You’re going to like irrelevance even less

As a senior retail executive and consultant I’ve worked on more strategic growth and innovation projects than I can possibly enumerate.

Regardless of the size, industry sector or maturity stage of the company, every effort has had a common denominator: risk. And every one has had a common enemy too: fear–or, more specifically, fear of change. Fear of change is always the bogeyman to be conquered, the dragon that must be slain.

To be sure, some of my employers or clients have been better at managing change than others. Yet the fear of change is always there, sometimes lurking like a ravenous lion ready to pounce, other times it is right up in our faces, obvious for all to see. Unless conquered, progress simply doesn’t happen, innovation is stalled.

Years ago, despite what was espoused, most of these efforts were really seen as optional–as “nice to do’s.” Of course, we’d like to grow faster. Obviously we want to be seen as innovative. Naturally, more or different might be better. Yet as a practical matter, unless the initiative operated well within our comfort zone, the chances we’d actually take the plunge we’re rather small indeed.

Yet what’s different now–what matters more and more–is that change can rarely be viewed as optional. Increasingly, the status quo is a prescription for disaster. Legacy brands are being challenged by disruptive technology. Once stable customer loyalty bonds are fraying. What worked splendidly before is now merely a dim signal amidst the noise. The tried and true is anything but.

It’s becoming hard to ascribe a value or judgment to change. It is neither good, nor bad, neither easy, nor hard. It just is.

And, as a wise person once said “if you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.”

seth

In search of amplification

When you live in a cacophonous world, if you want to be something other than a dim signal amidst the noise, you need amplification.

When consumers are inundated by a tsunami of marketing messages, much of which are virtually identical, you need amplification.

When your default strategy is to lower your price, and you find yourself in a losing race to the bottom, you need amplification.

When you find yourself regressing toward the mean in almost everything you do, because it seems safer, you need amplification.

The battle for share of attention isn’t won by merely shouting louder, beating the consumer into submission or constantly bribing customers to buy from you.

It’s won by being intensely relevant and remarkable. It’s won by taking one or more aspects of what’s commonly done and distorting it to new heights. It’s won by cultivating an obsessive core of customers. It’s won by creating a story that begs to be told, again and again.

If your business plan doesn’t contain clear points of meaningful value amplification, it’s time for a re-think.

If your best customers aren’t willing to amplify your message to your most valuable prospects, something is amiss.

Creating and leveraging points of amplification isn’t easy. But being irrelevant is a whole lot tougher.

3456786_thumbnail

Dating the wrong customers 

In most industries, the smart marketer wants to cultivate long-term, enduring relationships with her customers. For most of us, the end-game, best case scenario is to create customers for life–or for at least a very long time.

Imagine if, however, in our personal lives, we had a strong desire to get married, but we only went out with people who made it clear that they had no interest in a long-term relationship.

Imagine if the person we were romantically captivated by insisted that we bribe them each time just to go grab coffee, see a movie or have dinner with us.

Imagine if their decision to go on a date with us any given Saturday night was determined by how well our offer stacked up against the competing bribes they were getting from other suitors.

Now faced with this intensely competitive and highly promotional dating market you might determine that you should go on a lot more dates to increase the odds of finding just the right guy or gal. Or you could choose to make your bribes larger. Or you could decide that, in addition to your bribes increasing, you’d add some perks or value-added features to make your dating game more unique and competitive.

By now, hopefully it’s pretty obvious that the best answer is not to endlessly spin to win the hearts of a person who fundamentally does not meet our needs, nor is there any gain in fighting a battle we can never win.

So why is it so hard to see that, all too often, we are dating the wrong customers?

Send in the clones

How’s this for an idea?

Let’s sell products that are pretty much identical to everything else that’s already out there in the market.

And then let’s employ advertising that is virtually indistinguishable from our competition.

Every week we’ll have big sales–and if you’re really crafty, you can use our coupons to save even more!

Sign-up to be on our email list and we’ll give you 10% off your next purchase. And then, just about every day, we’ll send you an email highlighting some of our me-too products while also reminding you how much you can save.

Be a good customer and we’ll throw in free shipping. Oh, you hardly ever buy from us? No worries, you get free shipping too!

We’re all omni-channel and what not, so of course we’ll have e-commerce. And our site will look like every other site. We want you to feel comfortable.

Oh, you didn’t buy just now when you were on our website? That’s cool, we’ll just keep serving up ads on Facebook and everywhere else you go on the internet. Hope you don’t mind the little interruption.

And, after we do all this and we don’t get the sales we want, we’ll just launch a “loyalty” program that–wait for it–rewards you with gift cards so you save even more!

As silly as this sounds, it’s the play book for many retailers. They continue to swim in a sea of sameness. Most often, their default mode is to compete on price because, faced with a paucity of actual difference, it’s the only thing that seems to drive sales.

Unfortunately, the fact is most categories aren’t growing faster than the rate of inflation. The fact is most consumers have more choices than they can possibly sort through and make sense of. The fact is share of attention is the new battleground. The fact is almost all price wars end badly. The fact is any real growth needs to come from stealing share.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery. And it may seem safe.

Yet the fact is it is just the opposite.

seth

All about that base?

When politicians start a campaign one of the first questions they ask is how they can appeal to the base. Mainstream candidates lock into the usual suspects for rally turnout and fund-raising. The reformers struggle for voter attention and ways to tap into the key PAC’s and the Koch’s and Soros’ of the world.

Traditional brand marketers usually start here as well. We focus on more and better ways of activating existing consumers where the investment to acquire them is sunk and where we already know that they like us and buy often. It seems like a perfectly logical place to concentrate our efforts.

Except where those cohorts are aging out of maintaining their spending. Think Sears.

Except where their needs have shifted and we are no longer their brand or store of choice. Think Barnes & Noble.

Except where a new disruptive model has come along and is doing things we can’t while gobbling up our core customers’ share of wallet. Think Warby Parker and LensCrafters.

Except where we are not replenishing defectors or downward migrators with enough new profitable customers. Think JC Penney.

Good customer analysis always starts with the base. Better customer analysis is focused on a deep understanding of the leverage and limitations inherent in our core segments and yields the insight required to know where to go next and how urgent and powerful any shifts need to be.

It’s all about that base, until it isn’t.

 

 

Omni-channel: Myths, distortions and, yeah, that’s just silly

Let me be clear: I’m pretty into all things omni-channel. Get me started talking about creating a single view of the customer, silo-busting, frictionless commerce, creating a seamless experience, etc. you might want to order a pizza. We could be here for a while.

I was named the VP of Multi-channel Integration at Sears way back in 1999. I led multi-channel initiatives and enterprise customer analytics at the Neiman Marcus Group from 2004-2008. I’ve written dozens of related posts and given numerous speeches on the topic during the last few years. I’m a believer.

Yet much of what passes as inspired strategy on the part of brands extolling their new-found “omni-ness” is, well, let’s just say it ranges between being disingenuous and outright foolhardy. And then there are the legions of analysts, pundits, consultants and software providers peddling a guaranteed path to customer-centricity nirvana. Much is hype. Some is just plain dumb. Here’s an attempt to move toward more “truthiness.”

  1. You don’t really mean “omni.” “Omni-channel” means “all” or “every” and typically refers to both channels for communications and for transactions. Do you really intend to sell on cruise ships? In airports? How about door-to-door sales? Are you going to do infomercials? I didn’t think so. What you really mean is expanding your marketing and sales channels to those essential for the acquisition, growth and retention of key consumer segments–and being really good at doing it. A rush to invest in omni-channel without an actionable segmentation–and without understanding which levers are really the most important to hone in on–is a license to lose money and waste precious time.
  2. Omni-channel customers are not your best customers. Chances are it’s the other way around. And causality matters. A lot. The customers that already trust your brand are often the early adopters of new media and new places to buy. There is a dangerous false narrative that suggests that simply by becoming omni-channel a world of new sales will open to you. As Kevin Hillstrom has pointed out, many companies that have gone omni-channel have failed to improve their business. This is usually because the brand’s core is weak and merely adding more places to research and buy does not fix the underlying issues (see Sears). The best multi-channel strategies are rooted in a deep understanding of current customer behavior–and prioritize opportunities to stem defection, address new customer acquisition barriers and build add-on sales. A sensible growth strategy has clear building blocks, not a mad rush into e-commerce or rolling-out the next bright and shiny mobile or social media application.
  3. You say you want a revolution. Yet, organizational and data silos abound. Yet, analysis of most promotions still have a single channel focus. Yet, much of your marketing remains mass, rather than personalized. The underlying move to omni-channel is about customer-centricity. As long as you hold on to traditional metrics, silo-ed organizational structures and rely on fragmented data and batch, blast and hope marketing programs, not much is really changing.
  4. Confusing necessary with sufficient. To be sure, more and more customers are becoming cross-channel shoppers and, particularly with the rapid growth of mobile devices, the distinction between e-commerce and physical retail is blurring. Certain “omni” capabilities like order online, pick up in the store are becoming base expectations. It’s hard to imagine that many retailers will survive, much less thrive, without robust integration capabilities and compelling web and mobile offerings. But far too many brands think that by adding these newish features they are doing enough. They’re not. Many of these capabilities are becoming table-stakes. In other cases, they are expensive and complicated “nice to have’s.” What you need to do to keep pace is not the same as what you need to do to become differentiated and remarkable. Confuse this at your own peril.
  5. New hybrid-models are genius. The press is eating up Warby Parker’s, Bonobos and many other e-tailers move into physical locations and raving about their productivity numbers. First, this isn’t new (see Williams-Sonoma). Second, the move into actual stores had to happen. Over 3 year ago I was sitting with the CEO of one of these companies and asked him when they would think about opening stores. He answered: “we will never have physical stores.” Now he’s on CNBC singing their praises. Did I have the gift of prophecy? Of course not; the move was totally foreseeable given the known economics and limitations of pure-play e-commerce. Lastly, what would be remarkable about these hybrid-models’ sale productivity in their initial forays into the physical realm is if they did NOT do huge numbers. Bear in mind, they have opened stores in trade areas where they already have a density of customers and are in very small locations. Comparing their initial results to more mature specialty stores is silly. Comparing them to say, the top 2 or 3 bays of Neiman Marcus’ beauty counters in the Beverly Hills, Bal Harbour and Michigan Avenue stores is more apt (hint: it would be well over $3,000/sf). I am a repeat customer of the two brands I mentioned and believe they have bright futures. But let’s be careful of false positives. There is much more of this story to play out.

Omni-channel is a nice catch phrase, and there can be no question that we are witnessing an incredible transformation in how consumers shop and how brands need to do business. The status quo is not an option, but neither is a blind rush into all things “omni.”

The future of omni-channel will not be evenly distributed. The path you choose is critical.

You know what’s hard?

Customers say they want a more seamless experience across all channels and touch-points. “Sure” you say, “but it’s very expensive and complicated to implement that level of integration.”

Silo-ed data, systems, organizations and metrics are keeping your brand from being more customer-centric and relevant. “I know” is your response, “but greater centralization would be very jarring to our culture.”

In an increasingly noisy world, mass marketing and one-size-fits-all approaches fail to gain share of attention, becoming less effective by the day. You respond, “you’re right, but treating different customers differently is difficult to scale.”

Relentless price promotions and layering of discounts and reward points deteriorate profit margins, teach customers to only buy on sale and accelerate an inevitable race to the bottom. Your defense is to say “well that’s what moves the top line” and to point out how hard it is to justify full price.

In the inevitable battle between denial, defending the status quo and rationalization vs. acceptance, leaping and innovation, we tend to choose the former. And our fate is sealed.

Many of the things we avoid as too risky are, in fact, often just the opposite. The risk is in the failure to change, in the lack of passion to become intensely relevant, in being stuck in “me too” instead of choosing to become remarkably different.

What’s hard is to move where the customer is headed after the competition has already established a beach head.

What’s hard is to break through the clutter with undifferentiated products and tired messaging.

What’s hard is to acquire, grow and retain the right customers with average products for average people.

What’s hard is to catch up when you’ve fallen behind.

Mass or built for me?

All about price, or all about unique value?

Average or remarkable?

My guess is that every brand that’s gone through the work of closing stores, firing people and liquidating inventory might have a different view of what’s hard.