I've had three marketing / research companies push stuff through the letterbox in the last month offering me - or at least the company I work for - the chance to cough up some dough to participate in industry-wide research projects.
I think pitching into a research 'pool' with competitor businesses isn't a bad idea. I have been doing annual tracking of customer satisfaction for the past few years and I have to say, done in isolation, I'm often left wondering what it all means in terms of our competitive position.
This especially occurs in a low engagement business like retirement savings. I mean, if we didn't have mandatory contributions and big tax breaks on it in Australia, who'd be in superannuation? We'd all just stash our cash where we could get hold of it when everyday matters took priority over saving for the future.
The thing about tracking customer satisfaction on your own, is that you get an absolute score, whether NPS or other. But for better or worse, you don't know how that tracks against your competitors. Sure, there's plenty of secondary research around, but direct comparison is rendered useless by methodology that is not 100% aligned across surveys.
The best you get in annual surveys is a trend line for your business. This is useful for setting and rewarding against organisational KPIs, but a 5% annual improvement off a low base is deceptive if your competitors are achieving an annual 6% off a higher base.
This collegiate approach to independent research, where you have the opportunity to include your own customers assessed as a subset of a broader survey is precisely what's needed in order to gain meaningful insight into your competitive position in the marketplace.
Congratulations to the various companies who are taking this approach. When the time is right for us, I will be participating.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
UK election: Recruit your lobbyist now!
The Prime Minister's been hung by the British electorate and so has the Parliament. It's starting to look more like the US democratic model by the day - with no party reliably able to govern and presenting some of the most fertile commercial territory for lobbyists in the world.
A hung Parliament means ruling through arrangements ranging from formal coalition to loose collectives of common ideology and/or special interests. The problem is, of course, that the Government has no clear mandate to do anything. It leads to the gridlock for which Capitol Hill is renowned, and special interest groups running amok lobbying individuals and parties sympathetic to their cause or, worse still, owing them political favours.
For the next 18 months, or however long the new British Parliament lasts, there's probably going to be no faster-growing business than 'Government Relations' more commonly referred to as lobbying. So if you're running a PR agency with aspirations in the UK, I reckon you'd better start recruiting a lobbyist with strong political connections.
The only problem will be selecting one who has connections on the 'winning' side. In the end, that might be the one with strongest links to the Liberal-Democrats because, as I read it now, they're the party in the driving seat.
A hung Parliament means ruling through arrangements ranging from formal coalition to loose collectives of common ideology and/or special interests. The problem is, of course, that the Government has no clear mandate to do anything. It leads to the gridlock for which Capitol Hill is renowned, and special interest groups running amok lobbying individuals and parties sympathetic to their cause or, worse still, owing them political favours.
For the next 18 months, or however long the new British Parliament lasts, there's probably going to be no faster-growing business than 'Government Relations' more commonly referred to as lobbying. So if you're running a PR agency with aspirations in the UK, I reckon you'd better start recruiting a lobbyist with strong political connections.
The only problem will be selecting one who has connections on the 'winning' side. In the end, that might be the one with strongest links to the Liberal-Democrats because, as I read it now, they're the party in the driving seat.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Things that go bump in the stats
Two things have crossed my radar in the past 24 hours that have raised the question about statistical error and, more particularly, when one should act on research findings.
The first was on the ABC's excellent Q&A program where, as usual when politicians are exposed to public questioning, the conversation turned to climate change. Federal Environment Minister, Penny Wong, said that the research indicated that there was a 90% chance that human activity was contributing to climate change (note: global warming has disappeared from the vernacular!).
Segue to a newsletter I received this morning from respected Melbourne research company, Forethought Research, which discussed statistical error in research and what it means in terms of management decision making. There was stuff about p-value etc, which essentially measures the likely accuracy of statistical information.
The point in the newsletter was that companies are generally accepting of 90% accuracy, rather than the 95% that the statisticians would like us all to shoot for. Why is this?
I suspect it is because research is often used to test out management's instinctive or anecdotal suspicions that average performance according to a set of criteria has varied. In my view, a company with its finger on the pulse of what customers are thinking should not be totally surprised by research findings.
Which brings me back to Penny Wong and climate change. This is an area where the variables are so broad, and inputs so vague that anything close to 90% accuracy is miraculous. She put the argument that it would be irresponsible not to take action given the level of certainty around the research.
Penny pointed out that the last decade was the warmest since weather records began. I wonder if this is the 'managerial' anecdotal evidence that enables action on the 90% certainty? There have been warm periods previously. Antarctica used to be covered in forest - but perhaps that was when the Earth was still busy cooling the primordial swamps. The only climate records from then are layers of rock and fossils.
The only certainties I can see in all this is that global resources, though vast, are finite and economists, bless their hearts, still consider that the only valid success measure is growth in GDP. We talk about sustainability and still breed like rabbits.
More significantly, western democracies seem to have rendered themselves virtually impotent to do anything about it. Opposition politicians drool at the chance to harpoon governments if GDP declines, interest rates increase, new home starts fall and so on. Sometimes these are necessary evils. It's why the Chinese may be the best-positioned to act on climate change and make a difference. The are big emitters and special interest lobbies and the loonie fringe find it harder to get a foothold there.
In the end, climate change cycles outlast political cycles and will ultimately prevail. And you can bet on that with a high degree of accuracy.
The first was on the ABC's excellent Q&A program where, as usual when politicians are exposed to public questioning, the conversation turned to climate change. Federal Environment Minister, Penny Wong, said that the research indicated that there was a 90% chance that human activity was contributing to climate change (note: global warming has disappeared from the vernacular!).
Segue to a newsletter I received this morning from respected Melbourne research company, Forethought Research, which discussed statistical error in research and what it means in terms of management decision making. There was stuff about p-value etc, which essentially measures the likely accuracy of statistical information.
The point in the newsletter was that companies are generally accepting of 90% accuracy, rather than the 95% that the statisticians would like us all to shoot for. Why is this?
I suspect it is because research is often used to test out management's instinctive or anecdotal suspicions that average performance according to a set of criteria has varied. In my view, a company with its finger on the pulse of what customers are thinking should not be totally surprised by research findings.
Which brings me back to Penny Wong and climate change. This is an area where the variables are so broad, and inputs so vague that anything close to 90% accuracy is miraculous. She put the argument that it would be irresponsible not to take action given the level of certainty around the research.
Penny pointed out that the last decade was the warmest since weather records began. I wonder if this is the 'managerial' anecdotal evidence that enables action on the 90% certainty? There have been warm periods previously. Antarctica used to be covered in forest - but perhaps that was when the Earth was still busy cooling the primordial swamps. The only climate records from then are layers of rock and fossils.
The only certainties I can see in all this is that global resources, though vast, are finite and economists, bless their hearts, still consider that the only valid success measure is growth in GDP. We talk about sustainability and still breed like rabbits.
More significantly, western democracies seem to have rendered themselves virtually impotent to do anything about it. Opposition politicians drool at the chance to harpoon governments if GDP declines, interest rates increase, new home starts fall and so on. Sometimes these are necessary evils. It's why the Chinese may be the best-positioned to act on climate change and make a difference. The are big emitters and special interest lobbies and the loonie fringe find it harder to get a foothold there.
In the end, climate change cycles outlast political cycles and will ultimately prevail. And you can bet on that with a high degree of accuracy.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Football clubs - Great insight into the brand balance sheet
I watched my team, Liverpool FC, play Chelsea in the English Premier League in the wee hours of this morning. It was a sad end to the season for one of the proudest clubs, may I suggest 'brands', in world football.
Football clubs provide great insight into the brand balance sheet. On the one hand, they have everything that brand managers want - fiercely loyal tribes of advocates, an NPS in treble digits. On the other, they are brands open to the most rigorous scrutiny and comment. The players are ambassadors for brand value and, in elite sport, the pressure is on them to perform 24/7 both on and off the pitch. The tribe can turn ugly very quickly if their 'brand' doesn't perform or its values are trashed.
I turned 'ugly' this morning, although some would suggest this was a byproduct of my birth rather than football and happened decades ago. But I digress. The Liverpool brand has been slaughtered this season by indifferent owners looking to make a quick buck on the franchise, a manager out of ideas and a number of overpaid players who could not have shone the boots for more stellar players in bygone eras.
Read the internet banter among supporters and hecklers though and you can see why football clubs are great brands. Despite their disappointment, football tribes still vehemently defend their brand, even while hurling criticism at club owners, managers and players. The emotional attachment to football brands trumps all logical arguments that flow from disappointment.
The hard core of a club's supporters never think of going to support someone else. They merely heckle until the sheer force of public approbrium brings about change. How many corporate brands could withstand the barrage of criticism hurled at personnel and products as well as football brands seem to do it? How many would be game to freely host hostile commentary on their own websites?
Football is a winner-take-all business. There are no shades of gray. At the elite level, it's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose. If you're concerned about the political correctness of that, visit the message boards of under-achieving clubs and see how 'correct' they are.
Liverpool is an outstanding case. The club is a victim of its rich, winning heritage, of trophies won at the top level through intimidating speed and style. The tribe will accept nothing less and nor should it. Being true to brand is all they care about.
YNWA. If you don't know what it means, you're not one of us...! Bring on 2011!
Football clubs provide great insight into the brand balance sheet. On the one hand, they have everything that brand managers want - fiercely loyal tribes of advocates, an NPS in treble digits. On the other, they are brands open to the most rigorous scrutiny and comment. The players are ambassadors for brand value and, in elite sport, the pressure is on them to perform 24/7 both on and off the pitch. The tribe can turn ugly very quickly if their 'brand' doesn't perform or its values are trashed.
I turned 'ugly' this morning, although some would suggest this was a byproduct of my birth rather than football and happened decades ago. But I digress. The Liverpool brand has been slaughtered this season by indifferent owners looking to make a quick buck on the franchise, a manager out of ideas and a number of overpaid players who could not have shone the boots for more stellar players in bygone eras.
Read the internet banter among supporters and hecklers though and you can see why football clubs are great brands. Despite their disappointment, football tribes still vehemently defend their brand, even while hurling criticism at club owners, managers and players. The emotional attachment to football brands trumps all logical arguments that flow from disappointment.
The hard core of a club's supporters never think of going to support someone else. They merely heckle until the sheer force of public approbrium brings about change. How many corporate brands could withstand the barrage of criticism hurled at personnel and products as well as football brands seem to do it? How many would be game to freely host hostile commentary on their own websites?
Football is a winner-take-all business. There are no shades of gray. At the elite level, it's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose. If you're concerned about the political correctness of that, visit the message boards of under-achieving clubs and see how 'correct' they are.
Liverpool is an outstanding case. The club is a victim of its rich, winning heritage, of trophies won at the top level through intimidating speed and style. The tribe will accept nothing less and nor should it. Being true to brand is all they care about.
YNWA. If you don't know what it means, you're not one of us...! Bring on 2011!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Brand voted biggest impediment to merger
I attended a luncheon hosted by the Fund Executives Association Ltd (FEAL) in Melbourne yesterday. The topic was merger and collaboration in the superannuation industry. It was prefaced with a report on the findings from an email survey sent nationally to FEAL members to test the prevailing appetite for fund mergers. But enough of the backgrounder...
Among the questions was one about impediments to merger and the one than stood head and shoulders above the rest was brand or, in simple terms, loss of identity.
I don't agree with this. For one thing - if two brands get together, why talk about not continuing them, assuming they do enjoy the loyalty and respect that directors and executives think they have? Why should a merger necessarily bury good brands. Why can't we do a 'Proctor and Gamble' and market multiple brands? Why can't superannuation funds run off a common back-end and develop sophisticated data capabilities and organisational structures to achieve differentiation at the customer interface.
It's because there are two underlying drivers when the top bods talk about merger. The first is that brand is an intangible for most directors. That's because in many cases (and I'm not talking about my employer here) there is no substantive research on which to argue a case that the brand is crap anyway and we might all be better off with a new one.
In the absence of hard evidence, it's too easy for reluctant directors worrying about their next board position to use brand loyalty and the implied exodus of customers post-merger to build a substantial barrier to merger - pseudo-intellectual as their argument is.
The second is unique to the superannuation industry in Australia. It is the bizarre belief that we are unique, unable to leverage off the experience of mergers and back-end homogenisation in other industy sectors. Roll out standard excuses A to Z, with 'heavily regulated industry', 'equal member and employer board representation' etc etc leading the charge to thwart any attempts to make it all happen.
Yes. It's alright to collaborate using common platforms, but a merger changes everything ... doesn't it? Of course it doesn't. Why should it? Any decent application of intellect will find a way of doing what is necessary, especially in an environment where government wants industry consolidation. If these 'unique' superannuation issues were to get in the way of mergers, there's even a good chance the government would adjust legislation to remove the hurdles!
And where does loss of brand identity fit into all this? Frankly, it doesn't, at least not as an obstacle to merger. It's because, at the end of the day, there are two clear courses open to the merging entities - retain and market their brands under the umbrella of a parent company, or launch a new brand.
The decision about which option to pursue has nothing to do with merger, but everything to do with thorough research and an objective assessment of whether the existing brand equity is too valuable to lose.
Among the questions was one about impediments to merger and the one than stood head and shoulders above the rest was brand or, in simple terms, loss of identity.
I don't agree with this. For one thing - if two brands get together, why talk about not continuing them, assuming they do enjoy the loyalty and respect that directors and executives think they have? Why should a merger necessarily bury good brands. Why can't we do a 'Proctor and Gamble' and market multiple brands? Why can't superannuation funds run off a common back-end and develop sophisticated data capabilities and organisational structures to achieve differentiation at the customer interface.
It's because there are two underlying drivers when the top bods talk about merger. The first is that brand is an intangible for most directors. That's because in many cases (and I'm not talking about my employer here) there is no substantive research on which to argue a case that the brand is crap anyway and we might all be better off with a new one.
In the absence of hard evidence, it's too easy for reluctant directors worrying about their next board position to use brand loyalty and the implied exodus of customers post-merger to build a substantial barrier to merger - pseudo-intellectual as their argument is.
The second is unique to the superannuation industry in Australia. It is the bizarre belief that we are unique, unable to leverage off the experience of mergers and back-end homogenisation in other industy sectors. Roll out standard excuses A to Z, with 'heavily regulated industry', 'equal member and employer board representation' etc etc leading the charge to thwart any attempts to make it all happen.
Yes. It's alright to collaborate using common platforms, but a merger changes everything ... doesn't it? Of course it doesn't. Why should it? Any decent application of intellect will find a way of doing what is necessary, especially in an environment where government wants industry consolidation. If these 'unique' superannuation issues were to get in the way of mergers, there's even a good chance the government would adjust legislation to remove the hurdles!
And where does loss of brand identity fit into all this? Frankly, it doesn't, at least not as an obstacle to merger. It's because, at the end of the day, there are two clear courses open to the merging entities - retain and market their brands under the umbrella of a parent company, or launch a new brand.
The decision about which option to pursue has nothing to do with merger, but everything to do with thorough research and an objective assessment of whether the existing brand equity is too valuable to lose.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Merger. Do you ever start with a clean sheet in brand creation?
My company announced a merger with another of similar size yesterday, so one of the tasks I'll be involved in over the next couple of years will be re-branding. As you'd understand, in a merger re-brand means more than tweaking the logo and dreaming up a new catchline. It's a baby and bath water job - clean sheet of paper. Or is it?
The concept of starting from scratch is a brand dude's dream. But when you have two companies coming together - one with over 60 years of history and the other close to 80 - you're never going to be starting from scratch.
If you believe brand starts from within the company, then your framework is clearly defined by culture. The first task is to research where the two organisational cultures share common values and where they differ. Hopefully, there's some crossover where you can lay the foundations for your new brand. If there is no commonality, the risk of failure in the merger will be much higher and brand will likely be the least of you problems.
Then there's the external perceptions of your two organisations. How do customers perceive them? Suppliers? Industry partners? Media? How do you project your brand into the marketplace in a way that will not cause dissonance within one or both of the customer bases?
I know of companies that have dreamed up new brand names and positioning over a few good reds at lunch time. Some are lucky and hit the spot. But I hope as I progress this process, those that approve budgets set plenty aside for preliminary internal and external research and market testing among our customers.
The concept of starting from scratch is a brand dude's dream. But when you have two companies coming together - one with over 60 years of history and the other close to 80 - you're never going to be starting from scratch.
If you believe brand starts from within the company, then your framework is clearly defined by culture. The first task is to research where the two organisational cultures share common values and where they differ. Hopefully, there's some crossover where you can lay the foundations for your new brand. If there is no commonality, the risk of failure in the merger will be much higher and brand will likely be the least of you problems.
Then there's the external perceptions of your two organisations. How do customers perceive them? Suppliers? Industry partners? Media? How do you project your brand into the marketplace in a way that will not cause dissonance within one or both of the customer bases?
I know of companies that have dreamed up new brand names and positioning over a few good reds at lunch time. Some are lucky and hit the spot. But I hope as I progress this process, those that approve budgets set plenty aside for preliminary internal and external research and market testing among our customers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)