Showing posts with label Innovation and growth speakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Innovation and growth speakers. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

To Begin Innovation Starts With Disruptive Hypotheses. Here's How To Create One

 The process hinges on three steps: Defining the situation, searching for cliches, and twisting those cliches around, according to Luke Williams.

A disruptive hypothesis is an intentionally unreasonable statement that gets your thinking flowing in a different direction. It’s kind of like the evolutionary biology theory of “punctuated equilibrium,” which states that evolution proceeds slowly and every once in a while is interrupted by sudden change. Disruptive hypotheses are designed to upset your comfortable business equilibrium and bring about an accelerated change in your own thinking.

The ability to ask, “What if?” is an essential part of every executive’s skill set.

Contrast this with the more traditional definition of “hypothesis,” which is a best-guess explanation that’s based on a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation. With a disruptive hypothesis, however, you don’t make a reasonable prediction (if I charge the battery, the phone will work). Instead, you make an unreasonable provocation (what if a cell phone didn’t need a battery at all?). The difference between prediction and provocation, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw’s famous line, is the difference between “seeing things as they are and asking, ‘Why?,’ or dreaming things as they never were and asking, ‘What if?’” In our fast-changing world, when business certainties are no longer certain, the ability to imagine things as they never were and ask, “What if?,” is an essential part of every executive’s skill set.

What Do You Want to Disrupt?

To meaningfully differentiate yourself from everyone else in the same space, you have to define the situation in the industry, segment, or category that you want to challenge. Here’s what a list of what you want to challenge might look like:

  • This is an area in which everyone seems to be stuck in the same predicament and nothing has changed in a very long time.
  • This is an area where profit performance is average—it really should be more successful than it is.
  • This is a category where growth is slow and everything seems the same.

Once you have a situation to focus on, describe it in one sentence: “How can we disrupt the competitive landscape in [insert your situation] by delivering an unexpected solution?”

Whether you choose to think about an industry, segment, or category is up to you and your business needs. For example, if you owned a boutique hotel in San Francisco, you might describe your situation in one or more of the following ways:

  • How can we disrupt the competitive landscape of the Travel & Leisure industry by delivering an unexpected solution?
  • How can we disrupt the competitive landscape of the Hotel segment by delivering an unexpected solution?
  • How can we disrupt the competitive landscape of the Luxury Hotel category by delivering an unexpected solution?

That’s it. The important thing is that the high-level situation you choose is just that—high-level. It’s essential that you resist the natural urge to start thinking in terms of specific “problems.”

What Are the Clichés?

Now that you’ve defined your situation, what are the clichés—the widespread, hackneyed beliefs that govern the way people think about and do business in a particular space? If you pay attention, you’ll notice that clichés are everywhere.

Consider the multi-billion dollar video gaming industry. Video consoles were driven by several clichés. First, that the world is split into “gamers” and “nongamers.” Second, that gamers mostly care about faster chips and more realistic graphics. Third, game consoles are expensive. And fourth, that people play video games sitting down, barely moving anything but their fingers. With the Wii, Nintendo turned the gaming industry’s clichés on their head.

Searching for Clichés

Just being told, “Okay, get out there and find those clichés,” can be extremely daunting. So, here are a few tips that will help you jump-start the process. Start by getting online and identifying a handful of direct competitors in the industry, segment, or category you’re focused on. Group together those with similar characteristics (such as size and resources), strengths (such as brand name, distribution), and strategies (such as high quality). Select one or two competitors in each group that are pretty representative of the group as a whole. A total of three to six competitors are the ideal number to work with.

With the Wii, Nintendo turned the gaming industry’s clichés on their head.

Now, do a little research on each competitor and make a list of the clichés that keep everyone doing the same thing, competing the same way, or operating with the same set of assumptions. Keep your research activities quick and informal, intuitive and qualitative. To keep you from drowning in a sea of information, consider using the following three filters:

  • Product clichés: What are the cliché features and benefits? What are the cliché product attributes that are advertised (convenience and reliability, for example)? Where are the cliché areas where the product competes (typical customers, typical geographies, and typical market size?).
  • Interaction clichés: What are the cliché steps a customer experiences when buying and consuming their products and services? Is the interaction face-to-face? How frequently do customers purchase or use? In the rental car business, for instance, the prevailing interaction clichés include the following: face-to-face interaction with a service agent, completing a lot of paperwork, and renting vehicles by the day.
  • Pricing clichés: What are the typical ways companies price their products and services and charge customers? Are they packaging products and services together or pricing them individually? Are they charging the customer directly or through a retail partner? Are they offering discounts or other incentives?

What Are Your Disruptive Hypotheses?

Now that you have a list of the clichés that are influencing the business situation you’re focused on, your next goal is to start provoking the status quo. To do that, you’ll take those clichés and twist them like a Rubik’s cube. You’re trying to find a way to rearrange the pieces, which in turn will provoke a different way of looking at the situation.

What Can You Invert?

If there’s an action, look at the opposite action. If something is happening over time, run the time scale backward. Whenever there’s a one-way relationship between two parties, try changing the direction 180 degrees.

What Can You Deny?

The denial method works by completely dumping key aspects of a cliché. Back to our rental car example for a minute, where the prevailing industry clichés include: See the customer. Complete a lot of paperwork. Rent by the day.

What would happen if you no longer needed to see the customer, you got rid of the paperwork, and you started renting by the hour? Well, you’d end up with something very much like Zipcar. The disruption? Don’t see the customer. No paperwork. Rent by the hour.

What Can You Scale?

What is scarce that could be made abundant? What is abundant that could be made scarce? What is expensive that could be free?

After going through these steps, you should be able to generate several hypotheses that will challenge your established way of looking at an industry and help you imagine radically new scenarios, ask unconventional questions, and discover unexpected advantages. The general rule is that the bolder your “What Ifs,” the fresher the perspective they offer. 

Now, while that’s a huge accomplishment, hypotheses aren’t really worth much all by themselves. In the next post, we look at the process process of taking hypotheses and gaining the customer insight necessary to turn them into business opportunities.

[This is a condensed version of the first chapter of Disrupt: Think the Unthinkable to Spark Transformation in Your Business. Click here to buy the book.]

via fastcodesign.com

Speak to us about our guarantee to increase your top line growth! 

Jim Woods is president and founder of the InnoThink Group. He is a no nonsense "tell it like it is" author, speaker, and a strategic management, innovation, commoditization and hypercompetition expert to business and government. He advises clients with an objective view of their competitive capabilities and defines a clear course of action to maximize their innovation return on investment to achieve profitable growth. To build your capability for ongoing innovation across your company or to secure a riveting speaker for your next event - Call 719-649-4118 or email us for more information on hiring Jim. Check Availability. 

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

How To Build Loyal Customers In A Dog Eat Dog World

In this dog-eat-dog world of savvy customers and relentless competitors, managers should seek to be the hunters, not the hunted. Customer service can be the most effective weapon. 

Bear in mind, in our lean economic times Apple has continued to exceed competitors by “selling” products considered non-essential. How? They relieve an unmet desire to such a degree competitors want to become customers. 

Here are five things you should do: 

  1. Stop being a victim. Assume complete responsibility for changing your situation.
  2. Identify your best customers, recognize their importance to your overall profitability, and understand who your competitors’ premium customers are. 
  3. Figure out what would most please your best customers and bind them tighter to your business. Also figure out what might attract your competitors’ best customers to you. Determine what approaches would create the greatest economic payoff for you.
  4. Build the capability, test it, adjust it, roll it out, and further build it. Ask questions. Talk to your customers. Get their feedback. Make them part of the process. This is about their relationship with you.
  5. Recognize, happy employees contribute to loyal customers.

Jim Woods is president and founder of InnoThink Group. A global management consulting firms specialized solely in helping organizations of all sizes in all industries catalyzing top line growth through strategic innovation and hypercompetition. Jim has over 25 years consulting experience in working with small, mid size and Fortune 1000 companies. He is a former U.S. Navy Seabee and grandfather of five. To arrange for Jim to speak at your next event or devise an effective hypercompetition strategy email or call us at 719-649-4118 for availability. Subscribe to our free innovation and competitive advantage newsletter.   Don't miss a single new business idea!

Rest assured that we won't share your email address with anyone - we hate spam, too!

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Linkedin

Follow us on Facebook

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

How To Build Loyal Customers In A Dog Eat Dog World

In this dog-eat-dog world of savvy customers and relentless competitors, managers should seek to be the hunters, not the hunted. Customer service can be the most effective weapon. 

Bear in mind, in our lean economic times Apple has continued to exceed competitors by “selling” products considered non-essential. How? They relieve an unmet desire to such a degree competitors want to become customers. 

Here are five things you should do: 

  1. Stop being a victim. Assume complete responsibility for changing your situation.
  2. Identify your best customers, recognize their importance to your overall profitability, and understand who your competitors’ premium customers are. 
  3. Figure out what would most please your best customers and bind them tighter to your business. Also figure out what might attract your competitors’ best customers to you. Determine what approaches would create the greatest economic payoff for you.
  4. Build the capability, test it, adjust it, roll it out, and further build it. Ask questions. Talk to your customers. Get their feedback. Make them part of the process. This is about their relationship with you.
  5. Recognize, happy employees contribute to loyal customers.

Jim Woods is president and founder of InnoThink Group. A global management consulting firms specialized solely in helping organizations of all sizes in all industries catalyzing top line growth through strategic innovation and hypercompetition. Jim has over 25 years consulting experience in working with small, mid size and Fortune 1000 companies. He is a former U.S. Navy Seabee and grandfather of five. To arrange for Jim to speak at your next event or devise an effective hypercompetition strategy email or call us at 719-649-4118 for availability. Subscribe to our free innovation and competitive advantage newsletter.   Don't miss a single new business idea!

Rest assured that we won't share your email address with anyone - we hate spam, too!

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Linkedin

Follow us on Facebook

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Peter Drucker on Leadership and Strategic Resilience

“The most important task of an organization’s leader is to anticipate crisis. Perhaps not to avert it, but to anticipate it. To wait until crisis hits is abdication. One has to make the organization capable of anticipating the storm, weathering it, and in fact, being ahead of it. You cannot prevent a major catastrophe, but you can build an organization that is battle-ready, that has high morale, that knows how to behave, that trusts itself and where people trust one another. In military training, the first rule is to instill soldiers with trust in their officers, because without trust they won’t fight.”

—Peter F. Drucker

Even in the most structured, command-and-control environments, like the military, those in the field are the ones who have to carry out the activities of the organization. They are called on to make many key decisions—often without the benefit of a detailed blueprint. Without trust in the leadership, soldiers or workers cannot be expected to stay and fight on.

One of my favorite examples of how trust played a significant role in a leader’s success was withAbraham Lincoln during the Civil War. His predecessor, James Buchanan, was basically in denial about the eventuality of war. Thus, there was very little preparation for combat in the North. The Confederacy, on the other hand, had prepared for quite sometime before war erupted. The result: Even though the North had superior forces and resources, the South was able to fight off the North more effectively than most expected.

The South also had a cadre of very well trained generals like Robert E. LeeJoseph Johnstonand Stonewall Jackson, who worked hard to gain the trust of their troops, and they were able to prolong the war and nearly triumph.

President Lincoln was very fortunate to eventually be able to lean on the skills and strategies of his own military leaders, like Ulysses S. Grant, as well as on his ability to earn and keep the trust of the people of the Union. He was known as “Honest Abe” for a reason, and his trustworthiness greatly enhanced his ability to gain support for the war and ultimately secure the victory. Without the trust that Northerners had in Lincoln, we’d possibly be two or even three countries today. via thedx.druckerinstitute.com

 Want to increase growth and avoid commoditization? Want to out compete your competitors? Want to bring new products and services to market faster? Want to be more agile? Need a compelling speaker? Hire Innovation and Growth Speaker Jim Woods. Jim works confidentially with start ups, governments as well as profit and for profit enterprises.

Visit our website:www.innothinkgroup.com Executive and Business Coaching: http://ow.ly/anBpK

Jim Woods is president and founder of InnoThink Group. A global management consulting firms specialized solely in helping organizations of all sizes in all industries catalyzing top line growth through strategic innovation and hypercompetition. Jim has over 25 years consulting experience in working with small, mid size and Fortune 1000 companies. He is a former U.S. Navy Seabee and grandfather of five. To arrange for Jim to speak at your next event or devise an effective growth strategy email or call us at 719-649-4118 for availability.james@innothinkgroup.com

Follow us on Twitter: http://ow.ly/anyCg

Follow us on LinkedIn: http://ow.ly/anyJu

Fan us on Facebook: http://ow.ly/anyQ7

Saturday, April 21, 2012

The Secret to Team Collaboration Is Individuality

Let those on your team do their own thing. A new book supports this claim, as does a quote from Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer.

Row of Light Bulbs

shutterstock images

"We expect everyone here to be team players." 

Most of us have had a boss who preached teamwork. Some bosses even like to put up posters with slogans like there is no "I" in team.

Teamwork is essential to organizational success but too much teamwork can be deadly. This is the point that Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, argues in an essay for the The New York Times. She points out the drawbacks of too much teaming. "Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption," she writes.

Further, Cain explains that creative types are by nature introverts but "extroverted enough to exchange and advance ideas [and] see themselves as independent and individualistic." Cain also quotes from the memoir of Steve "Woz" Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer and inventor of the very first Apple computer, who advises fellow engineers and inventors to "work alone… not on a committee. Not on a team."

The challenge for leaders is to balance individual needs with team directives. To do so they must avoid collectivism and facilitate collaboration. Collectivism leads to "group think," which, as Susan Cain argues, is the bête noir of teamwork; collaboration leads to innovation. Collectivists unite around a single purpose, which is fine, but ignore alternate paths to achieve that purpose. Collaborators are similarly focused on purpose but they arrive at their goals by incorporating variable points of view. In short, collectivists, like the Bolsheviks of Leninist Russia, value ideology over results. Collaborators are pragmatists who build upon the ideas of many in order to get things done.

The secret to effective collaboration is individuality. You want everyone on the team to feel free to contribute ideas to a project as a means of instilling ownership and therefore increase engagement.  That does not mean that every idea that anyone says goes but it does mean people can contribute their brains as well as their brawn.

Here are four steps to foster true collaboration through each contributor:

1. Affirm the purpose. The central organizing principle of a project is the why. It is up to managers to let people know how what the team is doing contributes to organizational success.

2. Encourage individualism. A secret to effective collaboration is individual contributions. When people think alike they shut out alternate viewpoints. True collaboration weighs the individual ideas and balances them with what the project needs. In short, teammates build upon the contributions of others to achieve their team goals.

3. Focus on team. Few things will get done without individuals pulling together. The managers can reinforce collaboration by making it known that individuals must coordinate with each other as well as cooperate. Sometimes this means that people will pitch in to help a teammate finish a task when their own work is finished.

4. Reflect, together. There is one other valuable ingredient to effective collaboration: reflection. The perception may be that reflection is a solo endeavor, but many teams have found it valuable to employ in group settings. Managers can stimulate the thinking process by posing a key question for the group to reflect upon in silence and then discuss openly. Open-ended questions that focus on the how and the why of process rather than purpose are effective. The purpose—where the team is headed—has been established; the process—how we do things—can very often be improved.

Teamwork is essential to getting things done and to do it effectively managers need to draw upon the talents of individuals who have a stake in the outcome. There may be no "I" in team, but as Michael Jordan, whose singular play powered the Chicago Bulls to six NBA titles, used to say, "But there is in win!"

John Baldoni is the president of Baldoni Consulting, an executive coaching firm. John speaks widely on leadership and has written 10 leadership books; his newest is Lead With Purpose: Giving Your Organization a Reason to Believe in Itself. @johnbaldoni

 

Want to increase growth and avoid more losses? Want to out compete your competitors? Want to bring new products and services to market faster? Want to be more agile? Contact Innovation and Growth Speaker Jim Woods. Jim works confidentially with start ups, governments as well as profit and for profit enterprises. 

Visit our website:www.innothinkgroup.com Executive and Business Coaching: http://ow.ly/anBpK

Jim Woods is president and founder of InnoThink Group. A global management consulting firms specialized solely in helping organizations of all sizes in all industries catalyzing top line growth through strategic innovation and hypercompetition. Jim has over 25 years consulting experience in working with small, mid size and Fortune 1000 companies. He is a former U.S. Navy Seabee and grandfather of five. To arrange for Jim to speak at your next event or devise an effective growth strategy email or call us at 719-649-4118 for availability.james@innothinkgroup.com

Follow us on Twitter: http://ow.ly/anyCg

Follow us on LinkedIn: http://ow.ly/anyJu

Fan us on Facebook: http://ow.ly/anyQ7

 

Thursday, April 19, 2012

How To Demystify Social Media - McKinsey

As the marketing power of social media grows, it no longer makes sense to treat it as an experiment. Here’s how senior leaders can harness social media to shape consumer decision making in predictable ways.

Executives certainly know what social media is. After all, if Facebook users constituted a country, it would be the world’s third largest, behind China and India. Executives can even claim to know what makes social media so potent: its ability to amplify word-of-mouth effects. Yet the vast majority of executives have no idea how to harness social media’s power. Companies diligently establish Twitter feeds and branded Facebook pages, but few have a deep understanding of exactly how social media interacts with consumers to expand product and brand recognition, drive sales and profitability, and engender loyalty.

We believe there are two interrelated reasons why social media remains an enigma wrapped in a riddle for many executives, particularly nonmarketers. The first is its seemingly nebulous nature. It’s no secret that consumers increasingly go online to discuss products and brands, seek advice, and offer guidance. Yet it’s often difficult to see where and how to influence these conversations, which take place across an ever-growing variety of platforms, among diverse and dispersed communities, and may occur either with lightning speed or over the course of months. Second, there’s no single measure of social media’s financial impact, and many companies find that it’s difficult to justify devoting significant resources—financial or human—to an activity whose precise effect remains unclear.

What we hope to do here is to demystify social media. We have identified its four primary functions—to monitor, respond, amplify, and lead consumer behavior—and linked them to the journey consumers undertake when making purchasing decisions. Being able to identify exactly how, when, and where social media influences consumers helps executives to craft marketing strategies that take advantage of social media’s unique ability to engage with customers. It should also help leaders develop, launch, and demonstrate the financial impact of social-media campaigns (for insight into the world’s biggest social-media market, see “Understanding social media in China,” forthcoming on mckinseyquarterly.com).

In short, today’s chief executive can no longer treat social media as a side activity run solely by managers in marketing or public relations. It’s much more than simply another form of paid marketing, and it demands more too: a clear framework to help CEOs and other top executives evaluate investments in it, a plan for building support infrastructure, and performance-management systems to help leaders smartly scale their social presence. Companies that have these three elements in place can create critical new brand assets (such as content from customers or insights from their feedback), open up new channels for interactions (Twitter-based customer service, Facebook news feeds), and completely reposition a brand through the way its employees interact with customers or other parties.

The social consumer decision journey

Companies have quickly learned that social media works: 39 percent of companies we’ve surveyed already use social-media services as their primary digital tool to reach customers, and that percentage is expected to rise to 47 percent within the next four years.1 Fueling this growth is a growing list of success stories from mainstream companies:

Creating buzz: Eighteen months before Ford reentered the US subcompact-car market with its Fiesta model, it began a broad marketing campaign called the Fiesta Movement. A major element involved giving 100 social-media influencers a European model of the car, having them complete “missions,” and asking them to document their experiences on various social channels. Videos related to the Fiesta campaign generated 6.5 million views on YouTube, and Ford received 50,000 requests for information about the vehicle, primarily from non-Ford drivers. When it finally became available to the public, in late 2010, some 10,000 cars sold in the first six days.

Learning from customers: PepsiCo has used social networks to gather customer insights via its DEWmocracy promotions, which have led to the creation of new varieties of its Mountain Dew brand. Since 2008, the company has sold more than 36 million cases of them.

Targeting customers: Levi Strauss has used social media to offer location-specific deals. In one instance, direct interactions with just 400 consumers led 1,600 people to turn up at the company’s stores— an example of social media’s word-of-mouth effect.

Yet countless others have failed to match these successes: knowing that something works and understanding how it works are very different things. As the number of companies with Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, or online communities continues to grow, we think it’s time for leaders to remind themselves how social media connects with an organization’s broader marketing mission.

Marketing’s primary goal is to reach consumers at the moments, or touch points, that influence their purchasing behavior. Almost three years ago, our colleagues proposed a framework—the “consumer decision journey”—for understanding how consumers interact with companies during purchase decisions.2 Expressing consumer behavior as a winding journey with multiple feedback loops, this new framework was different from the traditional description of consumer purchasing behavior as a linear march through a funnel. Social media is a unique component of the consumer decision journey: it’s the only form of marketing that can touch consumers at each and every stage, from when they’re pondering brands and products right through the period after a purchase, as their experience influences the brands they prefer and their potential advocacy influences others.

social journey interactive

A social journey
For more on social media’s relationship to the consumer decision journey, explore this interactive exhibit narrated by coauthor David Edelman.


The fact that social media can influence customers at every stage of the journey doesn’t mean that it should. Depending on the company and industry, some touch points are more important to competitive advantage than others.3 What’s more, our work with dozens of companies adapting to the new marketing environment strongly suggests that the most powerful social-media strategies focus on a limited number of marketing responses closely related to individual touch points along the consumer decision journey. The ten most important responses, range from providing customer service to fostering online communities (exhibit). One of those ten—monitoring what people say about your brand—is so important that we see it as a core function of social media, relevant across the entire consumer decision journey. The remaining nine responses, organized in three clusters in the exhibit, underpin efforts to use social media to respond to consumer comments, to amplify positive sentiment and activity, and to lead changes in the behavior and mind-sets of consumers. 

1. Monitor

Gatorade, a sports drink manufactured by PepsiCo, has been diligently working toward its goal of becoming the “largest participatory brand in the world.”4 It has created a Chicago-based “war room” within its marketing department to monitor the brand in real time across social media. There are seats where team members can track custom-built data visualizations and dashboards (including terms related to the brand, sponsored athletes, and competitors) and run sentiment analyses around product and campaign launches. Every day, all of this feedback is integrated into products and marketing—for example, by helping to optimize the landing page on the company’s Web site. Since the war room’s creation, the average traffic to Gatorade’s online properties, the length of visitor interactions, and viral sharing from campaigns have all more than doubled.

Such brand monitoring—simply knowing what’s said online about your products and services—should be a default social-media function, taking place constantly. Even without engaging consumers directly, companies can glean insights from an effective monitoring program that informs everything from product design to marketing and provides advance warning of potentially negative publicity. It’s also critical to communicate such feedback within the business quickly: whoever is charged with brand monitoring must ensure that information reaches relevant functions, such as communications, design, marketing, public relations, or risk.

2. Respond

Valuable though it is to learn how you are doing and what to improve, broad and passive monitoring is only a start. Pinpointing conversations for responding at a personal level is another form of social-media engagement. This kind of response can certainly be positive if it’s done to provide customer service or to uncover sales leads. Most often, though, responding is a part of crisis management.

Last year, for example, a hoax photograph posted online claimed that McDonald’s was charging African-Americans an additional service fee. The hoax first appeared on Twitter, where the image rapidly went viral just before the weekend as was retweeted with the hashtag #seriouslymcdonalds. It turned out to be a working weekend for the McDonald’s social-media team. On Saturday, the company’s director of social media released a statement through Twitter declaring the photograph to be a hoax and asking key influencers to “please let your followers know.” The company continued to reinforce that message throughout the weekend, even responding personally to concerned Tweeters. By Sunday, the number of people who believed the image to be authentic had dwindled, and McDonald’s stock price rose 5 percent the following day.

Responding in order to counter negative comments and reinforce positive ones will only increase in importance. The responsibility for taking action may fall on functions outside marketing, and the message will differ depending on the situation. No response can be quick enough, and the ability to act rapidly requires the constant, proactive monitoring of social media—on weekends too. By responding rapidly, transparently, and honestly, companies can positively influence consumer sentiment and behavior.

3. Amplify

“Amplification” involves designing your marketing activities to have an inherently social motivator that spurs broader engagement and sharing. This approach means more than merely reaching the end of planning a marketing campaign and then thinking that “we should do something social”—say, uploading a television commercial to YouTube. It means that the core concepts for campaigns must invite customers into an experience that they can choose to extend by joining a conversation with the brand, product, fellow users, and other enthusiasts. It means having ongoing programs that share new content with customers and provide opportunities for sharing back. It means offering experiences that customers will feel great about sharing, because they gain a badge of honor by publicizing content that piques the interest of others.

In the initial phases of the consumer decision journey, when consumers sift through brands and products to determine their preferred options, referrals and recommendations are powerful social-media tools. A simple example is the way online deal sites such as Groupon and Gilt Groupe provide consumers with credit for each first-time purchaser they refer. Our research shows that such direct recommendations from peers generate engagement rates some 30 times higher than traditional online advertising does.

Once a consumer has decided which product to buy and makes a purchase, companies can use social media to amplify their engagement and foster loyalty. When Starbucks wanted to increase awareness of its brand, for example, it launched a competition challenging users to be the first to tweet a photograph of one of the new advertising posters that the company had placed in six major US cities, providing winners with a $20 gift card. This social-media brand advocacy effort delivered a marketing punch that significantly outweighed its budget. Starbucks said that the effort was “the difference between launching with millions of dollars versus millions of fans.”5

Marketers also can foster communities around their brands and products, both to reinforce the belief of consumers that they made a smart decision and to provide guidance for getting the most from a purchase. Software company Intuit, for example, launched customer service forums for its Quicken and QuickBooks personal-finance software so users could help one another with product issues. The result? Users rather than Intuit employees answer about 80 percent of the questions, and the company has employed user comments to make dozens of significant changes to its software.

4. Lead

Social media can be used most proactively to lead consumers toward long-term behavioral changes. In the early stages of the consumer decision journey, this may involve boosting brand awareness by driving Web traffic to content about existing products and services. When grooming-products group Old Spice introduced its Old Spice Man character to viewers, during the US National Football League’s 2010 Super Bowl, for example, the company’s ambition was to increase its reach and relevance to both men and women. The commercial became a phenomenon: starring former player Isaiah Mustafa, it got more than 19 million hits across all platforms, and year-on-year sales for the company’s products jumped by 27 percent within six months.

Marketers also can use social media to generate buzz through product launches, as Ford did in launching its Fiesta vehicle in the United States. For example, social media played an integral role in the success of “Small Business Saturday,” the US shopping promotion created by American Express for the weekend immediately following Thanksgiving (for American Express CMO John Hayes’s perspective on that launch, see “How we see it: Three senior executives on the future of marketing,” on mckinseyquarterly.com). In addition, when consumers are ready to buy, companies can promote time-sensitive targeted deals and offers through social media to generate traffic and sales. Online menswear company Bonobos, for example, provided an incentive for its Twitter followers by unlocking a discount code after its messages were resent a certain number of times. As a result of this effort, almost 100 consumers bought products from the site for the first time. The campaign delivered a 1,200 percent return on investment in just 24 hours.

Finally, social media can solicit consumer input after the purchase. This ability to gain product-development insights from customers in a relatively inexpensive way is emerging as one of social media’s most significant advantages. Intuit, for example, has its community forums. Starbucks uses MyStarbucksIdea.com to collect its customers’ views about improving the company’s products and services and then aggregates submitted ideas and prominently displays them on a dedicated Web site. That site groups ideas by product, experience, and involvement; ranks user participation; and shows ideas actively under consideration by the company and those that have been implemented.

Converting knowledge to action

Despite offering numerous opportunities to influence consumers, social media still accounts for less than 1 percent of an average marketing budget, in our experience. Many chief marketing officers say that they want to increase that share to 5 percent. One problem is that a lot of senior executives know little about social media. But the main obstacle is the perception that the return on investment (ROI) from such initiatives is uncertain.

Without a clear sense of the value social media creates, it’s perhaps not surprising that so many CEOs and other senior executives don’t feel comfortable when their companies go beyond mere “experiments” with social-media strategy. Yet we can measure the impact of social media well beyond straight volume and consumer-sentiment metrics; in fact, we can precisely determine the buzz surrounding a product or brand and then calculate how social media drives purchasing behavior. To do so—and then ensure that social media complements broader marketing strategies—companies must obviously coordinate data, tools, technology, and talent across multiple functions. In many cases, senior business leaders must open up their agendas and recognize the importance of supporting and even undertaking initiatives that may traditionally have been left to the chief marketing officer. As our colleagues noted last year, “we’re all marketers now.”6

Consider the experience of a telecommunications company that proactively adopted social media but had no idea if its efforts were working. The company had launched Twitter-based customer service capabilities, several promotional campaigns built around social contests, a fan page with discounts and tech tips, and an active response program to engage with people speaking about the brand. In social-media terms, the investment was relatively large, and the company’s senior executives wanted more than anecdotal evidence that the strategy was paying off. As a starting point, to ensure that the company was doing a quality job designing and executing its social presence, it benchmarked its efforts against approaches used by other companies known to be successful in social media. It then advanced the following hypotheses:

  • If all of these social-media activities improve general service perceptions about the brand, that improvement should be reflected in a higher volume of positive online posts.7
  • If social sharing is effective, added clicks and traffic should result in higher search placements.
  • If both of these assumptions hold true, social-media activity should help drive sales—ideally, at a rate even higher than the company could achieve with its average gross rating point (GRP) of advertising expenditures.8

The company then tested its options. At various times, it spent less money on conventional advertising, especially as social-media activity ramped up, and it modeled the rising positive sentiment and higher search positions just as it would using traditional metrics. The company concluded that social-media activity not only boosted sales but also had higher ROIs than traditional marketing did. Thus, while the company took a risk by shifting emphasis toward social-media efforts before it had data confirming that this was the correct course, the bet paid off. What’s more, the analytic baseline now in place has given the company confidence to continue exploring a growing role for social media.

In other cases, social media may have a more specific role, such as helping to launch a new product or to mitigate negative word of mouth. Similar types of analyses can focus on mixing the impact of buzz, search, and traffic; correlating that with sales or renewals (or whatever the key metric may be); and then gauging the result against total costs. This approach can give executives the confidence and focus they need to invest more money, time, and resources in social media.

As these social-media activities gain scale, the challenges center less around justifying funding and more around organizational issues such as developing the right processes and governance structure, identifying clear roles—for all involved in social-media strategy, from marketing to customer service to product development—and bolstering the talent base, and improving performance standards. New capabilities abound, and social-media best practices are barely starting to emerge. We do know this: because social-media influences every element of the consumer decision journey, communication must take place between as well as within functions. That complicates lines of reporting and decision-making authority.

If insights from monitoring social media are relevant to nonmarketing functions such as product development, for instance, how will you identify and disseminate that information efficiently and effectively—and then ensure that it gets used? If you spot an opportunity to have a meaningful conversation with a key influencer, how will you quickly engage the right senior executive to follow through? If you recognize a fast-moving service concern, how will you respond rapidly and openly—and when should you do so outside the traditional service organization? Senior executives across the company must recognize and begin to answer such questions.

Social media is extending the disruptive impact of the digital era across a broad range of functions. Meanwhile, the perceived lack of metrics, the fear, and the limited sense of what’s possible are eroding. Executives can identify the functions, touch points, and goals of social-media activities, as well as craft approaches to measure their impact and manage their risks. The time is ripe for executive-suite discussions on how to lead and to learn from people within your company, marketers outside it, and, most of all, your customers.

About the Author

Roxane Divol is a principal in McKinsey’s San Francisco office, David Edelman is a principal in the Boston office, and Hugo Sarrazin is a director in the Silicon Valley office.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Sirish Chandrasekaran, Dianne Esber, Rebecca Millman, and Dan Singer to the development of this article.

Want to increase growth and avoid losses? Want to out compete your competitors? Want to bring new products and services to market faster? Want to be more agile? Contact Innovation and Growth Speaker Jim Woods. Jim works confidentially with start ups, governments as well as profit and for profit enterprises.

Visit our website:www.innothinkgroup.com Executive and Business Coaching: http://ow.ly/anBpK

Jim Woods is president and founder of InnoThink Group. A global management consulting firms specialized solely in helping organizations of all sizes in all industries catalyzing top line growth through strategic innovation and hypercompetition. Jim has over 25 years consulting experience in working with small, mid size and Fortune 1000 companies. He is a former U.S. Navy Seabee and grandfather of five. To arrange for Jim to speak at your next event or devise an effective growth strategy email or call us at 719-649-4118 for availability.james@innothinkgroup.com

Follow us on Twitter: http://ow.ly/anyCg

Follow us on LinkedIn: http://ow.ly/anyJu

Fan us on Facebook: http://ow.ly/anyQ7

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Essay on why some colleges can't change #Education #Innovators

Universities teach about the importance of societal and organizational change, but often have trouble changing themselves in any but the most superficial ways.  As a psychology professor interested in both individual and organizational modifiability, I have studied organizations, including universities, and why it is so difficult for them to change.  Meaningful organizational change requires five elements, and unless all five of them are present, the organization — whether a department, school, college, or university — remains static.

1. Ability to change. The organization needs to be able to change. This may sound like a given, but it is absent in some organizations.  For example, one summer when I was an adolescent I attended a summer session on marine biology at Nasson College in Springvale, Maine. It was a beautiful campus in a picturesque, relatively remote part of Maine. Founded in 1912 as the Nasson Institute, the college closed its doors in 1983. The personnel associated with the college — students, faculty, administrators, alumni — wanted to stay open, but by the time they aggressively sought to stay alive, it was too late — the place was on its way to the graveyard: The college no longer had the financial resources to survive.

Educational institutions may fail to change because they lack the material resources; but they also may fail to stay open because they lack the human resources. An ill-chosen president or board of trustees can send a college or university to a premature burial.  For example, in 1998 Allegheny University of the Health Sciences became the first U.S. medical school to declare bankruptcy. At the time, it had run up a huge deficit as a result of perhaps too rapid expansion.

2. Belief in the ability of the institution to change. Whether or not an institution is able to change, in order for it actually to change, its key stakeholders must believe it can. Like the “little engine that could,” it must think it can. Sometimes the key stakeholders think they are stuck, and the belief that they are stuck essentially creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Once when I was applying for an administrative position, I interviewed for a job at an institution that was not doing well financially and suffered from a structural deficit. Part of the interview involved a meeting with key members of the Board of Trustees. I spoke to them of some ideas to raise more money from alumni. The board chair blithely informed me that he thought the problem was that the alumni of the college just did not have the money and hence that I essentially would be wasting my time. He did not believe the institution could change — at least with respect to fund-raising — and he conveyed that attitude toward key personnel. I withdrew from the search.

3. Desire to change. Some institutions are able to change but, for one reason or another, the critical stakeholders don’t want it to. A college or university that views itself as highly successful in some way, curiously, may be stuck in the present or even the past because it has gotten into a cycle of reputation maintenance: it views any change as potentially able only to weaken the organization.

For example, in some universities, athletic programs have acquired a life of their own that has become largely independent of the academic mission of the university. Instead of focusing on athletics as an important form of leadership development in their students, these universities have come, in many cases, to view athletics primarily as a cash cow. Scandals result when the athletic programs become mired in various forms of corruption.  Presidents and trustees of such institutions often know that they need to change, but don’t want to for loss of the cash or fear of the wrath of alumni and various donors. For example, some universities have had serious ethical issues in their athletic program, a fact of which many top-level officials have been aware. But the universities have had their reputations to maintain; so officials were unwilling until too late to implement the reforms that were desperately needed. Some universities are so concerned with preserving their reputation that they are willing to run — only if it is running in place. They may make cosmetic changes but the institution remains fundamentally unchanged.

4. Desire to appear to change. Sometimes what halts modification of a university or one of its programs is fear of the appearance of change. Alumni as well as present personnel may have an image of a certain kind of institution and they just do not want to give up the image. Universities of very high status may be as concerned about their image as about their reality.

For example, some institutions admit at least a portion of their students solely on the basis of standardized test scores. This procedure allows in students with poor records of school achievement, no participation in meaningful extracurricular or leadership activities, demonstrated serious psychological problems, and so on. Other students whose test scores may be as little as one point lower (i.e., well within the standard error of measurement of the test) may be rejected, even though they have demonstrably better school grades, extracurricular activities, or psychological health.  But the appearance of change, more than the change itself, might disturb some people, such as professors and others who believe (usually on the basis of little or no data) that standardized test scores are strong predictors of academic success, or those who believe that setting a minimum test score provides a veneer of academic respectability.

At Oklahoma State University, we are introducing a new program for admissions, Panorama, to place new emphasis on our land-grant mission of admitting future leaders who will make the world a better place to live, measuring the creative, practical, wisdom-based, and ethical skills that standardized tests just do not cover. The goal is not to replace standardized tests, but rather to supplement them in assessing skills they do not measure.

Desire to change and desire to appear to change do not always go together. On the one hand, an institution may be willing to change but its leaders may have to hide the change so as not to offend those who are wedded to the status quo. On the other hand, an institution may go through the motions of appearing to change while its leaders make sure that nothing of any importance is altered.

5. Courage to translate ideas into action. Ultimately, meaningful organizational change requires courage because there are almost always individuals and groups with vested interests that actively and often vocally oppose change.  Members of various interest groups have worked, often for years, to maximize, to the extent possible, the fit of their interests to the way the organization functions; they may view any change as jeopardizing the fit or benefits they have worked so hard to attain.  Moreover, other institutions may be doing what your institution has been doing and it is always easier to follow the crowd than to defy it.  In the end, meaningful organizational change entails risk and requires leaders who are willing and able to persuade enough stakeholders that any threats to their interests are more than compensated for by the benefits to be obtained through meaningful and potentially beneficial change.

Change is not always for the better, of course. But a college or university that is static will inevitably fall behind more dynamic, positively changing institutions. And like any institution that fails to compete, it is on the path to stagnation or death.  A dynamic institution will change and, if the change proves to be in the wrong direction, will redirect itself until it finds a sustainable path. For example, some land-grant institutions, including Oklahoma State, that at one time moved away from their land-grant mission in pursuit of goals that were designed to enhance ratings found that they neither moved toward the fulfillment of their mission nor toward the higher ratings they sought, because they were not moving in a way that was true to themselves. Institutions can change — for the better — if they are able to change, believe they can change, want to change, are willing to appear to change, and have the courage actually to change.