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?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Humpty Dumpty
The Adrants blog is more direct in their criticism of the Intel brand change than I was, and extended this criticism to the commonnesss of the new egg-shaped logo: http://www.adrants.com/2006/01/intel-joins-three-billion-other-ovallogoe.php.
All the Kings men and all the kings horses can't put this one back together again..."Thanks to Hurt Elbow, we now have visual proof the new Intel logo leaps ahead of nothing and simply joins the 'logo ovalation' crowd. Check out all the unoriginal, copy-cat insanity here in one gigantic, orgasmic ovalistic circular logo-fest that either proves originality is dead or that all these brands used the same focus group"
In the interest of full disclosure, I oversaw the development of the new Intervoice logo in 2002 and armchair pundits criticized the use of the overused 'swoop'. I argued that it's not a 'swoop'. It's a 'Golden Bridge of Communication'. That wasn't a particularly compelling retort in their view so I just moved on...
All the Kings men and all the kings horses can't put this one back together again..."Thanks to Hurt Elbow, we now have visual proof the new Intel logo leaps ahead of nothing and simply joins the 'logo ovalation' crowd. Check out all the unoriginal, copy-cat insanity here in one gigantic, orgasmic ovalistic circular logo-fest that either proves originality is dead or that all these brands used the same focus group"
In the interest of full disclosure, I oversaw the development of the new Intervoice logo in 2002 and armchair pundits criticized the use of the overused 'swoop'. I argued that it's not a 'swoop'. It's a 'Golden Bridge of Communication'. That wasn't a particularly compelling retort in their view so I just moved on...
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Medical Miracle
It’s a miracle – though it’s gone largely unnoticed. It’s a miracle of modern medicine that has nothing to do with a new medical device or accidental pharmaceutical breakthrough. No herbs or acupuncture, cryogenics, genome mapping, or aromatherapy.
It cures almost all ills. It prevents many more.
The ‘miracle’ is change.
80% of our national healthcare budget is spent on addressing behavior-related illnesses, according to Raphael Levey of the Global Medical Forum. Yet few of us can avoid excessive smoking, drinking, eating, and stress, or find the time to exercise. And even after coronary surgery when such changes are necessary for life itself, fully 90% of patients cannot make the choices that would prolong their life, according to recent studies.
So what makes you so certain in a change management endeavor that you will inspire these same fallible creatures to work smarter, be more committed, and work as a team to save such an abstract concept as a company, even if their livelihoods are at stake? John Kotter, a Harvard Business School professor and author of many books on the subject reminds us in a recent article, "The central issue is never strategy, structure, culture, or systems. The core of the matter is always about changing the behavior of people."
Why is change so difficult for us? What is it about how our brains work that resists change? Why do we fight our own interests? Conventional wisdom says that crisis is a powerful motivator for change. But this doesn’t seem to be the case, so true to a Strategy180 tenet, we must challenge known absolutes.
The answer is that you cannot frighten people into change. You must instead appeal to the better angels of their collective nature, that is, speaking to people's emotions. Even in organizations that are focused on quantitative measurement, and those who think of themselves as smart in an academic sense, an appeal to emotions is most effective. In successful change efforts, leaders find ways to help others see the problems or solutions in ways that influence emotions, not just thought.
Unfortunately, that kind of emotional intelligence doesn't come naturally to engineers, accountants, managers and other leaders who pride themselves on analytical thinking. There is solid science behind the psychology of change but its insights often seem less than strictly logical.
Consider the cardiac patients asked to change behavior. The best medical minds at have for years been trying to motivate patients with the fear of death, but in the end death was just too frightening to think about, so they'd go back to their old bad habits. A far more effective method, it turns out, is addressing the issue as not a fear of death but a joy of living… considering not the length, but quality of life. Instead of a 90% backslide, patients exposed to this approach only return to bad habits 23% of the time. Joy is more powerful than fear.
When leaders are addressing people who have a similar mind-set and shared values, the message needs to be positive, inspiring, and sincere. Charts, graphs, and compelling strategies have their place. But even when the issue is truly life and death, the gut-check is emotional, not rational.
It cures almost all ills. It prevents many more.
The ‘miracle’ is change.
80% of our national healthcare budget is spent on addressing behavior-related illnesses, according to Raphael Levey of the Global Medical Forum. Yet few of us can avoid excessive smoking, drinking, eating, and stress, or find the time to exercise. And even after coronary surgery when such changes are necessary for life itself, fully 90% of patients cannot make the choices that would prolong their life, according to recent studies.
So what makes you so certain in a change management endeavor that you will inspire these same fallible creatures to work smarter, be more committed, and work as a team to save such an abstract concept as a company, even if their livelihoods are at stake? John Kotter, a Harvard Business School professor and author of many books on the subject reminds us in a recent article, "The central issue is never strategy, structure, culture, or systems. The core of the matter is always about changing the behavior of people."
Why is change so difficult for us? What is it about how our brains work that resists change? Why do we fight our own interests? Conventional wisdom says that crisis is a powerful motivator for change. But this doesn’t seem to be the case, so true to a Strategy180 tenet, we must challenge known absolutes.
The answer is that you cannot frighten people into change. You must instead appeal to the better angels of their collective nature, that is, speaking to people's emotions. Even in organizations that are focused on quantitative measurement, and those who think of themselves as smart in an academic sense, an appeal to emotions is most effective. In successful change efforts, leaders find ways to help others see the problems or solutions in ways that influence emotions, not just thought.
Unfortunately, that kind of emotional intelligence doesn't come naturally to engineers, accountants, managers and other leaders who pride themselves on analytical thinking. There is solid science behind the psychology of change but its insights often seem less than strictly logical.
Consider the cardiac patients asked to change behavior. The best medical minds at have for years been trying to motivate patients with the fear of death, but in the end death was just too frightening to think about, so they'd go back to their old bad habits. A far more effective method, it turns out, is addressing the issue as not a fear of death but a joy of living… considering not the length, but quality of life. Instead of a 90% backslide, patients exposed to this approach only return to bad habits 23% of the time. Joy is more powerful than fear.
When leaders are addressing people who have a similar mind-set and shared values, the message needs to be positive, inspiring, and sincere. Charts, graphs, and compelling strategies have their place. But even when the issue is truly life and death, the gut-check is emotional, not rational.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
‘Inside’ Intel’s ‘Leap Ahead’
News item: Intel changes logo and slogan ('Intel Inside') to new design and slogan ('Intel. Leap Ahead.')
Intel is “Inside” more products than ever these days. So why does “Leap Ahead” seem like a "stumble forward"?
Intel purports that their new logo and slogan is a way to convey that their chipsets are used in more ways than just PCs. But if Intel is ‘inside’ more than PCs, does it make sense that 'Intel Inside' has run its course? Or is one of the world’s most well known brands and slogans now dated? And does the new slogan, 'Leap Ahead', really accomplish an association with cutting edge devices?
For a technology component company, the fact that the Intel brand has as much visibility as it does is quite an accomplishment. No other B2B (business to business) brand is in the top five in studies of brand recognition. So to tinker with success is brave, and in line with my earlier post regarding constantly re-evaluating ‘known truths’. Changing up such a successful branding effort, took skill, bravery, and likely, an incredible internal sales job. So congratulations to CMO Eric Kim on making the effort to stay relevant. Still, at what cost? 2.5 billion to start, according to Businessweek. That's the cost of the brand launch campaign and related new product campaigns.
Why the change? Intel itself is changing. Instead of remaining focused on PCs, the ‘new’ Intel looks to play a key technological role in a many fields, including consumer electronics, wireless, and health care. Beyond microprocessors, Intel wants to create chips and software to create platforms. This moves them up the food chain and while still not a consumer brand (you can’t by ‘an Intel’ at Circuit City) it is getting closer to the consumer… especially through new entertainment and other third party alignments that will serve to produce content and applications for devices using Intel's new platform (particularly 'Viiv') over those of their competitors.
Still, the first rule of doctors, marketers and change agents: "First, do no harm." So does this major strategic shift really require a shift in branding?
In a word, yes. When a strategic shift is made, changing the brand identity is critical in not only the new identity created with it, but to get tongues wagging – like mine. It’s a signal to the market that something has changed, and such high profile change spurs conversation.
So with this change and the resultant discussion, can Intel really enhance their consumer-level brand identity through slogans and logos? Not entirely of course. We have to assume product performance, pricing strategy and application relevance will be equally considered. Given Kim’s success at Samsung we can assume those elements of the strategy will be well-covered. But while Samsung remains a successful ‘change marketing’ story, their brand still lacks definition. So what hath Kim wrought at Intel, specific to brand identity?
I think the past work for Intel was brilliant – no controversial statement, that one, given Intel's place in the market as essentially a non-consumer, consumer brand. The challenge is that any follow up would seem at best a bit tepid. So, let’s use a ‘bakery and bedpans’ comparison. How likely is it that bakers and bedpan manufacturers can claim the same slogan? ‘Leap Ahead’ is broad in the same way ‘Intel Inside’ was very specific. ‘Intel Inside’ essentially said, ‘if you love your device then you’ll want to know it is because of Intel’, thus creating demand via pull-through. Can that now be leveraged to trust Intel for an entire platform? Does ‘Leap Ahead’ really convey their role in cutting edge technologies? And critically important, if it does work, will device manufacturers be willing to share ‘ownership’ of the customer’s relationship with the device or content provider? That’s a long term distribution and partnership challenge, as has proven to be the case in the telecom space with customers shared - and fought over - among wireless providers, device manufacturers and content providers.
So, back to our test: Could a baker or bedpan manufacturer use ‘Leap Ahead’? Unlikely. But a host of other technology focused firms could, and for a component marketer, differentiation is critical, thus ‘Leap Ahead’ feels, well, as I warned before, tepid. Intel gets an E for effort. Their new direction required a new identity. But direction requires an objective, a focus, and as much as they’ve articulated that in strategy, ‘Leap Ahead’ is too much a blank page to reflect it in practice. Its fails, in my opinion, to inspire any sort of association with the new technology Intel will be bringing to market. It serves as an uncertain articulation of a far more certain future for this technology leader.
Intel is “Inside” more products than ever these days. So why does “Leap Ahead” seem like a "stumble forward"?
Intel purports that their new logo and slogan is a way to convey that their chipsets are used in more ways than just PCs. But if Intel is ‘inside’ more than PCs, does it make sense that 'Intel Inside' has run its course? Or is one of the world’s most well known brands and slogans now dated? And does the new slogan, 'Leap Ahead', really accomplish an association with cutting edge devices?
For a technology component company, the fact that the Intel brand has as much visibility as it does is quite an accomplishment. No other B2B (business to business) brand is in the top five in studies of brand recognition. So to tinker with success is brave, and in line with my earlier post regarding constantly re-evaluating ‘known truths’. Changing up such a successful branding effort, took skill, bravery, and likely, an incredible internal sales job. So congratulations to CMO Eric Kim on making the effort to stay relevant. Still, at what cost? 2.5 billion to start, according to Businessweek. That's the cost of the brand launch campaign and related new product campaigns.
Why the change? Intel itself is changing. Instead of remaining focused on PCs, the ‘new’ Intel looks to play a key technological role in a many fields, including consumer electronics, wireless, and health care. Beyond microprocessors, Intel wants to create chips and software to create platforms. This moves them up the food chain and while still not a consumer brand (you can’t by ‘an Intel’ at Circuit City) it is getting closer to the consumer… especially through new entertainment and other third party alignments that will serve to produce content and applications for devices using Intel's new platform (particularly 'Viiv') over those of their competitors.
Still, the first rule of doctors, marketers and change agents: "First, do no harm." So does this major strategic shift really require a shift in branding?
In a word, yes. When a strategic shift is made, changing the brand identity is critical in not only the new identity created with it, but to get tongues wagging – like mine. It’s a signal to the market that something has changed, and such high profile change spurs conversation.
So with this change and the resultant discussion, can Intel really enhance their consumer-level brand identity through slogans and logos? Not entirely of course. We have to assume product performance, pricing strategy and application relevance will be equally considered. Given Kim’s success at Samsung we can assume those elements of the strategy will be well-covered. But while Samsung remains a successful ‘change marketing’ story, their brand still lacks definition. So what hath Kim wrought at Intel, specific to brand identity?
I think the past work for Intel was brilliant – no controversial statement, that one, given Intel's place in the market as essentially a non-consumer, consumer brand. The challenge is that any follow up would seem at best a bit tepid. So, let’s use a ‘bakery and bedpans’ comparison. How likely is it that bakers and bedpan manufacturers can claim the same slogan? ‘Leap Ahead’ is broad in the same way ‘Intel Inside’ was very specific. ‘Intel Inside’ essentially said, ‘if you love your device then you’ll want to know it is because of Intel’, thus creating demand via pull-through. Can that now be leveraged to trust Intel for an entire platform? Does ‘Leap Ahead’ really convey their role in cutting edge technologies? And critically important, if it does work, will device manufacturers be willing to share ‘ownership’ of the customer’s relationship with the device or content provider? That’s a long term distribution and partnership challenge, as has proven to be the case in the telecom space with customers shared - and fought over - among wireless providers, device manufacturers and content providers.
So, back to our test: Could a baker or bedpan manufacturer use ‘Leap Ahead’? Unlikely. But a host of other technology focused firms could, and for a component marketer, differentiation is critical, thus ‘Leap Ahead’ feels, well, as I warned before, tepid. Intel gets an E for effort. Their new direction required a new identity. But direction requires an objective, a focus, and as much as they’ve articulated that in strategy, ‘Leap Ahead’ is too much a blank page to reflect it in practice. Its fails, in my opinion, to inspire any sort of association with the new technology Intel will be bringing to market. It serves as an uncertain articulation of a far more certain future for this technology leader.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Preventative Maintenance
All too often, management uses the rationale that 'things are not so desperate as to require a change agent' or review of practices - this is particularly true when market share is slipping but the marketplace is growing, shrouding the problems. Yet equally as often, by the time it is clear that help is required, after more cash is burned and more talent has exited the company, the problems are far more difficult to address.
"The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining." - attributed to John F Kennedy
Look at what Staples CEO Ron Sargeant discovered, as quoted in Fast Company:"The economic slowdown has caused Staples to reexamine every aspect of its business. Over the years, we started catering to the more casual customer. But that's not where the money is, and that's not what we're really good at. Now we've stopped carrying about 600 items that appealed to the casual customer and added 650 to 700 items that appeal to the small-business customer instead. We've improved the quality of the merchandise we offer, because businesses have different needs than the casual consumer. Instead of advertising as much in the Sunday circulars, which businesses don't respond to, we put more into direct marketing, upgraded our Web site, and doubled our direct-sales force in four months. We took the money that we originally put into advertising and reinvested it in training for our associates, and we added more staff to our stores to provide better service. These are important changes. In some ways, I'm not sure we would have looked in the mirror so carefully if not for the slowed economy."
Don't wait until a slowed economy or slowed business model. Make a committment now, at the corporate, departmental and individual level to re-evaluate all the "knowns" and challenge conventional wisdom. Evaluate and focus on core strengths. Look to outsourcing, or look to take services inside. Seek new unexpected areas for growth or divestiture, new target markets. Fire customers by qualifying the most and least profitable accounts. Reset the organization, compensation, performance rewards, costs structures, vendors, payment and contract terms, and personnel policies. In short, have crucial conversations and make necessary changes today, before the clouds move in.Then rinse and repeat... after all, as well stated by another American President, Thomas Jefferson: "Every generation needs its own revolution."
"The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining." - attributed to John F Kennedy
Look at what Staples CEO Ron Sargeant discovered, as quoted in Fast Company:"The economic slowdown has caused Staples to reexamine every aspect of its business. Over the years, we started catering to the more casual customer. But that's not where the money is, and that's not what we're really good at. Now we've stopped carrying about 600 items that appealed to the casual customer and added 650 to 700 items that appeal to the small-business customer instead. We've improved the quality of the merchandise we offer, because businesses have different needs than the casual consumer. Instead of advertising as much in the Sunday circulars, which businesses don't respond to, we put more into direct marketing, upgraded our Web site, and doubled our direct-sales force in four months. We took the money that we originally put into advertising and reinvested it in training for our associates, and we added more staff to our stores to provide better service. These are important changes. In some ways, I'm not sure we would have looked in the mirror so carefully if not for the slowed economy."
Don't wait until a slowed economy or slowed business model. Make a committment now, at the corporate, departmental and individual level to re-evaluate all the "knowns" and challenge conventional wisdom. Evaluate and focus on core strengths. Look to outsourcing, or look to take services inside. Seek new unexpected areas for growth or divestiture, new target markets. Fire customers by qualifying the most and least profitable accounts. Reset the organization, compensation, performance rewards, costs structures, vendors, payment and contract terms, and personnel policies. In short, have crucial conversations and make necessary changes today, before the clouds move in.Then rinse and repeat... after all, as well stated by another American President, Thomas Jefferson: "Every generation needs its own revolution."
Thursday, December 29, 2005
New Year Resolutions For (Re-)Emerging Companies
It is the nearing the eve of 2006, and the annual accounting of one's faults (disguised as New Year resolutions) has begun again in earnest. Recently as I set out to establish my own list, I happened to run across a press release that purported to offer the most common New Year resolutions. Interestingly, I noticed that these resolutions for individuals are also among the most important for the re-emerging organization. So I figured that this was a good way to begin the year, and to christen this blog - so here are the top three recommended resolutions for your re-emerging organization:
Live Within Your Means I'm not talking about your organization's cash flow or revenues here, necessarily. While that is certainly critical, you don't need to hire a consultant to tell you that. Instead, I'm suggesting that you and the people you lead recognize the limitations of one body and a 24-hour day. Select 3-5 things you and the individuals on your team can accomplish (this week, this month, this year) and finish them. This will not only be forward progress, but will encourage you toward completion on the next tasks. Don't get swamped by the list of things large and small that you know should be done, you'll be too overwhelmed to start. Instead, start with this list, for example.
Lose 'Wait' Many times the delay in making needed changes results from the desire to wait until a particular project or piece is deemed 'perfect' before rolling it out - a common over-correction to what might have been a contributing factor to the downturn - having rolled out the 'wrong' thing. But its important to go ahead and introduce a new idea, a new process, even a new website or promotional concept once it begins to resemble the desired finished product. It won't be perfect, but it'll show forward progress and allow others in the organization to contribute to the subsequent versions. Freely acknowledge that it is merely a start, yet represents progress and remind yourself and others that there's always an opportunity to offer a second, even third version... after all, even this is being written on a computer operating on 'Service Pack 2'.
Stop Smoking Somehow we feel guilty if we aren't in a constantly smokin', kinetic state when our company is in desperate straits... as if speed itself is responsible for positive change. Slow down! Speed is useful, speed conveys urgency, but used continuously or in the wrong context, speed conveys worry, a lack of confidence and uncertainty among the people looking to you for leadership. Read, listen, plan... and then take action. And hurry up already!
What are some of the resolutions you have for your organization? Mine include finishing the website (www.strategy180.com) and to keep this blog updated weekly. Let's see how I do!
Live Within Your Means I'm not talking about your organization's cash flow or revenues here, necessarily. While that is certainly critical, you don't need to hire a consultant to tell you that. Instead, I'm suggesting that you and the people you lead recognize the limitations of one body and a 24-hour day. Select 3-5 things you and the individuals on your team can accomplish (this week, this month, this year) and finish them. This will not only be forward progress, but will encourage you toward completion on the next tasks. Don't get swamped by the list of things large and small that you know should be done, you'll be too overwhelmed to start. Instead, start with this list, for example.
Lose 'Wait' Many times the delay in making needed changes results from the desire to wait until a particular project or piece is deemed 'perfect' before rolling it out - a common over-correction to what might have been a contributing factor to the downturn - having rolled out the 'wrong' thing. But its important to go ahead and introduce a new idea, a new process, even a new website or promotional concept once it begins to resemble the desired finished product. It won't be perfect, but it'll show forward progress and allow others in the organization to contribute to the subsequent versions. Freely acknowledge that it is merely a start, yet represents progress and remind yourself and others that there's always an opportunity to offer a second, even third version... after all, even this is being written on a computer operating on 'Service Pack 2'.
Stop Smoking Somehow we feel guilty if we aren't in a constantly smokin', kinetic state when our company is in desperate straits... as if speed itself is responsible for positive change. Slow down! Speed is useful, speed conveys urgency, but used continuously or in the wrong context, speed conveys worry, a lack of confidence and uncertainty among the people looking to you for leadership. Read, listen, plan... and then take action. And hurry up already!
What are some of the resolutions you have for your organization? Mine include finishing the website (www.strategy180.com) and to keep this blog updated weekly. Let's see how I do!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)