Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Author: Paul Wallbank

Customer service gods
“Treat your customer service people like gods,” says online business advisor Todd Alexander.

One of the conceits of the 1980s business model was that customer service, like training and capital investment, is an expense that should be driven down at all costs.

In corporations, government departments and politics those who dealt directly with the customers, taxpayers or voters were seen to be the low level, low status employees who could be outsourced at the first possible opportunity.

That was great when markets were growing and there was an abundance of low hanging fruit to be plucked from the marketplace.

Now that customers are cash strapped and margins are falling, keeping customers happy becomes more important.

A statistic often quoted is that acquiring a new customer costs five times more than keeping an existing one, that difference may be exaggerated but it’s not far from the truth.

Those departing customers can do great damage to the business as well.

In the 1980s customers had little recourse apart from taking their business elsewhere. Often they didn’t have that choice in sectors where duopolies reign.

Now customers can vent their frustrations to the world on the web or through social media and there’s no hiding from the loss of reputation.

What’s more, many of the businesses that relied upon picking the low hanging fruit of a growing economy, high immigration or increasing consumer debt to find more customers through the last thirty years now find the rules of changed.

Customer service now matters.

Any management that considers customer service to be low status is a dinosaur and will soon be following them.

It’s a good time to be disrupting comfortable business models.

Similar posts:
May 3, 2012
The Free Myth
One of the biggest dangers to businesses is the belief that something is “free”.

As we all know, there is no such thing as a free lunch. When another business gives you something for free it’s safe to say there is a cost somewhere.

One of the speakers at the City of Sydney’s Let’s Talk Business social media event stated this when talking about social media saying “I can’t believe all businesses aren’t on Facebook – it’s free.”

Social media isn’t free. We all know the value services like Facebook are mining are the tastes, habits and opinions of their users.

For businesses, engaging heavily in Facebook or any other social media service hands over far more information about their customers to a third party than they themselves would be able to collect.

All of that information handed over to a service like Google or Facebook can come back to bite the business, particularly if a well cashed up competitor decides to advertise at the demographic the business caters to.

The core fallacy though is that these service are “free”. They aren’t.

Every single service comes with a time cost. Every social media expert advises the same thing, businesses have to post to their preferred service of choice at least three times a week and those posts should be strategically thought out.

That advice is right, but it costs time.

For a business owner, freelancer or entrepreneur time is their scarcest asset. You can always rebuild your bank account but you can never recover time.

Big businesses face the same problem, but they overcome this with money by hiring people for their time. In smaller businesses, this time comes out of the proprietor’s twenty-four crowded hours each day.

The computer and internet industries are good at giving away stuff for free, in doing so they burn investors’ money and the time of their users. The social media business model hopes to pay a return to investors by trading the data users contribute in their time.

While businesses can benefit from using social media services, they have to be careful they aren’t wasting too much of their valuable time while giving away their customers to a third party.

Often when somebody looks back on their life they say “I wish I had more time.” They’ve learned too late that asset has been wasted.

Wasting that unreplaceable asset on building someone else’s database would be a tragedy.

Similar posts:
May 2, 2012
Bubble values
The argument continues about Facebook’s purchase of photo sharing site Instagram.

One side claims a billion dollars for a business with barely any revenue and 13 employees is clear evidence of a bubble while the other side say its a strategic purchase that is only 1% of Facebook’s estimated $100 billion market value.

The latter argument is deeply flawed, comparing the purchase price against the value of other assets is always risky – particularly in a market where those underlying assets are being valued at the same inflated rates.

We could think of it in terms of a Dutch farmer in early 1637 claiming that paying a thousand Florins for a tulip is fine when he has a warehouse containing hundreds of them.

In reality, that farmer during the Dutch Tulip mania of the 17th Century held contracts for delivery; just as modern day investors held Collateral Debt Obligations.

Measuring value against other inflated assets is always dangerous and only fuels a bubble.

A much more concerning way of judging the wisdom of Facebook’s investment is against profit and revenue.

If we compare the purchase of Instagram against Facebook’s revenue, then the investment has cost them three months income.

Should we compare the acquisition against profit, Instagram has cost Facebook five years of profit at current rates.

Both of those numbers are very high and it indicates how big a gamble the Instagram acquisition is for Facebook.

It can be argued there is a lot of blue sky ahead for Facebook and that future profits and revenues will justify the Instagram purchase.

There’s also a very compelling argument that Facebook has to get into mobile services and Instagram does that.

Whether Instagram is worth three months income or five years profit to Facebook remains to be seen, but we should have no doubt it indicates we are well into Tech Boom 2.0.

Similar posts:
May 1, 2012
Sport’s big problem
One of the great successes of the Twentieth Century was professional sport.

As television – first free to air TV then subscription pay networks – developed through the 1960s to 90s, the owners and executives found professional sport delivered viewers and advertisers.

Having a sports portfolio was essential for a successful TV network, the leagues knew this and rights fees ratcheted up with every new contract.

The process reached its peak in the 1990s as Rupert Murdoch built his pay TV empires in North America, Europe and Australia.

During the 1980s and 90s we saw News Corporation buy up rights across the world, even founding new competitions like Premier League Soccer in the UK, Super Rugby League in Australia and the UK along with the multinational Super Rugby that allowed Rugby Union to become an openly professional sport.

Any organisation that finds itself sitting on a cash mountain sees its costs accelerate and the sports organisations are no different. The cost of fielding of professional sports teams has soared with huge player salaries supported by armies of assistant coaches, middle managers and specialist assistants.

Broadcasting rights were supplemented by corporate hospitality and sponsorship arrangements, all of which increased exponentially over the last thirty years.

The big problem for professional sport sector is all of these revenue streams are affected by the deleveraging economy. Even more concerning for them is the precarious financial position of many of the media companies who bidded rights up during the 1990s.

News Corporation’s mission of dominating TV markets by buying up sport rights is largely accomplished and the empire is fading along with its founder.

When Rupert Murdoch goes, so too will the world’s biggest driver of sports broadcasting rights. There doesn’t seem to many other broadcasters with the ability to pay the extravagant bills of professional sports teams.

There’s no doubt broadcast rights for sports will remain lucrative, albeit no longer growing, so clubs and competitions with business plans based on big increases of rights payments are going to struggle.

As a consequence, sports organisations are going to become more aggressive in finding revenue streams and we can expect to see them bullying photographers, monstering people uploading clips to YouTube and ejecting those with the temerity to bring their own sandwiches into the few cheap seats remaining.

The problem for sports is their value lies in their engagement with mass culture. If they isolate themselves from the people and society then they’ll find themselves becoming irrelevant.

Like many of the media companies that are now struggling.

Despite the pleas of sports administrators and their tame journalist friends, this doesn’t mean junior sport or the codes themselves will die. Grass roots sport will survive without a layer of obscenely paid professional players and managers suffocating the games.

As business rules are re-written in the 21^st Century, all industries are going to have to adapt. Professional sport is no different.

Similar posts:
- No Related Posts
April 30, 2012
Is the Paperless Office promise about to come true?
For as long as personal computers have been around the paperless office one of the holy grails of the IT industry.

Paper is messy, difficult to file or store and cruel to the environment. So being able to move and save information electronically made sense.

Despite the promises of the last twenty years, the quest for the paperless office seemed lost.

While the networked PC gave us the ability to get rid of paper, its advanced word processing functions and graphic capabilities along with the data explosion of email tempted us into generating more paper.

To compound the problem, over the last thirty years paper manufacturers found cheaper ways to make their product which meant the price of paper dropped dramatically just as we found more ways to use it.

So rather than delivering on the promise of eliminating paper, computers generated more than ever before.

Just as it seemed all was lost in IT’s War On Paper, the tablet computer came along. Coupled with cloud computing services and accessible fast wireless Internet, suddenly it appears we might just be on the verge on delivering on those promises of the last twenty years.

At a suburban football game I saw this first hand as I watched the ground officials electronically filing match information with their league.

“This used to be a pile of paperwork that used to take until Tuesday to be filed and collated” the ground manager told me, “today it’s done within half an hour of the game ending with almost no paper involved.”

For amateur sports clubs, money isn’t so much the problem as time. There simply are never enough volunteers to meet the workload of getting a team on field.

This is true with almost any community based organisation – from volunteer firefighters to community kindergartens organisers struggle with rosters and finding helpers.

In business the same resource constraints exist except we know we can fix these problems by paying a worker to do it. The problem there is few businesses have unlimited funds to employ filing clerks and form fillers to handle the paperwork.

By killing paper in the office, we’re making business and the economy more efficient. We’re about to deliver on that promise.

Bill Gates once wrote that in the short term we overpromise what technology can deliver while in the long term we underestimate its effects.

This is true of the paperless office – now that promise is being delivered the effects on business and government will be profound.

Is your business prepared for these changes?

Similar posts:
April 29, 2012