human trials of a synthetic version of the messenger molecule that moves RNA from the nucleus of a cell to the outer casing of that cell, delivering protection from the virus.
Since then, there has been the biggest human trial in history going on, with millions of participants from whom data is being collected, enabling the rapid refinement of these vaccines.
This is exactly the process that has happened many times over history. A crisis of some sort compresses geometrically the time that would normally be associated with a significant change. However, the seeming rapid deployment of pain relievers usually happens after a long gestation of the basic science that delivers the antidote. mRNA did not happen overnight, the development from an idea to a testable molecule took decades before the vaccine could be developed and commercialised.
Pain causes rapid change as we seek aggressively to relieve it, disregarding the usual barriers, and accelerating the deployment of the science in products that relive the pain that are improved in real time.
As an aside, I would have thought the fires and floods of early 2020 in eastern Australia would have been sufficient pain for the message of climate change to penetrate the collective brains of our political ‘leaders’, but it seems not. The final catalyst to action on this front will have to be really nasty indeed!
Header sketch. Francis Crik. The header is an informal 1956 sketch of the role Francis Crick imagined was played by RNA in the transfer of information in a cell. The presence of what became known as ‘messenger RNA’ was confirmed several years later.
Note: my understanding of the development process of mRNA is rudimentary at best, I am a marketer not a scientist or biologist.
Sep 13, 2021 | Branding, Marketing, Strategy
One of the most quoted of quotes is attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson: ‘Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door’
Unfortunately, Mr Emerson got it almost entirely wrong.
The better product, on its own, never wins. Just being ‘better’ is simply not enough to win that competitive battle with incumbent but technically inferior products. I am sure there are a few exceptions, I just cannot think of any.
Why is it so?
Several common reasons pop up as I survey the field of my experience.
Customers must care.
What is the value of being different, technically superior in some way if customers do not recognise the value of that differentiation to them? If customers do not care then you will fail, despite the supposed superiority of the alternate. Customer indifference is often the reality, uncoloured as they are by the marketers enthusiasm for the new, improved features.
Peer pressure
We are social animals, and while we do like being one up on the next person, being a long way up puts us outside the herd, and therefore vulnerable to all sorts of attack.
Risk aversion
Doing what you have always done is safe, you know it works, so there is no risk. A change of any type invites risk, which we are shaped by evolution to avoid. While risk aversion varies enormously between individuals, it takes a significant effort to change from the riskless to the riskier, even if the change is slight. In addition, often we simply do not see the alternatives. Consider your own behaviour in a supermarket in commonly purchased categories. There might be something new, perhaps better, but you simply do not see it in the process of pushing the trolley down the aisle trying to get out as quickly as possible.
Habit.
Doing simple things without thought frees up cognitive space to spend in more productive ways. We develop habits, repeated relatively mindless actions as the tool to enable this more productive use of our cognitive capacity. As with risk aversion, it is an outcome of evolutionary psychology that we leave as much capacity as possible free to react quickly and decisively in a tough situation.
Incumbents leverage entrenched distribution channels.
Combined with the four above, incumbents have a huge advantage in that they have access to distribution channels that newcomers must buy their way into somehow. While it is a standard barrier to entry, it costs money to overcome, which leaves less cash available for other activities designed to counter the four above. Again, consider supermarkets. In this country (Australia) two supermarket chains have around 70% of FMCG sales. For a newcomer, no matter how superior to existing alternatives they may be, they must ‘buy’ distribution. This leaves less money available for advertising, and other demand generating activities. It is also easier for incumbents to ‘channel-stuff’ in the lead up to a competitive launch. I have both used this tactic, and been on the receiving end many times, and it works.
If you want to win the war on mice, do not just build a better trap, figure out a way to stop the buggars breeding in numbers in the first place. That way, the solution to the problem is both sufficiently different to be noticed, and it overcomes the value of incumbency given to the existing trap makers.
