You lose more weight if you cut your food into small pieces and chew thoroughly. I always used that analogy to explain the best way to introduce change. Smaller, easily digestable, short term goals are easier to comprehend.
Building on these 'quick hits', it gets easier over time to sell broader goals, BHAGs - Big Hairy Audacious Goals, as author Jim Collins (Built To Last) calls them.
On a related note, I found this interesting, a study from my alma mater, The University of Iowa, regarding the impact of small denominations on spending patterns: http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060221/NEWS01/60221004/1079/RSS01
"It appears that money is not just regarded as a medium for transactions. The denomination of the bill plays significantly into a customer's willingness to spend."
Monday, February 27, 2006
Sunday, February 19, 2006
M&A In Dim Light
“What are you doing?” asked the stranger to the man, who, lit by a streetlight, seemed to be closely inspecting the sidewalk.
“Looking for my watch,” said the man.
“How long ago did you lose it here”, asked the stranger, starting to help the man search.
“About thirty minutes ago, I guess,” replied the man, “But I didn’t lose it here. I lost it about three blocks that way,” said the man, as he motioned down the street.
The stranger stood up and turned to the man. “Then why in the world are you searching here?” he asked.
“The light is better here.” Replied the man, confidently.
A colleague tells me his company purchased another, smaller rival recently, which on the surface seemed like a positive move as it had been clear for some time that the market they were in was leveling off, even declining.
“So, what do they do?” I asked, expecting to hear about the extension the company now had in the way of offering a new, larger; or perhaps smaller but profitable niche, market.
“Same thing as we do. Same thing”, my colleague shrugged.
“No promising IP (intellectual property)?” I asked. “No vertical markets, new distribution partners, nothing?” I offered, hopefully.
“No, not really. We lost a few deals to them before. Same customers.” He was beginning to see my point. “We’ll just be bigger.” He sighs. “For awhile.”
So it is, another company looking for inorganic growth where the light is better. A market they know, are familiar with, regardless of whether it’s a good fit, because it will, for a time, stave off inevitable decline. To this type of management, to do the right thing - to take on an ancillary product line or enter a new market, is a seen as a bit like dusk… uncertain and just a little spooky. However, I prefer to think of it as a bit more like dawn, as dim and uncertain as dusk, but with far greater promise.
This is a critical difference between management and leadership. My colleague’s company is managed, not led. Leadership would search the right places for something worth finding; whereas management will limit its searches to that with which it is comfortable. When it comes to M&A, competitors and partners are often the first targets (or buyers) that come to mind – vertical integration comes easy. In fact, almost half of such deals are from the sellers' same industry. However, these tend to be strictly buyers seeking financial leverage, and are unlikely to invest significant amounts of additional capital to grow the market or build further on foundations of organic growth. This leads to internal strife and eventual disintegration of even the most modest goals that spurred the initial interest. This is among the reasons most mergers fail. On the other hand, premium buyers, with visionary leadership in place, like many big public companies, invest in potential and pay for it, or alternatively, well-led micro and mid cap companies market themselves to these ideal suitors.
When seeking inorganic opportunities for selling your company or in buying another, be certain of your motivations and goals for the transaction.
And bring a flashlight.
“Looking for my watch,” said the man.
“How long ago did you lose it here”, asked the stranger, starting to help the man search.
“About thirty minutes ago, I guess,” replied the man, “But I didn’t lose it here. I lost it about three blocks that way,” said the man, as he motioned down the street.
The stranger stood up and turned to the man. “Then why in the world are you searching here?” he asked.
“The light is better here.” Replied the man, confidently.
A colleague tells me his company purchased another, smaller rival recently, which on the surface seemed like a positive move as it had been clear for some time that the market they were in was leveling off, even declining.
“So, what do they do?” I asked, expecting to hear about the extension the company now had in the way of offering a new, larger; or perhaps smaller but profitable niche, market.
“Same thing as we do. Same thing”, my colleague shrugged.
“No promising IP (intellectual property)?” I asked. “No vertical markets, new distribution partners, nothing?” I offered, hopefully.
“No, not really. We lost a few deals to them before. Same customers.” He was beginning to see my point. “We’ll just be bigger.” He sighs. “For awhile.”
So it is, another company looking for inorganic growth where the light is better. A market they know, are familiar with, regardless of whether it’s a good fit, because it will, for a time, stave off inevitable decline. To this type of management, to do the right thing - to take on an ancillary product line or enter a new market, is a seen as a bit like dusk… uncertain and just a little spooky. However, I prefer to think of it as a bit more like dawn, as dim and uncertain as dusk, but with far greater promise.
This is a critical difference between management and leadership. My colleague’s company is managed, not led. Leadership would search the right places for something worth finding; whereas management will limit its searches to that with which it is comfortable. When it comes to M&A, competitors and partners are often the first targets (or buyers) that come to mind – vertical integration comes easy. In fact, almost half of such deals are from the sellers' same industry. However, these tend to be strictly buyers seeking financial leverage, and are unlikely to invest significant amounts of additional capital to grow the market or build further on foundations of organic growth. This leads to internal strife and eventual disintegration of even the most modest goals that spurred the initial interest. This is among the reasons most mergers fail. On the other hand, premium buyers, with visionary leadership in place, like many big public companies, invest in potential and pay for it, or alternatively, well-led micro and mid cap companies market themselves to these ideal suitors.
When seeking inorganic opportunities for selling your company or in buying another, be certain of your motivations and goals for the transaction.
And bring a flashlight.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Progress Over Perfection = Design Over Dogmatism
Here's another take on the Strategy180 mantra, 'Progress Over Perfection' that suggests releasing projects/ideas/concepts before they are 'perfect'. This time, the idea is extended to design. Quote courtesy of Fast Company:
"Let's say you have an idea. In a traditional company, given the chance to present the idea to a senior vice president, you're going to knock yourself out to dot all the "I's" and cross all the "T's." The goal is to make it perfect. There's a focus on one solution. We say the better approach is to go and see that person with nine half-baked ideas. Design thinking is iterative. It's okay to be approximate in the beginning and then narrow and narrow. But in companies today the present way of thinking doesn't really allow that to happen. Design thinking is also empathic. Being sensitive and responsive to people at different levels and disciplines will lead to a different kind of thinking. It embraces being intuitive. No self-respecting business thinker takes a creative leap of faith. Everything has to be evidenced based. That's not a bad idea, but creative leaps of faith are part of how innovation happens. So design thinking is fundamentally optimistic. Instead of pulling things down, it challenges everybody to rise up and break through barriers." David Kelley Founder and chairman, Ideo, Palo Alto, California
In 1991, Kelley launched Ideo, the groundbreaking design shop, to help change the way companies like Apple and Cisco innovate. Now, as head of Stanford University's new d.school, he's helping to shape the next generation of designers -- as well as thinkers from other disciplines.
"Let's say you have an idea. In a traditional company, given the chance to present the idea to a senior vice president, you're going to knock yourself out to dot all the "I's" and cross all the "T's." The goal is to make it perfect. There's a focus on one solution. We say the better approach is to go and see that person with nine half-baked ideas. Design thinking is iterative. It's okay to be approximate in the beginning and then narrow and narrow. But in companies today the present way of thinking doesn't really allow that to happen. Design thinking is also empathic. Being sensitive and responsive to people at different levels and disciplines will lead to a different kind of thinking. It embraces being intuitive. No self-respecting business thinker takes a creative leap of faith. Everything has to be evidenced based. That's not a bad idea, but creative leaps of faith are part of how innovation happens. So design thinking is fundamentally optimistic. Instead of pulling things down, it challenges everybody to rise up and break through barriers." David Kelley Founder and chairman, Ideo, Palo Alto, California
In 1991, Kelley launched Ideo, the groundbreaking design shop, to help change the way companies like Apple and Cisco innovate. Now, as head of Stanford University's new d.school, he's helping to shape the next generation of designers -- as well as thinkers from other disciplines.
Friday, February 03, 2006
In The Year Of Our Lord
1836.
Unless you live in Texas or are familiar with Mexican history, that year means little to you. To those of Mexican heritage, it reminds them of the year their ancestors lost a lot of their homeland to English-speaking settlers, to end up as what would become the southwest United States. Then again, to some insular rich white guys, its also the year of a great anglo triumph.
1836.
Houston’s new soccer team learned that the year is still a sore subject among many Houston Hispanics, who make up a large portion of the prospective ticket buyers for the new team. Of course, typically, the importance of marketing, marketing research, and understanding your audience was lost on the managers of the new team, as they elected to celebrate Houston’s founding year by naming the team, ‘1836’.
1836.
It’s a stupid name. (And I’m well aware that other franchises tie into years as well, such as Germany’s Hannover 96, or the NBA’s Philadelphia 76ers. But really, they’re stupid names too.) But moreover is the complete lack of consideration given to the prospective audience. For me, it's a nauseating lack of consideration given basic marketing, a clear self-oriented presumption, and the overwhelmingly unrepentant attitude of the franchise. Quoted in the New York Times, franchise president Oliver Luck stated, "We were aware of the possibility of the double entendre, but at the end of the day we believe 1836 is significant because it was the year of Houston's founding.” He goes on to support my contention that this was a very self-indulgent and ignorant choice, emphasis mine: "We spent a lot of time on this internally. By no means was it intended as a slight." Best intentions or not, this team already has a fight on its hands. Unfortunately, it isn’t a sports rivalry, but one with its own fans.
1836.
You could argue that this is political correctness gone too far, but in the end it only reflects the concerns of a community critically important to the franchise. You might think that some ten generations later it would be water under the bridge, but then you could make the same argument regarding historical memories the world over. Try to get a NASCAR team in Georgia named ‘Atlanta 1865’ or a baseball team in Japan named ‘Nagasaki 1945’.
Just add this to the common list of translation and cultural advertising and branding blunders with which we are so familiar. Put the visors back on the money men and give the responsibility for launching a brand back on marketing where it belongs.
Good lord, people, if ‘marketing is easy’, why do you who contend that do it so damn badly?
Unless you live in Texas or are familiar with Mexican history, that year means little to you. To those of Mexican heritage, it reminds them of the year their ancestors lost a lot of their homeland to English-speaking settlers, to end up as what would become the southwest United States. Then again, to some insular rich white guys, its also the year of a great anglo triumph.
1836.
Houston’s new soccer team learned that the year is still a sore subject among many Houston Hispanics, who make up a large portion of the prospective ticket buyers for the new team. Of course, typically, the importance of marketing, marketing research, and understanding your audience was lost on the managers of the new team, as they elected to celebrate Houston’s founding year by naming the team, ‘1836’.
1836.
It’s a stupid name. (And I’m well aware that other franchises tie into years as well, such as Germany’s Hannover 96, or the NBA’s Philadelphia 76ers. But really, they’re stupid names too.) But moreover is the complete lack of consideration given to the prospective audience. For me, it's a nauseating lack of consideration given basic marketing, a clear self-oriented presumption, and the overwhelmingly unrepentant attitude of the franchise. Quoted in the New York Times, franchise president Oliver Luck stated, "We were aware of the possibility of the double entendre, but at the end of the day we believe 1836 is significant because it was the year of Houston's founding.” He goes on to support my contention that this was a very self-indulgent and ignorant choice, emphasis mine: "We spent a lot of time on this internally. By no means was it intended as a slight." Best intentions or not, this team already has a fight on its hands. Unfortunately, it isn’t a sports rivalry, but one with its own fans.
1836.
You could argue that this is political correctness gone too far, but in the end it only reflects the concerns of a community critically important to the franchise. You might think that some ten generations later it would be water under the bridge, but then you could make the same argument regarding historical memories the world over. Try to get a NASCAR team in Georgia named ‘Atlanta 1865’ or a baseball team in Japan named ‘Nagasaki 1945’.
Just add this to the common list of translation and cultural advertising and branding blunders with which we are so familiar. Put the visors back on the money men and give the responsibility for launching a brand back on marketing where it belongs.
Good lord, people, if ‘marketing is easy’, why do you who contend that do it so damn badly?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)