Three rules for managing third party resources

Harvard Business Review publishes an interesting article here on how smaller companies can hire third party services to get the same data insight (as in the case featured) or resources as bigger competitors. Managing these resources is a separate issue altogether, but there are best practices for getting the most out of, well, companies like mine. Essentially this involves three key areas: Shared objectives, regular benchmarking, and communication.

On worry and inaction

Jeremy Kloubec, a former colleague of mine now with consulting organization Infosys, writes recently about the dire unrealized predictions facing the VC community just a year ago. He details the shifts in the industry and partially credits the architects of the still-nascent recovery programs.

His comments reminded me of something my mother often said: "95% of things you worry about never come to pass."

Of course, its that 5% that keep us up at night.

As it pertains to our business life, if, as Peter Drucker is credited with stating, "the best way to predict the future is to create it", then 100% of our angst can be squeezed to 5% insignificance by the simple act of doing. Dire warnings and worry generally come with the same highly unlikely assumption: "If things do not change, ..." That peculiar assumption ignores the fact that humans - particularly capitalist humans - are not given to inaction. Even our base 'fight or flight' instinct indicates an action of one type or another. Change is inevitable.

And so it is with this crisis. We're not out of it, not by a long shot, and our myriad collective and individual actions will differ in effectiveness and certainly create new crises even as they create new solutions. But our reactions to events and the actions we take are all we've got and will continue to alter the linear path.

If history is any guide, that's more than enough.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Drucker at 100: What Will You Do Differently on Monday? (blogs.harvardbusiness.org)

How much green is there in green?

In a recent price sensitivity analysis conducted by Rockbridge Research, it was discovered that most consumers would purchase a product indicated as 'green' (environmentally friendly) over a 'regular' product of the same type, but only if they were the same price. The study concluded that overall, "...as the green product’s price increases, consumers’ inclination towards it decreases."

Not surprisingly, specific audience categories offering unique attitudes toward the 'green movement' differ in the value they place on such products. Six distinct consumer groups within the overall adult consumer population were identified, with “Green Tech Leaders” willing to pay far more for a green certified product, while “Anti-Greens” are not willing to pay much more at all. That alone is interesting as it still indicates a willingness to perhaps consider the positive social implications of buying green even to those who do not value it themselves. This indicates that green product attributes are valuable, but not widespread enough to accommodate anything but a modest price adjustment.

From a share prospective, a green alternative may move the needle. From a margin perspective, this study indicates that their isn't yet much green in being green.

To learn more about Rockbridge’s Green Technology Segmentation, click here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nearly all "Eco" Product Claims Are Misleading [Greenwashing] (consumerist.com)

Unpopular popularity

"Nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded" is one of my favorite 'Yogis', so named for the famed Yankees catcher who is perhaps as famed for his unique turn of phrase as his play on the field.

In a study released by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, we find that, once again, there is a lot of truth to what Yogi Berra has to say. The study illustrates that the fall of an item or style in popularity mirrors its rise to popularity, so that items that become popular faster also die out faster.

These, my friends, are called fads. The study's authors were quoted as saying that “While it is easy to see products, ideas, or behaviors catch on in popular culture, less in known about why such things become unpopular." And this question is as critical a question to marketers as any.

In a cross-cultural, non-commercial study that harkens to Levitt's book Freakonomics, study authors Berger and Le Mens analyzed baby names in France and the US over the past century. The two researchers found a consistency in the rise and fall of given names - that the longer it took for a name to become common, the longer it took for the name to fall out of use. Parents interviewed indicated that they were simply unwilling to risk saddling their child with a name they perceived as 'faddish'.

For marketers, these results indicate that it is the perception of a trend that makes the creation of a fad self-fulfilling. While somewhat intuitive, there is often no scarcity or other economic factor that forces certain trends that 'hockey stick' in popularity to die out faster. Instead, the concept of 'the harder they fall' is based in the idea that people, for all their concern about fitting in, don’t want to be seen as following the herd. The key is perhaps in not controlling the growth, but in marketing the message - even as sales rise without apparent assistance from 'those guys in marketing' - that the growth is because of the value offered by the fast-growing product or service, and not transient fads.

And that will mean that in addition to trying something, marketing will keep people coming back, even as it gets more crowded.

Zeitgeist 2008

Cover via AmazonI'm currently halfway through the book Click (the one by Bill Tancer, not Nick Hornby); full title Click: What Millions of People Are Doing Online and Why it Matters. Tancer, who runs the research effort at online market research firm Hitwise, analyzes search patterns from search engine data and addresses the often surprising results and challenges us about what we've believed about the psychology of consumers. So when Google printed this "Google Zeitgeist" for 2008 – snack food for stat brats such as myself – I had to look to see for myself what Bill Tancer spends his day analyzing.

Interesting is the country-by-country breakdown of top 10 search terms and the "How to" list. #2? "How to kiss."

Some lonely gamers out there, still.

Related articles by Zemanta

• We Are What We Search