Tag Archives: strategy

Ambiguous Marketing Budgets lead to… ambiguous results

Have you ever heard the rant of a financial executive who is fuming because marketing ROI is so hard to define? The lament is usually that “branding” is not enough–that some quantifiable return is desired, but no one really pins it down. Some argue that revenues are the only true barometer. Others feel that smaller yardsticks are better–number of new clients, number of proposals made, number of inbound calls, etc. But…what about % of proposals won, % change in inbound calls, etc to provide comparative data?

Yet…”return” still has to be measured in comparison to investment. In many cases, the investment amount is, to quote Churchill, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” Why is this so? In many privately owned businesses, it is because marketing dollars are enshrouded in expense reimbursements, dues and sponsorships. Actual agency costs, advertising spend, etc are sometimes separate line items on the income statement, but are often rolled up into an aggregate. In order to have credibility with the financial (& equity) folks, we as marketers need to ask for more detail. It is in our best interests to know travel & entertainment, training, and similar expenses that are charged by managers/executives and reimbursed but not clearly demarcated as marketing costs. However, because we are not considered part of the brain trust, we can be excluded from such conversations/communications.

What's Your Measurement?

 

Once we are able to acquire access to the true marketing financials, we can perform an ROI analysis more effectively. (I prefer to describe this as an “ROM.”) Then, tradeoffs can be evaluated. There may be some in the organization who are unwise in their expense management to the point that allowing them to ring up reimbursable costs is not an investment at all, but a distraction from effective, accountable marketing.

Having the frank conversation with the top financial executive/business owner(s) can set the stage for your voice to gain credibility. No longer may you be perceived as the “soft and fuzzy” management team member, but rather a strategic contributor to business performance. If you are savvy enough to learn what your industry standards are for marketing as a percentage of costs/revenues, then you can help set the budget requisite to drive growth and carve out better market share.

As the marketing budget becomes a management accountability tool, results are easier to predict. Sensitivity analysis can then yield insights into the levers that drive revenue performance. Congratulations–you are then on your way to concrete rather than ambiguous conversations and may soon find that the frustration of not being heard begins to fade away…!

One-man rule vs. One-man band

Businesses often can be managed by a strong leader who seems to be involved with every significant decision. In some cases, this type of one-man band is almost unavoidable (e.g. a company with less than five employees, four of whom are in support roles.) However, in organizations that have been fortunate to grow, add management teams, and have complex issues, the controlling leader can either be an icon or an albatross. When is it good–and when is it bad–that the proverbial “buck” stops on one person’s desk?

art by Eldon Doty

 

Chief executives who make decisions without the input of colleagues engage in one-man rule. This practice is a two-edged sword. While few will argue that group management can slow progress and that one can move more nimbly than many, there is always the latent risk that decisions that are made lack depth, insight, and the benefit of buy-in. The biggest travesty of the urge to “go it alone” is that it undermines management succession by depriving others from the opportunity to make meaningful choice on behalf of the enterprise.

Management depth is always in the list of prime characteristics of best managed companies. Management change then, by default, becomes a disorderly process, at times exacerbated by recession or prosperity. The entire organization is often thrown into chaotic operation and often requires a turnaround thereafter.

Instead of putting one’s peers–and, perhaps, one’s own retirement via earnout/sale–at risk, better to avoid one-man rule and seek to engage others. This concept holds true in may of the sexy technology start-up models as well, wherein the “one-man” is equivalent to the group of initial founders who can function as to inhibit the contribution of successive hires. Often, these top executives are extremely bright and have a very high IQ, but lack the EQ (emotional quotient = emotional intelligence) to build out the model and achieve the important milestones due to an unwillingness to invite the input of others.

More to come on how to build out the management team and empower them to make meaningful contributions…

Crushing the Competition

Prize for the Winner

Whether your disposition tends toward competitiveness or no, as business organizations we need to outperform others in our industry. To not do so puts all stakeholders at risk–employees, investors, lenders, customers, vendors, etc. But, when a headline like the one above is read, it can cause some to bristle. Why is that? Probably because we have all seen the abusive pursuit of a goal cause collateral damage. And, yet, “crush” seems a little strong…

A conference of HR professionals that concluded in Raleigh today (#12hrmc) carried the above title. One of the speakers made the insightful comment that, while larger companies can boast greater revenues or number of employees, but  “no one can take away a competitive advantage of preferred culture.” This sentiment is great news for managers in organizations that are playing ‘catch up.’ If you find yourself in just such a situation, read on! There’s opportunity to be explored, but it may just require a reinvention of yourself and the structure around you. Innovation will be key to repositioning. Jacqueline Byrd (@creatrixinc) describes the type of innovation required as a combination of creativity and risk taking.

Byrd isolates four key components of creativity: ambiguity, independence, inner-directedness, and uniqueness. Ambiguity describes an employee’s ability to work without clear input. Independence is the competency wherein the individual can work in solitude and make progress. “Tuning in” to your inner voice to find calling is inner-directedness. Differentiation from one’s self and others defines uniqueness.

Risk-taking competencies include: authenticity, resilience, and self-acceptance. Authenticity equates to speaking what is top of mind, yet not necessarily harsh or brash. Believing everything will work out if we but persist is resilience. Those who can see shortcomings and lack of success as “learning” rather than “failure” are masters of self-acceptance.

Organizations that foster creativity and risk-taking, learn how to build innovation systems into their DNA, and celebrate both success and attempts that do not succeed are rare. They usually are very effective in:

  • attracting top talent
  • offering products and services with the “wow” factor, and
  • carving out a competitive advantage that can be sustained

If you work in a culture that resembles this pattern, chances are very good that you are crushing your competition–even if that is not your personality;)

 

The Internal Customer’s Perspective

This week, we are participating in the Capital Associated Industries’ HR Management Conference at the McKimmon Center in Raleigh, NC. The theme is “Crushing Your Competition With Culture & Talent.” Several speakers have spoken about the need to transform the culture within our organizations to become more engaging. Engagement “management” is a huge topic for HR professionals, as we live in a day and time wherein employees’ minds are engaged/distracted by so many other forces. One of the speakers in particular spoke about the metrics for fun companies versus boring places to work.

While “fun,” may be a stretch for your organization, certainly, we can agree that “boring” is to be avoided at all costs. In between the extremes is where most of us live and work. The ultimate challenge is to find a way to treat the workers within our companies as customers–in doing so, we care about the unique interactions we have with each and become intentional in such.

Engagement takes collaboration!

Marketers think about the messaging, form of delivery, and psychographics of customers all the time. As HR professionals, we are challenged to do the same–both in our direct interactions and in the environment we help foster. There are always a zillion things that fall to our charge that distract us from this type of intentional awareness of what we’re doing for establishing culture. Slowing down to think thoughts like those below–and encouraging others to do so–can inject care and engagement into work life.

  • how will she perceive this communication?
  • is email the best way to share this information?
  • am I the best person to bring this topic up?

Treating our supervisors, peers, and subordinates as target markets changes the dynamics of what we do dramatically. We develop strategies per “market segment,” tactics within each strategy, and “solutions” for problems we did not even know existed until we adopted this approach. Bon chance in making this concept work in your organization!

Innovation “Stickiness”

“To innovate or not to innovate” is not The Question. We live in a business world (and, increasingly, beyond business) wherein the drive to be competitive means irrelevance lingers for those who do not continuously improve their craft. The Question becomes, “What is your organization doing to make innovation ‘sticky’???”

Management gurus like Jim Andrew of the Boston Consulting Group articulate the value proposition for innovation very nicely. (see: http://ow.ly/9aXoP) Yet, what seems to be lacking in many of the discussions is how to keep positive change going, growing, and gaining acceptance. In an upcoming presentation to HR leaders at the CAI conference, “Crushing Your Competition With Your Culture & Talent,” (http://ow.ly/9aYYl) we will be talking about the stickiness factor as it applies to innovation.

Silk fiber strength = stickiness!

Often, when we are trying to explain a nuance of a challenging problem, we turn to nature. The spider’s web is a great simile for innovation. How is it that a spider can weave an intricate web that catches others, but not itself, in its sticky strands? Scientists have studied these webs and found that the threads that are taut and strong are the stickiest, and the looser ones the pathway by which the spider traverses the web without becoming stuck. If the spider prey encounters, on the other hand, threads that are too sticky (strong), a struggle can break the strand and the prey is liberated. Yet, if the “glue” is only so sticky, a struggle may momentarily free the prey, only to become attached to additional strands that eventually fatigue the struggling prey before the battle is lost.

The concept of sufficient stickiness applies to organizations in this way: if we develop ideas with insufficient “strength,” they lack staying power because they don’t captivate; but ideas that are too strong/rigid break under the pressure of market forces. Balance is key! Whether you have actually read Malcom Gladwell’s Tipping Point or the brothers Heath’s Made to Stick, you have probably observed ideas that come and go versus those that have longer lives. It is incumbent upon us as managers, agents, and advocates of innovation to tell a story of uncommon sense that is founded in a value that can be demonstrated.

What? If our innovation does not lead to a competitive advantage that is unambiguous and precise, then there’s no point. Even if we have something of concrete value, there has to be a uniqueness that tackles an issue in a new way to capture the minds of your intended audience. Differentiated ideas/initiatives that are clearly articulated, finally, must be shared in such a way that the listener is drawn emotionally into the narrative and feels compelled to “get on board.” Resist becoming too enamored with one’s knowledge, however, as the inability to adapt/consider alternate viewpoints can be the hubris that breaks the strands of success!