"Most of the brands we truly care about stand for something. And the thing they stand for is unlikely to be, “whatever you want, we have it.” It’s also unlikely to be, “you can choose anyone and we’re anyone.”.A meaningful specific can’t possibly please everyone. That’s the deal."
"A study of behavior at breakfast buffets showed that the first item in the buffet was taken by 75% of the diners (even when the order of the items was reversed) and that two-thirds of all the food taken came from the first three items, regardless of how long the buffet is..This means that optimizing marketers usually put the things they most want to sell first..And that smart consumers benefit from adopting patience as they consider what’s on offer..Of course, this game theory applies to a lot more than food."
Seth Godin in a recent blog post, “The dominant culture”, wrote:
“One of the great cartoons involves two goldfish in a tank talking to one another. One responds in surprise, “wait, there’s water?””
This remind me of a growing concern in my analysis of the business world. Too often we analyze information about certain cases, about certain solutions, about certain methodologies and approaches, without being aware of the assumptions on which they are based. Why? Because no one cared about the water in the tank.
For example, for years and years I have heard comments and stories, I have read wonders about the Toyota Production System.
Is it spectacular? Yes!
However, it was only in 2017 that I read in an article something that nobody ever says, either because they are unaware or because it is the water in the tank ... - Toyota "freezes" production 8 weeks in advance.
How many companies can afford to do this? And how many companies cannot do it, but try in good faith to implement the Toyota Production System in their production?
Recently also, the Wall Street Journal published an interesting article, “The Surprising Way Companies Can Shore Up Their Financial Strength”:
“The Drucker Institute’s statistical model serves as the basis for the Management Top 250, an annual ranking produced in partnership with The Wall Street Journal.
…
In total, we examined 820 large, publicly traded companies last year through the lens of 34 indicators across five categories: customer satisfaction, employee engagement and development, innovation, social responsibility and financial strength.
To construct our ranking, corporations are compared in each of the five areas, as well as in their overall effectiveness, through standardized scores with a range of 0 to 100 and a mean of 50.
…
Our model reflects shareholder returns, along with a variety of metrics that capture how effectively a firm has deployed its capital, among other things.
.
For companies in the health-care sector, we found over the course of the seven-year period a significant statistical relationship between financial strength and one other category: employee engagement and development. To be precise, a five-point gain in the latter produced a 0.79-point increase in the former.
.
That may not look like a big deal on its face. But it would have been enough to vault a company from the 50th percentile in financial strength to the 56th in last year’s rankings—up 38 spots on the list.
…
Meanwhile, it is a whole other story for companies in the industrial sector, which includes the airlines. There, it is social responsibility that should command the most attention. A five-point rise in that category translated into a 0.49-point upturn in financial strength.
…
For example, a health-care company wanting to lift its customer-satisfaction score can expect to reap an extra 0.49 points in that category for every five-point advance in employee engagement and development. But an industrial company hoping to achieve a similar bump in customer satisfaction should shoot for a five-point improvement in another area: innovation.”
While reading the article I thought about the water in the tank. Do these recommendations, do these relationships apply equally to all companies in the same economic sector?
I don't think so.
Some days ago, someone made the following comment to me:
“KPIs for production are simple: efficiency, low losses.”
When I heard that the picture of Bruce Jenner came to my mind.
Beware of the invisible water in the tank.
"Why is the new Dolittle movie so bad? Savaged by critics and viewers, it had:E o que é a incapacidade de seleccionar um grupo de clientes-alvo senão uma incapacidade de assumir restrições?
- One of the most bankable movie stars in the world
- A story that had previously been the basis of two hit movies
- The best CGI houses in the world
I think the best way to understand why it failed is to look at the reasons above. Ironically, it’s these assets and lack of constraints that created the circumstances that allowed the movie to become a turkey."
- Unlimited time and money
"It’s possible that you no longer need to get better at your craft. That your craft is just fine.Eu acrescentaria: It’s possible that you need to see the world from a different standpoint instead.
.
It’s possible that you need to be braver instead."
"...
Other people don’t believe what you believe, and they don’t see what you see."
"Quem controla a prateleira, controla o acesso ao mercado, controla a relação com os clientes.Em Fevereiro de 2012 neste blogue escrevia-se:
.
Se uma empresa produz um produto, mas não consegue chegar aos consumidores, esse produto e essa empresa não existem!"
"A única forma de fazer frente ao poder do dono da prateleira é seduzir aquele que manda no dono da prateleira, o consumidor!!!"Há dias em "The relationship with the customer" Seth Godin bate na mesma tecla:
"There are countless factories vying to sell generic products to the companies that own the customer relationship. Perhaps 90% (sometimes 100%) of the profit goes to companies that make the sale, not the ones who actually made the product.O que é que a sua PME faz para não ser excluída da mente de quem manda no dono da prateleira?
.
That’s because while they make the thing, they don’t do the work. The hard part is earning attention and trust. The hard part is helping someone make the choice. (There’s a difference between the hard part and the important part. Without the factory, there’s nothing to sell. Making it is important. But increasingly, it’s not the hard part.)
...
Either you’re doing the hard part or you’re left out of the transaction."
"That’s precisely why you’re stuck. Every decision you’ve made, all the status quo you’re holding on to, the fears you have–they’re all reasonable. This is a mature, apparently safe series of choices. Congratulation on being wise and careful.O "punctuated equilibrium". Durante os períodos de equilibrio as decisões são racionais, são razoáveis. Nos períodos de desequilibrio a racionalidade instalada já não funciona, é preciso pensar de forma diferente.
.
The only way to get out of the spot you’re in is to do something that feels unreasonable, that’s unreasonable in the short term, that a similar person in a similar situation would say is unreasonable.
...
If you truly want to get unstuck, if you want to move to higher ground or do something more worthwhile, the first question to ask is, “Am I willing to be unreasonable, at least for a while?”"
"It’s time to agitate for a new version of the internet, one where our only choices aren’t boredom or fear, one where the internet isn’t a joyless place run by billionaires. It’s time to think small.Quem é que precisa de plataformas que cheguem a todo o lado?
...
Ello, for example, launched in 2014 and aimed to be a better kind of network — one less cluttered and commercialized than Facebook. Did it save online discourse? No. But it was a step in the right direction. Ello still exists, has a little over 3 million users as of last year, and is mostly used by artists and designers. Despite its miniscule size, it’s actually a success story, providing a community where artists can showcase themselves. Contrast Ello with YouTube, where the loudest voice in the room often wins, and only creators willing to accept sponsorships and do whatever gets the most eyeballs can thrive.
Other small social networks, like Mastodon, are flourishing in their own little ways too. Mastodon takes a totally different approach to social media: Instead of one centralized group moderating and curating content, the platform allows users to have their own private groups and timelines, and decide what kind of content is displayed themselves"
"É claro que muitos olham para hoje e vêem as Uber e as AirBnB e adivinham um futuro dominado por essas mega-plataformas. Prefiro considerá-las como entidades transitórias, úteis para dinamitar as grilhetas criadas pelos governos para proteger os incumbentes do Normalistão. Depois? Depois, virão as plataformas de 2ª geração ou cooperativas, porque existe estratégia em todo o lado, às vezes é só uma questão de tempo."
"Kraft Heinz, the Warren Buffett-backed food company, has disclosed another $1.2 billion (€1.07 billion) of write-downs, on top of the $15 billion charge it took earlier this year to reflect how shoppers have been shunning its brands.Empresa a precisar de um corte epistemológico, a precisar de ir em busca de uma nova estratégia corporativa, opta por continuar a sua busca por óptimos locais na paisagem competitiva enrugada, quando os picos do passado estão a afundar-se por alteração da percepção dos clientes.
.
Its shares fell 13 per cent on Thursday morning, taking the decline for the year to 38 per cent."
"New media tends to be adopted by amateurs first. And it rarely has a mass audience in the early days (because it’s new). But professional content for the masses is precisely what old media stands for. As new media gains traction, the old media doubles down on what they believe to be their value, because they no longer have a monopoly on attention.
...
So the Times publishes a snarky, poorly written takedown of podcasts. Not because it’s based on the economic or cultural reality of today, but because their self-esteem requires there to be a chasm between all of these amateur podcasts and the few professional ones that they deign to create and publish.
.
Businesses make their own choices and suffer the consequences."
"Três grupos:
- os que agem ao primeiro sinal e partem em exploration de novas alternativas;
- os que por cegueira ou incapacidade continuam a sua vida de exploitation através de local searches; e
- os que assumem a exploitation até ao fim, conscientes de que mesmo assim, terão de fazer a sua mudança, porque os dois primeiros grupos vão libertar quota de mercado, voluntária ou involuntariamente."
"The marketing math is compelling. It’s obvious that the most highly-leveraged moment in every brand’s relationship with a customer is the moment when something goes wrong.Sim, continuem a acreditar que a AI e a automatização vai ser o futuro em Mongo.
.
In that moment, when a promise was broken, the customer sees the true nature of the brand. We make up stories about the brands in our lives, but we believe that when the promise is broken we’re about to see the truth of that story.
...
The only way to really care is to have human beings who care (and to give them the authority and resources to demonstrate that.)
.
Once you’ve got that, it’s pretty easy to show that you do."
"Small audiences are your friend, because small audiences are specific, and specific increases your percentage."Estamos a caminho de Mongo e a fugir do Normalistão.
"Systems with slack are more resilient. The few extra minutes of time aren’t wasted, the same way that a bike helmet isn’t wasted if you don’t have a crash today. That buffer will save the day, sooner or later.
...
The mistake happens when we over-index on the easily measured short-term wins and forget to account for the costs of system failure.
.
Competitive environments push profit seekers to reduce slack and to play a short-term game. If your organization hits the wall, the market will survive, because we have other options. But that doesn’t mean you will survive.
.
Slack is actually a bargain."
"If you can figure out how to embrace the true fans, they’ll go ahead and spread an idea–not because you want them to, but because they want to.E em Mongo isto vai ser cada vez mais verdade.
.
Your ability to reach a tiny group of committed fans is essential. But the work spreads because of the fans, not because you figured out how to spend money to interrupt more and more strangers."
"(Low price is the last refuge of leadership that doesn’t have the guts to make a great product and tell a true story to the right people)
.
Because you’re selling to the wrong people…Choose your customers, choose your future.
(Some customers want to pay more than others, and some customers want to get more—of something—than others)"
"Affiliation and dominion are different ways to measure statusSexta-feira, diziam-me que iam enviar uns e-mails para potenciais clientes...
...
The alternative to dominion is affiliation
.
One can gain status without an oil well or a factory. And one can enjoy as much status by letting someone into the flow of traffic as they can from cutting him off.
This is the status that comes from the community. It is the status of respect in return for contribution, for caring, for seeing and being in sync with others. Especially others with no ability to repay you.
Modern society, urban society, the society of the internet, the arts, and innovation are all built primarily on affiliation, not dominion.
This type of status is not “I’m better.” It’s “I’m connected. I’m family.” And in an economy based on connection, not manufacturing, being a trusted member of the family is priceless.
...
Affiliation or dominance is up to the customer, not you
.
Do you see the world in terms of winners and losers? Up and down? Or is it more about insiders and outsiders, being in sync, being part of a movement?
The way you see the world isn’t nearly as important as the worldview of those you seek to serve."
“Before paying for ads, then, long before that, begin with the idea of earning this asset. The privilege of talking to people who would miss you if you were gone.Ontem de manhã tive uma longa conversa telefónica com pessoa de empresa com que trabalhei no passado, que me contou uma série de estórias sobre a criação de um ecossistema. Desde a descoberta de que o mercado que perseguiam não era o mercado-alvo. Até à descoberta de qual o mercado-alvo, de qual a proposta de valor em que têm vantagem competitiva, de quais as feiras onde faz sentido estar. Engraçado como entre a primeira e a segunda citação acima, Seth Godin escreve um capítulo sobre os clientes-alvo.
Permission marketing recognizes the new power of the best consumers to ignore marketing. It realizes that treating people with respect is the best way to earn their attention.
Pay attention is a key phrase here, because permission marketers understand that when someone chooses to pay attention they actually are paying you with something valuable. And there’s no way they can get their attention back if they change their mind. Attention becomes an important asset, something to be valued, not wasted.
...
If permission is at the heart of your work, earn it and keep it. Communicate only with those who choose to hear from you. The simplest definition of permission is the people who would miss you if you didn’t reach out.
You should own that, not rent it.”
“Pricing is a marketing tool, not simply a way to get moneySeth Godin usa um subtítulo que merece destaque: "“Cheap” is another way to say “scared”"
.
Eventually, you’re going to have to tell people how much you’re charging for your services and products. There are two key things to keep in mind about pricing:
Marketing changes your pricing.Pricing changes your marketing.
Because people form assumptions and associations based on your pricing, and your pricing shapes what people believe about your service, it’s important to be clear about how you position yourself. [Moi ici: Mas se eu me queixo que as empresas não se definem, não se posicionam, preferem ir a tudo e todos... medo!] Your price should be aligned with the extremes you claimed as part of your positioning.
...
Unless you’ve found an extraordinary new way to deliver your service or product, racing to be the cheapest probably means that you’re not investing sufficiently in change.
When you’re the cheapest, you’re not promising change. You’re promising the same, but cheaper.
The race to the bottom is tempting, because nothing is easier to sell than cheaper. [Moi ici: O problema é que competir pelo preço mais baixo não é para quem quer, é para quem pode.] It requires no new calculations or deep thinking on the part of your customer. It’s not cultural or emotional. It’s simply cheaper.
Low price is the last refuge of a marketer who has run out of generous ideas.
...
When people are heavily invested (cash or reputation or effort), they often make up a story to justify their commitment. And that story carries trust.
Every con man knows this. The irony is that marketers who need to be trusted often don’t understand it.
Lowering your price doesn’t make you more trusted. It does the opposite."
“One can gain status without an oil well or a factory. And one can enjoy as much status by letting someone into the flow of traffic as they can from cutting him off.
...
This is the status that comes from the community.[Moi ici: Pertencer a uma tribo!] It is the status of respect in return for contribution, for caring, for seeing and being in sync with others. Especially others with no ability to repay you.
Modern society, urban society, the society of the internet, the arts, and innovation are all built primarily on affiliation, not dominion.
This type of status is not “I’m better.” It’s “I’m connected. I’m family.” And in an economy based on connection, not manufacturing, being a trusted member of the family is priceless.
...
What are they showing? What is everyone else doing? Is this the season?
Within competitive markets, there is a race to be the dominant voice, but among the customers that make up that market, the position of leader works because the customers desire to be affiliated with one another.
The leader provides a valuable signal, a notice to expect that everyone else will be in sync. The goal isn’t winning; it’s being part of the group.”
"In an industry analysis, we found that the consumer packaged goods sector’s biggest R&D spenders saw no appreciable impact on revenue. That’s troubling for companies whose growth has plateaued over the past five years, as new competitors have challenged established brands.
.
At the company level, however, the picture is more nuanced: Even though (true to the industry average) companies that spent heavily on R&D — such as P&G and Unilever — saw no measurable impact on sales, some outfits that spent less on R&D showed a significant positive correlation.
...
It turns out, as economist E.F. Schumacher wrote, small really can be beautiful. Of course, incremental innovation — reaping healthy returns with small, iterative improvements — isn’t a new idea.
...
But conventional management wisdom, based on years of research, still holds that R&D productivity depends on industrial might: Big companies can spend more on innovation, and as a result, they innovate more — and better. In the consumer products world, at least, our analysis suggests that’s not the case.
...
Despite P&G’s huge R&D investment — more than $38 billion from 1998 to 2017, compared with Reckitt Benckiser’s $2 billion over the same period — P&G’s outlay has reaped fewer rewards on a key measure: While P&G spent more than 3% of its annual revenue on R&D compared with 1.5% for Reckitt Benckiser, P&G’s sales grew at a compound annual rate of 3.4% while Reckitt Benckiser’s sales grew almost three times faster, at 9% per year.
...
How do we explain our findings? One factor may be that P&G and Reckitt Benckiser seem to embody different philosophies of innovation.
.
We see the approach favored by big consumer goods companies like P&G and Unilever as analogous to Isaac Newton’s third law: They behave as if for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, they expect big returns from big investments, so they chase blockbusters.
...
Contrast that with what we call a Lorenzian approach to R&D investment, which has parallels to the work of MIT mathematician Edward Lorenz, the father of chaos theory. When examining weather patterns, Lorenz discovered that small actions could have large consequences. A butterfly flapping its wings could lead to the formation of a tornado. Like a weather system that amplifies the impact of a fluttering insect, a complex system of companies, customers, competitors, suppliers, and influencers can amplify or diminish the impact of an innovation. In such a world, big ideas can die, and small ones can thrive, as they do at Reckitt Benckiser.
.
The company doesn’t have a big R&D budget nor a staff of laureled scientists. So it opts to spend small but focus on marginal improvements to its best-selling brands. Reckitt Benckiser starts with deep consumer research to determine how its best brands can be improved and how much more consumers would be willing to pay. From a technical point of view, its innovations are incremental. [Moi ici: Desta forma a inovação na P&G aponta para produtos que possam ser vendidos a todos, a preços competitivos, já a inovação na Reckitt Benckiser é capaz de ser mais dirigida para o que permite fazer subir os preços, ou pelo menos estar menos vulnerável à competição pelo preço]
...Aquele "deep understanding" combina bem com uma outra leitura recente, “This Is Marketing” de Seth Godin:
Reckitt Benckiser’s R&D projects are less risky and far less costly than those of its bigger competitors. But the company sets an ambitious performance target for each one. It expects a certain percentage of its sales each year to come from new products or better versions of existing ones, and its market-facing executives are rewarded financially when the company hits or exceeds those targets. This pay-for-performance incentive, in turn, motivates the company’s personnel to rally behind R&D-improved products and drive them into the marketplace.
...
Make more small bets and fewer big ones. If Newtonians are going to continue to spend heavily on R&D (and in many cases, they should), they need to invest better. This means cutting back on big bets offering very questionable potential returns. Instead, they should focus on smaller bets that are based on a deep understanding of (1) consumers’ desires, (2) the significant value a small innovation can add, and (3) the system of retailers and competitors in which the innovation will be introduced."
“We’ve gone from all of us being everyone to all of us being no one.
But that’s okay, because the long tail of culture and the media and change doesn’t need everyone any longer. It’s happy with enough.
Which us?
.
In “People like us do things like this,” the “us” matters. The more specific, the more connected, the tighter the “us,” the better. [Moi ici: Mas os gigantes precisam de escala, não podem tratar individualmente, por isso a metáfora do plancton]
What the marketer, the leader, and the organizer must do as their first job is simple: define “us.”
