What do you look at when your corporate results disappoint?

It’s nearly Christmas. Many companies have but a few weeks to their year-end. It’s really too late to rectify the 2011 performance. 2012 though is another matter.

Harold Geneen, late of ITT said it well:

“You read a book from beginning to end. You run a business the opposite way. You start with the end, and then you do everything you must to reach it.”

So what do you do when your carefully thought out strategy, or your elegant operational plan are just not delivering the results you expected (or worse the results that you promised your bank, board or stakeholders!)

Certainly one place to start is with your assumptions behind the plan, but another start point and one that is far too often ignored is to determine how far your employees or functional managers share your perception of the company and its objectives.

We all know the quotation that “Perception is Reality” (though I had to remind myself that it was Lee Atwater who said it first).

Anyway I digress, if an employee or a function or a level of management perceive that your company is, for example, risk averse; then that is their reality it doesn’t matter whether it’s objectively true, it remains a perceived “fact”. To follow that example through, it might then very well be that your staff are spending far too much time preparing reports to justify future actions or defend past ones. That’s time they’re spending NOT driving your business results.

So when results don’t meet your expectations, certainly look at the assumptions behind your original plan, but also look at the perceptions within your business of your business. In the best of businesses, these perceptions can pretty much match an objective reality. When there is dissonance in the perceptions of field staff or office based staff; or between junior management and senior management, then you have the beginnings of a muddle, which might turn into an issue that detracts from achieving your objectives.

So my advice is to look at the perceptions within your company, recognize that not everyone shares the same perspective. When there are major perceptual differences, face up to them and get everyone pointing in the same direction, even if they are still not quite marching in step.

 

Posted in Culture, Leadership, Strategy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A short rant about inaction in business

Isaac Newton’s third law of motion says:

“For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action”.

As it is with celestial spheres, so it is with business; while in the short term the action may not be equal or exactly opposite, things do have a way to even out over time. But this is not a rant about action and reaction or proactivity or any of those aspects; this is about the dangers of inaction – the dangers of a lack of action per se.

Think about it, your actions lead to a ripple effect of other actions and reactions, a ripple effect of change or progress going through your business; your inaction leads to nothing, zilch, nada!

Now I hear some of you say, that you need to prepare, or need extra information or just one further piece of analysis, and maybe that’s true to a degree, but you need to be careful not to use the need for preparation as an excuse for inaction.

You will never know everything there is to know before making a decision; you will never have perfect knowledge before you act. You will need to make a judgement call, and some risk is implicit within that – but that’s what leaders do – they make a judgement call, they act.

Even if the results of action are not always clear; the results of inaction are: nothing happens!

The much quoted Winston Churchill said it well.

“I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

And he helped win a war, not just improve a business!

End of rant

 

Posted in Leadership, Simplify | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Rogers Customer Service Woes – A need for Customer Experience Mapping?

Now I have to declare an interest here – I am a long standing customer of Rogers, (Cable, ISP, Wireless conglomerate in Canada). In all probability I will stay with Rogers (don’t tell them or you will ruin my negotiation strategy), not least because I cannot get satisfactory satellite reception from their major competitor (although they now have a new System transmitted through telephone wires which may well be an alternative).

Anyway that’s my interest fully declared. Now Rogers have an interesting system of recording discounts. They can only last for 12 months and then it is entirely the responsibility of the customer to renew or renegotiate. A month or two ago I did just that. I kept my requirements identical and simply roled over the 20% discount for another 12 months.

And this is where I made my first mistake, I assumed that as everything was the same as before my invoice would be the same too. Silly assumption, entirely my fault. (In case you miss the tone there is a hint of sarcasm here!)

So when my invoice arrived and I queried the increase, I was told it was because some of the costs had been prorated over the month end and everything would be back to “normal” the following month. Now I’m quite good with numbers, and I didn’t really follow their proration argument.

I was then given a definition of proration by the customer service agent (which I helpfully corrected because she was a little fuzzy on the detail). I then explained that I understood what proration was, but did not understand how Rogers were applying it in these particular circumstances.

So always the helpful customer I asked the customer services representative to caculate my projected invoice going forward (taking any nasty proration out of the equation) and was told it was increasing by around 9%

Now I was confused so I asked three or four questions more:

  1. Was my invoice of thee months prior correct? (Yes)
  2. Had there been any price increases since that time? (No)
  3. Were my discount levels and package the same as before? (Yes)
  4. Why then had my cable bill increased?

I was told by the customer service representative that my bill was correct, notwithstanding the logic of the previous questions.

I gave up with this particular person, and asked to speak to someone else. In the end I got through to someone in the (so-called) Office of the President, who agreed with my logic, and promised to sort out the issue.

Three months later the issue is unresolved. Every month my bill is increased and subsequently rebated after a call from me. I have suggested that Rogers put me on the pay roll as I seem to be the only one checking billing, but so far they have demurred!

Now in many ways Rogers is a great company, but their customer service and billing systems have long been woeful. They desperately need to look at things from their customers’ perspective rather than from their own internal view. Otherwise they will lose customers to an increasingly large number of competitors.

I wonder whether they have ever mapped out the actual customer experience and compared it with the ideal. That would be a good place to start.

Posted in Customer Service | Tagged | Leave a comment

“Being a hard nose marketer does not work any more. Social media marketing has replaced marketing”

I saw this quote a few days ago. Now I’m known (by some) for my diplomacy but really this is nonsense!

What is this fixation that Social Media Marketing is the be-all and end-all of marketing? Its this sort of sloppy thinking that has led to the the denigration of marketing from a core strategic function to merely a peripheral communications role.

Sure Social Media is an important communication medium (one of many), but Marketing should be about so much more than communication!.

Unilever has a nice visual which demonstrates a little what Marketing really entails. So much more than Social Media!

Unilever Marketing

Posted on by Jeremy | Leave a comment

Structured Brainstorming – An Oxymoron or a useful tool to drive innovation?

There is no set way to brainstorm.

I have always favoured a methodology that is unstructured in terms of input, but which has an organizing architecture built around it either before during or after the session by a third party moderator. Using this framework, participants are then encouraged to use this framework so they can group and rank their raw input and generate potential projects.

Ideas need to be grouped and organized; otherwise, you are just left with a long list of ideas on a flip chart that you will probably never look at again.

Here are a few other techniques that suit different personalities and different situations. Just to get you thinking:

Top That

Nothing drives innovative thinking faster than a little competition. In Top That, a highly interactive problem solving technique, groups compete against one another to develop THE single most innovative idea to solve the challenge. After developing concepts, groups exchange their best ideas and are challenged to improve one another’s top ideas. This is a very effective method for cross-building ideas and evoking a higher level of creative thinking from your group.

Deep Thought

This is a silent problem solving technique that begins with individual idea generation and then grows exponentially involving every member of the group. Participants write down an idea for the group to consider, ideas are passed around, and continually build upon by colleagues until the collective genius of the group has been written down. This non-verbal technique is a safe, effective way to engage the shy, self-conscious, or “silent thinkers” in your group to contribute his or her ideas.

Investigative

This investigative problem solving technique utilizes a similar method used by top news reporters to uncover the “a-ha!” facts of a story and solve mysteries. By examining a challenging problem or issue from the five perspectives (viewpoints) of  “Who,” “When,” “Where,” “Why,” and “How”, a group can quickly uncover important new insights into the motivation(s) of human behavior, the causes and effects influencing a situation, and opportunities surrounding the timing or location of a situation.

SCAMPER

SCAMPER  is another well known problem solving technique based on the theory that every new innovation is in some way, shape or form, really an adaptation of something that already exists. Each letter of the SCAMPER acronym points to a different way groups can play with the characteristics of the challenge to stimulate new ideas, or explore new possibilities:

  • S = Substitute
  • C = Combine
  • A = Adapt
  • M = Magnify
  • P = Put to Other Uses
  • E = Eliminate (or simplify)
  • R = Rearrange (or Reverse)

 

Mind Mapping

A popular problem solving technique that closely mimics the brain’s natural process of making spontaneous associations. The process begins with a key idea word or concept that serves as a focal point for the challenge; next, related ideas triggered by the key word radiate outwardly in all directions. This technique is a powerful way to visually explore, conceive, connect, combine and organize information about an issue or challenge.

Monstering

This is the process of making novel new combinations. This engaging problem solving technique is about combining, linking and merging two or more different ideas, images, parts, functions, notions, flavors or concepts together with a mad scientist’s gleeful sense of combinatory play. Apple’s blockbuster iPhone product is an ingeniously designed combination of a cell phone, iPod music player, web browser, calendar, calculator, clock, GPS, camera, photo album, note pad, voice recorder.

Channeling

In this unique problem solving technique, the group is divided into small groups. Each one is provided a well-known archetypal personality (i.e., a groundbreaking innovator, inventor, or performer (e.g. Steve Jobs, James Watt, Lady Gaga) who serves as the symbolic leader. The groups compete with one another to generate the most innovative ideas possible by channeling their ideation process through the distinctive personality traits of their renowned leaders.

Idea Reversal

Also known as counter-intuitive, or 180-degree thinking, this provocative problem solving technique is based on the premise that often the worst sounding ideas imaginable can contain the seeds of great ideas if effectively “turned around”. This highly enjoyable, reverse-logic technique helps liberates participants from seriousness and frees the imagination from the limiting confines of conventional thinking.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Life Time Value

This is a very powerful info graphic from KSS, which describes how life time value can be calculated and used in order to determine the appropriate level of customer acquisition (or retention) costs.

While the example is consumer related (Starbucks) the same techniques can be used on a B2B basis too.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Fake Ipods, Fake Apple Stores…….now Fake Steve Jobs!!

At the introduction of high-end smart phone by Xiaomi , Lei Jun, CEO of Xiaomi, dressed and used gestures identical to Apple’s leader.

I got these pictures from a Vietnamese website, which sourced the pictures from MIC Gadget show.

 

Lei Jun dresses like Steve Jobs (jeans, black shirt and sneakers).

He looks a little shorter and forgot the glasses!

 

 

 

During his introduction, the CEO of Xiaomi also used the same “body language” to emphasize the product features.

 

 

 

Although flattery must be nice (not much experience myself!!), let us not forget the Steve Jobs was named  the second worst-dressed man in technology by GQ magazine, beaten only by Mark Zuckerberg  and proving that astronomical sums of money can’t buy style. (Again little personal experience of either!!)

It all made me laugh anyway.

 

 

 

 


 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wal Mart are the new Harrods!

I was driving the other day, half listening to the radio, and half trying to avoid the (almost literally) mindless flood of pedestrians who assume that we drivers will spot them while they are watching videos or making phone calls or, may be, even blogging.

Anyway the salient point is that I was listening to the radio and I half heard a commercial for fresh corn; now don’t ask me about the detail, I was trying to dodge pedestrians, but I do recall that the ad was about freshness, it was all emotional, there was a price that I can’t remember….. and it was a Wal Mart ad.

Now it is not news to say that Wal Mart have moved into fresh produce, but I got to thinking…..will Wal Mart ever stop increasing the range of categories that they offer? And rather than Roll Back or Everyday Low Pricing perhaps Wal Mart will adopt Harrods former motto and became “Omnia Omnibus Ubique.”

As Latin is not as popular as it was, I suspect Wal Mart would have to translate the slogan into something like “Everything for Everybody Everywhere”.  Let me remind you where this policy took Harrods; they sold an airplane in 1917; they also sold an alligator, as a gift to Noel Coward; and in the 1980s, the store sold a baby elephant as a gift for then U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Maybe Wal Mart will not go that far, but there are many more areas where their strategy (low prices plus acceptable quality equals real value) might take them. They could certainly provide more services than they currently do, and who knows where digital initiatives like Vudu will take them.

It will be interesting to watch Wal Mart’s continued evolution into a 21st century Harrods, an evolution which really has only just begun; and it will be even more interesting to help others redefine their value propositions so that they can compete with Wal Mart’s “Omnia Omnibus Ubique”

 

Posted in Retail, Strategy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Thank you M. Camus! Very black and white; very hard to live up to……but yet refreshing!

“No excuses ever, for anyone; that is my principle at the outset. I deny the good intention, the respectable mistake, the indiscretion, the extenuating circumstance. ”
— Albert Camus (The Fall)

Posted on by Jeremy | Leave a comment

Luddites and Librarians – The importance of asking the right question

Forgive the headline but I become a little carried away with alliteration!

Here in Toronto, the newly elected council is apparently considering privatizing the library system. Petitions have been started, barricades manned and thousands of words written. However, I think we’re asking the wrong question. The question is not “Should we close our libraries?” The question should be “Do we really need libraries?”

Before I am shouted down, let me say that I am a totally committed supporter of education, reading, easy access, equality of opportunity and all those good things.

The aspect I query is whether libraries are the best vehicle to deliver all these benefits. In the last few years, we have seen the decline of CDs; in the last few months, we have seen the closure of once unassailable bookstore chains.

So why are we trying to stem the tide and save libraries in their current form?
Leaving the emotion to one side, shouldn’t we be trying to figure out two things? Shouldn’t we be working out how we can use the physical infrastructure of libraries for something else other than the storage of soon-to-be-obsolete books? In addition, at the same time shouldn’t we be trying to figure out how to give current library users access to digital readers (maybe subsidised by savings in the existing library budget).
I think it’s possible wholeheartedly believe that education for all is key for our society, while at the same time questioning whether the 19th century model of Public Libraries is the solution for the future. We can debate exactly when but I do not think that many would argue that digital books in virtual libraries are going to be part of our future.

There would still be a plethora of implementation issues to be solved, bur wouldn’t it be best to focus our efforts on the future rather than be swept away Canute-like by the incoming digital tide?

So why am I going on about libraries?

Consider this from a business perspective. How often do we defend the status quo rather than seek to shift the paradigm? How often do we justify decisions made on old criteria rather than really trying to peek into the future?

Sometimes real leadership needs to be revolutionary and not evolutionary.

Sometimes we need to close the libraries; not to deny free access to knowledge, but because there is (or soon will be) a better way.

Posted in Leadership, Strategy | Tagged | 2 Comments