Posts Tagged ‘product management’

P&G’s strategic review of brands isn’t really strategic

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

The Wall Street Journal today reported that Procter & Gamble’s new CEO, Robert McDonald, had put a number of brands on notice that they had to improve results or risk being sold off.

Many of the brands reviewed, such as Duracell, IAMS and Braun electric appliances, “have long been considered extraneous to P&G’s focus on beauty, health and nonfood household staples,” according to the Journal.

If that’s the case, why is McDonald threatening to sell the brands if they don’t improve results? Why isn’t he just going ahead and selling the brands?

“This business segment is extraneous to our focus, but if it is profitable enough we will keep it,” is not a strategy. It is an anti-strategy. And I would doubt, given the many strategic threats that McDonald is facing, coaxing incremental improvements out of Duracell or IAMS is a place he should be spending any of his management time.

We have an innovation problem, and it is miles and miles of indistinguishable stuff

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Video 6 0 00 09-27I learned today that Axe Body Spray for Men is running an ad in Uruguay where readers sending an SMS to their address receive on their phone the missing bits of a picture of a beautiful woman. (Those bits are clothed, BTW.)

This tells me there’s nothing about Axe the product that is distinctive, and the ad, despite being fun and engaging (especially for teenaged and 20-something males), won’t do much to make people select Axe over one of the thirty other male scent products out there.Video 6 0 00 17-27

I started thinking about this after listening to Jonathan Salem Baskin’s neat Listrak webinar last week, entitled, “Marketing Ideas for the First Post-Brand Decade.” Baskin did a nice job of showing that while customers and markets have moved beyond the days of “Mad Men” – where a well-crafted, creative advertisement could influence us to buy the latest dish detergent or safety razor – marketers, by and large, have not. Even “social media marketing,” like, say, the Axe campaign, is taking the same old ideas and porting them to new technology.Video 6 0 00 22-12Video 6 0 00 26-07 Houston, we have a problem. Marketers are pushing the same old buttons to sell more variations of the same old products. It’s a negative-sum game. Variations increase cost without enlarging the overall market. Redundancy pushes down prices, invites private label competitors and overloads consumers’ minds.

Clearly, we’ve got to do something different. Marketing needs to pull back from its focus on distribution, packaging, and communication, and refocus on helping create great new products, that deliver distinctive value and make people’s lives better. Then it will be easy to communicate that to prospective customers.

Gary Hamel writes in “The Future of Management” that product & service innovation are near the bottom of the innovation hierarchy, and the pinnacle is “management innovation.” To Hamel, products are easily duplicated, quickly eliminating their added value. But as Roberto Verganti pointed out in “Design-Driven Innovation,” companies that create truly visionary products enjoy long periods of competitive advantage and profits.

Life is too difficult for many and too complex for everyone else. Everyone would like to have more fun. Therefore, there’s lots of need for products & services that allow us to manage our lives better or have diverting or engrossing experiences.

I’ve been reading “Change by Design,” by Tim Brown, and he asserts that companies need to adopt “design thinking” to create great new products and services. I can’t disagree with him, but also feel that design thinking is not that different from what great product managers and developers have been doing and should be doing. So, if your new-product group wants to hand over the reins to design thinkers, that’s their prerogative. For me, that’s the fun part of the job and I’d rather not outsource that.

Related posts:
On “The Future of Management”
On “Design-Driven Innovation”

The delight in using an innovation you had a hand in creating

Monday, August 24th, 2009

I am posting this from my laptop, about 30,000 feet in the air, somewhere over Virginia, I’m guessing. And it’s a thrill. Not only because it’s novel to have WiFi access in the air – I have a personal connection to this service.

Roberto Verganti mentioned in our podcast (to be posted tomorrow) that many CEOs of highly innovative companies have a personal pride in their products. They announce them and are personally invested in their success. If they fail, the CEO takes responsibility.

Of course, this kind of pride isn’t limited to CEOs (Prof. Verganti might observe that CEOs are sometimes less proud of their products than other employees). In fact, people who don’t even work for the company may feel connected to the product and share this pride.

And one illustration of it is the delight you get when you realize the product is being used by real people. In fact, this feeling may be the biggest rush in innovation. I remember, years and years ago, creating requirements for a tiny new component of an outside plant management system for GTE. I worked on it for a few months, then moved to a new assignment at the company and promptly forgot about it. A couple of years later, I ran into one of my co-workers from that project at a meeting. He told me that my module had been part of a release that was now in widespread use throughout the company. I was walking on air for a few hours after that.

The product I’m using now is called Gogo Inflight from a company called Aircell. I spent the better part of a year and a half consulting for the company that developed and now runs the ordering/billing/customer management system, Martin Dawes Systems. My work was way behind the curtain – negotiating with the company that hosts the servers, arranging hardware purchase and delivery, liaising between Aircell’s operations team and Martin Dawes’. Yet I’m no less proud of the end product than if my picture were on the Gogo home page.

It’s a bit of a miracle, actually, WiFi in the air. And though my work on the project was more blocking and tackling than anything else, I feel as if I own a tiny part of that miracle.

Desperately needed: a killer front-end to integrate all online comms channels

Monday, July 13th, 2009

I got into a neat discussion with one of the users I interviewed for the Listrak customer research project a few months ago. Her company does a lot of email marketing, but in addition they have a Facebook fan page and a Twitter account. As a result, their communication channels have multiplied, and now they have to manage customer communications over several corporate (and customer) identities.

What’s true with companies is also true with us plain old people. I have messages coming from Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Blip.fm, Friendfeed, Plaxo, Skype, Meetup, Ning (4 groups) and, oh yes, email (4 accounts). If I want to respond, I by and large need to use whichever app the message came in on. This means a dozen separate communications channels… and no way to integrate my dialogues with one friend over all these channels.

So, a user’s plea. Who can create a unified client that can integrate these channels into one stream, where the same person’s email, Facebook messages, Tweets, etc., are collected together, where I can respond and the app can translate the message into whichever protocol is needed? [Some candidates I can think of: EmailcenterPro, CoTweet, TweetDeck - each of these companies is solving a part of this problem.]

(Just imagine how valuable that would be to a company trying to converse with its customers, such as the Listrak user I talked to?)

“Customer Insight From The Ground Up” webinar now archived

Friday, July 10th, 2009

If you regret missing the webinar I did last week, “Customer Insight From The Ground Up” (and I know you do), you’ll be happy to know it’s been archived. The webinar covers the customer story-gathering and sensemaking approaches discussed frequently on this blog. You can listen to the webinar, as well as download slides & notes, from Listrak’s site here.

Customers are talking: Dell acts on Twitter product feedback

Friday, June 12th, 2009

I was interested in this post from the NY Times Bits blog: “Dell Says It Has Earned $3 Million From Twitter.” Selling, after all, is one of the Five Archetypal Business Twitter Strategies.

But I was even more interested when I read this part of the post, almost a throwaway near the end:

Dell heard on Twitter that customers thought the apostrophe and return keys were too close together on the Dell Mini 9 laptop and fixed the problem on the Dell Mini 10. Now, the Dell Mini product development team is asking around on Twitter for new ideas for the next generation of the computer.

This is important, and it’s timely because it comes when Twitter users are coming under a lot of criticism for their, say, shallowness (examples here and here and here).

To 99.999% of people, someone complaining about the apostrophe and return keys on the Dell Mini 9 is worthless trivia. For Dell, that trivia–which is easy to find among the millions of Tweets posted daily–is extremely important. If it coalesces into a pattern, Dell engineers have something to use, besides gut feel or experience, to guide their product development decisions.

The very nature of Twitter (its simplicity, brevity and noisiness) is what frees people to post “trivia” like “Dell Inspiron Mini 9 keyboard is a little tight.” It takes a few seconds to get something like that off your chest–comments that, before Twitter, were not worth speaking in public. Now they are.

For companies like Dell, who listen to and act on these utterances, that is a big asset. For people who complain about Twitter’s shallowness, you are free to tune out.

An innovation hero exits

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

I was surprised to read about P&G replacing AG Lafley as CEO with current COO Robert McDonald. The WSJ article was not explicit as to the reasons, but it appeared that the timing had been accelerated from a planned transition to occur later, perhaps due to lower-than-expected results P&G was expected to announce.

Lafley is one of the few star CEOs this decade who seemed to deserve the status. Remember P&G 10 years ago? Durk Jager was CEO. Lafley led the company through the acquisition of Gillette, an aggressive move into cosmetics, and innumerable product innovations (SpinBrush, Febreze, etc., etc.), and successfully competing with a wave of private-label competitors.

Lafley was perhaps the pre-eminent innovation CEO of his era–focused on the customer and the job she was trying to do, open to collaboration and ideas from the outside, committed to growing in emerging markets.

There are horses for courses, and perhaps the board felt that McDonald was better to lead the company through the tough times ahead. But Lafley’s contributions shouldn’t be forgotten. I, for one, am interested to see what he decides to do next. And if I was on the board of a consumer packaged goods company, I might want to give him a call.

Previous posts about AG Lafley:
Innovation: doing it all yourself is so twentieth-century
Complex business problems need diagnosis, not packaged solutions
The first great business book of 2008
“The consumer is boss”
“Sesame Street simple” – communication with a story

Customers are talking: more Blackberry Storm stories

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

A few months ago, I gathered tweets and evaluated them to see what people thought of the Storm, the iPhone imitation from Blackberry. David Pogue of the New York Times had panned the device in his review, yet I found that the stories told on Twitter weren’t so bad.

Then today I found this entry on the Crackberry blog (via FierceWireless), a Blackberry users’ site unaffiliated with the company. The entry posted (then took down) preview pictures of the planned Storm II.

What’s left, even though the pictures are gone, are the comments. And in this set of comments, you’ll get a very interesting, 360 degree picture of what Storm users (and Blackberry fans) think of the device.

Some examples:

looks like the same crappy device that the first storm was in my opinion.. i am neither impressed

They need to offer those of us who put up with this laggy sub-optimal device so that their 4th QTR 08 and 1st QTR 09 numbers could get a boost a DEEP trade in discount.

I’m on my 4th storm because my screen keeps sticking

I like the clickable screen on places like the browser where you have to select something on the screen like a link. Not so much for typing. Say, what you will, it may be slower and the browser may not be as pretty, but browsing is a heck of a lot easier on the Storm than the Iphone because of it.

What?!? When I’m on break at work, I actually use my friend’s iPhone because it’s 10 times faster than my Storm.

(You can even treat yourself, partway down in the comments, to an impromptu discussion of the latest episode of “Lost”–part of the beauty of the open forum!)

Related posts:
The Blackberry Storm/Twitter project
“Lost” as a metaphor for the dysfunctional company

Customers are talking: the weird, alchemic process of distilling insight from stories

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

Book clubs are big these days. A group of folks read the same book, then get together and discuss it, accompanied by refreshments (often of the wine & cheese variety).

Besides the social aspects of the book club, there’s something powerful about a group of different people, who’ve read the same story, discussing and deciding what it’s about.

When I try to describe to folks the work I do helping companies gather, find patterns and put to use stories their customers tell, I say that the “discussing and deciding what it’s about” is the secret sauce of the whole process. It’s the part that can’t be automated or left to algorithms to decipher–it requires a diverse group that shares key experiences to root their assessments in common ground.

You can find and collect stories by hand, by computer or by applying algorithms to data sources. (The pluses and minuses of each technique are best left to another post.) But I haven’t figured out a way to computerize the weird alchemy that allows a group of colleagues to distill 100 stories into 10 deep insights in 4 hours, and I’m fairly convinced there may never be a way to automate it.

The mechanics of the process are mundane, at least the way I’ve practiced it. I spread the stories, printed one to a page, around a conference table. Graphs that show the correlation of certain story attributes (the graphs are also stories) are arrayed on the wall. People immerse themselves in the stories. Perhaps they are sales calls. Or complaints. The people read slowly at first, tentatively. Then one person writes something they noticed on a sticky note. Then something else on another. Soon everyone is writing.

They may share thoughts while this happens. I scramble around the room collecting stickies and plastering them to an empty wall. Eventually the pace of writing stickies slows. It’s like cooking microwave popcorn. When the frequency of popping slows down, it’s done.

They cluster the stickies, finding relationships. Then they name the clusters–those are insights. Perhaps they go through another round of clustering and naming, if they have time and energy.

Then we talk. There are 8-10 clusters that stand out. They may be issues their customers are facing–which present opportunities and threats for the company’s products. They may be values the customers hold–which are key to marketing and positioning the company. They’re always interesting, usually surprising, and often unveil conflicting or contradictory views. For instance, a very strong attribute the company or product has often is highly valued by one constituency but viewed negatively by another.

It’s an amazing process to watch, to see a group of people take the same material, view it from different angles, reconcile their assessments, and come up with “the truth” as they see it.

It’s a lot like a book club, without the wine and cheese.

UPDATE, 6 May: Per Stephane Dangel’s comment below, here is a fictional example of a story told by a graph:

This chart tells a story, don’t you think? It’s a crosstabs chart comparing people who bought a product over the phone versus those who didn’t, under two scenarios. In one, the sales representative used established best practices; in the other, he/she didn’t.

I get two themes from this “story.” One, when reps use best practice, more sales are made. Two, best practice is not frequently used.

Both are valuable insights for a company seeking to improve its telesales. The first is probably no surprise (though it’s possible to imagine a situation where using best practice would make no difference in closing sales–that would be a surprise!). The second theme is probably surprising under any circumstance!

Related post:
Another kind of value proposition

[If you're interested, the new version of Cynthia Kurtz's "Working With Stories" e-book contains a case study I did on my first story project. Check it out here.]

Facebook, smacked down again, invites customer input

Friday, February 27th, 2009

Facebook always does the right thing by their customers… once their customers have beaten them up for a wrong first step. A year and a half ago they stirred up the wrath of their community by proposing an ad-targeting system leveraging its users’ profile data, then backed down.

Now they’ve done it again. Facebook changed their terms of service, igniting another storm of outrage on blogs, Twitter and, yes, Facebook. They relented, returning to their prior terms of service, and yesterday announced that they will be seeking user input on community questions such as terms of service, and be more transparent, including this statement:

Transparent Process: “Facebook should publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations. Facebook should have a town hall process of notice and comment and a system of voting to encourage input and discourse on amendments to these Principles or to the Rights and Responsibilities.”

It’s easy to make fun of Facebook for their public embarrassments, but they do get the message their users are sending. Furthermore, they are pioneers in engaging with their users. There is no template they can follow. Facebook’s users, because they give personal and sensitive information to the service, is very sensitive to its use, and the web2.0 nature of Facebook means that its users are comfortable using web2.0 means to communicate. Quiet they are not.

It will be fascinating to see how more traditional companies deal with assertive user bases. As consumers find their voices on line (and efforts like VRM give users powerful tools to manage and communicate with their vendors), we’ll be reading more stories like this one. Will other companies learn from Facebook’s painful lessons?

Related post:
Zuckerberg learns