Hot Button!!!

April 26th, 2010

My most recent posts – about innovation in the US – really hit some people’s hot button. A near universal anger focused on what should be a small and minimally controversial element in the Rx for making the US economy more innovative: Improving the quality and availability of education in the US.

I was surprised by the near universal disdain for our schools because of ‘lazy and incompetent teachers’ and the near universal anger at ‘throwing more money at the problem.’

There certainly are lazy and incompetent teachers in the system, and we need better ways to deal with them (just as we need better ways to police medical malpractice than the currrent system of professional non-oversight and lack of legal review of incompetent and negligent doctors). But to suggest (as some readers did) that the solution is to do away with teachers’ unions or to abandon public education is political rhetoric disconnected from rationality.

Of course, education alone will not solve the problem of innovation in the US; far less will it single-handedly create millions of new middle class jobs. But a quality education, available to all Amaericans, if a vital piece of the foundation.

US Wins / Loses Innovation Test

April 21st, 2010

A pair of recent columns highlights the hope and the despair of innovation as the driver of the US economy, prosperity, and job creation. THE HUFFINGTON POST points out the dismal and deteriorating record of US innovation over the past few years and suggests some broad avenues to get us heading back in the right direction. Tom Friedman, meanwhile, recounts the inspiring (but perhaps not easily duplicated) story of the globe-spanning start-up of a new medical device company by a small team of physician-entrepreneurs.

First, the good news. Friedman tells the story of EndoStim, a small start-up that couples invention by US physicians and US venture capital with Israelis designers, Uruguayan manufacturing, clinical trials by hospitals and surgeons in Chile and India. According to Friedman’s account, the majority of the highest paying jobs that EndoStim’s success will create will stay in the US – close to the source of the ideas and the funding. The ability of entrepreneurs (by their thousands) to quickly, cheaply and repeatedly orchestrate the best resources from around the world, Friedman contends, will be the key to our wealth and growth in the modern world.

The Huffington Post takes a decidedly bleaker look at innovation in the US. It cited a study by Information Technology and Innovation Foundation that ranked the US “dead last” among the 40 surveyed countries in our progress of innovation. Patents issued to US inventors fell 2.3% in 2009, while patents issued to non-US applicants increased 6%. Reasons, according to HuffPo, include:

- The pitiful state of US education, our society’s pitifully low level of math and science competency, and our unwillingness to invest in our children’s future.
- Our unwillingness – public and private – to invest in research and development, the source of new technologies and products
- Financing and tax structures which starve the entrepreneurial enterprise, and immigration policies which discourage foreign inventors from starting up their new ventures here.

HuffPo offers some solutions – New, faster and much more accessible broadband service to reach the vast majority of US homes and businesses; research, investment and tax policies with nurture and reward green energy development in the US; and Federal policies which encourage foreigners to plant their inventions and their start-ups in America.

While Friedman’s feel-good story of success and HuffPo’s somber assessment both offer some interesting and useful ideas, neither article offers an adequate answer for a US middle class starved for challenging, high paying jobs. Here are some additional remedies …

1. Fix the US educational system, by investing more in primary and secondary schools and making college much more affordable and accessible to the majority of American kids.
2. Massive new investment in scientific research and development – thorough direct government spending and policies which encourage and reward private R&D and investment
3. Create and aggressivley support business incubators to provide access to the range of diverse, global resources which powered EndoStim’s success.

I’m sure you can suggest additional ideas …

Competing and Winning

April 19th, 2010

WINNING means different things to different people. To some, WINNING is ….
- Destroying your opponent so he can’t be a challenge to you
- When your best is better than everyone else’s best
- When you accomplish something useful and unique, regardles of what others are doing
- When you help others to become winners
Which kind of winner are you? And who do you honor most and respect?

Competitive Intelligence – Consensus?

April 3rd, 2010

My two previous Competitive Intelligence posts (here and here) generated a lot of discussion – but a surprising convergence of views about the scope and limitations of competitor intelligence, and about how insights about competitors fit into the larger universe of what I believe is most accurately termed “Business Intelligence”.

Debra D (from the healthcare insurance field, commenting at a Linked-In group) perhaps summarizes it best:

“Competitive intelligence is about understanding the broader market dynamics which includes understanding customers’ and suppliers’ motivations and drivers, not just competitors…. The point of CI is well beyond just understanding what the competitors are up to. Woe to the company whose CI efforts and resources just focus on the competition.”

Interestingly, the usage of the term ‘competitive intelligence’ to lead her definition highlights the semantic confusion around terms such as business vs market vs customer vs competitive intelligence that seems to obscure a general sense of agreement among all of us commentators.

The underlying message seems to be that too narrow a focus – a fixation, if you will – on a single dimension of business intelligence (even if you excel in that dimension!) will blind you to important and eventually dominant events in other dimensions.

I suspect there’s an even deeper message here, too –that creating and maintaining business success is a lot like building a healthy life. It comes not from doing one thing (be it cardio workouts or vegan diets, customer service or applications research, for example) exceedingly well but by doing an excellent job of orchestrating the smooth and symbiotic functioning of all the supporting parts and functions. It’s a message I’d like to think about some more and to write about soon.

Go here to read verbatims from many of the best comments

Competitive Intelligence – Collected Comments

April 3rd, 2010

Here are some excellent comments, representative of the discussion around my 2 earlier CI posts —

Andy M – Owner
Hi Bob,
Your intelligence and research on the competition is vital to knowing why customers buy ( or dont Buy ) your product. Much of our work is in the retail arena, specifically consumer electronics and mobile phones… we go to retail outlets, ask the sales staff about a product, and let them talk freely about the pros and cons of each product and the brand as a whole.
Our USP is that at the time, we are wearing a hidden camera and record the whole interaction. With the technology as good as it is, we can then replay the DVD with our client and see how the product is marketed in store AND what the sales people say. Interesting viewing and an excellent sales tool.

Nelson Pérez Alonso – Presidente at CLAVES Informacion Competitiva and Owner, CLAVES Informacion Competitiva
In our experience, we have to control many dimensions of competition, a) what others are doing the companies that make similar products, as our customer and what the entrepreneurs are trying to develop to meet the same needs of consumers b) as being managed distributors or retail distribution channel as to recommend or not our products or services d) positioning in the mind of the consumer to satisfy the needs of our customers.
There is a difference in sgmento B2B in the B2C with large differences in methodology. We are developing intelligence systems, combining desk research, clipping, interviews with competitors, census of outlets, mystery shoppers, consumer surveys even to blind tests.
The key points are the definition of the variables to be monitored, frequency of survey and delivery and fundamentally how to distribution of the information provided within the client company to generate management decision and actions.
All this points of view we think are a little more difficult in Latinamerca because we have a culture more informal, less proffessional, and sistematic but we still continue doing our work and trying to chance minds of enterpreneurs
—-
Dr. Alexander Linder – Director Corporate Consumer and Market Insights (Swarovski)
Hi Bob,
I am really happy to read what you write in your blog. I am always pushing the direction to tell the marketing guys not to limit competition just to a similar product or a substitute, but rather to see things from a share of wallet point of view. Of course, it depends, what you are buying. If your decision goes in favor of a midsize car, Audi A4, BMW 3 series and Mercedes C Class can definitely seen as competitors. Or if you are looking for a HiFi-system, I think the same is true for Pioneer, Sony, Kenwood etc.
But things change when you look at a “leisure” shopping trip on a Sunday afternoon. You walk through a shopping mall or the aisle of seduction, how I call it. In my opinion, the brand that has the “right” product, makes you feel welcome, can offer you a perfect service and will make a lasting impression will most likely make the race. And that’s not always your brand…
The challenge for me is identifying your share of wallet competitors, because you have to monitor them in a certain way. One way is to ask our consumers about their favourite brands of different sectors, like clothing, jewellery, handbags, leather accessories, electronics etc. and then you ask them about possession of the different brands mentioned. Thus you get the brands, that are most likely in the relevant set of your consumers.
Linked-In group Marketing Research Bulletin
———
Sean Campbell – Competitive Intelligence and Qualitative Market Research Professional
Agreed that looking at your own customers for inspiration is good but alone it isn’t the way to plan a long term growth strategy.
Effective CI looks at the current competitive canvas and off of it for threats that are emerging. Otherwise you get blindsided by a competitor who isn’t just looking at gaining insight from their own customers but yours as well. ;).
Solid CI looks forward into the future by pointing out clear opportunities for your business, to the side (to see threats that are “merging into your lane”), and helps you get a higher res version of what moves your competitors have made in the not so distant past.
The short answer is that you need competitive intelligence that looks outward and away from your own customer base as well as good deep intelligence on what your current customers like about what you have today and what they want to see from you in the future.
Linked-In group: Northwest MRA

Debra Donahue – Vice President Market Analytics and Online Products, Mark Farrah Associates – Health Insurance Data and Market Analysis
Competitive intelligence is about understanding the broader market dynamics which includes understanding customers’ and suppliers’ motivations and drivers, not just competitors. The point of CI is well beyond just understanding what the competitors are up to. Woe to the company whose CI efforts and resources just focus on the competition. Staying aware of the competition so the company is not blindsided, should be one of the functions of CI, but agree that a company fixated on competition will miss one market opportunity after another.
Linked-In group: Medicare Advantage Healthplan Colleagues
—–
Bryant Holt – Consultant at Sears Holdings Management Corporation
Excellent article. I beleive CI has its place. Information should not be looked upon as single points in time. If we aggregate the information over time and relationships, the CI could be synthesized into meaningful value propositions that could be tested, or used as potential predictors. I don’t belive you saying it, and therefore, would not rule it out.
Linked-In group DuPont Alumni
—————-
David Kaplan -Entrepreneurship Consultant
Hard to argue with looking to customers inspiration and direction; but that begs the question of what options they may have for fulfilling their needs. CI is certainly no substitute for customer focus, though it can help achieve that in a couple of ways. First, by making it clear what else appeals to customers (in addition to your own products or services), second by helping you understand what your competitors think customers want and third by helping you spot changes in your competitor’s behavior that may stimulate you to think hard about what is going on in your market place. One useful way to think about it is that competitors don’t compete with your products, they compete for your customers.
——-
Charles Stromeyer Jr. – Entrepreneur, Independent Consultant, and Volunteer
I agree with David. I’ve had first mover advantage on two separate occasions which means by definition that there were no initial competitors.
Not having insight from competitors forces the entrepreneur to merely make an educated guess about how potential customers will evaluate the products or services offered, and makes it harder to optimize customer service.

David Geraghty – Partner at Omega Business Partners
Bob, You are correct that businesses need to focus attention on patterns and choices consumers make that otherwise would be spent on their products or services.
I spent 18 years providing employee benefits programs to small & mid-sized businesses. My competition went beyond direct competition with other brokerage firms. In fact, I watched CPA’s, banks, attorney’s and HR consultants begin to capture this market as well as my client base.
We continue to evolve responding to the needs of customers providing new services related to payroll, investments, HR administration and other government regulated changes.
Competing in the B2B environment I observe macro trends, i.e. regulations, industry movement, business behaviors. A micro scale is direct communication with customers, suppliers / vendors and relevant movers.
I enjoyed your article, “What is Business Intelligence?”
Thanks for sharing.
Linked-In Group: Global MIT Enterprise Forum
——-
Prasad Devineni – Director & Partner SMOTEC PLUS
CI fixation is absolutely true with the major industry players. I used to be the director of CI practice for 10 years at Kline and for the last 5 years moved to marketing and sales of chemicals. Being a convert from CI to sales, these observations are right on the money. Customers do value alternate products and their value proposition is different. For long term growth of the company, you can not depend on CI as it is like driving the car forward by looking in the rear-view mirror. However, CI has its advantages to analyze and correct the direction in the short term if you have money to spend.
Linked-In Group: Brazil Sugar and Ethanol
—-
Guillermo (Bill) Cabiró – Strategic Analytics: Integration of Market Intelligence & Business Performance Metrics provides a profitable advantage.
Bob, Good article. It all boils down to creating value for the customer faster or greater than your competitors.
Regards, Bill
Guillermo (Bill) Cabiró – Strategic Analytics: Integration of Market Intelligence & Business Performance Metrics provides a profitable advantage.
Bob – Good article. Bill Gates said recently that he is worried about the unknown little guy working in a garage, inventing the next disruptive tehcnology that may obsolete MSFT. Regards, Bill
Linked-In group: Specialty Chemicals Network
—-
Donnie Edgemon -
The Market Intelligence Blog – Submitted on 2010/03/22 at 10:10pm
Bob – I’m glad you wrote this. I’ve found that CI is most popular in cash-flush companies in mature industries, and normally with #2 companies instead of #1s. Companies spend money on CI when they can’t figure out how to deliver value that will attract new customers, and can’t figure out how to deliver new value that existing customers will pay more for. In other words, companies that focus on CI are playing defense, and are bound for decline. The following question should be a prerequisite for any CI spending: “Is there any way that I could apply this money toward innovation or finding new markets?”

Ethics of CI

April 2nd, 2010

There are right ways and wrong ways to conduct Competitive Intelligence and Marketing Research. The Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals is a great resource. Here’s SCIP Code of Ethics for CI Professionals

1. To continually strive to increase the recognition and respect of the profession.
2. To comply with all applicable laws, domestic and international.
3. To accurately disclose all relevant information, including one’s identity and organization, prior to all interviews.
4. To avoid conflicts of interest in fulfilling one’s duties.
5. To provide honest and realistic recommendations and conclusions in the execution of one’s duties.
6. To promote this code of ethics within one’s company, with third-party contractors and within the entire profession.
7. To faithfully adhere to and abide by one’s company policies, objectives and guidelines.

While this may look like a pretty ‘white bread’ list of behaviors, a couple deserve note:
Item 2 – One trick is knowing just what the local laws do and do not allow. Clients – You need to know that simply hiring a 3rd party doesn’t get you off the hook, if they break the law. You’re just as liable when your agent breaks the law as if you did it yourself.
.

Brainstorming Innovation

March 30th, 2010

A Science Daily report throws some doubt on the usefulness of “brainstorming,” one of industry’s favorite tools for idea generation and creativity:

 “An upcoming study … suggests that this may not be the best route to take to generate unique and varied ideas. The researchers from Texas A and M University show that group brainstorming exercises can lead to fixation on only one idea or possibility, blocking out other ideas and possibilities, and leading eventually to a conformity of ideas.”

I’ve personally participated in, led and moderated many of these group brainstorming activities.  Formats vary widely – from an hour or so to a few days duration;  face to face, relatively no-holds-barred discussion or communication via keyboard;  small, select group of insiders vs outside experts and lay persons.   But regardless of format, the structure is nearly invariable:

- ‘Divergent’ brainstorming (the “there are no bad ideas” phase)

- Combining and ‘building out’ related ideas

- Assessing, rating and prioritizing of the ‘processed’ ideas

The A&M study provides substance to what I’ve long suspected – that the ideas that come out of group brainstorming sessions are long on consensus and conventional wisdom and short on breakthrough innovation.  A major part of the problem is the “nothing new under the sun” phenomenon – that truly new and truly valuable ideas are also truly rare.  Even the best idea generation strategy can’t fix that, but brainstorming methodology can be made better:

1. Use a mix of inside experts (to ground the discussion in reality) and informed outsiders (to broaden horizon and challenge conventional wisdom), but be diligent in suppressing the experts’ tendency to dominate.

2. Separate, as much as possible, the idea generating steps from the evaluation and selection parts of the process. Assign plenty of time and resources to flesh out and ponder the possibilities and consequences of each idea before passing judgment.

3. If you face a legitimate “We tried that back in ….” objection (and they’re often more legitimate than conventional wisdom will admit), succinctly identify what went wrong way back then and focus on what is different in the situation today.

There is, of course, no perfect recipe for coming up with the Next Great Idea, but there are some ways to increase the value and frequency of your successes.

I’m sure that people would appreciate hearing about your idea generation experience and techniques.

Web Businesses Don’t Need Marketing?

March 23rd, 2010

A while back I wrote what I thought was a fairly innocuous overview of the Fundamentals of Marketing and Sales.  Basically, I said nothing more controversial than that your business will be more successful if you understand what your customers like and don’t.

Much of the response was “yes, of course”, but I was surprised at the amount of pushback from the web commerce contingent.  Objections centered around 2 sentiments (apologies if I over simplify):

1. The web, and all the personal electronic communications tools attendant to it, are so easy and accessible that there is no longer a need for marketing to build a bridge between suppliers and customers.

2. The breadth and the anonymity of the web make it unnecessary and largely impossible to identify and speak to specific customer segments and their concerns.

Always open to new ideas and a new slant on things, I’ve thought a fair amount about the issue of marketing and web commerce.  Here’s where I come out:

1.  The web is a very efficient tool for OUTBOUND communication.  You can broadcast your message just as quickly as you can assemble it, at a nearly insignificant cost.  The big question mark, of course, is how to broadcast it so that your message gets seen and acted upon by people who matter.

2. The web can be a very inefficient tool for INBOUND communications.  While there’s essentially no limit to the amount of information out there somewhere, actually finding it is an often cumbersome and frustrating exercise, with lingering uncertainty over the reliability and completeness of the result.

3. The web bombards your potential customers with nearly limitless options.  Your message competes for your customers’ limited attention span not just with other products like yours, but with every other distraction that email, FB friends, and GOOGLE search can put between you and your customers’ SSS.

4. The web is a wonderfully efficient vehicle to educate and motivate interested prospects you’ve already made a connection with.

5.  The web is a wonderful TRANSACTION MEDIUM for motivated buyers – except of course, when it isn’t.  Web commerce work well for standardized products / services that customers can confidently buy sight unseen or for items that consumers can preview at brick-and-mortar stores.   

So ….  The web and personalized electronic communications provide powerful new avenues for suppliers to broadcast their messages and educate interested prospects, and for motivated buyers to execute their purchases.  To the casual or uninformed shopper, it offers vast but undifferentiated information, almost all of which is irrelevant and distracting to the purchase decision process.

Bottom Line?  Web based businesses need market just as much – perhaps substantially more – than their brick-and-mortar cousins.  Identifying which consumers are your most likely to spend their $$$ with you, learning where you’re most likely to find them in the electronic communications universe, and understanding how to make your message stand out amid all the clutter are quintessentially marketing functions.  Businesses that ignore these principles are headed for failure, regardless of their venue.

Don’t Let CI Fixation Lead You Astray

March 22nd, 2010

There’s an old joke that you don’t have to be able to outrun the bear, just the slowest of your fellow hikers.

In a very real way, that neatly encapsulates the philosophy behind competitive intelligence.   The point of CI – to understand what your competitor is up to, so that you can do it better – is certainly valuable.  But over-reliance on a CI driven strategy can cause you to overlook the foundation of business success – capturing a larger share of your potential customers’ spending stream.  The implicit belief behind CI, that beating your competition will force customers to spend more with you, can blind you to real opportunities and dangers driven by evolving customer needs and preferences.  Why?

1. CI looks backward, not forward – to what your competitor is doing or has already decided to do in response to your actions or to market conditions. A strategy driven by CI is reactive – always following, not leading.

2. Being better than your competitor is no assurance that either of you is doing what the customer really cares about or needs.  Even the very best of the buggy whip makers lost out when cars replaced the horse and buggy.

3. Nothing forces customers to spend their $$$ with you OR with your competitor.  If neither of you is making them happy, then they can take their money somewhere else entirely.

Much of the CI philosophy is built around metaphors of football or war, endeavors in which you win by beating the other guy down.  Business success, on the other hand, more often comes from being the best at what a third party – the customer – really values. A business strategy that doesn’t focus squarely on the customer is ultimately a losing strategy.

 Competitive Intelligence is a valuable tool to help optimize near term business tactics, but for longer term growth strategy, look to the universe of customers for inspiration and direction.

Just What Is Competitive Intelligence?

February 19th, 2010

In business – and in electoral politics – knowing what the competitor is up to is critical. Whether it’s called competitive intelligence or opposition research, understanding your competition is part of the foundation of a solid strategy for success.

The first requirement is identifying who your competitor really is: The company who sells a product that looks just like yours? The entrepreneur who’s busy inventing your replacement? Or all the other ways that your customers can spend their money that may have nothing to do with you?

Most people assume it’s the first definition – insurance guys immediately think of the agent down the street, plastics companies think of the other guy’s polyethylene – but …

The most common competition is all those other things you customers can choose to spend their money on. Individual or corporation, they all have attractive alternatives to what you want to sell – a weekend at the beach, for example, instead of the premium on a long term care insurance policy, or a fatter dividend to the shareholders instead of a new computer system for the accounting department.

The most dangerous competition is often the competition you don’t even know you have – the inventor who’s looking to make you obsolete. The very best buggy whip guy was headed for disaster in 1903, unless he foresaw and quickly adapted to the dramatically changing personal transportation market.

Researching and understanding the competitive landscape you face – in an ethical and honest way – is a key element in the foundation of your success.