Category Archives: The New Marketplace

Are We Guilty of “Numbed” Marketing?

BombsightA few years ago, I was moderating a panel on mobile advertising. The room was full of marketers. After much discussion about targeting and the ability to track consumers both geographically and behaviorally, one audience member lamented, “Why don’t the carriers just share the subscriber information? They know who they are. They know addresses, family status, credit history, demographics – they have all that information. Then we could really pinpoint our market.”

I had to jump in. I asked this room full of marketers to indicate who would like to have access to that information by raising their hand. The entire room answered in the affirmative. Then I added a twist…

“Okay. Everyone in this room has a mobile phone. Who, as subscribers, would want your carrier sharing that information with anyone who wanted to target you? Keep your hands up.”

Hands wavered. You could almost hear the switch clicking in their brains. Every hand slowly went down.

That story came to mind last week when I read the following passage in a book by Arthur J. Dyck called “Rethinking Rights and Responsibilities: The Moral Bonds of Community,”

“In his study, (Robert Jay) Lifton takes note of a phenomenon he calls “numbed warfare,” a mode of combat in which participants have psychological contacts only with their military cohorts and their own equipment…. Lifton describes research that found a striking correlation between altitude and potential for guilt:

‘B-52 pilots and crews bombing at high altitudes saw nothing of their victims and spoke exclusively of professional skill and performance…’

Lifton calls these B-52 pilots “numbed warriors.” What have been numbed are their empathic emotions: ‘lacking emotional relations with his victims, the numbed warrior receives from them very little of the kind of feedback that could permit at least one layer of his mind to perceive them as human.’”

That may seem like a horrific parallel to draw with marketing, but the similarities are striking. One of the ways warriors have always desensitized themselves is by thinking of the enemy in non-human terms, either as a faceless, monolithic group, or by assigning a dehumanizing (and usually derogatory) label to them. We marketers have been doing this for years. What is more dehumanizing than taking a thinking, feeling person and calling them a “consumer?” Someone once described consumers as “mindless wallets eating shit and crapping cash.”

Warriors have to clearly delineate the concepts of “us” and “them” in order to do what they have to do. But as my room full of marketers realized, when it comes to marketing – “them” is “us.” In a recent PEW study, 80% of social network users were worried that their data would be accessed by advertisers. That means 4 out of 5 people don’t trust you, Ms. or Mr. Marker. They’d rather you didn’t know who they were. If you knocked on their door, they wouldn’t answer. Maybe it’s because you keep calling them a consumer or a target market. I’m also betting that if you were asked that question, you’d answer the same way. Because even though you’re a marketer, you don’t trust other marketers.

In a recent interview, I was asked what one piece of advice I would pass on to other marketers. I said, “Be an empathic marketer.” Or, in plainer terms, don’t numb yourself to your market. I’m not alone in saying we can be better. Fellow Spinner Cory Treffileti talked about the importance of emotion in ad messages. And Katie Meier recently asked the question, “What if data wasn’t about numbers, but instead we made it about the people the numbers represent?”

Technology has put us at a crossroads. We could use it to further distance and dehumanize our market, turning real people into digital data points. We could become “high-altitude” marketers, never coming face to face with the humans we’re trying to connect with.

Or, we could use it to create, as my friend Scott Brinker likes to say, “markets of one.” But before we do that, we have to make them want to listen to us. They have to answer their door if we knock. And that will take some work. We have to start treating them the way we want to be treated, when we’re not wearing our “marketing” hats.

Can A Public Company Keep a Start Up Attitude?

google-glass1

Google is possibly the most interesting company in the world right now. But being interesting does not necessarily equate with being successful. And therein lies the rub.

Case in point. Google is taking another crack at Google Glass. Glass has the potential to be a disruptive technology. And the way Google approached it was very much in the Google way of doing things. They put a beta version out there and asked for feedback from the public. Some of that feedback was positive, but much of it was negative. That is natural. It’s the negative feedback you’re looking for, because it shows what has to be changed. The problem is that Glass V 0.9 is now pegged as a failure. So as Laurie Sullivan reported, Google is trying a different approach, which appears to be taken from Apple’s playbook. They’re developing under wraps, with a new product lead, and you probably won’t see another version of Glass until it’s ready to ship as a viable market-ready product.

The problem here is that Google may have lost too much time. As Sullivan points out, Intel, Epson and Microsoft are all working on consumer versions of wearable visual interfaces. And they’re not alone. A handful of aggressive start-ups are also going after Glass, including Meta, Vuzix, Optinvent, Glassup and Recon. And none of them will attract the attention of Google, simply because they’re not Google.

Did Google screw up with the first release of Google Glass? Probably not. In fact, if you read Eric Ries’s The Lean Start Up, they did a lot of things right. They got a minimally viable product in front of a market to test it and see what to improve. No, Google’s problem wasn’t with their strategy; it was with their speed. As Ries states,

“The goal of a startup is to figure out the right thing to build—the thing customers want and will pay for—as quickly as possible.”

Google didn’t move fast enough with Glass. And I suspect it was because Google isn’t a start up, so it can’t act like one. Again, from Ries,

“The problem isn’t with the teams or the entrepreneurs. They love the chance to quickly get their baby out into the market. They love the chance to have the customer vote instead of the suits voting. The real issue is with the leaders and the middle managers.”

Google isn’t the only company to feel the constricting bonds of being a public company. There is a long list of world changing technologies that were pioneered at places like Xerox and Microsoft and were tagged as corporate failures, only to eventually change the world in someone else’s hands.

I suspect the days are many when Larry Page and Sergey Brin are sorry they ever decided to take Google public. Back then, they probably thought that the vast economic resources that would become available, combined with their vision, would make an unbeatable combination. But in the process of going public, they were forced to compromise on the very spirit that was defined by that vision. They want to do great things, but they still need to hit their quarterly targets and keep shareholders happy. The two things shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, but sadly they almost always are.

It’s probably no accident that Apple does their development in stealth mode. Apple has much more experience than Google in being a public company. They have probably realized that it’s not the buying public that you keep in the dark, it’s the analysts and shareholders. Otherwise, they’ll look at the early betas, an essential step in the development process, and pass judgment, tagging them as failures long before such judgments are justified. It would be like condemning a newborn baby as hopeless because they can’t drive a car yet.

Google is dreaming big dreams. I admire that. I just worry that the structure of Google might not be the right vehicle in which to pursue those dreams.

The Virtuous Cycle and the End of Arm’s Length Marketing

brandstewardshipLast week I wrote what should have been an open and shut column – looking at why SEO never really lived up to the potential of the business opportunity. Then my friend Scott Brinker had to respond with this comment:

“Seems like Google has long been focused on making SEO a “result” of companies doing good things, rather than a search-specific optimization “cause” to generate good rankings. They seem to have gotten what they wanted. Now as Google starts to do that with paid search, the world gets interesting for those agencies too..”

Steven Aresenault jumped on the bandwagon with this:

“Companies are going to wake up to the reality that part of their marketing is really about creating content. Content is everywhere and everything. Reality is I believe that it is a new way of thinking.”

As they both point out, SEO should be a natural result of a company doing good things, not the outcome of artificial manipulations practiced by a third party. It has to be baked into and permeate through the operating DNA of a company. But, as I started this column, I realized that this doesn’t stop at SEO. This is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg. Marketing, at least the way it’s been done up to now, is fundamentally broken. And it’s because many companies still rely on what I would call “Arm’s Length Marketing.”

Brand Stewardship = B.S.

Here is a quote lifted directly from the Ogilvy Mather website:

We believe our role as 360 Degree Brand Stewards is this: Creating attention-getting messages that make a promise consistent and true to the brand’s image and identity. And guiding actions, both big and small, that deliver on that brand promise. To every audience that brand has. At every brand intersection point. At all times.

Now, Ogilvy is very good at crafting messages and this one is no exception. Who could possibly argue with their view of brand stewardship? The problem comes when you look at what “stewardship” means. Here’s the Merriam Webster definition:

the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially :  the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care

The last five words are the key – “something entrusted to one’s care”. This implies that the agency has functional control of the brand, and with due apologies to David Ogilvy and his cultural legacy, that is simply bullshit.

Brands = Experience

Hmmm - coincidence?

Hmmm – coincidence?

Maybe Arm’s Length Brand Stewardship was possible in the era of David Ogilvy, Don Draper and Darrin Stephens (now, there’s a pop culture trifecta for you) – where brand messaging defined the brand, but that era is long gone. Brands used to be crafted from exposure, but now they’re created through experience, amplified through the resonant network of the online community. And an arm’s length third party cannot, nor should they, control that experience. It has to live at the heart of the company. For decades, companies abdicated the responsibility of brand stewardship to the communication experts – or, to do a little word crafting – they “entrusted (it) to (their) care.” That has to change. Marketing has to come back home.

The Virtuous Marketing Cycle

Scott talked about the SEO rewards that come from doing good things. Steven talked about authentic content creation being one of those good things. But this is a much bigger deal. This is about forcefully moving marketing’s place in the strategic chain. Currently, the order is this: Management > Strategy > Marketing > Revenue. Marketing’s current job is to execute on strategy, which comes from management. And, in that scenario, it’s plausible to execute at arm’s length. Also, things like SEO and content management fall well down the chain, typically beneath the threshold of senior management awareness. By the way, usability and other user-centric practices typically suffer the same fate.

But what if we moved our thinking from a chain to a cycle: Marketing > Management > Strategy > Marketing > Revenue > Marketing (and repeat)? Let me explain. To begin with, Marketing is perfectly situated to become the “sensemaking” interface with the market. This goes beyond market research, which very seldom truly informs strategy. Market research in its current form is typically intended to optimize the marketing program.

I’m talking about a much bigger role – Marketing would define the “outside in” view of the company which would form the context within which strategy would be determined by Management. Sensemaking as it applies to corporate strategy is a huge topic, but for brevity’s sake, let’s suppose that Marketing fills the role of the corporation’s five senses, defining what reality looks (and smells and sounds and tastes and feels) like . Then, when strategy is defined within that context, Marketing is well positioned to execute on it. Finally, execution is not the end – it is the beginning of another cycle. Sense making is an iterative process. Marketing then redefines what reality looks like and the cycle starts over again.

Bringing stewardship of marketing back to the very heart of the organization fundamentally changes things like arm’s length agency partnerships. It creates a virtuous cycle that runs through length and breadth of a company’s activities. Things like SEO, content creation and usability naturally fall into place.

Strategic Planning as though the Future Matters – Strategy and Leadership

Note from Gord

Up to now, Out Of My Gord has never had guest posts. It’s not really an editorial policy or anything like that. It’s just that the right person never asked. Then I chatted with Doug Randall of Monitor 360. I’m currently working on a new book and it deals with sense making as it applies to corporate strategy. I had written a column called the Pros and Cons of a Fuel Efficient Brain and Daniel Beckerman from Monitor 360 reached out to see if I’d like to chat with Doug. We had a fascinating discussion which resulted in a follow up post. I particularly liked how Monitor 360 uses a narrative framework to help humans deal with data. Last month, Monitor 360 CMO Kevin Rockmael asked if I’d be interested in guest posts. I said probably. So, here is the first guest post. It was previously published by Monitor 360 but I think it would be of interest to my audience. In particular, it covers use of scenarios to avoid market surprises that could have been anticipated (key in sense making). Monitor 360 is currently working on some new posts as well.

G

By Doug Randall

chesspiecesWhy do organizations get blindsided by market transformations that could have been anticipated? It may not be because their planning methods are flawed, but rather that they undertake strategic planning processes like scenario development without seeing them as a unique opportunity for learning about and exploring the future.

To help planners avoid strategic surprise, Monitor 360 has created a five-step strategic planning process that has been tested in interactions with leaders in the military, intelligence community, and corporations. This paper guides you through a systematic process for incorporating plausible but challenging future scenarios into your organization’s learning processes, to help mitigate risk and decrease the likelihood of being unprepared for discontinuities.

The PDF is available for download.

Why do organizations get blindsided by market transformations that could have been anticipated? After all, scenario planning has been a widely used strategic planning tool for decades and most managers are familiar with the process of considering how they would operate in alternative futures. The reason most organizations get surprised by game-changing events, in my experience, is not that their planning methods are bad. The problem is that they undertake strategic planning processes like scenario development without seeing them as a unique opportunity for learning about and exploring the future. In some cases this is because management lacks sufficient appreciation for the uncertainty and ambiguity their organizations face. More often, however, management is fully aware of the uncertainty of their situation but is seemingly powerless to prepare to adapt to new business realities, especially unpleasant ones.

To help planners avoid strategic surprise, Monitor 360 has created a five-step strategic planning process that has been tested in interactions with leaders in the military, intelligence community, and corporations. By systematically incorporating plausible but challenging future scenarios into their learning processes, decision makers can both mitigate risk and decrease the likelihood of not being prepared for discontinuities. This approach overcomes the paralysis that sometimes happens when people see all the uncertainty their organization faces, as well as the denial that happens when they don’t.

Multiple futures

When thinking about the future, many strategic planners make the mistake of asking, “What will the future be?” Because the future is the net result of so many complex and interdependent issues the question is daunting, and perhaps unanswerable.

A more realistic question is, “What are the possible challenging futures?” Exploring multiple possible ways the future could unfold in ways that would require the organization to radically adapt enables leaders to better prepare for a wide range of contingencies, and to manage the consequences more effectively when surprises do occur.

Scenario analysis can provide planners with a systematic way of imaging the future and identifying winning long-term strategies that respond to the many ways the future could play out. It helps individuals and their organizations identify and challenge their entrenched mental models and assumptions about what the future might hold, while helping bound the uncertainties they face.

Instead of attempting to predict what’s going to happen, the scenario methodology offers a way to see the forces as they are taking shape and not be blindsided when they lead to major changes. Anticipating the future gives decision-makers the ability to look in the right place for game-changing events, to rehearse the appropriate responses and to systematically tack indicators of change.

Five Mindsets for Managing Uncertainty

Scenario thinking is the foundation of our five-step toolkit because of the unique ways it allows leaders to explore and exploit the unknown, and because it offers managers a methodology to consider alternatives in the face of uncertainty. To make scenario planning more effective, we’ve identified five discrete steps in the process, each of which should be undertaken with a distinct mindset. It is important to take these steps one at a time and in order, rather than skipping right away to decision-making.

Create Scenarios — Unleash your Imagination

Scenarios are plausible narratives about futures that are distinctly different from the present. If they are well prepared, they allow for a thorough exploration of future risks and opportunities. Scenario thinkers begin at the same place as traditional risk managers, skillfully making an inventory of what is known about the future. After exploring issues such as demographics as well as aspects of industry structure and customer behavior, scenario thinkers turn to the unknown, the unknowable, and the perceptions that should be challenged. Following a rigorous analytical process aimed at articulating the range of uncertainties an organization could face and all of the relevant outcomes, scenario thinkers design a number of cogent narratives about relevant futures.

Scenarios are written as plausible stories — not probable ones. Traditional risk management is based on probabilities, actuary tables, and other known and measurable quantities. But scenarios are intended to provoke the imagination and provide a more comprehensive view of risk, so that the results can shed light on critical strategic decisions.

It is important to note that scenario developers create multiple futures, rather than just one. This allows for a more complete exploration of the future, thus avoiding getting wedded to specific set of assumptions about how uncertainties will unfold. The process of developing multiple scenarios helps to increase the possibility that leaders will not be surprised, because it allows them to rehearse multiple unique futures. Importantly, it also grounds decision-makers in the reality that, in most circumstances, they cannot accurately predict the future. Rathe than falsely assuming one outcome will happen, leaders learn that they must make decisions in light of the true uncertainty they face.

As an example of this process, the U.S. Navy developed a set of scenarios that would help guide the development of the first unified strategy of all the country’s maritime forces in the “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” released October 2007. The first step was to develop four working scenarios. These were discussed and refined in a series of eight working sessions around the country with people from the business, government, and academic sectors who could provide valuable insight about issues the Navy needed to address in the future. The participation of these experts, and their feedback, helped to test the validity of scenarios, which were then refined for publication and dissemination.

The scenarios had a significant impact on the future strategy of the Navy. For example, the scenarios helped to provide a new mission for the Navy in its response to humanitarian crises. the report concluded: “Building on relationships forged in times of calm, we will continue to mitigate human suffering as the vanguard of interagency and multinational efforts, both in a deliberate, proactive fashion and in response to crises. Human suffering moves us to act, and the expeditionary character of maritime forces uniquely positions them to provide assistance.”

Determine Required Capabilities for each Scenario — Give your Creativity Free Rein

The second step of the process is to identify what it takes to be successful in each of the futures identified. After the scenario process has imagined distinctly different future worlds that the organization’s leaders have acknowledge are plausible, relevant, and important, what would a high-performing organization look like in each of these worlds? That is, if an organization were dealt the card of one scenario, what would it need to do in order to be successful?

To answer this question, planners need to make a list of key success factors and capabilities. Key capabilities for militaries or intelligence agencies might be the ability to project force rapidly abroad or the ability to collect and process open-source information. Capabilities often start with “the ability to….” For companies these might be the ability to build brands that address customer needs and inspire loyalty as well as the ability to launch products quickly.

As a case in point, a major software company needed to determine where to invest its limited resources to succeed in a market roiled by new competitors. In one scenario, the company needed good relationships with its value-added resellers and excellent customer service. In another scenario, it needed an entirely different set of capabilities, including low cost, operating system integration.

It’s important to address the capabilities question as if it were a set of independent problems: what it would take to be a winner in a given scenario? Doing so encourages bold, creative thinking, and avoids the trap of limiting the alternatives to those that are doable with current capabilities and resources. By keeping this step separate from the next one, assessing current capabilities, planners are not hobbled by only thinking about what they are good at today or nor do they have struggle with imagining themselves in four different worlds at the same time.

It is often a wrenching experience for leaders to simply look for the absolutely best strategic posture for their organization in each scenario. This is one measure of how hard it is for them to imagine doing business in any future that has totally different success factors from the current environment.

Assess Current Capabilities — Be Painfully Realistic

Separate from the critical examination of the capabilities needed for success in each scenario, planners must ask: What are we good at right now? The answers could be human capital, relationship, or operational efficiency. These capabilities are generally described as competitive assets that cannot be bought and sold on the free market. Organizations can’t just say, “We’ll invest $100 million next month, and then we’ll have that ability” or “We want to do that.” They have to build the capability over time.

Often outside perspective — for example, based on detailed discussions with customers — can be helpful in getting in unbiased evaluation of what capabilities an organization excels in.

Identify Gaps — Provide Honest Analysis

Next organization should compare its own capabilities with the capabilities needed to succeed in the scenarios. Such capability maps will not only highlight what capabilities it needs to develop — the capability gaps — but also what capabilities it has already invested in that may become redundant.

Make Choices — Consider your Options

Once organizations have analyzed the gap between their strengths and the capabilities needed in each scenario, they face some big decisions. There could be capabilities that they need in all the scenarios imagined but that they don’t currently have. As a first step, an organization might safely develop these. We call those “no-regrets moves.”

Others move are what we call “big bets.”  These are capabilities needed in a particular scenario or a small number of scenarios, but not in others. Organizations make bets consciously after systematically thinking through the types of capabilities, their relationship to the environment around them, or the futures that they feel are likely to occur. They can adjust their decision when more data is collected or events unfold in the world. This process is based on the theory of real options, which suggests an organization can gain an advantage by making many small bets, and as information accumulates, start to increase or decrease those bets accordingly.

The crucial questions for organizations to ask when making choices are: What would be the risk if a scenario happened and we didn’t have this capability? And what would be the risk if a scenario didn’t happen and we did have it?

What’s Clouding the Future?

It’s painfully difficult for individual leaders to keep their minds open to multiple futures and to follow a systematic process like the one described above. IBM”s famous story illustrates this all-to-common tendency.

In 1980, the personal computer represented a tiny niche market. When IBM was considering developing a computer for the masses it convened a working group to forecast its potential market. The team projected that the market for PCs would total a mere 241,683 units over the next five years, and that demand would peak after two years and then trend downward. They believed that since existing computers had such a small amount of processing power, people would not want to purchase a second one.

As a result, IBM determined that there was no potential in the marketplace and effectively killed its effort to dominate the personal computer market, ceding the operating system to Microsoft and the processor to Intel. IBM lost out on a $240 billion market, one in which nearly every household in the developed world would eventually want one or more of the machines and then would want to upgrade them every few years.

But what if someone in the room had asked, “What if people want a PC on every desktop?” What if individuals start carrying PC’s in their pockets? What if PCs develop a communications capability?What if they are widely used to play games? Maybe we should think of a different scenario where the market would be more like 20 million units?” These would have been completely off-the-wall, outrageous ideas at the time, but if just one person in the room had explored such different lines of thought, the futures of Microsoft, Intel and IBM might have evolved differently.

The Benefits of a Systematic, Disciplined Approach

Anticipating the future isn’t just about avoiding strategic surprise or minimizing the downside risk. There’s also a huge upside: You are creating the future that you want and making sense of how the world may play out. Understanding your choices can be an empowering process.

When planners follow a process that systematically cuts through the barriers to effective group learning and decision-making, and combine that process with principles that give discipline and robustness to the entire endeavor, the future, and our place in it, comes into a much sharper focus.

The Metaphysical Corporation and The Death of Capitalism?

Something strange is happening to companies. More and more, their business is being conducted in non-physical markets. Businesses used to produce stuff. Now, they produce ideas. A recent op-ed piece from Wharton speculated that companies are working their way up Maslow’s Hierarchy. The traditional business produced things that met the needs of the lowest levels of the pyramid – shelter, food, warmth, security. As consumerism spread, companies worked their way up to next levels: entertainment, attainment and enjoyment.  Now, the things that companies sell sit at the top of the pyramid – fulfillment, creativity, self-actualization.

ComponentsSP500_2010The post also talks about another significant shift that’s happening on the balance sheets of Corporate America. Not only are the things that corporations sell changing, but the things that make up the value of the company itself are also changing.  According to research by Ocean Tomo, a merchant bank that specializes in intellectual property, the asset mix of companies has shifted dramatically in the past 40 years. In 1975, tangible assets (buildings, land, equipment, inventory) made up 83% of the market value of the S&P 500 companies. By 2010, that had flipped – Intangible assets (patents, trademarks, goodwill and brand) made up 80% of the market value of the S & P 500.

Chains vs Networks and the Removal of Friction

Barry Libert, Jerry Wind and Megan Beck Finley, the authors of the Wharton piece, focus mainly on the financial aspects of this shift. They point out that general accounting principles (GAAP) are quickly falling behind this corporate evolution. For example, employees are still classified as an expense, rather than an asset. I’m personally more interested in what this shift means for the very structure of a corporation.

If you built stuff, you needed a supply chain. Vertical integration was the way to remove physical transactional friction from the manufacturing process. Vertical integration bred hierarchal management styles. Over time, technology would remove some of the friction and some parts of the chain may evolve into open markets. The automotive industry is a good example. Many of the components of your 2015 Fusion are supplied to Ford by independent vendors. Despite this, makers of “stuff” still want to control the entire chain through centralized management.

But if you sell ideas, you need to have a network. Intangible products don’t have any physical friction, so supply chains are not required. And if you try to control a network with a centralized hierarchy, branches of your network soon wither and die.

The New Real Thing

coca-cola-freestyle-machineCoke has not been a maker of stuff for quite some time now. Sure, they make beverages, so technically they’re quenching our thirst, but the true value of Coke lies in its brand and our connection to that brand. The “Real Thing” is, ironically and quite literally, a figment of our imagination. If you were to place Coke on Maslow’s Hierarchy – it wouldn’t sit on the bottom level (physiological) but on the third (Love/Belonging) or even the fourth (Esteem).

Coke is very aware of its personal connection with it’s customers and the intangibles that come with it. That’s why the Coca-Cola Freestyle Vending Machine comes with the marketing tag line: “So many options. Thirst isn’t one of them.” You can customize your own formulation from over 100 choices, and if you have the Freestyle app, you can reorder your brand at any Coke Freestyle machine in the world. Of course, Coke is quietly gathering all this customer data that’s generated, including consumption patterns and regional preferences. Again, this intimate customer insight is just one of the intangibles that is becoming increasing valuable.

Coke is not only changing how it distributes its product. It’s also grappling with changing its very structure. In a recent conversation I had with CMO Joe Tripodi, he talked a lot about Coke’s move towards becoming a networked corporation. Essentially, Coke wants to make sure that worldwide innovation isn’t choked off by commands coming from Atlanta.

The Turning Point of Capitalism

As corporate America moves away from the making of physical stuff and towards the creation of concepts that it shares with customers, what does that mean for capital markets? If you believe Jeremy Rifkin, in his new book The Zero Marginal Cost Society, he contends that capitalism is dying a slow death. Eventually, it will be replaced by a new collaborative common market made possible by the increasing shrinkage of marginal costs. As we move from the physical to the metaphysical, the cost of producing consumable services or digital concept-based products (books, music, video, software) drops dramatically. Capital was required to overcome physical transactional friction. If that friction disappears, so does the need for capital.   Rifkin doesn’t believe the death of capitalism will be any time soon, but he does see an inevitable trend towards a new type of market he calls the Collaborative Commons.

Get Intimate

My last takeaway is this – if future business depends on connecting with customers and their conceptual needs, it becomes essential to know those customers on a deeply intimate level.  Throw away any preconceptions from the days of mass marketing and start thinking about how to connect with the “Market of One.”

Twitch – Another Example of a Frictionless Market

twitch_logo3Twitch just sold for $1 billion dollars. That’s not really news. We’ve become inured to the never-ending stream of tech acquisitions that instantly transforms entrepreneurial techies into some of the richest people on the planet. No, what’s interesting about Twitch is if we slow down long enough to think about how this particular start up managed to create $1 billion in value.

A billion dollars is a lot of money. If we looked back just 50 years, a billion dollars in assets would make a company number 40 on the Fortune 500. If Twitch were somehow teleported back to 1964, it would rank just eight slots under Procter and Gamble (assets worth $1.15 billion) and three slots above Sunoco (assets of $0.88 billion). Coca-Cola would be left in the dust with a mere $485 million in assets. Today a half billion dollars is chump change in Silicon Valley terms.

This becomes more amazing when you consider that Twitch is only 3 years old. And it really started as an accident.

justin_kanRemember EDtv? Probably not. It was a pretty forgettable 1999 movie (based on a 1994 Quebec film called Louis 19, King of the Airwaves) starring Matthew McConaughey. The idea was that Ed would be followed by cameras 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, making his life a reality TV show. 1998’s The Truman Show had a similar theme (albeit with better ratings). Anyway, the point made in both movies was that an average life, if televised, could be entertaining enough to make people watch. In 2006, Emmett Shear and Justin Kan decided to test the premise. They launched Justin.tv. Soon they invited others to simulcast their lives as well.

What Kan and Shear did, although they probably weren’t intending to at the time, was create a platform that allowed anyone to be a real-time broadcaster with zero transactional costs. They created a perfect market for live TV. Last week I talked about AirBnB, TripAdvisor and VRBO.com creating a more perfect market for tourism. The key characteristic of a perfect market is that barriers to entry are reduced to zero, turning the market into an emergent sandbox from which new things tend to pop up. And that’s exactly what happened with Twitch.

Shear and Kan found that one group in particular embraced the idea of livecasting – gamers. They could communicate with other gamers, but they could also show off their mad gaming skills. Using the Justin.tv platform, Twitch was launched for the gaming industry in 2011. And thanks to Twitch, gaming has become a spectator sport – at a massive scale.

Twitch’s “stars” – like 30-year-old Tessa Brooks, who goes by “Tessachka” and broadcasts an average of 42 hours of programming a week – post their schedules so that their audiences can tune in. Twitch has about 55 million viewers per month who consume over 16 billion minutes of video programming. According to SocialBlade.com, this month, “Riotgames” is the top ranked Twitch broadcaster, with almost a million followers and over 18 million channel views.

Again, those are big numbers. A network show that pulls in 18 million viewers would be number 5 in the Nielsen ratings. And while Netflix’s House of Cards or Orange is the New Black may have made waves at the Emmies, The Atlantic estimates that only 2 – 3 million people watch a newly posted episode in the first week. On a good week, Riotgames could blow that away without twitching a trigger finger.

Twitch not only created a platform that generates audiences, it also generated a marketplace. Where there are eyeballs, there’s revenue potential. Twitch cuts its gamers in for a cut of the advertising revenue. I couldn’t find numbers on how lucrative this could be, but I suspect Justin may be able to quit his day job.

Like I said, the Twitch story is interesting, but what is vastly more interesting is the market dynamics that it has unleashed. Amazon’s $1 billion bid is not for the technology. It’s for the community and the market that comes with that community. When it comes to leveraging the potential of zero transactional cost markets, Amazon knows a thing or two. And one of the things it knows is that in frictionless markets, if you can navigate the turbulence, tremendous value can be created in an amazing short time. Say, for instance, $1 billion in just 3 years. It took Procter and Gamble 127 years to be worth that much.

Technology is Moving Us Closer to a Perfect Market

I have two very different travel profiles. When I travel on business, I usually stick with the big chains, like Hilton or Starwood. The experience is less important to me than predictability. I’m not there for pleasure; I’m there to sleep. And, because I travel on business a lot (or used to), I have status with them. If something goes wrong, I can wave my Platinum or Diamond guest card around and act like a jerk until it gets fixed.

But, if I’m traveling for pleasure, I almost never stay in a chain hotel. In fact, more and more, I stay in a vacation rental house or apartment. It’s a little less predictable than your average Sheraton or Hampton Inn, but it’s almost always a better value. For example, if I were planning a last minute get away to San Francisco for Labor Day weekend, I’d be shelling out just under $400 for a fairly average hotel room at the Hilton by Union Square. But for about the same price, I could get an entire 4 bedroom house that sleeps 8 just two blocks from Golden Gate park. And that was with just a quick search on AirBnB.com. I could probably find a better deal with the investment of a few minutes of my time.

perfect_market_1Travel is just one of the markets that technology has made more perfect. And when I say “perfect” I use the term in its economic sense. A perfect market has perfect competition, which means that the barriers of entry have been lowered and most of the transactional costs have been eliminated. The increased competition lowers prices to a sustainable minimum. At that point, the market enters a state called the Pareto Optimal, which means that nothing can be changed without it negatively impacting some market participants and positively impacting others.

Whether a perfect market is a good thing or not depends on your perspective. If you’re a long-term participant in the market and your goal is to make the biggest profit possible, a perfect market is the last thing you want. If you’re a new entrant to the market, it’s a much rosier story – any shifts that take the market closer to a Pareto Optimal will probably be to your benefit. And if you’re a customer, you’re in the best position of all. Perfect markets lead inevitably to better value.

Since the advent of VRBO.com and, more recently, AirBnB.com, the travel marketplace has moved noticeably closer to being perfect. Sites like these, along with travel review aggregators like TripAdvisor.com, have significantly reduced the transaction costs of the travel industry. The first wave was the reduction of search costs. Property owners were able to publish listings in a directory that made it easy to search and filter options. Then, the publishing of reviews gave us the confidence we needed to stray beyond the predictably safe territory of the big chains.

But, more recently, a second wave has further reduced transaction costs independent vacation property owners. I was recently talking to a cousin who rents his flat in Dublin through AirBnB, which takes all the headaches of vacation property management away in return for a cut of the action. He was up and running almost immediately and has had no problem renting his flat during the weeks he makes it available. He found the barriers to entry to be essentially zero. A cottage industry of property managers and key exchange services has sprung up around the AirBnB model.

What technology has done to the travel industry is essentially turned it into a Long Tail business model. As Chris Anderson pointed out in his book, Long Tail markets need scale free networks. Scale free networks only work when transaction costs are eliminated and entry into the market is free of friction. When this happen, the Power Law distribution still stays in place but the tail becomes longer . The Long Tail of Tourism now includes millions of individually owned vacation properties. For example, AirBnB has almost 800 rentals available in Dublin alone. According to Booking.com, that’s about 7 times the total number of hotels in the city.

Another thing that happens is, over time, the Tail becomes fatter. More business moves from the head to the tail. The Pareto Principle states that in Power Law distributions, 20 % of the businesses get 80% of the business. Online, the ratio is closer to 72/28.

These shifts in the market are more than just interesting discussion topics for economists. They mark a fundamental change in the rules of the game. Markets that are moving towards perfection remove the advantages of size and incumbency and reward nimbleness and adaptability. They also, at least in this instance, make life more interesting for customers.

Have the Odds Caught Up with Apple?

google-vs-appleGoogle has just surpassed Apple as the most valuable brand in the world. In diving deeper on this, there are several angles one could take. If you live in the intersection of brand and technology marketing, as I have for the last several years, this is noteworthy on many levels. One, for instance, are the dramatic shifts in Millward Brown’s assigned brand value for the two companies – with Google soaring 40 percent, and Apple plunging 20 percent. According to Millward Brown’s Brandz™ Study, Google’s brand is worth $158 billion, up from $113 billion last year. And the post-Jobs Apple is down to $147 billion from last years $185 billion number one spot. Combined, that’s an $83 billion swap in valuations. Apple was one of the few brands to actually loose ground in this year’s report.

I personally find this interesting because of some recent research I’ve been doing on corporate strategy for an upcoming book. It comes as a surprise to no one reading this column that I’m a big believer in corporate strategy. But in my research, I’ve been forced to admit that strategy is a little understood and over-hyped concept. Actually, let me clarify that – strategy as it’s taught in most MBA programs is little understood and over-hyped. Executives and consultants pull matrices and strategic frameworks out of thin air, and injudiciously apply them to any and all situations. With all due deference to the Michael Porters, Peter Druckers, Jim Collins and Tom Peters of the world, I suspect the world of corporate strategy is more complex than 5 universal steps, a four box matrix or simple models illustrated with a few circles and arrows. The mistaken assumption with all this is that all strategic wisdom must flow from top to bottom.

Let’s go back to Apple and Google. Apple, under Jobs, was a traditional hierarchy. More than this, it was a hierarchy ensconced in an ivory tower. Due, no doubt, to the considerable hubris of Mr. Jobs, Apple believed that all good things had to be laboriously squeezed out of their own design process and mercilessly tweaked to perfection.

Google, on the other hand, fully embraces the concept of a market to drive innovation. Notice I say “a market”, not “the market.” Here, I refer to markets as a tool, not an entity. The distinction is important. Markets are built to facilitate exchanges. They use valuation mechanisms (such as pricing) to protect fairness and introduce equilibrium in the market. It their most ideal form, markets allow any member of the marketplace to contribute and be judged on the value of their contribution, not their status. In Google’s case, the 20% free time rule, Google Labs and their experimentation with prediction markets all use market dynamics to drive both innovation and corporate strategy. Markets allow for a Darwinian approach to strategy, pulling it up from the bottom rather than driving it down from the top. And, as evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel liked to say, “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”

But there are trade-offs. Bottom up approaches to strategy need some mechanism to pick winners and losers. There needs to be the corporate equivalent of natural selection. This, again, is where markets can help. Without robust and definitive selection tools, the bottoms-up organization can vacillate endlessly, never making any headway. Also, management of execution in bottom-up organizations can be a much more challenging balancing act. Dictatorships might not be a lot of fun for the “dictatees” but you can definitely get the trains running on time.

Here’s one last thing to keep in mind. Every time we trot out Apple in the era of Steve Jobs as an example of anything to do with corporations, we tend to forget that in the normal distribution of visionary talent, Jobs was an extreme outlier. He was a once in a generation anomaly. You can’t build a corporate strategy around the hope that you have a Steve Jobs on the executive payroll. Sooner or later, the odds will catch up to you.

Will Apple’s brand value bounce back in 2015? Perhaps. But in the dynamically complex market that is today’s reality, I’d be placing my bets on organizations that have learned to adapt and evolve in complexity.

Today, Spend Some Time in Quadrant Two

First published April 17, 2014 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Last week, I ranted, and it was therapeutic — for me, at least. Some of you agreed that the social media landscape was littered with meaningless crap. Others urged me to “loosen up and take a chill pill,” intimating that I had slipped across the threshold of “grumpy old man-itis.” Guilty, I guess, but there was a point to my rant. We need to spend more time with important stuff, and less time with content that may be popular but trivial.

Hey, I’m the first to admit that I can be tempted into wasting gobs of time with a tweet like: “Prom season sizzles with KFC chicken corsages.” This is courtesy of Guy Kawasaki. Guy’s Twitter feed is a fire hose of enticing trivia. And the man (with the team that supports him) does have a knack of writing tweets with irresistible hooks. Come on. Who could resist checking out a fried chicken corsage?

But here’s the problem. Online is littered with fried chicken corsages. No matter where we turn, we’re bombarded by these tasty little tidbits of brain candy. Publishers have grown quite adept at stringing these together, leading us from trivial link to trivial link. Personally, I’m a sucker for Top Ten lists. But after succumbing to the temptation for “just a second” I find myself, 20 minutes later, having accomplished nothing other than learning what the 10 Biggest Reality Show Blunders were, or where the 10 Most Extravagant Homes in the U.S. happen to be.

Entertaining? Absolutely.

Useful? Doubtful.

Important?  Not a chance.

merrillcoveymatrixWe need to set aside time for important stuff. A few decades ago, I happened to read Stephen Covey’s “First Things First,” which introduced a concept I still try to live by to this day. Covey called it the Urgent/Important matrix. It’s a simple two-by-two matrix with four quadrants:

1 – Urgent and Important – for example, a fire in your kitchen.

2 – Not Urgent but Important – long-term planning.

3 – Urgent but Not Important – interruptions.

4 – Not Important and Not Urgent – time-wasters.

Covey’s Advice? Better balance your time in these quadrants. Quadrant One takes care of itself. We can’t ignore these types of crises. But we should try to minimize the distractions that fall into Quadrant Three and cut down the time we spend in Quadrant Four. Then, we should move as much of this freed-up time as possible into Quadrant Two.

Covey’s Quadrants are more applicable than ever to the online world.  I suspect most of us spend the majority of time in the online equivalents of Quadrant Three (responding to emails or other instant forms of messaging that aren’t really important) or Quadrant Four (online time wasters). We probably don’t spend much time in Quadrant Two (which I’ll abbreviate it to Q2). In fact, in writing this column, I tried to find a quick guide to finding important stuff online. I have a few places I like to go, which I’ll share in a moment, but despite the vast potential of online as a Q2 resource, it doesn’t seem that anyone is it making it easy to filter for “importance.” As I said in my last column, we have filters for popularity and recency, but I couldn’t find anything helping me track down Q2 candidates.

So, here is my contribution to helping you set aside more quality Q2 time:

Amazon Kindle and DevonThink: Reading thought-provoking books is my favorite Q2 activity.  I try to set aside at least an hour a day to read. Anytime someone suggests a book or I find one referenced, I download immediately it from Kindle and add it to the queue. Then, as I read, I use Kindle’s highlight feature to create a summary of the important ideas. After, I copy my highlighted notes into DevonThink, a tool that helps track and archive notes and resources for future reference.

Scientific American & Science Daily: I’m a science geek. I love learning about the latest advances — in particular, new discoveries in the areas of psychology and neuroscience. When I find an interesting article, I again save it to DevonThink.

Google Scholar and Questia: Every so often, I dive into the world of academia to find research done in a particular area, usually related to a blog post or column idea. Google Scholar usually unearths a number of publicly available papers on most topics. And, if you share my predilection for academic research, a subscription to Questia is worth considering.

Big Think, weforum.org and TED: Looking for big ideas — world-changing stuff? These three sites are the place to find them.

HBR, Wired, The Atlantic and The Economist: Another favorite topic of mine is corporate strategy — particularly how organizations have to adapt to a rapidly evolving environment. I find sites like these great for giving me a sense of what’s happening in the world of business.

Hey, it may not be a fried chicken corsage, but these aren’t bad ways to spend an hour or two a day.

 

Will Women Make More Empathetic Marketers?

First published Feb 27, 2014 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

empathyAt the risk of sounding sexist, I wonder if women might make better marketers then men?

If you’ll remember, I proposed a new way of defining the job description of a marketer in last week’s column: to understand the customer’s reality, focusing on those areas where we can solve their problems and improve that reality.

If we’re painting with incredibly broad strokes here – which we are – and we had to attach that description to one gender, which gender would you pick?

I know I’m dancing on shaky ground here – or, in my case – thin ice, but I think we all agree that while equal, men and women are different. Men are better at some things. Women are better at others. Yes, there’s a normal distribution curve in both cases, but for some things, the female curve is going to be further to the right. When I look at the qualities that might make an awesome marketer in the new world order, I have to say it seems better suited to the natural strengths of women. That’s why I don’t believe it was coincidence that more women showed a positive response to my column last week then men.

Let me give you an example of a sex based difference we found in our own research that will help explain my reasoning. We looked at how men and women navigate websites using an eye tracking station. When we looked at aggregate heat maps, which showed all activity, there was little difference. But when we sliced the activity into half-second by half-second increments, there was a significantly different scan pattern between men and women. Men went right to the navigation bar and starting mapping out the architecture of the site. They made a mental wireframe to help them get around. Their first priority was how they were going to get things done. Women, however, first looked at images, especially people and the main content on the homepage. Their first priority was whom they were dealing with and what the site was about.

That, in a nutshell, sums up a crucial difference between men and women. Men are driven by tasks – they work to get stuff done. Women are empathizers – they work with people.  In the end, both often get to the same place. But they may take very different paths to get there.

The new world of marketing I’m proposing is all about nurturing relationships – true one-to-one relationships. It’s much more about “who” and “why”, and less about “what”.  It’s about sensing what the world looks like from the prospect’s perspective and moving an organization’s internal strategy closer to that perspective. I’m not saying men can’t do that, but I am saying that women can do it at least as well as men. And perhaps that can help bring more balance to the world of marketing. While total head counts of men and women in marketing are roughly equal (with some reports giving women a slight edge) the same cannot be said of pay scales. According to the latest Marketing Rewards Survey, published by the Chartered Institute of Marketing, the gap between men’s and women’s salaries has widened by 10% since 2012. This gap shows up most noticeably at the highest levels of the industry, where twice as many men (18%) reach director level as women (7%). This also holds true for marketing heads, with men almost doubling women again – 22% vs 12%. These numbers are out of the UK, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics has similar numbers for the US.  They’ve lumped in Marketing and Sales Managers, but the stats show that women earn about 67.7% of what men earn.

There are going to be some massive shifts in marketing in the coming decades. One of them might be between the genders in who holds the top marketing roles.