The Economist on the collaboration curse

manThe Economist this week featured an interesting article in its Schumpeter column on the often hidden problems of the emphasis on collaboration throughout business and its impact on productivity, creativity and original thought.

As a fan of collaboration in general, I was pleased and amused to read a lovely summary of the downsides it creates when it receives unthinking endorsement and emphasis.

It captures very well the potential issues that it creates and the tendency to see the benefits but fail to read the costs. It highlights our inability to really multitask (something that I have always noticed when walking behind someone on their mobile phone in the London streets!), the already well-understood costs of disruption and the mental set-up/set-down time that serious concentration exacts. All of which make collaboration great…up to a point.

A great short poke at over-emphasis on one feature at the expense of others!


Half-price goats and propositions

Screen Shot 2016-01-06 at 14.00.41

Just before Christmas I opened my inbox and was disturbed to see this intriguing offer from Oxfam.

It was part of a drive to boost sales of Oxfam gift cards. These are cards that you give to someone to explain that as a present to them you have given a gift to a needy person in the developing world, in this case – a goat.

Why did this make me stop and think (and then decide to blog about it)?

…because I felt that it broke a cardinal aspect of good marketing: all brand messages should always act in accordance with their proposition.

Emotionally this offer clashed with my understanding of the proposition – the reasons that I had bought the cards before.




My problem…

I found myself facing a series of interlinked challenges:

  • If I am giving a gift to someone that is simply a gift to a third person why would I want to halve the cost of the gift so that I save money? It undermines the value of the gift to me which is the gift to the charity.
  • How does this help the person for whom the gift is intended. Surely a goat costs an amount of money and half that amount therefore only buys half a goat…so it is worth only half as much as a whole one?!
  • How does this help Oxfam? If I want to buy goats for people at Christmas and they halve the cost of a goat, then, as I do not have more people to whom I want to give goats, surely the offer simply raises half as much money.

Even when I read the details more closely and realised that they had another donor who would pay for the ‘other half’ of the goat I was still suffering a real sense that this was a breach of the whole idea of giving a gift that is a donation to a third party. I felt that it was something that diluted the value not strengthened the value of the brand. Yes – it may encourage new buyers but then I was emailed and I am not a ‘new buyer’.

Hence this blog post: In a world of competing voices and hyper-competitive categories, diluting your proposition is to inflict wounds on your brand or idea and should be avoided at all costs. The key to doing this well is to put more effort into crafting your proposition.

The power of a strong proposition

The proposition is a fundamental strategic tool, the bedrock of marketing, and a touchstone for decisions on commercial policy and actions.

The clearer and the stronger that it is then the better for the organisation, brand or group that it speaks for. All brands have a proposition but too often people have not put the research or thought needed into it. This often leaves organisations with inconsistent or ineffective ones, or overly complex propositions that cannot be communicated clearly across the organisation (let alone to the outside world!).

A great example of the power of real thought and clarity can be seen in P&G’s approach to advertising strategy development. It is a discipline that helps to capture a ‘reason to believe’ in the brand which then anchors every marketing communication for the rest of its life. For new brands, an enormous amount of research and thought goes into creating a sustainable and powerful statement so that all the investment and activity that then supports a brand continually builds equity that lasts as long as possible.

The proposition captures the value that the brand brings to the world. It is it’s ‘reason for being’ and for sustaining and cannot, even in this age of personalised marketing, be all things to all people. Brands, or organisations, can offer multiple aspects of value – of relevance to different people, occasions and situations – but these must all be consistent with each other and over time. The energy and analysis that shapes them enables them to sustain and perform well in the face of competition.

Clear propositions work for us too…

Of course, a well-constructed proposition is not just of value in a straightforwardly commercial environment.

It provides the rationale to the outside world for any brand, group, body or even person. All groups, organisations and people have propositions. We spend a lot of time ‘selling’ in our lives in all sorts of contexts.

Daniel Pink reminded us of this in his book, To Sell is Human. Indeed, we all spend an enormous part of our lives selling, mostly in a non-sales environment, trying to persuade our children to do something (or not do something), people to volunteer their help, others to come with us to see this film or artist, go to that restaurant, do this activity, stop irritating us, talk to us etc.  Every sale is made because someone ‘bought’ the proposition.

All groups, communities, individuals and activities have propositions. So it pays to make sure that, whatever you are responsible for, you have thought through its proposition and that you are clear about what it is.

What is a proposition?

To create a competitive and sustainable proposition there is a simple but vital question that needs to be answered:

Why should customers buy X … in preference to the alternatives (including doing nothing)?

This is in my experience is a remarkably powerful but difficult question to get a clear answer to for a brand. However, seeking a good answer for it provides a powerful direction and a guard against many different risks:

  • It anchors our actions in customer insights. It explains why our actions are relevant to them at this moment
  • It helps to push organisations to really be specific about who a proposition is for (and who it is not for)
  • It steers groups to stay outward facing and not disappear into internal and ultimately non-value adding activities and concerns
  • It provides a means of ensuring that actions remain consistent with what is best, across functions, geography and personalities

In doing so it can shape a mindset for the business – from customer service excellence at First Direct, or low cost at Aldi, to experience delivery at Apple or sound quality at Bose. The proposition can become a mantra to shape innovation, service delivery, product features and price positioning.

Creating a good proposition

I use a framework to structure the areas to look at when thinking about what a proposition should be. This helps to frame the questions to be asked and the analysis to be undertaken in a way that helps organisations to create something that is an effective base. It is a honeycomb structure that pulls together 7 key elements for the task.


This framework helps to produce a proposition that is strong, relevant and sustainable. If you want to read more about this it is available on slideshare.


I did not buy into the half-price goats. However, I did buy some gift cards and even in the cold light of January I still don’t get the offer. I am sure it should read more like: ‘Buy one goat and get Oxfam one free too!’







The Guardian on authentic politicians …

The Guardian had an interesting feature today on authenticity in politics written by David Shariatmadari which examines why the media profiles of politicians like Johnson, Sturgeon, Trump and Corbyn seem to have connected with the public. 

The word he picks out is authenticity and he pulls out elements of the definition in straight talking and consistent it also reveals however good a foundation it is it is not enough politically to be seen as an ‘effective’ leader. 

Good read.


What does being an authentic leader actually mean?

shutterstock_297258401If you put their policies on one side for a moment, what do you think of the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron? Who is the better leader? Maybe you consider the answer to be obvious or maybe you think that the question gets to the heart of some of the bigger leadership issues in our society.

Leadership has received lots of attention over the years. The focus has moved from one aspect to another over time. Most recently increasing emphasis has been devoted to the character and personal demeanour of the leader as oppose to their situation, behaviour, style or any one of many other points involved in  leading effectively.

This focus has crystallised in the literature into the need for leaders to be ‘authentic’:

“…engaging authentically with the people around you is the first task of genuine leadership.” (Forbes, 2013)

“…we need authentic leaders—people who own their mistakes, acknowledge their faults, and always put the interests of their organizations ahead of self-interests.” (Bill George, 2015)

“…simply put, people will not follow a leader they feel is unauthentic.” (“Creating the Best Workplace on Earth,” Harvard Business Review, May, 2013)

This emphasis seems to chime with the spirit of our times: its lack of trust in institutions and the evident frailties of a social and economic system that has not proved as robust as people thought at the last millennium.

Our current Labour and Conservative Party leaders expose some of the tensions created by the demand for authenticity and perhaps help open a window on what this apparently admirable quality might really mean for leaders.

What authenticity is not …

The dictionary will tell you that authentic means ‘of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.’

This might mean quite a number of different things when applied to a person. Not all are congruent with being an effective leader. Instinctively we might reach for variations on transparency, consistency and vulnerability but there are important problems with these as definitions.

Herminia Ibarra, in the HBR* identifies several possible interpretations of ‘authenticity’  and the challenges that these raise:

  1. Being true to yourself. But exactly what does this mean? Which of our many selves should we be true to? What if we need to change because we are leading a new change or role that has different needs?
  2. Behaving in line with what you feel inside i.e. being open and transparent. But, if you are completely transparent in your thoughts and feelings, people may easily lose confidence in you and your credibility as an effective leader.
  3. Sticking to your values. But what if things that we valued are no longer helpful and need to change if we are to lead effectively?

Back to Dave and Jeremy…who is closest to authenticity? Does authenticity really make the foundation for effective leadership? As is often the case in issues such as this, it is not as simple as some would make out. For instance, there is a tension between people being able to identify with a leader and the authority of the leader.

Emotionally I would baulk at being led ‘inauthentically’ but it is not immediately obvious, at least to me, what being authentic means. What therefore must I do -as a leader who is concerned about ‘being authentic’?

What does it really mean to be authentic?

There are elements of the interpretations above which speak into what it means to be an authentic leader but I think Heminia is right to highlight how grasping at any of these definitions could be counterproductive and undermine the influence of the leader.

The core of authenticity is truth.

Something is authentic because it is the genuine article and authenticity can only anchor itself around the truth of something. The authentic leader is therefore someone who leads in truth on a consistent and continual basis and it is this that breeds the kind of followership that they generate.

What do I mean by this?

Many psychologists when discussing authenticity think in terms of other traits – high esteem, operating in congruence with your core self, embracing vulnerability, listening well, seeing and appreciating others. All in themselves are healthy personal attributes but not what I would use to define authentic.

All these might make you feel comfortable but an authentic leader will I am sure sometimes make you feel really uncomfortable and put you under pressure to change your mind or direction.

Why? Because authenticity values truth above all else – both external truth (in the reality of the situation or the ‘brutal facts’, as others have described them) and personal truth (an awareness of and unbiasedness of self that leads to saying what you mean and speaking the truth, not lies or half truths, even about yourself). To be like this effectively requires lots of other characteristics that also make for a good leader, e.g. courage, confidence, an ability to marshall the facts and listen effectively, argue through issues, listen and communicate well – but at its heart it is about truth.

The essential difference is that authentic leaders anchor themselves on truth and judge their effectiveness and fitness in leading people towards this. Many other things are needed as well as authenticity to lead well but against this definition I would agree that it is a foundation for good leadership.

Avoiding the challenges in authentic leadership

This does not free up leaders from all the pitfalls that a desire to be authentic might create. Being authentic still has an important element of “the unimpeded operation of one’s true or core self in daily enterprise”, as Kernis and Goldman called it when they researched authenticity. This brings challenges to be managed:

  • Inflexibility of approach. Leaders need to flex their style to match the situation and the needs of the people being lead. Just because something feels odd does not mean it is inauthentic. Being true to yourself is no excuse for mis-leading others
  • Not listening and learning from others because you are so sure that you are the exclusive owner of the truth. Your mind should change when the facts warrant it
  • Over-exposing your feelings in ways that shake the confidence of others. You might  recognise truths in yourself but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are helpful to share
  • Failing to recognise and respect the feelings of others. Truth needs to be served up in love. This mix provides the backbone and encouragement needed to lead well. Truth on its own can be very unattractive
  • Running back to your roots because you fear that moving forward might leave behind your core or real identity
  • Thinking that authenticity can be a substitute for competence. Both are needed


Back to Jeremy and Dave – chalk and cheese, you might say but then I could not possibly comment and anyway I rather like Feta.

*The authenticity paradox, Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb 2015


Listen up: you need a contact strategy

junk-mail-1-1242531 It amazes me that in late 2015 so many organisations do not understand what it really means to manage customer relationships – 20 years since the CRM acronym started gaining currency in marketing circles.

This week I have been inundated by the ‘communications’ of some companies who have not thought at all about what it takes to have a good relationship with me. These are not small or second tier businesses.

Mainstream retailers, food stores, book distributors and online sale sites all are emailing me every few days. I have just about binned the Twitter feed from the HBR as it started to drown everyone else. Even my financial contacts, who must know a lot more about me than many companies, still can’t seem to say anything very relevant when they write.

This year it is clear that even middle of the road retailers have finally understood that they should communicate multichannel with their customers – digitally as well in-store…but several do not seem to have understood much more than this.

Seemingly many organisations have not worked out that if you send untargeted, over-frequent, and trivial communications to me (which is of course remarkably cheap and easy to do in this digital age!) then at minimum I will toss them away without opening and after a while I will ‘unsubscribe’!

Even skilled protagonists of the DM art are simply failing to think clearly. Some large charities are finding themselves mired in a controversy that will rumble on and start to do even more serious damage in 2016 as the frequency, channel and method of their contact with ‘active’ but vulnerable supporters has inflicted too much mail, high-pressure tactics and guilt-generating incentives on loyal supporters.

These scenarios are embarrassing and disastrous for what should be a mature and thoughtful discipline. Publicly they will push industry into the hands of more stringent regulations (voluntary or legal). Invisibly they will yet further undermine trust and respect for commerce. Both will significantly reduce the present value of the customer base and brand reputations, things that are as  valuable as gold in our media rich, low trust culture.

I am amazed that this problem persists. Anyone involved in direct marketing even 30 years ago would have known this. However, perhaps it is the very invisibility of the real damage that is the problem. Thirty years ago it cost a lot to send unwanted, unproductive communications to prospects. Mail and phone campaigns are expensive. You quickly trim those that do not make sense. Digital is too cheap and easy.

Why are we here?

There can be many reasons for organisations to end up with such a poor approach to their customers:

  • They might have developed their ability to communicate 1:1 incrementally, through a series of different functions and channels which they have failed to pull together organisationally. The result is a platform for multichannel communication but with no policy. This then becomes a vehicle for meeting only immediate, short term departmental priorities … and there are a lot of departments.
  • Functions are often siloed, competing to capture customer business through their own channel (e.g. website vs store, call centre vs web or face-to-face). Sometimes these silos are even different business units with very similar customer propositions (as I have experienced in banks).
  • In other places, poor monitoring and evaluation compounded by low visible campaign costs lead to over-contact and the loss of a customer perspective which degrades the long term value of the  contact list.

Beneath all of this though is the failure to appreciate that a policy is needed.

Organisations need an explicit, holistic strategy that governs the way that they will manage their contact with customers (especially but not exclusively proactive contact). This then needs to be operationalised effectively across the whole of the business.

A contact strategy

A contact strategy is required. These are the business rules that underpin where, when, what, how, and why contact is made with a customer. This explicit policy needs to specify how each customer segment will be handled: the channels to be used, maximum and minimum frequencies, by type of contact, expressed preferences, responses, value and level of personalisation required. All this can then be integrated with an up-to-date history of the relationship (contacts, account status etc). Only when this is done can appropriate direction and control be exercised over how a relationship is handled.

In essence it is just what you would expect a good salesperson to know about an important customer. The challenge is to do this for each of the millions of customers that some organisations are handling – and for the targets that they acquire through list purchase or media activity.

Yes – this will limit the activity that a company pursues with its customers and limit it towards what these customers are most likely to want. Yes – this will potentially impact short term revenues and the use of promotional campaigns. But this is what CRM is really about. It is where the brand, proposition and customer interaction should line up tightly.

A move to action

Some organisations get round the issue by limiting their contact carefully. Amazon, for instance, does not engage in much explicit differentiated proactive contact. It relies on general media and then inbound propensity based personalisation that is transactionally focused, either on its own site or through search engines like Google.

Others are moving to an explicit ‘permission’ based approach. I heard RNLI on the radio only a month go describing the moves that they are making to sort out their approach and data to address the issue of over-contact before it impacts their standing (see RNLI). Their approach will only market with explicit permission. They reckon however that this might cost them £35m over five years. Yet they think it is worth it to get a sustainable position. At least they are actually managing the issue.

Other are clearly not.

These will pay an invisible price which some organisations may not appreciate for several years as the responsiveness of their customer set, the strength of their brand image and the quality of their profit are eroded.

Page 2 of 612345...Last »

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Signup to be automatically informed when new blog articles are posted