So climb with me, up the decision tree.

First, do I keep this as a pet project or do I delegate it?  The entrepreneur in me says to keep it.  The manager in me says to delegate it.  The hours in the day spell out reality, which is to assign it to someone I can trust to do it, and do it well.  This could be our future!  That was a pretty easy decision, I think.  (The whole subject of delegation is interesting to me as well – how to not micromanage but still stay in touch….)

Second, who to assign it to?  Well, I have three choices:

1. there’s Tenure; he’s been here the longest, deserves the assignment, has lots of experience, is a stalwart, warhorse, tried and true.  Been around.  Knows the terrain.  Steady.  He’s the obvious choice.  The default.  The expected.
2. There’s Able; she is the smartest, most productive, fast on her feet, sharp, up and comer, dedicated, the go-to person for all big projects.  Maybe a little political.  Others are jealous of her, I think.  But she’ll hit a home run if anyone can.  She doesn’t take no for an answer.  She may not be the most popular, but she is the most respected.  She is driven to succeed!
3. There’s Will; Will is pretty junior, but he’s the one who brought the opportunity to me.  Will will be successful one day.  He has potential.  He’s excited, motivated.  Will has a characteristic that I call ‘leaning forward’ – he is proactive, ready to go.  Will spotted the potential of this idea, worked it up on his own, made the recommendation, and volunteered to lead it.  He’s an up-and-comer for sure.  And he’s obviously personally committed to making the idea a reality, because it’s his.  He’s probably ready….

Do I bet on experience, ability, or desire?  Who would you pick?  Oh, yeah, clever – you’d form a team of all three, so that they could work together synergistically, learn from each other, add complementary skills together, build camaraderie, and ensure success.  I get that answer, but how about if we just assume that you have to pick one person?

(this story is purely fictional as are the players depicted herein; any similarity to reality is purely coincidental)

He said that’s about right.  He explained he was on his way to a job interview; but one of the negatives pointed out to him prior to his interview was that he had never ‘run the line’.  He had plenty of experience, but hadn’t ever been a line manager, or plant manager, or production manager.

How important is experience these days, anyway?

I live by the quote, “you can’t learn from experiences you don’t have”, for sure.  But do you have to have direct, hands-on, experience in order to be qualified for the next job?

This kind of thing happens to our agencies a lot.  Some clients want to see case studies that are exactly parallel to their businesses (‘we are interested in an agency that has managed a multi-product portfolio marketed to tween girls in specialty retail at a two dollar average price point’).  What qualifies as direct experience?  Related experience?  Qualified experience?  What do you have to do to claim to have run the line?

Work is so specialized these days that it’s hard to say you’ve done the exact thing someone else is looking for.  You can come close, but close enough for comfort?

And there’s the antithetical thinking – sometimes a totally fresh, unbiased, untainted, inexperienced approach is what’s really called for.  But when?

My fellow passenger said that he wanted to try to come across as broadly experienced, with related specific experience, and also a fresh perspective.  That sounds great, but also maybe confused.  Should he try to waffle, and say he has both – close-enough experience as well as a fresh perspective?  Or should he sell his experience, even if it isn’t exactly relevant?  Or should he sell his ingenuity, personal skill set, and enthusiasm?

In the old ‘new economy’ (I think we called it 2.0 about eight years ago), experience didn’t count for much.  Today, it seems like it’s all about experience, in order to provide reliability, reassurance, confidence.

I had a boss at P&G who believed that you got someone to about 80% readiness and then you promoted him/her – because that push, as well as that vote of confidence, helped keep the person motivated and driving forward.  I have worked for others who believe that someone needs to be 120% ready before getting promoted, so that they don’t screw up.  I can argue both sides.

Maybe the right answer is to be able to say, ‘I have run lines before, and mostly successful ones.  They aren’t identical to yours, but they are very close.  And by the way, on many of them, I made dramatic improvements by doing x, y and z.’

Expertise + Ingenuity + Motivation

What line are you running?  How’s it running?

Have a look and see if you care about either of these companies and their missions:

This makes me wonder:

- would it be better to not go full speed’?

- what is a ‘go-forward business strategy’ anyway… as opposed to a go-backward one?  Or a ’stay-in-place’ one?

- if he is going forward at full speed and the road is bumpy, doesn’t that sound dangerous?

What if, instead, he said something like, “we are stuck in the mud and have a great short-term plan to get unstuck, which will require everyone to pull together, and which I am confident we can execute flawlessly.  Then, we have a really good idea of where to take the business next, and are already laying the groundwork to do just that.  Yes, we will have some issues, but we are moving forward deliberately.  We will not be careless in how we get unstuck or in how we rebuild” or something with less bravado than his real quote?

What sounds better?  What really is better?

Is success more about perseverance (‘if at first you don’t succeed…’), or about opportunity (‘an idea whose time has come…’)?

Look at James Cameron’s move Avatar – supposedly fifteen years in development, because Cameron’s vision was ahead of technological capabilities… until now.  He persevered.

Then, Malcolm Gladwell, in his book The Outliers, says that it was almost inevitable that Bill Gates would develop Microsoft – he was born at the right time, in the right place, with the right resources – opportunity seized!

Look at the iPad – - tablet PC’s have been around for a long time; Steve Jobs has tried this idea before, and failed.  So, why is now the time for the iPad to be successful?  ($150M+ in initial sales is pretty good!)  Did Steve just persevere until he got it right?  Or is now the time that people are ready for a tablet?

President Obama is a classic example – was his election based on his hard work and perseverance, or was it that his timing was immaculate, and the opportunity was set up for him to win?

I often refer to General Eisenhower’s quote, “In planning for battle, I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable”.  And golfer Gary Player’s great quote, “the more I practice the luckier I get.”  In other words, perseverance + opportunity is the way to go.

So, in these times of turmoil and upheaval across almost every industry, would you rather have the talent of being perseverant, or the ‘luck’ of good timing?

Said another way, would you rather go up against time, or use time to your advantage?

1. innovation-based growth: clear growth strategies, new business models that support growth, internal processes that foster new ideas, and expertise in trend watching (and translation into good ideas)

2. operational improvements: getting everyone to be ‘creative’, allocating capital and resources to the best ideas, and corporate governance that encourages innovation

3. organizational alignment: compensation that incents innovation, performance metrics, and corporate culture

These three areas, a growth agenda, operational improvements, and organizational alignment, are where the best ideas come from.  They need to be actively managed and nurtured.  And they all work together to support each other.

Is this an innovative way to think about innovation?

1. caring, competent and engaging senior leaders

2. effective managers who keep employees aligned

3. teamwork at every level

4. opportunity for professional growth

5. valuing employee contributions

6. concern for employees

It begs two questions for me – - First, is this the definition of corporate culture?  And, second, how do you measure these items so that they can be improved?

http://www.amazon.com/Re-Engage-Americas-Places-Inspire-Extraordinary/dp/0071703101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271037160&sr=8-1

The goal is to grow the parish (customers) by 10%, or about 40 families.  So here’s my thinking:

- get awareness of 1000 families

- get ‘trial’ by 20% (200) over the course of the year

- get ‘conversion’ by 20% of the triers (40 families)

ok, so now how do we break this up?

- I assume that, in our city, roughly 3,000 folks will go online and search for our particular brand of religion (product), and, of those, 10% will be interested, and of those, 10% will visit (30 triers).  That’s putting a pretty big responsibility onto our SEM and website.

- I assume that WOM (PR, events, mailings etc) will reach 200 families, and, of those, 70 (35%) will come for a visit – - lower reach but higher relevance rate…

- I now have 100 triers, and so need 40% to convert in order to make the goal.

The math seems to work.

Of course, there are a lot of other variables – do we have a good product?  are we convenient?  do we have good customer service?  is it worth coming back again and again?

I don’t mean to mix religion and marketing, or to relegate my beliefs to metrics.  But it is an interesting way to decompose what we need to do in order to build an audience.  It’s probably better to think of this whole approach in terms of a restaurant or car wash….

People love Gain because it makes your clothes smell so good.  But you don’t know about this key attribute until you use the product.

Now they’re building in a scented cap so you can check it out prior to purchase. Clever!  And the copy on the website is all about smells – “every nose will love”, “we wanna nose”, “sniff, sniff, hooray”….

And the TV ad campaign uses that Acadamy Award-winning song from the 1986 Top Gun movie, “Take My Breath Away”.

So, basic product features and attributes like scent can be romanced to great heights, even today.  It’s all about a relevant feature, a key insight, and a focused marketing plan to bring the feature to life.

Relevant feature x Key insight x Romance = Success

Think what your brand could do by going back to the basics and then romancing the key attribute!

1. state the marketing problem/opportunity

2. come up with a solution

3. express it creatively

This was a very efficient approach, linear, and there were no wrong answers

(some answers were better than others, for sure)… This approach gets us coupons and discounts and such…. Hit or miss… Churn… Typical…. Expected…. But also delivered results in a less-cluttered world, with willing consumers.

Now, with all of the changes in media and consumer behavior, the better approach is:

1. state the business problem/opportunity

2. come up with a deep insight to provide unique perspective to the problem

3. brainstorm a range of possible solutions based on the insight

4. screen the ideas based on clear criteria tied back to the objective and

insight

5. select the best one and express it creatively

6. evaluate and learn and improve

This is a very effective approach, as it tries to guarantee the right/best

answer….

And, there’s an even better way:

1. really know your audience, so well you anticipate their evolving

needs/wants

2. experiment with ideas that may or may not meet their needs

3. involve them in the solving exercises

4. along the way, develop insights, theories, frameworks, hypotheses about

where they’re going

5. lay out a vision for the future

6. design the right eco-system to satisfy them

7. deliver

8. adapt

This is a very messy, hands-on approach, which requires dedication….

… But when you put a price tag on these (because marketing is now an income statement expense, not a balance sheet investment), you get something like the following (theoretically):

1. “Kinko’s” marcom production shop: 8 FTEs @ 1800 hours x $125/hour = $1.8M in agency fees to crank out ‘the work’, which is fine… feeds the beast, gets the work out on time….

2. Smarter: (5 FTEs @ 1800 hours x $150/hour to do the work) + (2 FTEs @ 1800 hours x $250/hour to explore) = $2.3M (or a +28% upcharge)… Which is indeed smarter, and more expensive than the marcom approach.

3. Brilliant: (5 FTEs @ 1800 hours x $150/hour to do the work) + (4 FTEs @ 1800 hours x $300/hour to strategize) = $3.5M (or almost +100% more expensive than the base plan)… What do you get for this approach?  Holistic and aligned thinking and execution, bigger and better ideas, output that makes an impact, a committed team, a long-term view, new ideas and areas to explore and exploit….

Which one of these three approaches would you pick if you were the marketer in charge?  Conventional for $1.8M, Smarter for $2.3M, Brilliant for $3.5M?

Finally, say this is a $50M brand, making 15% net or $7.5M in profit.

What you might see is that Option 1 delivers minimal incremental revenues, so you’re spending $1.8M (plus out of pocket etc) to prop up the business, with very little impact.  Let’s say the ROI is 1:1 (you pay a dollar and get a dollar back).  This is the plan that plugs the leaks and keeps the business from sliding, so there is a benefit.  But it doesn’t grow the business.

Option 2 delivers significant incremental revenues, increasing sales by +30% (+$17M, and +$2.5M in profit) and has a 5:1 payout on the incremental upcharge…

And Option 3 drives the business by double digits, delivering well over a 10:1 payout on the whole thing… And turns up four new big opportunities for new products, new segments, new channels….

Now which one do you pick?  Option 1 meets the budget but doesn’t drive the business.  Option 2 may be over-budget, but pays out handsomely.  And Option 3 gets you chastised for over-spending the budget, but also gets you promoted for making a huge impact.

That’s the plight/blight….  How do you decide which option to choose?  How do you ensure that Option #3 will work for you?