I tried to improve on Guy Kawasaki's 10-20-30 rule for presentations by making my font sizes even bigger than 30. Bigger size, less text, more impact and more chance of the point being remembered was my reasoning.
The problem is that if the font is too big, the audience can feel as if they are being shouted at.
So my learning is that it is alright to have titles in fonts slightly larger than 30 but do not have fonts that are too large (unless you are presenting to 80 year olds
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
C2B Marketing: Yesterday's tomorrow
Whatever happened to C2B marketing? That is the marketing of individuals and their services to businesses, rather than the other way round. There was some debate on the subject a while ago (see the 2005 article http://c2b.typepad.com/c2b/2005/08/the_c2b_revolut.html or http://www.magicomm.biz/blog/is-“b-to-c”-direct-marketing-being-replaced-by-“c-to-b”-social-media-marketing from 2008) but it does not seem to have taken off.
The articles talk about various drivers for C2B
- social networking sites and their use by businesses
- technology available to consumers (especially for production of digital content)
- open source software
All of these are driving C2B, even if there has not been enough awareness of the topic to make this yet a well known phrase.
For example, in social networking, increasingly brands are communicating online with customers and prospects, using Facebook, Twitter and other sites to ask for comments, monitor feedback and reply to issues raised. Meanwhile, individuals are posting their videos to YouTube hoping to create viral hits and monetise them with advertising, while news stories from "citizen reporters" are being posted to sites like Citizenspace and the best ones sold to traditional media outlets (an area I am particularly interested in due to the work I do for the AIB,the Association for International Broadcasting). As for open source software, I have lost count of the number of utilities I have downloaded recently, and I have even donated money to the most useful of them.
But there is one other trend that I have not seen mentioned in this context and which I think is an important factor in driving the true marketing side of C2B. This is the increasing number of people who are freelancing, working for themselves or in small companies or loose associations and who need to sell their services to larger organisations. Current economic conditions are forcing this on many and no doubt there will be a significant return to salaried jobs once the economies of the world pick up. But there is a young generation coming up who have seen the pitfalls of corporate life with job cuts and pension reductions (and will soon see deep cuts in public service as well). These will fuel a continued increase in freelance working, which will match corporations increasing reluctance to grow headcount and to move outside their core business.
These are people who need to take advantage of the marketing techniques that are now so readily available and which are cheap, in terms of the monetary cost, to use. They need to sell their services and to convince companies to retain them rather than all their rivals. What most of them do not know how to manage, however, is how to manage their individual marketing, which can be extremely expensive in terms of time unless you have a proper strategy to use the tools available. The tools are either expensive because you put in a modest amount of time, but obtain no results by failing to stand out from the crowd; or you do manage to stand out, but only by huge amounts of work to constantly blog, Tweet, post and comment.
But it does not have to be like that. Successful C2B marketing requires only three things:
- an expertise: good experience in a particular niche which you can demonstrate and talk about. Never mind if it is a very narrow niche, the key is to be seen as a knowledgeable resource.
- finding the right places to talk about your expertise
- regular communication
C2B marketing is key for more and more people today and I will blog more about the keys to success shortly.
The articles talk about various drivers for C2B
- social networking sites and their use by businesses
- technology available to consumers (especially for production of digital content)
- open source software
All of these are driving C2B, even if there has not been enough awareness of the topic to make this yet a well known phrase.
For example, in social networking, increasingly brands are communicating online with customers and prospects, using Facebook, Twitter and other sites to ask for comments, monitor feedback and reply to issues raised. Meanwhile, individuals are posting their videos to YouTube hoping to create viral hits and monetise them with advertising, while news stories from "citizen reporters" are being posted to sites like Citizenspace and the best ones sold to traditional media outlets (an area I am particularly interested in due to the work I do for the AIB,the Association for International Broadcasting). As for open source software, I have lost count of the number of utilities I have downloaded recently, and I have even donated money to the most useful of them.
But there is one other trend that I have not seen mentioned in this context and which I think is an important factor in driving the true marketing side of C2B. This is the increasing number of people who are freelancing, working for themselves or in small companies or loose associations and who need to sell their services to larger organisations. Current economic conditions are forcing this on many and no doubt there will be a significant return to salaried jobs once the economies of the world pick up. But there is a young generation coming up who have seen the pitfalls of corporate life with job cuts and pension reductions (and will soon see deep cuts in public service as well). These will fuel a continued increase in freelance working, which will match corporations increasing reluctance to grow headcount and to move outside their core business.
These are people who need to take advantage of the marketing techniques that are now so readily available and which are cheap, in terms of the monetary cost, to use. They need to sell their services and to convince companies to retain them rather than all their rivals. What most of them do not know how to manage, however, is how to manage their individual marketing, which can be extremely expensive in terms of time unless you have a proper strategy to use the tools available. The tools are either expensive because you put in a modest amount of time, but obtain no results by failing to stand out from the crowd; or you do manage to stand out, but only by huge amounts of work to constantly blog, Tweet, post and comment.
But it does not have to be like that. Successful C2B marketing requires only three things:
- an expertise: good experience in a particular niche which you can demonstrate and talk about. Never mind if it is a very narrow niche, the key is to be seen as a knowledgeable resource.
- finding the right places to talk about your expertise
- regular communication
C2B marketing is key for more and more people today and I will blog more about the keys to success shortly.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Quantity vs Quality
Thomas Power in the video to which the title of this blog links, talks about quantity as input and quality as output. So he advocates building up thousands of people in your network, for example having thousands of followers on Twitter. From these, a small number of people emerge with whom you can do business and an even smaller number who become trusted partners.
The problem this approach brings is that your network then includes every one you have ever met or come into vague contact with (virtually or physically) which is great for broadcasting your general messages as widely as possible, but a clumsy tool for nuturing the relationships that have potential to become important. It also has the danger that you are swamped by input from all the connections. You need to be very disciplined or have very good tools not to be distracted by all the possibilities that your connections provide.
I propose the alternative approach of filtering before allowing people onto your networks. Or, at least, for your most important networking tools, pre-select for quality. For example, on LinkedIn, connect with those with whom you have some relationship so you can build trust with them.
Use blogs, Twitter and some social media sites, to comment, interact, post and come up with new connections. But keep one or more networks for the inner network you are nuturing (and who are nurturing you).
The problem this approach brings is that your network then includes every one you have ever met or come into vague contact with (virtually or physically) which is great for broadcasting your general messages as widely as possible, but a clumsy tool for nuturing the relationships that have potential to become important. It also has the danger that you are swamped by input from all the connections. You need to be very disciplined or have very good tools not to be distracted by all the possibilities that your connections provide.
I propose the alternative approach of filtering before allowing people onto your networks. Or, at least, for your most important networking tools, pre-select for quality. For example, on LinkedIn, connect with those with whom you have some relationship so you can build trust with them.
Use blogs, Twitter and some social media sites, to comment, interact, post and come up with new connections. But keep one or more networks for the inner network you are nuturing (and who are nurturing you).
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Nowism
The latest monthly briefing from Trendwatching talks about the trend for everyone to want things in real time - information now, goods now. They call this "Nowism" (they love their buzzwords).
Wanting everything now is often driven by greed and the desire for self-gratification but the article interestingly points out that some of the drive for instant information and feedback may also be a conscious choice for social media and spending time on networking rather than on consumption of goods with all the underlying worry that too many goods are causing great ecological harm.
It may be only a tiny part of the reason, but social media to save the planet definitely has a future.
Wanting everything now is often driven by greed and the desire for self-gratification but the article interestingly points out that some of the drive for instant information and feedback may also be a conscious choice for social media and spending time on networking rather than on consumption of goods with all the underlying worry that too many goods are causing great ecological harm.
It may be only a tiny part of the reason, but social media to save the planet definitely has a future.
Five Ways to Generate Keywords from LyrisHQ
A useful article showing you how you might find useful keywords in the long tail and so reduce your cost per click.
It shows how to check for keywords currently being entered, how to look for other possible keywords already on different websites and how to generate possible new keywords.
Some of the techniques mentioned use Lyris software (at least to implement them more efficiently) but most are generalised.
Worthwhile summary
It shows how to check for keywords currently being entered, how to look for other possible keywords already on different websites and how to generate possible new keywords.
Some of the techniques mentioned use Lyris software (at least to implement them more efficiently) but most are generalised.
Worthwhile summary
Monday, September 28, 2009
Overused words
David Meerman Scott, using Dow Jones Insight, has analysed 711,123 US press releases from 2008 for gobbledygook i.e. words and phrases that do not mean anything.
He found 51,390 instances of the word "innovative". Although he does not say how many releases this relates to, since some releases may use the word several times, it is fair to assume that tens of thousands of releases use "innovative" to describe new services, new products or even the company behind them.
But just because the use of the word does not make the release stand out, does that make "innovative" into goobledygook?
I would argue that it is perfectly reasonable to use the word "innovative", if it is true.
It is a perfectly good adjective to distinguish the subject from something that talks about price cuts, re-organisation, customer wins, and many other important aspects of business which are not necessarily innovative.
The crucial thing is for the press release to be able to describe what the innovation is in a clear way that convinces readers that it is something new, and just as importantly, something significant.
Significant, that is, to the reader. If it is only significant to the company issuing the release, then it is not worth mentioning.
He found 51,390 instances of the word "innovative". Although he does not say how many releases this relates to, since some releases may use the word several times, it is fair to assume that tens of thousands of releases use "innovative" to describe new services, new products or even the company behind them.
But just because the use of the word does not make the release stand out, does that make "innovative" into goobledygook?
I would argue that it is perfectly reasonable to use the word "innovative", if it is true.
It is a perfectly good adjective to distinguish the subject from something that talks about price cuts, re-organisation, customer wins, and many other important aspects of business which are not necessarily innovative.
The crucial thing is for the press release to be able to describe what the innovation is in a clear way that convinces readers that it is something new, and just as importantly, something significant.
Significant, that is, to the reader. If it is only significant to the company issuing the release, then it is not worth mentioning.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Chief Social Officer? No Thanks
An article in Business Mirror Online Space today talks about the four challenges social media poses for business. One of these is integration, and the article suggests (but does not endorse) the idea of a chief social officer.
The idea of such a post misunderstands how businesses should be using social media. It has to be integrated into the way employees work, as a way of communicating with colleagues, customers, prospects or suppliers. It is a rich tool to enable quick communication and feedback so as to deepen the understanding and relationships between the different parties.
So just as you do not have a chief email officer or a chief telephone conversation officer, you do not need or want a chief social officer. Someone has to provide and control the infrastructure and tools for social media - the job of an up to date IT department - but then it is a matter of training employees to use these, as you would for other tools.
Not that the training should be treated lightly. Social media is incredibly powerful in allowing quick, unvetted messages which have the potential to be broadcaset widely. So it is vital that everyone in a business knows what they are trying to say and what standards and ethics apply when using social media.
If your company has a good culture, social media is a fantastic way to enhance your brand since you can have many ambassadors for the culture. The key is the production of individual communications, which convey the personality of the communicator rather than a faceless organisation's carefully prepared messages, while at the same time reflecting the organisation's underlying principles.
The idea of such a post misunderstands how businesses should be using social media. It has to be integrated into the way employees work, as a way of communicating with colleagues, customers, prospects or suppliers. It is a rich tool to enable quick communication and feedback so as to deepen the understanding and relationships between the different parties.
So just as you do not have a chief email officer or a chief telephone conversation officer, you do not need or want a chief social officer. Someone has to provide and control the infrastructure and tools for social media - the job of an up to date IT department - but then it is a matter of training employees to use these, as you would for other tools.
Not that the training should be treated lightly. Social media is incredibly powerful in allowing quick, unvetted messages which have the potential to be broadcaset widely. So it is vital that everyone in a business knows what they are trying to say and what standards and ethics apply when using social media.
If your company has a good culture, social media is a fantastic way to enhance your brand since you can have many ambassadors for the culture. The key is the production of individual communications, which convey the personality of the communicator rather than a faceless organisation's carefully prepared messages, while at the same time reflecting the organisation's underlying principles.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Benefits from using Web 2.0 - McKinsey report
Interesting article from McKinsey who have surveyed companies asking what Web 2.0 technologies they have used and what benefits they have gained.
The majority of those surveyed reported significant gains in at least one area, whether they were using the technologies internally or for external communication. But the reported gains were nearly all rounded (e.g. 15% or 20%) which suggests they were not accurately measured. The one area where precise measurements were recorded was in increasing the effectiveness of marketing (for awareness, consideration, conversion and loyalty) so the respondents seem to be making use of available measurement tools.
It is worth reading the report to note the development of leaders who are using several technologies effectively and also the way that India is alongside North America as the region making the most use.
The majority of those surveyed reported significant gains in at least one area, whether they were using the technologies internally or for external communication. But the reported gains were nearly all rounded (e.g. 15% or 20%) which suggests they were not accurately measured. The one area where precise measurements were recorded was in increasing the effectiveness of marketing (for awareness, consideration, conversion and loyalty) so the respondents seem to be making use of available measurement tools.
It is worth reading the report to note the development of leaders who are using several technologies effectively and also the way that India is alongside North America as the region making the most use.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Hero to Zero Unless You Review Each Message
The damage done to the Obama's administrations reputation for digital excellence by the careless (or deliberate) sending of emails about health reforms to those who did not want them, reminds all marketers of the need to consider the audience before sending mailings, especially mass mailings.
The questions to ask are simple
1. Who am I mailing?
2. What is their opinion of me / my firm / my brand currently (e.g. are they satisfied customers, interested prospects, uninterested, hostile)?
3. What is the value of my mail to them and are they likely to react?
Questions 2 and 3 have to be answered for each distinct group identified by question 1.
The questions are simple to ask, and often not too difficult to answer. The difficult part is the discipline of thinking from the recipient's point of view each time without fail.
The issue is discussed in an AdAge article and makes an interesting contrast to another article on the same date which indicates that viewers of ads unsubscribe less often if they are given more information on how to do so. The message seems to be clear - be open with people and give them the choice. They will be tolerant of listening to you. Push messages at them without choice and they will complain and turn away.
Of course, the fallout is worse than usual if you are dealing with a highly contentious issue like US health reform.
The questions to ask are simple
1. Who am I mailing?
2. What is their opinion of me / my firm / my brand currently (e.g. are they satisfied customers, interested prospects, uninterested, hostile)?
3. What is the value of my mail to them and are they likely to react?
Questions 2 and 3 have to be answered for each distinct group identified by question 1.
The questions are simple to ask, and often not too difficult to answer. The difficult part is the discipline of thinking from the recipient's point of view each time without fail.
The issue is discussed in an AdAge article and makes an interesting contrast to another article on the same date which indicates that viewers of ads unsubscribe less often if they are given more information on how to do so. The message seems to be clear - be open with people and give them the choice. They will be tolerant of listening to you. Push messages at them without choice and they will complain and turn away.
Of course, the fallout is worse than usual if you are dealing with a highly contentious issue like US health reform.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Useless networking
I used to be a fan of the Ecademy networking service. It provided an online service to find and meet people as well as local groups for offline meetings. But after my local offline group (which I helped organise) fizzled out, I did lose interest but kept a free membership and had occasional interesting online exchanges.
Recently I have begun to receive more and more "Ecademy Contact Request" messages which start "person's name Was sending invitations to join their network on Ecademy, discovered you were already here and requests that you add them as a contact.".
I do not know the person who is contacting me and the mail gives me no incentive as to why I might want to meet them. Why would I bother to add them as a contact. Yes, it adds to my number of contacts which is prominently displayed on the site, but if I want to find new contacts, it is much better to search for people with relevant interests or skills, using a keyword search (which is a good feature of Ecademy).
Just trying to build up a large number of contacts, followers, connections is the wrong way to do networking (except maybe for a few celebrities). The contacts will mean nothing unless you have something of value or interest to say to them.
For the vast majority, we need to build up the value of our posts, tweets, mails, blogs and other communications. Once we have that, we can, of course, try shameless publicity to become known to a much wider audience. But there needs to be the hook so that the messages are not ignored just as I ignore my "Ecademy Contact Requests"
Recently I have begun to receive more and more "Ecademy Contact Request" messages which start "person's name Was sending invitations to join their network on Ecademy, discovered you were already here and requests that you add them as a contact.".
I do not know the person who is contacting me and the mail gives me no incentive as to why I might want to meet them. Why would I bother to add them as a contact. Yes, it adds to my number of contacts which is prominently displayed on the site, but if I want to find new contacts, it is much better to search for people with relevant interests or skills, using a keyword search (which is a good feature of Ecademy).
Just trying to build up a large number of contacts, followers, connections is the wrong way to do networking (except maybe for a few celebrities). The contacts will mean nothing unless you have something of value or interest to say to them.
For the vast majority, we need to build up the value of our posts, tweets, mails, blogs and other communications. Once we have that, we can, of course, try shameless publicity to become known to a much wider audience. But there needs to be the hook so that the messages are not ignored just as I ignore my "Ecademy Contact Requests"
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Creative industry
I was listening to a podcast of BBC Radio 4's "The Bottom Line" recently where they talked about innovation and creativity. The panel (James Dyson, Martha Lane Fox and Adrian Ringrose) pointed out strongly that creativity did not just belong in what we know as the "creative industries" but can exist and should be a part of all businesses.
This set me thinking about creative marketing. Of course, marketing is often creative. Each new campaign needs to be created from scratch and we marketers are constantly on the look out for new ways to communicate.
But just as creativity can exist in all industries and in all roles, so in marketing we can be creative in all the elements. From trying a different planning process (involve someone new, change the format) to tailoring messages for the recession or even for "green shoots of recovery".
How can you adapt your marketing creatively to a wet summer, an England Ashes win, stock market rises, Microsoft and Yahoo's tie up or a birthday in your team? There is so much raw material that can drive our creativity.
This set me thinking about creative marketing. Of course, marketing is often creative. Each new campaign needs to be created from scratch and we marketers are constantly on the look out for new ways to communicate.
But just as creativity can exist in all industries and in all roles, so in marketing we can be creative in all the elements. From trying a different planning process (involve someone new, change the format) to tailoring messages for the recession or even for "green shoots of recovery".
How can you adapt your marketing creatively to a wet summer, an England Ashes win, stock market rises, Microsoft and Yahoo's tie up or a birthday in your team? There is so much raw material that can drive our creativity.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
2 Cheers for Microsoft
I am usually wary of Microsoft because they seem to have dominant power, but I do use their OS and Office apps and appreciate the functionality they give - 1 cheer.
Today I realised just how useful it was to have one company providing all my office apps - and in the place of an internationally defined standard for these apps, how valuable it is to have a de-facto standard.
I am going to the Media140 event today (microblogging and impact of Twitter on news) with my AIB (Association for International Broadcasting) hat on. As I wanted to sign up for their Flickr group, I used my Yahoo account. But I also use Google (for Maps, Mail, Blogger etc) and so I have to scratch my head and see if I want to link data from the different apps and if so how. Lack of standards means more work - and everytime I try out a new app which needs a new user name and password, often with different conventions, the confusion increases.
At least I never have to wonder how to transfer Excel data into Word, or Word into Powerpoint. So a second cheer for Microsoft.
If I think hard, I expect I could even find a reason for a third cheer.
Today I realised just how useful it was to have one company providing all my office apps - and in the place of an internationally defined standard for these apps, how valuable it is to have a de-facto standard.
I am going to the Media140 event today (microblogging and impact of Twitter on news) with my AIB (Association for International Broadcasting) hat on. As I wanted to sign up for their Flickr group, I used my Yahoo account. But I also use Google (for Maps, Mail, Blogger etc) and so I have to scratch my head and see if I want to link data from the different apps and if so how. Lack of standards means more work - and everytime I try out a new app which needs a new user name and password, often with different conventions, the confusion increases.
At least I never have to wonder how to transfer Excel data into Word, or Word into Powerpoint. So a second cheer for Microsoft.
If I think hard, I expect I could even find a reason for a third cheer.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
I'm a confused meerkat
A few years ago I was amazed and amused by the number of different companies trying to build share in the directory enquiries market after it was opened up in the UK. They all advertised their different services focusing almost entirely on the number to call and trying to make it easy to remember. There was little or no attempt to differentiate their service in terms of features or benefits.
Now I am similarly bemused by the different websites offering to compare insurance prices for me. They do try to explain their advantages over the competition (more comparisons etc) but once again the key aim is to make their website name more memorable to the viewer, linking it with strong images.
Is it worth it? How much money was spent on the different directory enquiry number campaigns and what was the return? Indeed, how many of the services still survive?
But at least all the different directory enquiry adverts were reinforcing the whole directory enquiry market so that a competitor's ad might have a knock-on effect for you. Whereas the different comparison sites run the risk of pushing people back to phoning insurers directly. "I cannot work out what all these different comparison sites are doing. They are all confusing. I will phone a reliable known insurance brand instead". Based on the directory enquiry experience, how many of the comparison sites will survive?
Now I am similarly bemused by the different websites offering to compare insurance prices for me. They do try to explain their advantages over the competition (more comparisons etc) but once again the key aim is to make their website name more memorable to the viewer, linking it with strong images.
Is it worth it? How much money was spent on the different directory enquiry number campaigns and what was the return? Indeed, how many of the services still survive?
But at least all the different directory enquiry adverts were reinforcing the whole directory enquiry market so that a competitor's ad might have a knock-on effect for you. Whereas the different comparison sites run the risk of pushing people back to phoning insurers directly. "I cannot work out what all these different comparison sites are doing. They are all confusing. I will phone a reliable known insurance brand instead". Based on the directory enquiry experience, how many of the comparison sites will survive?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Keyword Research
I have just read a very good article on keyword research:
http://rapidrollout.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/how-to-do-keyword-research/#more-39
Not just good advice for those setting up businesses on the web but for those setting up (or trying to improve) any type of business to check what are the keywords on competitive and related sites and which ones are most popular. This will help you work out what is important to your audience (unless you have a particular offline audience who are likely to have different interests and concerns, in which case I suggest some telephone research).
But for most people I would recommend reading this.
http://rapidrollout.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/how-to-do-keyword-research/#more-39
Not just good advice for those setting up businesses on the web but for those setting up (or trying to improve) any type of business to check what are the keywords on competitive and related sites and which ones are most popular. This will help you work out what is important to your audience (unless you have a particular offline audience who are likely to have different interests and concerns, in which case I suggest some telephone research).
But for most people I would recommend reading this.
Friday, January 16, 2009
2009 - it must be time for marketing
It is all too easy to be gloomy with all the stories of recession, redundancies, cuts in budget, firm closing or downsizing and no-one knowing how bad it will get. Well, of course no-one knows how bad it will get, just like no-one knows how long boom times last but you can be pretty sure that both booms and busts come and go, that it can be painful but that most people survive.
So how do you survive?
One good way is to concentrate on the basics of marketing. Marketing budget been cut? Fine, then start from scratch, not with the things that somehow became standard over the good times, even if you cannot be sure of their impact, but with spending more time on the essentials.
Firstly, customer communication - improve it. It does not cost a lot and if you can no longer afford some of the more expensive campaigns, you have more time to talk to them more often, to LISTEN and analyse their answers. Respond to their complaints more quickly and thoroughly, as well as to their ideas. Do more case studies and let all the other customers, as well as prospects, know about the real benefits. Understand the issues they have in the current climate and work out how your solutions can be tweaked to help them.
Secondly, exploit the cheapest forms of prospection. At this time, everyone is forced to re-examine what they do and who supplies them. So go back to ex-customers, previous prospects and see if now is not a good time to get them to think about you and your solutions. Don't forget to ask all your customers who they know who might benefit from your solutions.
As a final point, do not panic and forget the brand attributes that have made you successful. If you focus on quality, do not let it slip in order to cut prices. Instead work and rework all your research, materials, scripts, promotions to make the quality message more and more appealing.
The firms that market well in times of recession are those that will really thrive when conditions become easier.
So how do you survive?
One good way is to concentrate on the basics of marketing. Marketing budget been cut? Fine, then start from scratch, not with the things that somehow became standard over the good times, even if you cannot be sure of their impact, but with spending more time on the essentials.
Firstly, customer communication - improve it. It does not cost a lot and if you can no longer afford some of the more expensive campaigns, you have more time to talk to them more often, to LISTEN and analyse their answers. Respond to their complaints more quickly and thoroughly, as well as to their ideas. Do more case studies and let all the other customers, as well as prospects, know about the real benefits. Understand the issues they have in the current climate and work out how your solutions can be tweaked to help them.
Secondly, exploit the cheapest forms of prospection. At this time, everyone is forced to re-examine what they do and who supplies them. So go back to ex-customers, previous prospects and see if now is not a good time to get them to think about you and your solutions. Don't forget to ask all your customers who they know who might benefit from your solutions.
As a final point, do not panic and forget the brand attributes that have made you successful. If you focus on quality, do not let it slip in order to cut prices. Instead work and rework all your research, materials, scripts, promotions to make the quality message more and more appealing.
The firms that market well in times of recession are those that will really thrive when conditions become easier.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Combining brands
It is amazing how different brands can combine their appeal to bring compelling offers to customers. The latest example I have seen is Lego Batman game on the iPhone http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Venturebeat/~3/swne3jAFI2g/.
Lego, Batman and iPhone - now there is a combination of admired, attractive brands. But it does make me wonder which customer segment is going to be served by the game they are all involved in. Lego and Batman will appeal primarily to young children up to, maybe 14 years old. But how many of these will also own or have access to an iPhone?
Can combining brands help each of them extend the reach of their core market? Maybe, though in this case, I have my doubts
Lego, Batman and iPhone - now there is a combination of admired, attractive brands. But it does make me wonder which customer segment is going to be served by the game they are all involved in. Lego and Batman will appeal primarily to young children up to, maybe 14 years old. But how many of these will also own or have access to an iPhone?
Can combining brands help each of them extend the reach of their core market? Maybe, though in this case, I have my doubts
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The End of Exit
I have worked with private equity, venture capital and angels for the last 8 yrs and also helped and advised firms negotiating for investment from them. During this time, one of the most important questions (if not the most important one) from investors has been “What is the exit strategy”.
This forced companies requiring investment to identify major players in their industry who might want to buy them up in a few years if they grew as projected. Since far too often companies do not look at how their industry is structured, to understand who holds the power and what they might do to hinder or help start ups, this analysis was worthwhile in itself. Whether or not it then led to sensible forecasts of who might buy whom in three to five years ahead was another matter.
But the exit question also often led to wild guesses about the possibilities of floats as well as takeovers, given that the companies had no real understanding of the ups and downs of the stock market and of the likelihood that the appetite for mergers or flotations would be strong a few years in the future. Of course, in times of boom and bubble, the forecast was for a dramatic sale or entry on the stock market after only a short time, when conditions were assumed to be the same.
Now that recession is biting and stock markets have plunged, predicting exits looks even more difficult and hard to justify. (Though, ironically, it is probably now that we should be confident that in a few years time, the market will be recovering and exits will be possible. So should we look to change the exit question?
Why not justify an investment based on the profits made and the free cash flow generated? If investors take the risk of investing, for example, £1M for 30% of a company that will grow to £20M sales and £2M profits in 3-5 years with reasonable growth thereafter, they could justify their investment by 15%-20% return on capital plus the ability to sell a profitable company to free up their money but only when the market is favourable again.
The sticking point will be with investors losing their focus on getting back their capital with a good return after only a few years. Venture capitalists depend on a reasonably quick turnaround to be able to return money to their own investors.
But maybe this is the time to focus on longer term investments in the whole market. After all, investing in a company that makes good profits and pays good dividends is investing in a company that can be sold at a good valuation at some stage – it is just a question of avoiding the fixation with when the return will be.
Moreover, the very fact of paying less attention to when the return will come and more to growing profitable businesses actually makes it more likely that an exit opportunity will crop up sooner.
This forced companies requiring investment to identify major players in their industry who might want to buy them up in a few years if they grew as projected. Since far too often companies do not look at how their industry is structured, to understand who holds the power and what they might do to hinder or help start ups, this analysis was worthwhile in itself. Whether or not it then led to sensible forecasts of who might buy whom in three to five years ahead was another matter.
But the exit question also often led to wild guesses about the possibilities of floats as well as takeovers, given that the companies had no real understanding of the ups and downs of the stock market and of the likelihood that the appetite for mergers or flotations would be strong a few years in the future. Of course, in times of boom and bubble, the forecast was for a dramatic sale or entry on the stock market after only a short time, when conditions were assumed to be the same.
Now that recession is biting and stock markets have plunged, predicting exits looks even more difficult and hard to justify. (Though, ironically, it is probably now that we should be confident that in a few years time, the market will be recovering and exits will be possible. So should we look to change the exit question?
Why not justify an investment based on the profits made and the free cash flow generated? If investors take the risk of investing, for example, £1M for 30% of a company that will grow to £20M sales and £2M profits in 3-5 years with reasonable growth thereafter, they could justify their investment by 15%-20% return on capital plus the ability to sell a profitable company to free up their money but only when the market is favourable again.
The sticking point will be with investors losing their focus on getting back their capital with a good return after only a few years. Venture capitalists depend on a reasonably quick turnaround to be able to return money to their own investors.
But maybe this is the time to focus on longer term investments in the whole market. After all, investing in a company that makes good profits and pays good dividends is investing in a company that can be sold at a good valuation at some stage – it is just a question of avoiding the fixation with when the return will be.
Moreover, the very fact of paying less attention to when the return will come and more to growing profitable businesses actually makes it more likely that an exit opportunity will crop up sooner.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Making Effective Company Ambassadors
Everyone who works for a company is an ambassador for that company. But whether they are a good or bad ambassador depends on them and how you treat them. Treatment of employees is a huge area that I am not going to cover (and, although I have strong views, there are many more qualified people if you are looking for sound advice).
But there is one thing you can do make yourself and others into better ambassadors, and that is to ensure that you have clear and consistent messages about what the company does. You may say "Well, that is obvious. Everyone knows we are estate agents ... or website designers ... or garden ornament producers". But a simple label is just the starting point. What can you say that makes you stand out from the competition and be memorable?
You should be able to describe your company in two or three sentences in a way that is free of jargon (the person you are talking to may know nothing of your industry), clear and simple to remember and describes how you help your customers ("we have thirty years experience of specialising in ... ", "we are the only local firm to offer worldwide distribution...", "our products are so reliable they have lifetime guarantees..."). Find something that makes your firm stand out.
If the person or people you are talking to are interested in what you say, make sure you have a story or example to back it up. Stories are memorable.
Now are you confident that everyone who works in the company has this same message? Well, test it out by asking them. They do not need to use exactly the same words, but the key points must be the same.
Why is all this important? Because any planned or even chance meeting that you or any of your colleagues have, may turn out to be with someone who might be a customer, or a supplier or someone with the skills you need in your business - or just someone who may remember what you said and pass it on to someone else.
Making everyone into ambassadors is one of the cheapest forms of marketing. You may think it will reach too few people to be important, but think of all the interactions that you and others have each day. Think too of the customers, prospects, suppliers and others who talk to different people in your company and of ensuring that they get the right impression from everyone.
"Viral marketing" is a modern buzzphrase more associated with use of web marketing techniques. But consistent, enthusiastic mentions of your company by word of mouth can themselves be "viral".
But there is one thing you can do make yourself and others into better ambassadors, and that is to ensure that you have clear and consistent messages about what the company does. You may say "Well, that is obvious. Everyone knows we are estate agents ... or website designers ... or garden ornament producers". But a simple label is just the starting point. What can you say that makes you stand out from the competition and be memorable?
You should be able to describe your company in two or three sentences in a way that is free of jargon (the person you are talking to may know nothing of your industry), clear and simple to remember and describes how you help your customers ("we have thirty years experience of specialising in ... ", "we are the only local firm to offer worldwide distribution...", "our products are so reliable they have lifetime guarantees..."). Find something that makes your firm stand out.
If the person or people you are talking to are interested in what you say, make sure you have a story or example to back it up. Stories are memorable.
Now are you confident that everyone who works in the company has this same message? Well, test it out by asking them. They do not need to use exactly the same words, but the key points must be the same.
Why is all this important? Because any planned or even chance meeting that you or any of your colleagues have, may turn out to be with someone who might be a customer, or a supplier or someone with the skills you need in your business - or just someone who may remember what you said and pass it on to someone else.
Making everyone into ambassadors is one of the cheapest forms of marketing. You may think it will reach too few people to be important, but think of all the interactions that you and others have each day. Think too of the customers, prospects, suppliers and others who talk to different people in your company and of ensuring that they get the right impression from everyone.
"Viral marketing" is a modern buzzphrase more associated with use of web marketing techniques. But consistent, enthusiastic mentions of your company by word of mouth can themselves be "viral".
Thursday, September 18, 2008
First mover advantage
First mover advantage is exactly that -an advantage that needs to be exploited, not a right to succeed. It may well not be enough to repeat the same tactics that gave you the advantage, since the competition may be anticipating that or the market may now take that for granted and look for something else. You have to keep on innovating.
In a game of tennis, if you reach advantage, the game is yours to win. But if you play the next point in a predictable way, your opponent may well anticipate you and find the shots to claw back your advantage.
Companies that are first to market can go on to dominate - look at eBay in online auctions - but they have to continue to innovate and anticipate the next trends or they risk disappearing (remember the spreadsheet programs of Visicalc, then Supercalc then Lotus).
Of course, there may be disadvantages in being first mover as well - the latest technology may have unforseen problems or it make take longer than expected to sell a new solution to a sceptical market. But the first mover is best placed to understand and react to these issues - as long as they are constantly examining their operations in order to improve them and using feedback from the market to adapt.
In a game of tennis, if you reach advantage, the game is yours to win. But if you play the next point in a predictable way, your opponent may well anticipate you and find the shots to claw back your advantage.
Companies that are first to market can go on to dominate - look at eBay in online auctions - but they have to continue to innovate and anticipate the next trends or they risk disappearing (remember the spreadsheet programs of Visicalc, then Supercalc then Lotus).
Of course, there may be disadvantages in being first mover as well - the latest technology may have unforseen problems or it make take longer than expected to sell a new solution to a sceptical market. But the first mover is best placed to understand and react to these issues - as long as they are constantly examining their operations in order to improve them and using feedback from the market to adapt.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Something for nothing
Internet users expect more and more services for free : apart from basic free access to information, we already have free music downloads (initially illegal but more and more sites are offering legal versions), free software (especially cloud computing services), free video, free telephony via IP and so on.
There are free ISPs so users do not have to pay for connection, free wifi access in many places (though you may need to buy a cappuccino which may be quite expensive) and there have even been free PC offers in the past, though they were not successful.
While some of these free services are provided by people who are keen to share their great programming skills and gain some kudos (freeware software for example), the majority is paid for by advertising.
But how long can advertising continue to pay for the increasing range of free services for an increasing number of users?
Online global advertising spend is currently $40 billion annually. This sum provides $40 annually to pay for the free online services of 1 billion Internet users.
It is not much to pay for our consumption of more and more music, video, software, storage and other services.
Maybe the rise of the phone will change the model. People are used to paying for phone services. But on the other hand, the emergence of flat rate data tariffs and competition between mobile operators is likely to limit this source of finance.
What will happen if we wake up one day and find that there is no longer the money to pay for the free services we have grown so used to?
There are free ISPs so users do not have to pay for connection, free wifi access in many places (though you may need to buy a cappuccino which may be quite expensive) and there have even been free PC offers in the past, though they were not successful.
While some of these free services are provided by people who are keen to share their great programming skills and gain some kudos (freeware software for example), the majority is paid for by advertising.
But how long can advertising continue to pay for the increasing range of free services for an increasing number of users?
Online global advertising spend is currently $40 billion annually. This sum provides $40 annually to pay for the free online services of 1 billion Internet users.
It is not much to pay for our consumption of more and more music, video, software, storage and other services.
Maybe the rise of the phone will change the model. People are used to paying for phone services. But on the other hand, the emergence of flat rate data tariffs and competition between mobile operators is likely to limit this source of finance.
What will happen if we wake up one day and find that there is no longer the money to pay for the free services we have grown so used to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
