Sometimes innovation seems kind of a beauty thing . . .in the eye of the beholder.
But more and more, I appreciate the innovation which helps us do and accomplish what we've set out to accomplish.
I hear of tactics and technology which redefine what individuals and organizations can do. But sadly most times, no one asks why we should ?
What makes an idea or innovation worth pursuing?
For organizations without clearly defined business strategy, its almost impossible to wrestle the myriad of wonderful innovations that come its way. Politics (loudest voice) and copying competitors can become the decision making norm.
Once again this is why doing the hard work of making a clear decision on what a firm's strategy (does this word even communicate anything anymore?), business model, culture, mission, goal is so critical.
We can accomplish great things, but not if we are spending the bulk of our time trying to accomplish objectives not consistent with the above or doing lesser things which eat inordinate resources and contribute below the highest rate of return that shareholders deserve.
Generally speaking, meaningful innovation returns inordinate returns to the shareholders and do so without violating the strengths and business model of the organization.
There are things that work and many more that don't. Let's discuss what we've experienced . . . not our opinions . . . but actually what our days and nights as marketers, business leaders, parents, people are teaching us. Please give us a hand. Tell us about your experience with this stuff.
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Have you communicated it 3 times yet?
If the work of marketing and business development centers around building and evolving relationships, both within the organization and outside (and it certainly does); then arguably the most important skill to hone is an understanding of communications.
For many who grew up focusing on advertising or sales, the numbers and the effect of those communication numbers are drilled into you (frequency, reach, sales calls, conversion, etc). However it seems many of these principles are getting lost.
Possbly the most important one revolves around understanding what it takes for a message to be heard and possibly understood.
What was drilled into me as a young marketing professional was that the research showed that messages must be sent a minimum of 3 times to expect anyone to hear it. And that the optimum number of communications was 6 to 9 times.
In other words, if its important,
> noone hears it before you've said it 3 times
> one should expect for people to have heard your message once you have communicated it 6 times and that
> there was probably less real value to communicating it more than 9 times. If it hadn't been understood or acted upon at that point, it probably wouldn't be.
So if you believe your communication's responsibility stops with sending an email or a white paper or because you left a message or gave a speech, you are extremely naive. Or maybe what you have to say just isn't very important.
So here's the arithmetic: if you are communicating something which requires perception and/or possible action and you haven't communicated your message a mimimum of three times, you shouldn't expect anything from anyone. Follow this rule and your life (both professionally and personally) will make a whole lot more sense . . .and you may become be a great communicator.
For many who grew up focusing on advertising or sales, the numbers and the effect of those communication numbers are drilled into you (frequency, reach, sales calls, conversion, etc). However it seems many of these principles are getting lost.
Possbly the most important one revolves around understanding what it takes for a message to be heard and possibly understood.
What was drilled into me as a young marketing professional was that the research showed that messages must be sent a minimum of 3 times to expect anyone to hear it. And that the optimum number of communications was 6 to 9 times.
In other words, if its important,
> noone hears it before you've said it 3 times
> one should expect for people to have heard your message once you have communicated it 6 times and that
> there was probably less real value to communicating it more than 9 times. If it hadn't been understood or acted upon at that point, it probably wouldn't be.
So if you believe your communication's responsibility stops with sending an email or a white paper or because you left a message or gave a speech, you are extremely naive. Or maybe what you have to say just isn't very important.
So here's the arithmetic: if you are communicating something which requires perception and/or possible action and you haven't communicated your message a mimimum of three times, you shouldn't expect anything from anyone. Follow this rule and your life (both professionally and personally) will make a whole lot more sense . . .and you may become be a great communicator.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Avoiding the Flavor of the Month Club in Marketing Technology
I had the thrill of watching the consulting arm of Ernst & Young at the end of the 90's. They printed money working with the leading companies in the world around primarily putting in technology solutions to operational or system challenges.
However E&Y was always clear about what determined whether their technology solution would return value to the client: the technology had to be tied into an established business process. In fact a part of some assignments would include working with the client to develop or evolve a relavent business process which would require the technology solution in order to acheive the value goal.
Within law firms, this rule is rarely considered or understood. Its why CRM is a pipe dream in most environments and CRM software implementation is a vain exercise.
The question always has to be asked first? What established business proces is this supporting? For instance, if a firm isn't currently comfortable sharing its information with one another and there aren't truly functional cross-practice Industry Groups and/or Client Teams, what is the point of a CRM tool? Well, for many firms so far the point is to have a powerful mail list program.
The 'build it and they will come' orientation to organization evolution mostly fails. It only works when people are looking for a way or place to do something that they don't currently possess or their current way is broken. Better mousetraps are always more expensive and often miss the mark of the user's or purchaser's needs.
So as we are thinking about impacting our organization by investing the shareholder's monies in new marketing technology, we base our investments on how the organization is currently moving into the marketplace.
Otherwise the arithmetic on initiatives not conncected to current business process is that you have just bought into the flavor of the month club. These are usually good ideas that have no place to connect or grow within the organization. And they will not generate the value you desire.
However E&Y was always clear about what determined whether their technology solution would return value to the client: the technology had to be tied into an established business process. In fact a part of some assignments would include working with the client to develop or evolve a relavent business process which would require the technology solution in order to acheive the value goal.
Within law firms, this rule is rarely considered or understood. Its why CRM is a pipe dream in most environments and CRM software implementation is a vain exercise.
The question always has to be asked first? What established business proces is this supporting? For instance, if a firm isn't currently comfortable sharing its information with one another and there aren't truly functional cross-practice Industry Groups and/or Client Teams, what is the point of a CRM tool? Well, for many firms so far the point is to have a powerful mail list program.
The 'build it and they will come' orientation to organization evolution mostly fails. It only works when people are looking for a way or place to do something that they don't currently possess or their current way is broken. Better mousetraps are always more expensive and often miss the mark of the user's or purchaser's needs.
So as we are thinking about impacting our organization by investing the shareholder's monies in new marketing technology, we base our investments on how the organization is currently moving into the marketplace.
Otherwise the arithmetic on initiatives not conncected to current business process is that you have just bought into the flavor of the month club. These are usually good ideas that have no place to connect or grow within the organization. And they will not generate the value you desire.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Becoming Relevant
Why would someone want us around? What makes another person be interested in relating to us? And how can these connections have long term value?
Its a pretty simple game actually. People who are relevant to us for on-going and long term relationship possess one or more of these attributes:
1. They get us. These rare people have made it their business to know and understand me in a way that few do. Most often it is exhibited by their ability to understand my concerns, fears or needs. And oddly enough they seem to be able to forgive our idiosyncrasies and idiocies. No small thing that.
2. They are where we are. These individuals live with or speak about specific situations/content in a way that is authentic and experienced-based that leads me to believe that we are very similar. They don't have to listen to me, or in some cases even know me; I just want to have access to what they think and what they are working out. (If you have a number 1 who is also a number 2: walk away, you are a big winner.)
3. They listen to us and, oddly enough, seem genuinely interested. Mind you, they may not understand, but they want to. Oddly enough, we don't require someone to understand, we just require them to want to understand. . .to be about us a bit.
4. They choose us to relate to. This is the weirdest of the lot. We have no idea why they want to spend time with us and, many times, we may not see why we should be around them but we do.
There is a common denominator among these that is critical to all of our relationships (business or otherwise): in order for a relationship to be somewhat satisfying, the other person must show a consistent interest in us or an interest in what we believe helps to define us (our interests, needs, fears, ambitions).
So to become relevant to others we have to be about them. The bar is actually pretty low; we just need to turn our internal volume down and turn up the microphone that people speak into . . .and listen to them.
The hanging chad here is: what about the authentic me? Isn't there a place for my voice? Absolutely there is, but we need to spend a bit of effort finding that place and those people. Your head and your heart will tell you and magically, so will the people. All I ask is that you not give up too easily in this search. You will find the place and it will be worth it.
Its a pretty simple game actually. People who are relevant to us for on-going and long term relationship possess one or more of these attributes:
1. They get us. These rare people have made it their business to know and understand me in a way that few do. Most often it is exhibited by their ability to understand my concerns, fears or needs. And oddly enough they seem to be able to forgive our idiosyncrasies and idiocies. No small thing that.
2. They are where we are. These individuals live with or speak about specific situations/content in a way that is authentic and experienced-based that leads me to believe that we are very similar. They don't have to listen to me, or in some cases even know me; I just want to have access to what they think and what they are working out. (If you have a number 1 who is also a number 2: walk away, you are a big winner.)
3. They listen to us and, oddly enough, seem genuinely interested. Mind you, they may not understand, but they want to. Oddly enough, we don't require someone to understand, we just require them to want to understand. . .to be about us a bit.
4. They choose us to relate to. This is the weirdest of the lot. We have no idea why they want to spend time with us and, many times, we may not see why we should be around them but we do.
There is a common denominator among these that is critical to all of our relationships (business or otherwise): in order for a relationship to be somewhat satisfying, the other person must show a consistent interest in us or an interest in what we believe helps to define us (our interests, needs, fears, ambitions).
So to become relevant to others we have to be about them. The bar is actually pretty low; we just need to turn our internal volume down and turn up the microphone that people speak into . . .and listen to them.
The hanging chad here is: what about the authentic me? Isn't there a place for my voice? Absolutely there is, but we need to spend a bit of effort finding that place and those people. Your head and your heart will tell you and magically, so will the people. All I ask is that you not give up too easily in this search. You will find the place and it will be worth it.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
6 Criteria for a Marketing Technology Approach That Works
Many of us are fortunate to work for organizations which expect us to help build a better team, business model, business development process, etc which returns more profit to the shareholders.
However as our industry evolves, it still has a tendency to being reactive, faddish and unstrategic. So when it comes to making marketing technology decisions, we can get caught up in a dysfunctional process that eats up resources.
So with finite (in some cases shrinking) resources and growing expectations, how do we make marketing technology decisions?
Here's the criteria I'm using these days which helps me focus on what will deliver value in a lean and focused environment:
1. How will the marketing technology benefit our client? (Now wait Allen, isn't this about us. No, it is always about the client.) If we are an organization focused on serving clients and providing value for them and marketing / bus dev's chief function is to facilitate that relationship, then the technology has to be seen in this light.
Will the technology help us understand the client better? Will it help us focus better on their most important needs? Will it help us have a better relationship with them? And do the clients care about any of this?
2. How will the technology make our firm more profitable? Not more active or work more hours; how will it return more money to the shareholders?
3. Does the technology fill a hole, demand or fit the business process involved with executing our strategy? Not will it benefit everyone in the firm, but will it increase the value and productivity of our go-to-market strategy?
4. Will the technology integrate with the other firm technology? Will it work in concert with the firm financial system, the CRM system and all content management technology? No one needs a stand alone resource.
5. Does it make the marketing function more efficient? Can we do better work and do it more quickly? (In an environment where resources are shrinking, I would add that it be personnel neutral? Sometimes we don't have the extra personnel slots to manage new technology.)
6. Is is scalable? A holdover from my days at E&Y, we always want to make sure our technology fits in with most any reasonable growth scenario.
Oh yeah, and I guess you need to check if you can afford it. I don't list this only because you'll have plenty of help in this area.
Bottom-line is that we have to accept the arithmetic that marketing technology can't be about flavor of the month fads or what others are doing. Mid-tech and even low-tech solutions have their place (note: Southwest Airlines built the most succssful domestic airlines based on customer's simple needs and simple solutions). Figure out your criteria and stick to it.
However as our industry evolves, it still has a tendency to being reactive, faddish and unstrategic. So when it comes to making marketing technology decisions, we can get caught up in a dysfunctional process that eats up resources.
So with finite (in some cases shrinking) resources and growing expectations, how do we make marketing technology decisions?
Here's the criteria I'm using these days which helps me focus on what will deliver value in a lean and focused environment:
1. How will the marketing technology benefit our client? (Now wait Allen, isn't this about us. No, it is always about the client.) If we are an organization focused on serving clients and providing value for them and marketing / bus dev's chief function is to facilitate that relationship, then the technology has to be seen in this light.
Will the technology help us understand the client better? Will it help us focus better on their most important needs? Will it help us have a better relationship with them? And do the clients care about any of this?
2. How will the technology make our firm more profitable? Not more active or work more hours; how will it return more money to the shareholders?
3. Does the technology fill a hole, demand or fit the business process involved with executing our strategy? Not will it benefit everyone in the firm, but will it increase the value and productivity of our go-to-market strategy?
4. Will the technology integrate with the other firm technology? Will it work in concert with the firm financial system, the CRM system and all content management technology? No one needs a stand alone resource.
5. Does it make the marketing function more efficient? Can we do better work and do it more quickly? (In an environment where resources are shrinking, I would add that it be personnel neutral? Sometimes we don't have the extra personnel slots to manage new technology.)
6. Is is scalable? A holdover from my days at E&Y, we always want to make sure our technology fits in with most any reasonable growth scenario.
Oh yeah, and I guess you need to check if you can afford it. I don't list this only because you'll have plenty of help in this area.
Bottom-line is that we have to accept the arithmetic that marketing technology can't be about flavor of the month fads or what others are doing. Mid-tech and even low-tech solutions have their place (note: Southwest Airlines built the most succssful domestic airlines based on customer's simple needs and simple solutions). Figure out your criteria and stick to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)