Category: business advice

  • The listening business

    The listening business

    Some years back a crook computer repairer did the rounds of Sydney and regional NSW. For all his sins Joe, as we’ll call him, always stood out as an example of a business that effectively listened to the customer.

    Joe would advertise in local papers and you could spot his ads by the line “all our technicians are qualified computer programmers”, which is a nonsense slogan like a landscape gardener claiming all her labourers are civil engineering graduates, but it was an effective catchphrase in a market that didn’t know better.

    After a while the local community would start wise up to Joe and his “computer programmers” and when the complaints and fair trading investigations mounted, he’d change his business name, move to another suburb or town and the cycle would start again.

    I was reminded of Joe at the City of Sydney’s discussion on the connected consumer at the latest Lets Talk Business seminar last week and wondered how he’d survive in today’s markets where people are quick to go online and criticize.

    Dealing with criticism has always been big businesses’ Achilles heel; bureaucracies have a tendency to protect themselves and when there’s managerial or team bonuses at stake there’s strong incentive to ignore the concerns of customers.

    A good example of this Vodafone where the chief executive, Nigel Dews, has been open in admitting the company failed to listen to their customers as their network failed to meet the demands placed upon it.

    While the network itself was buckling under the strain, the company spent millions on sponsorship and advertising effectively trying to drown the criticism under a wave of tightly controlled good news stories, promotions and competitions.

    It didn’t work, just as Facebook’s PR agency Burson-Marsteller failed dismally in planting an anti-Google story, which saw the two organisations not only busted but also descend into an unseemly argument with their client while frantically deleting Facebook posts.

    All of these actions – deleting social media comments, ignoring customer complaints and attempting to distract critics with pictures of pretty girls and racing cars – smack of the old way of doing business in an era where tightly controlled mass media was the only channel complaints could be heard. Those times ended with the arrival of the Internet.

    At the Lets Talk Business event one of the panellists, Jody Fox of Sydney’s Shoes of Prey described how her business is engaging with customers online and discussing any concerns openly on the Facebook page, not deleting them.

    This is the new reality of business, if you don’t listen and engage with upset clients or ­– even worse – try to control their comments on your sites, you’ll only get them angrier and they’ll go elsewhere to tell their stories.

    Another striking difference between the new and old business was Jody’s point was that shoes of Prey treats customer service as a marketing expense, not a separate cost centre. In most large organisations helping paying customers is treated as an unnecessary expense that should be outsourced and minimised as much as possible.

    This sort of works when you have a licensed oligopoly like telecoms or banks but fails dismally in competitive industries. Without purchasers there are no shareholder returns and eventually no executive bonuses.

    Ignoring customers worked nicely in the era of mass media when it was difficult for upset clients to be heard above an expensive marketing campaign; Vodafone, Burson-Marsteller and even governments are finding it doesn’t work today.

    Joe the computer technician would have understood this, if he’s still doing dodgy IT support then he’ll be watching the Facebook pages, Twitter feeds and blogs for bad news.

    Somehow though I suspect he’s no longer in computer repairs though, my guess he’s making a lot more money in social media or search engine optimisation these days.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Too old to surf?

    Too old to surf?

    “For those of us aged over forty, we don’t use the web. And neither do our customers!”

    An audience member threw this statement to the panel at last night’s Let’s Talk Business seminar discussing The New Consumer. One of the panel members, Adam Ferrier of Naked Communications, replied flatly; “you’re wrong”.

    That business owner assumed her own likes, priorities and experience are shared by her customers. This isn’t always true, what we think is true about our clients and markets often proves not to be the case.

    Just because you don’t have time to surf the web, use social media or play online games doesn’t mean your clients aren’t using these tools.

    Assuming that the internet is for young folk means your business focus is on older people who don’t use the net – which is probably the fastest declining segment in our society as seniors move online.

    The US based Pew Internet Survey’s Generations Online in 2010 Report reported older user were rapidly increasing their net use while in Australia the 2010 Sensis ebusiness report came to the same findings saying;

    “The groups most likely to report below average usage were those aged 65 and above and retirees. For those Australians 65 years and above only 66 per cent reported accessing the internet in the past 12 months. However, usage in this age group has increased by six percentage points over the past year.” – p. 17 Sensis e-business report.

    Six percentage points to 66% represents 10% growth in the over 65 age group. At that rate we’ll see the seniors reaching the 97 to 98% levels of Internet usage sometime in 2013 and the 50-64 year age group will be there next year.

    Restricting your business to an 8%  slice of the market  – which will soon be 3% – is up to you, it may well be that is where your customers are. But it’s a big risk and one you wouldn’t want to make on some blind assumptions.

    Many of us may be too old to surf the point at North Narrabeen, but we’re all using the web and older users are the fastest growing group. Rather than assuming your customers aren’t going online, it’s time to ask them what they are doing with their computers.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • The benefits of mentoring

    The benefits of mentoring

    When I was asked at the beginning of the year if I’d be a mentor on a Young Entrepreneur Program it was a tough decision, I was writing a book and launching a new business myself. As it turned out, it was a good decision as it challenged my assumptions about the economy and industry.

    A striking thing about the mentoring program was the diversity of the participants, everything from olive merchants and flower shops to chiropractors and shirtmakers with a fair few web and IT people thrown in.

    Notable were that half those being mentored were in the manufacturing and clothing industries, two sectors that I assumed were well and truly dead and buried in an Australian economy focused on seeking easy capital gains underpinned by mining royalties.

    My assumption was wrong; many people want to make and sell things despite the odds working against Australian manufacturers. As well as a shirtmaker, the course also included fashion designers and a manufacturer of rope sandals.

    The rope sandal man personified one of the most valuable business skills of an entrepreneur; don’t get stuck with assumptions. Business life is a continuing journey and if you get stuck working within the stricture of one set of assumptions, your business will at best stagnate or be hit by the forces of change that are destroying many industries built on what seemed to be rock solid assumptions.

    Of course many assumptions are flawed; we can call that “The Unknown Unknown Problem”. When we start a business there are a whole set of unknown factors, some of which we know about and others which are totally unexpected.

    Identifying “unknown unknowns” is probably the best benefit an adviser can bring to the mentoring relationship. The more inexperienced we are, the more likely it is that we don’t know what we don’t know. As one of the experienced mentors put it, “the longer I’m in business, the more I realise how much I don’t know.”

    Another of my assumptions that was shot down during the program was the internet-savviness of younger entrepreneurs. Many of their assumptions were that net wouldn’t do much for them.

    For instance the custom car parts seller believed, incorrectly, that most of his customers aren’t on the web or interested in tools like Facebook when the reality is that niche products are exactly what the web does well.

    A similar belief was with the shop fitting design business, that the web is a threat to her business. The reality is the opposite, as innovating retailers need to improve their store designs to improve the physical shopping experience that presents wonderful opportunities for clever designers.

    One assumption I’ve never bought into is about the work ethics of the much maligned Generation Y, believing those whining about lazy twenty somethings are just intellectually lazy and grumpy old baby boomers and Gen Xers. This was bourn out by the course as the younger entrepreneurs showed they weren’t shy of putting in the hard work required to succeed in your own business.

    Demolishing assumptions about things – like the Internet’s effect on business, the work ethics of Generation-Y and the refusal of Australia’s manufacturing and clothing sectors to die – was the most valuable thing this course delivered for everyone involved.

    Assumptions kill our creative thinking, the very asset we need in society like ours that’s going through massive technological change, not to mention an economy that still has many “unknown unknowns”.

    Challenge your own assumptions, you might be surprised at the results.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Glittering distractions

    Glittering distractions

    Into an already crowded group buying market, Google Offers and Facebook Deals have launched. It’s tempting to think the power of both will swamp existing players like Groupon and Living Social, but will the search engine and social media giants eventually dominate the group buying market.

    There’s a number of barriers to success in the group buying industry; securing a steady supply of compelling offers, generating a community of followers, building a sales team and dealing with customer service issues are just a few. For both Facebook and Google these obstacles are not just a matter of money or scale.

    The power of Google

    Google’s clear strength lies with its local search functions. Google Places is an excellent fit for group buying services, a point not lost on many of the existing players who use Google Maps and the local business service to support their offers. Merchants can already use the free vouchers feature in Google Places and proactive businesses are already doing this.

    Leveraging their existing voucher features into paid group buying services should be one of the easier tasks for Google Offers’ management. Search itself is a powerful tool for merchants offering group buying services, I might not be interested in dog washing or personal training services in my neighborhood, but if I’m online searching for a holiday a group buying offer for discount meals or car hire in Miami may well attract me.

    Facebook’s power

    Adding social media to group buying is a pretty powerful combination and one that many of the early services leveraged extremely well, so Facebook’s entry into group buying should worry the existing platforms. Being able to segregate deals by geography, demographics, friends and likes is another example of how powerfully Facebook’s advertising can be targeted.

    Merchants who use the Facebook service can be pretty confident their ads will hit the right audience rather than being blasted across a mailing list of indifferent subscribers. Coupled with this is the use of Facebook credits. While Facebook aren’t going to make them directly redeemable for gift vouchers or cash at this stage, they still add to a compelling package Facebook can offer both advertisers and customers.

    The customer service dilemma

    One thing that makes a group buying service successful is the delivery of well timed, compelling deals. This means a hands-on sales and support team. Like most web2.0 businesses, both Facebook and Google aren’t particularly good at face-to-face, or phone-to-phone interactions with customers.

    A challenge for both companies will be to attract management talent that can run the sales teams necessary to provide attractive daily deals while dealing with the inevitable consumer service tasks that come with selling direct to the public.

    Channel conflict

    Facebook and Adwords advertising have been big lead generators for the existing social media platforms and it’s going to be a challenge for both companies in managing the conflicts which will appear between their advertising and group buying platforms.

    Those advertising channels are both organisations’ primary source of revenue, so these are going to take priority over other initiatives. Both services’ group buying operations may interfere with their advertising revenue by discouraging or competing with paying advertisers and this will be a major challenge for both Facebook and Google to manage.

    Are we over group buying?

    That effort to find compelling deals is a problem for all group buying services and we’re seeing the saturation problem with many of the providers as they struggle to find compelling daily deals in all of their markets.

    Being late to the markets means both Google and Facebook are going to face exhausted buyers and merchants who been saturated by the dozens of services that have appeared in the last twelve months.How many consumers and businesses are prepared to sign up to YAGS (Yet Another Group buying Service)?

    There’s also the issue that group buying might be a passing fad; many of the merchants advertising on these services are service businesses grimly hanging onto failing business models built on the late 20th Century idea of unlimited credit driven consumer demand.

    Many of their customers too are cash strapped consumers shopping around for cheaper deals – a discount haircut here, a cut-price meal there – as a way to maintain the lifestyles that are becoming unaffordable in an economy where jobs aren’t as secure, credit isn’t as easy and retirement savings looking uncertain.

    As it becomes apparent to both consumers and merchants that most of the group buying services aren’t meeting their needs then the demand for these service is going to drop away.

    That’s not to say group buying is a dead model, but it appears the market is overheated with way too many suppliers.

    Having deep pockets may well turn out to be why Google and Facebook end up being the sole survivors from the inevitable group buying shakeout, but it doesn’t mean they’ll actually be the best players, or they’ll make any money from it.

    Given how late both Facebook and Google are to this market it’s hard not to think they are repeating the mistakes of previous market incumbents in other sectors of ignoring a market until becomes a shiny trinket which every dynamic corporation should have a presence in.

    In that respect it’s a bit sad that relatively young corporations like Facebook and Google are overlooking genuine innovation and using their skilled teams to build me-too products rather than finding and building new markets. Hopefully the time taken to build their group buying services won’t distract these companies from their core businesses.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Trust is the currency of the web

    Trust is the currency of the web

    On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” says Peter Steiner’s famous cartoon. All of us who want to be taken seriously on the web have to prove we’re not dogs – or trolls, shills or just those who regurgitate cheap, nasty and unreliable content.

    This is particularly true when you want to be a trusted news source; your audience has to be assured an article’s facts are true and the conclusions can be relied upon. That assurance is found in references to source material, the writer’s identity and the basic facts for the reader to decide how accurate the story is.

    An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Voice over IP security illustrates just how even mainstream, established media can get things wrong. This article tells us nothing; we don’t know who the writer is, it doesn’t link to source material and, unforgivably, the story leaves it to the reader to guess what the security problem was.

    Because of Fairfax’s silly and inconsistent rules on external links I normally don’t link to Fairfax news articles. A good example of this silliness is illustrated in the above article where the reader has to copy and paste into a web browser the bit.ly reference to MyNetFone’s security advice which the writer has managed to sneak into the copy.

    It would be nice to congratulate the writer on this little bit of subterfuge but the article doesn’t have a byline, the credit at the bottom simply says “Livewire” which probably refers to the long defunct IT section of The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald’s sister publication.

    That the article also refers to Bleeding Edge, a long running Age technology column by Charles Wright which was discontinued some time in early 2006 and which Charles later tried to morph Bleeding Edge into an independent blog. It’s not good enough that we have to guess who the writer is.

    Having a semi-anonymous writer, no byline and no links to supporting information might be all forgivable if the article actually told us what the problem had been with the phone account; did the evil Hong Based criminal mastermind hack the providers’ network, was it a security lapse on the writer’s network or had the user’s password been weak and compromised?

    I suspect it’s the latter, but like most things about this article the reader is forced to guess. If the reader doesn’t have some level of computer expertise they’d be totally lost.

    For organisations like Fairfax, the publishers of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, the challenge in a society where the traditional newspaper model is rapidly dying is to build their online brand so they can bring advertisers across to it.

    The only way they will succeed in this difficult task is to be trusted as a source of reliable information, and right now poor editing coupled with silly policies such as the one on linking out to other trusted sites are damaging readers’ trust in their brand.

    Rather than sacking editors, publishers should be preserving them and making their online content more trustworthy than the bulk of the web with its dozens of content farms and millions of inconsistent blogs (like this one).

    It’s only by having high standards that today’s media empires will survive the changes the Internet has bought, going cheap and losing the trust and respect of the audience is not an option.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts