CMO Mondays: The Visionary’s Dilemma

visionarys-dilemma

The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday entitled, “PepsiCo Wants to Sell Healthy Food, Consumers Want Chips.” In it, reporter Mike Esterl describes the dilemma that PepsiCo‘s CEO Indra Nooyi has been wading through for the last decade since she took the chief executive role: growing a business of nutritious foods while not cannibalizing its empire of sugar and salt rich foods.

When Nooyi came into her new role as CEO in 2006, she focused on capitalizing on the growing market and consumer desire for healthy snacks. But, after having to cut her profit outlook twice in 2011, PepsiCo refocused on its core business of “indulgent products”. The markets have supported this decision, as you can see from the below chart showing PepsiCo’s share price growth.pepsico-stock

In 2010, PepsiCo set a goal of tripling revenue from nutritious products to $30 billion this decade, but given its need to refocus on indulgent snacks, PepsiCo has had to adjust this goal. The new goal is to have sales growth of its nutritious products outpace the rest of its portfolio by 2025.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that visions to change the world and consumer behavior take time. A long time. Decades even. And, for a company like PepsiCo that generates over $60 billion in revenue globally, driving positive change (helping consumers eat healthier) while not cannibalizing its core business of indulgent snacks is a tough balancing act.

Perhaps the example that I think of most is Elon Musk and his companies, Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX. All of them have big audacious goals – somewhat related and intertwined. In their own way, they’re each pushing towards better energy efficiency and to reduce our dependencies on fossil fuels. And, what Musk’s companies have faced is not unlike what PepsiCo has faced. Consumers say they want to be green, but the mass market of consumers is not actually willing to sacrifice their indulgences in order to be green. Consumers may say they want healthier foods and snacks, but the mass market of consumers are not actually willing to sacrifice their indulgences in salty, sweet goods in order to be healthier.

Musk recognized this in the energy sector and developed a long-term plan to evolve consumer behavior. With Tesla, he started out with a limited edition $100,000+ sports car and targeted wealthy, influential consumers as his customer. This created a luxury brand that consumers aspired to. Since then, he’s been moving down market to provide the same remarkable experience (beautiful car design, driving experience and ever-improving software) at a more affordable price. The main selling point isn’t that Tesla is an electric vehicle. It’s that Tesla provides a remarkable driving experience – and the cars happen to be better for the environment.

Similarly with SolarCity, recently Musk revealed three new styles of solar panels that are designed to replace your roof tiles (see video below). Not only are they beautifully designed, but they’re stronger and more durable than the roof tiles you have on your house today.

Musk recognizes that while consumers say they want to be green, the mass market won’t be willing to sacrifice the aesthetic of their house to be so. So, he’s bringing a solution to market that meets both the aesthetic needs of the consumer and the social desire to be green.

Over time, Musk and his companies will help meet a long-term vision of a self-sustaining house that is off the grid. Your solar panel roof will provide you all the energy that you need, including charging that Tesla you have in your garage. So, you’re fossil fuel consumption goes to near zero.

So, as I think about PepsiCo and Nooyi’s challenge of meeting consumers’ desire for indulgent snacks today, while pursuing a vision of helping consumers be healthier in the future, I think about those incremental steps that Musk has taken over the last decade across his companies to bring his vision to life – a vision that won’t become fully realized for at least another decade. Nooyi started out on her journey around the same time as Musk. She’s a decade in. What can she do to realize that vision in the next decade or more?

CMO Mondays: Marketing in the Post-Capitalist Society

I spoke to a class of advertising and PR students at University of Texas last week. Below is the Slideshare of the presentation that I gave. This is an updated version of previous presentations I’ve given on my Reciprocity Theory and The Purpose Economy. I dive into foundational human behavior, technological revolutions, socio-economic evolutions of the last fifty years, and what this means for marketers.

CMO Mondays: The New Telecom

screen-shot-2016-10-24-at-8-13-36-pm

In 2015, Verizon agreed to purchase AOL for $4.4 billion. This was a key acquisition for Verizon, as it looks to deliver more video content (and advertising) on top of its network of more than 100 million wireless users. AOL brought with it an established and growing set of content businesses, including The Huffington Post, TechCrunch, Engadget, Moviefone and Makers – as well as the advertising technologies needed to monetize this content. Indeed, per a Fortune report, CommScore says AOL’s video advertising reaches more than 50% of the U.S. population. Verizon has also been working on an over-the-top video offering since acquiring Intel’s media assets in 2014 and video delivery network EdgeCast in 2013. This year, Verizon agreed $4.8 billion for Yahoo!, which has over 1 billion monthly active users, and also brings content and ad tech into the mix. During this same period, Verizon has sold off several regions of its lucrative FiOS business, and has not expanded into new regions since 2010. Since Verizon closed its $130 billion deal to buyout Vodafone’s 45% ownership over Verizon’s Wireless business unit, Verizon is all in on content and advertising delivered over its wireless network.

AT&T, meanwhile, completed its $48.5 billion acquisition of DirecTV last year. With DirecTV came some 20 million U.S. subscribers and the lucrative NFL Sunday Ticket offering. AT&T also has over 100 million wireless subscribers. Through its Otter Media joint venture with The Chernin Group, AT&T has been acquiring some over-the-top content providers, such as Fullscreen, but nothing has really materialized from this partnership in a meaningful way from what I can tell.

Now, AT&T has announced that it seeks to acquire Time Warner for $85.4 billion. Shares for both companies have already dropped today from the announcement. Shares of Time Warner fell 3.1% to $86.74, while shares of AT&T decreased 1.7% to $36.86. Some in the industry are up in arms about the potential antitrust issues that this deal could bring, AT&T is positioning that it wants the content from Time Warner, so that it can feed that content to AT&T’s wireless, broadband and satellite subscribers, AT&T would also be absorbing Time Warner Cable’s subscribers.

I won’t pontificate about whether or not this deal will go through. Rather, I’m more intrigued the two distinct strategies that Verizon and AT&T are taking. Verizon is acquiring its way into the future, integrating its superior wireless network with premium online content and the ad tech to drive new revenues on top of that wireless network. This is critical given that the mobile subscriber market is essentially saturated. Telecom’s can’t expect to be growing their subscriber bases meaningfully for years to come.

On the other hand, AT&T is taking a very different approach: consolidate with the legacy media businesses and platforms of satellite and broadband.

Which approach will work? If the goal is to capture younger, cord-cutting audiences such as Millennials and Gen Z, while also capturing older audiences of Gen X and Boomers, then it would seem that Verizon has the better shot. Their investing in online content and ad delivery, but AOL and Yahoo! also bring the older audiences from their early Internet days. AT&T, on the other hand, is skating to where the puck has been with little visible investment in where the puck is going – even if DirecTV has seen over 900,000 net new subscribers in the last year since the acquisition.

I’m interested to see how this all plays out over the next five years, as we’ll see the impact of these acquisitions and whether or not the different strategies worked.

Managing for Collective Creativity

collective-creativity

Having spent my career working in creative industries from film and TV to marketing, I’m always interested in learning new ways to maximize the creativity in a team. This has become critical, not only in creative industries, but also in business at large. Collaboration is top of mind for CEOs as a need and skill set to drive innovation, and creativity is at the heart of collaboration.

Harvard professor Linda Hill, co-author of “Collective Genius,” has studied some of the world’s most creative companies. In this TED Talk, she shares a framework for how to harness a team’s creativity. This is an old favorite TED Talk that I thought I’d share with you today. Enjoy.

Welcome to the Post-Capitalist Society

welcome-to-the-post-capitalist-society

“In 2000, President Bill Clinton said in his last State of the Union address: ‘America will lead the world toward shared peace and prosperity and the far frontiers of science and technology.’ His economic team trumpeted ‘the ferment of rapid technological change‘ as one of the U.S. economy’s ‘principal engines’ of growth.”

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Great Unraveling | America’s Dazzling Tech Boom Has a Downside: Not Enough Jobs” by Jon Hilsenrath and Bob Davis. The premise is that the technology industry has not lived up to its promise of job creation – particularly since the year 2000. And, that this disappointment has led to political outsiders like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders gaining momentum in this presidential race.

The article goes on to list some interesting facts and statistics:

“Google’s Alphabet Inc. and Facebook Inc. had at the end of last year a total of 74,505 employees, about one-third fewer than Microsoft Corp. even though their combined stock-market value is twice as big. Photo-sharing service Instagram had 13 employees when it was acquired for $1 billion by Facebook in 2012…

…The five largest U.S.-based technology companies by stock-market value—Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook and Oracle Corp. —are worth a combined $1.8 trillion today. That is 80% more than the five largest tech companies in 2000.

Today’s five giants have 22% fewer workers than their predecessors, or a total of 434,505 as of last year, compared with 556,523 at Cisco Systems Inc., Intel, IBM, Oracle and Microsoft in 2000.”

On the surface, yes, it looks like the technology industry has failed to meet its promise. The younger technology companies founded after the year 2000 are employing less and less people. The jobs of the Industrial Revolution are being replaced by robots and software, and this will only accelerate with the long awaited maturation of artificial intelligence / machine learning. Every business today is (or should be) a technology business in some capacity to take advantage of the operational efficiencies (i.e. cost savings) that technology can provide.

But, a closer look shows that it’s not the technology industry that failed us. It’s our rhetoric and education that failed us. We read the tea leaves wrong about the transformation that technology would bring because we looked at the past to predict the future.

The First Four Revolutions
As I’ve written about before, economist Carlota Perez taught us that every half century, society has a “big bang moment” – a technological breakthrough – that ushers in a new technological revolution.

5 Successive Technological Revolutions of the Last 250 Years

If you consider the five successive technological revolutions we’ve had, starting with the Industrial Revolution in 1771, each created more jobs than the previous. And, this would make sense. With each revolution, we built more and bigger things, and we did it by hand. Physical labor was the currency of capitalism.

6th Technological Revolution Around the Corner

Why the Fifth Revolution Is Different
But, three things changed all that in our current revolution: the Age of Information and Telecommunications, which saw its big bang moment in 1971 with the Intel microprocessor, and which is at its tale end.

  1. Moore’s Law: An observation in 1965 by Intel’s co-founder, Gordon Moore, states that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since their invention and would continue to for the foreseeable future. This has decreased the size of our computing devices while simultaneously increasing their processing power exponentially for fifty years. And, it is only now beginning to slow.
  2. The Internet: Have you heard of this thing? It’s pretty amazing. Throughout history, innovation has been driven primarily through physical locations. “Hot spots”, as they’re referred to in network science, were typically found where there was a concentration of people and ideas colliding. These hot spots have popped up throughout history from the coffee houses in the Age of Enlightenment to the Parisian salons of Modernism. Some of these hot spots have also been industry specific like Silicon Valley for tech, Los Angeles for film and TV, and New York for finance. The Internet (and the World Wide Web) distributed the hot spot, so that its not restricted to a centralized location. The hot spot became decentralized, and has led to innovations like Safecast, which I mentioned in yesterday’s blog post.
  3. Cloud Computing: Then, cloud computing came in and decentralized computing infrastructure. Suddenly, you didn’t need to buy or lease expensive on-premise servers to build software. You simply rent what you need – and only what you need – when you need it. The price of software development dropped exponentially. Not only do you save on hardware (server) costs, but you save by not needing expensive people that know how to service the hardware.

So, what does this all sum up to? Since the rise of capitalism and throughout the first four technological revolutions, capitalism created more jobs because the primary economic resources were physical assets: gold, land, ships, railroads, skyscrapers, cars, etc. and the labor that was needed to build and manage them. But, while the fifth revolution started this way, it is ending by headed in the opposite direction. The economic force of capitalism, combined with Moore’s Law, the Internet and cloud computing, is driving a reduced need for employees. Today, one can build a highly valuable business with exponentially lower (near $0) infrastructure, supply chain and employee costs. Every non-critical resource simply becomes dead weight.

Capitalism Has Hit Its Tipping Point.
Consider this observation that Tom Goodwin shared in a 2015 TechCrunch article entitled “The Battle for the Customer Interface”:

“Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something interesting is happening.”

something-interesting-is-happening

The Wall Street Journal article mentioned above highlights that Instagram had only 13 employees when it was acquired by Facebook for $1 billion in 2012, and WhatsApp had only 55 employees when it was acquired by Facebook for $19 billion in 2014.

The winners in the new capitalism are those that can create value with the least resources – including employees.

Why Our Rhetoric and Education Is Wrong
For longer than I can remember, political rhetoric around economic growth has been about job creation and good education to fill those jobs. This made sense given our history. But, what you see today is a frustration that those jobs aren’t being created – at least not in the technology industry. If anything tech is displacing those jobs.

In our new economy, employment looks more like a shorter long tail. As Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail describes…

“The theory of the Long Tail is that our culture and economy is increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of “hits” (mainstream products and markets) at the head of the demand curve and toward a huge number of niches in the tail. As the costs of production and distribution fall, especially online, there is now less need to lump products and consumers into one-size-fits-all containers. In an era without the constraints of physical shelf space and other bottlenecks of distribution, narrowly-targeted goods and services can be as economically attractive as mainstream fare.”

longtail

Anderson wrote his original article about the long tail in 2004, describing the effects of the Internet on commerce. iTunes and Amazon are prime examples in the music and CPG categories respectively. But, twelve years after the original article, we can now see that the same effects are happening to employment.  At the head of the tail are the largest employers – slow, lumbering legacy companies with immense overhead. Further down the head are the new class of technology companies – except that they are employing less people than their predecessors. They look more like a small, passionate and nimble tribe – with a minimal number of full-time employees supplemented by an army of flexible, contract workers (to whom you don’t have to provide expensive benefits). Consider companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart, Luxe and Favor. Then, you get into the long tail. And, these are less so companies; more so, individuals that have learned to make a living through the digital economy. They’re building mobile apps for iOS and Android, creating subscription e-commerce businesses through Cratejoy, or selling craft goods on Etsy. They may even be content creators on YouTube, Instagram or podcasting. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal article highlights that “An Apple spokeswoman says it is ‘creating jobs in new industries like the App Economy.'”

Peter Drucker predicted such a change. In his book “Landmarks of Tomorrow”, he talked about the shift to the “post-capitalist society” where knowledge would become the primary economic resource over land, labor and financial assets. This gave rise to the concept of “knowledge workers” that is so common in management and consulting today. 

Where We Go from Here

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

So, our rhetoric needs to shift away from “get an expensive education, so you can get a good job and have a nice, long career” to “learn to learn, so that you can create your own income and be self sufficient.” The United States was built on entrepreneurship – on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we want to prepare our people for the pursuit, don’t give them a skill and hand them a job; teach them the game of business and let them play.

From Futurist to Nowist

Director of MIT Media Lab, Joi Ito gave TED Talk on becoming a “now-ist” instead of being a “futurist”. In this talk, Ito describes how he was in Cambridge at MIT when a magnitude 9 earthquake hit off the coast of Japan. Ito was panicked, as he watched the news and the press that was coming from the Tokyo power company about the explosion at the nuclear power plant that was only 200 kilometers away from his home where his family was at that time.

The people on TV weren’t telling Ito anything that he wanted (needed) to hear regarding the nuclear reactor, levels of radiation, etc. So, he went to the internet for information instead, and there he found people in similar situations. So, they formed a community called Safecast to measure the radiation and get the information out to everyone else because the reality was that the government wasn’t going to do it for the people. Today, Safecast has 16M data points (the largest open database of radiation measurements), data visualization tools, an app that shows radiation in Japan and around the world, and other resources for the open community.

It’s remarkable to see how people can come together so quickly under a shared purpose to build something of immense value like this. One year ago, I was in Nuevo Vallarta with my family – my wife, three kids and parents – when Hurricane Patricia hit the west coast of Mexico, just 180 miles south of where we were staying. For twenty-four hours we monitored the hurricane from our mobile devices, getting access to news from the U.S. because the Mexican government wasn’t providing any information. All we got from U.S. news outlets was fear-mongering about how deadly the hurricane was going to be – not just because of the winds, but more so because of the tsunami-sized waves that the hurricane would bring ashore. Not at all comforting when you’ve been evacuated under ground (sea) level in a bunker. Having factual, open-sourced data like this in that situation would have been invaluable. The closest I could find was the National Hurricane Center, which became my main source for information during that period.

Ito goes on to discuss his perspective on innovation. Three key takeaways are:

  1. “Deploy or Die” motto – Moore’s Law made the cost of trying new things (innovation) virtually zero. So, innovation has moved to the fringes where makers can make and test things first before they need to hire MBAs and raise funds.
  2. “Learning over Education” – A perspective that “education is what they do to you” whereas “learning is what you do to yourself.” This particularly resonates with me, as I’ve practically googled my way into the career that I’m in. I wasn’t a marketer by training. I stumbled into this six years ago when I left the movie business. But, curiosity and the willingness to test and try new things accelerated my success as a marketer.
  3. “Compass over Maps” – You can’t expect to plan things from beginning to end at the beginning. But, if you have a strong compass, you can discover your way to the outcome you seek. This speaks to being resourceful, which is the first thing I look for in a team member after culture fit. 

Below is Ito’s TED Talk. Hope you enjoy.

Marketing Mondays: Your Innovation Roadmap, Part 5 – Innovation Approaches

Growth Matrix

In Your Innovation Roadmap, Part 1, I introduced the innovation matrix (featured above) and covered Quadrant 1: gaining market share. In Part 2, I covered Quadrant 2: bringing your current offerings to new customers. In Part 3, I covered Quadrant 3: bringing new offerings to existing customers. And, in Part 4, I covered what context to keep in mind in deciding whether or not to pursue Quadrant 4: bringing new products/services to new customers.

In this post, I’ll share two well-known innovation processes and similarities between them, so that you can begin to craft an innovation process that is right for your organization and culture. I’ll also point you to several other innovation approaches that you can dive into deeper.

INNOVATION PROCESSES
Over the last decade, since startups entered the zeitgeist of our aspirational culture, there has been a lot of hype around new approaches and processes that can drive innovation for your startup or enterprise corporation alike. “Just follow this one approach and your innovation initiative will be a huge success!” they spout, persuading eager innovators-to-be to take up their movement. Many of these innovation approaches have been tried and tested by entrepreneurs and executives that now wish to share their wisdom, while others are crafted by consultants and intellectuals who are selling that approach as part of their services. Regardless, I believe that no single approach is right for every organization. But, I do believe that each can serve as a tool in the proverbial ‘innovation toolbox’, so that an organization can test and learn their way into an approach that fits with their culture. Below, I’ll cover two well-known innovation approaches that I have found useful.

Also, important to note is the fact that attempting to teach these techniques via a blog post would not do them (or you) justice. Thus, my goal here is to give you a high-level understanding of the approach and point you in the direction of material that explains these approaches, and others, in much more depth.

The Lean Startup
The Lean Startup, written by entrepreneur and consultant, Eric Ries, introduces the concept of validated learning, which Ries describes as follows:

“Validated learning is the process of demonstrating empirically that a team has discovered valuable truths about a startup’s present and future business prospects. It is more concrete, more accurate, and faster than market forecasting or classical business planning.”

The Lean Startup method applies the lean manufacturing management philosophy that was made famous by the Toyota Production System to startups. The philosophy aims at discovering and eliminating all wasteful activities, and, thus, leaving and focusing only on value-creating activities. Value is defined from the customer’s perspective. Value provides a benefit to the customer; the customer must be willing to pay money for it. Anything else is waste. In the context of a new venture (or ‘startup’), any activities that do not contribute to learning what a customer sees as value are wasteful. As an organization learns more about what its customers recognize as value, it can develop and sell a product that can sustain a business through those customers. Thus, Ries argues that validated learning is the core unit of progress for new ventures; validated learning always achieves positive improvements in the new venture’s key metrics. So, how do we pursue validated learning? Through the scientific method.

For those that don’t remember the scientific method from grade school, it is a process of experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. The process goes as follows:

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader

The Lean Startup borrows from this, arguing that the two most valuable assumptions that an entrepreneur can make are:

  1. The value hypothesis, which tests whether or not the product/service really delivers value to customers once they are using it.
  2. The growth hypothesis, which tests how new customers will discover a product/service

Once the entrepreneur makes these assumptions/hypotheses, she can craft an experiment to test them. Ries argues that in the Lean Startup, an experiment is the first product. This is a departure from typical, wasteful corporate approaches to innovation, where they invest in long periods of R&D or product development to build a new product, release it to the market and find that customers aren’t willing to pay for it. Instead, in the Lean Startup, product/service development becomes an iterative process of testing and learning your way into a product that is valuable to your customers. This method is captured in the Lean Startup process of: Build –> Measure –> Learn.

In the Lean Startup, the first product (read ‘experiment’) you build is called the minimum viable product (or ‘MVP’). This product is merely an experiment to validate the idea behind the venture: is there demand for the product/service offering, and are customers willing to pay for that offering? Ries gives the example of how Drew Houston, the founder of Dropbox, used a video as their MVP. The video gave a 3-minute faux demo of the Dropbox product before the product was even built. This video grew Dropbox’s beta waiting list from 5,000 people to 75,000 “literally overnight.” It was a simple way to validate whether or not there was demand for the product before investing the time and money to build it. Ries gives several other examples of MVPs, but the key thing to keep in mind when building your MVP is to: “remove any feature, process, or effort that does not contribute directly to the learning you seek.” Then, measure and learn from that experiment, and craft your next hypothesis and experiment to continue the validated learning process.

Lean Startup techniques can be applied to a variety of companies, industries and projects. For example, I used Lean Startup methods while at W2O Group to grow a new and relatively small account (Verizon, which started as a $245K project) to $2M revenues in 2012 and to $5.5M in revenues in 2013, turning Verizon into W2O’s largest account at the time.

We were hired to build a custom social media analytics platform for Verizon, but didn’t have the technological acumen yet. We had one developer and one project manager that still worked off of waterfall development techniques (the PM’s original timeline to deliver an alpha product to Verizon was along the lines of six to nine months!) and no designers, UI or UX practitioners that could create meaningful data visualizations. But, we did have analysts – over sixty of them. So, we quickly pivoted from focusing on the dashboard timeline to focusing on delivering PowerPoint reports from the analytics that we would eventually visualize automatically through the dashboard. The PowerPoint reports were our MVP. And, they sold like hotcakes.

Below are two snapshots of our hockey stick growth. The first chart shows the number of reports that we delivered per month across Verizon in the first twelve months, while building the analytics platform in parallel, as well as our low, medium and high projections for future demand of reports. The second chart reflects revenue growth in the first twelve months.

Verizon hockey stick-reports

Verizon hockey stick-revenues

The analytics product that we built for Verizon then served as our MVP for a new SaaS version that W2O could offer across clients. A newly hired developer, John Steinmetz, and I saw that W2O was building these custom dashboards for other clients, and W2O was losing its shirt because of its consulting/hourly fees-based business model. So, we worked on the side to build a SaaS version. The product launched under the name Footprint and achieved over $1.3M in revenues in its first year. Steinmetz did an amazing job bringing this idea and product to reality.

In his book, The Lean Startup, Ries provides much more in depth techniques and case studies for how to achieve validated learning, including those that apply to large organizations. For example, Ries references how Intuit holds itself accountable for innovation through two KPIs (key performance indicators):

  1. The number of customers using products that didn’t exist three years ago, and
  2. The percentage of revenue coming from offerings that didn’t exist three years ago

I highly recommend reading The Lean Startup, so you can see how to apply its approach to your business.

Design Thinking
Design Thinking has been getting a lot of buzz over the last five years or so, as large companies are now looking to establish their innovation engines to compete with the startups that are ripe to disrupt them. Having seen Apple‘s success in becoming the most valuable company in the world primarily through launching wonderfully designed products, CEOs are hungry for their own design forward innovation. IDEO and frog are perhaps the two most well-known players in this space, consulting organizations on assimilating Design Thinking into their daily activities. Both have worked with Apple since the early years. And, IDEO more recently counseled IBM in creating their Design Thinking approach, which you can find here.

Design Thinking is a method for innovating routinely. It puts customers at the forefront through empathy. The goal is to empathize with the customer, which often starts with behavioral observation. What are they doing? How are they doing it? Why are they doing it? But, ultimately needs to move to understanding people’s motivations and core beliefs.

IDEO_3 factors in an innovation program

Each innovation program must align across three factors:

  1. PEOPLE: is the offering desirable by the target audience (customer)?
  2. TECHNICAL: is the offering technically feasible with today’s technologies?
  3. BUSINESS: is the offering economically viable within a business model?

Finding the sweet spot between desirability, feasibility and viability is what IDEO and the Stanford d.school define as Design Thinking.

This method follows a four-step process: Inspiration –> Synthesis –> Ideation/Experimentation –> Implementation. IDEO partner, Chris Flink, wrote an excerpt explaining their Design Thinking approach in the book Creative Confidence, written by IDEO co-founders, Tom Kelley and David Kelley. That excerpt is highlighted below:

“INSPIRATION
Don’t wait for the proverbial apple to fall on your head. Go out in the world and proactively seek experiences that will spark creative thinking. Interact with experts, immerse yourself in unfamiliar environments, and role-play customer scenarios. Inspiration is fueled by a deliberate, planned course of action.

To inspire human-centered innovation, empathy is our reliable, go- to resource. We find that connecting with the needs, desires, and motivations of real people helps to inspire and provoke fresh ideas. Observing people’s behavior in their natural context can help us better understand the factors at play and trigger new insights to fuel our innovation efforts. We shadow and do interviews with a variety of people out in the field. We speak to ‘extreme users,’ for example, discovering how early adopters make clever use of technology. Or, if we are redesigning a kitchen tool like a can opener, we may observe how elderly people use it to look for points of frustration or opportunities for improvement. We look to other industries to see how relevant challenges are addressed. For instance, we may draw parallels between customer service at a restaurant and the patient experience at a hospital in order to improve patient satisfaction.

SYNTHESIS
After your time in the field, the next step is to begin the complex challenge of “sense-making.” You need to recognize patterns, identify themes, and find meaning in all that you’ve seen, gathered, and observed. We move from concrete observations and individual stories to more abstract truths that span across groups of people. We often organize our observations on an ’empathy map’ or create a matrix to categorize types of solutions. During synthesis, we strive to see where the fertile ground is. We translate what we’ve uncovered in our research into actionable frameworks and principles. We reframe the problem and choose where to focus our energy. For example, in retail environments, we’ve discovered that if you change the question from ‘how might we reduce customer waiting time?’ to ‘how might we reduce perceived waiting time?’ it opens up whole new avenues of possibility, like using a video display wall to provide an entertaining distraction.

IDEATION AND EXPERIMENTATION
Next, we set off on an exploration of new possibilities. We generate countless ideas and consider many divergent options. The most promising ones are advanced in iterative rounds of rapid prototypes— early, rough representations of ideas that are concrete enough for people to react to. The key is to be quick and dirty— exploring a range of ideas without becoming too invested in only one. These experiential learning loops help to develop existing concepts and spur new ones. Based on feedback from end users and other stakeholders, we adapt, iterate, and pivot our way to human-centered, compelling, workable solutions. Experimentation can include everything from crafting hundreds of physical models for delivering transdermal vaccines to using driving simulators for testing new vehicle systems to acting out the check-in experience at a hotel lobby.

IMPLEMENTATION
Before a new idea is rolled out, we refine the design and prepare a road map to the marketplace. Of course, rollouts can vary wildly depending on which elements of an experience or product are involved. Going live with a new online learning platform is very different from offering a new banking service. The implementation phase can have many rounds. More and more companies in every industry are beginning to launch new products, services, or businesses in order to learn. They live in beta, and quickly iterate through new in-market loops that further refine their offering. For example, some retailers launch pop-up stores as a way to test demand in new cities. And Boston-based startup Clover Food Lab began with a single food truck at MIT to gauge the market for its sustainable vegetarian food before the company committed to opening brick-and-mortar restaurant locations.”

Like Lean Startup, Design Thinking believes in an iterative approach to innovation. Its Three Rs of Prototyping – (1) Rough, (2) Rapid and (3) Right (referring to building several models/prototypes focused on getting specific aspects of a product right) – are not unlike Lean Startup’s concept of the MVP. At first glance, Design Thinking may seem more qualitative in its approach, where as Lean Startup seems more quantitative. But, if you dive deeper, they are quite similar.

For more information on Design Thinking, I recommend reading Creative Confidence, as well as perusing the d.school’s methods.

Other Innovation Processes
There are countless other innovation processes out there. The virtual aisles of Amazon’s Kindle library are filled with them. But, below are some that are worth a read:

Once you’ve read your way through these, I invite to you reference the Reading List page on this site, where I highlight other books, papers and articles that have impacted my thinking.

To read about Quadrant 1 – grow market share – click here.

To read about Quadrant 2 – new markets – click here.

To read about Quadrant 3 – new offerings – click here.

To read about Quadrant 4 – macro and micro context in bringing new offerings to new markets – click here.

Marketing Mondays: Your Innovation Roadmap, Part 4 – Macro & Micro Context

Growth Matrix

In Your Innovation Roadmap, Part 1, I introduced the innovation matrix (featured above) and covered Quadrant 1: gaining market share. In Part 2, I covered Quadrant 2: bringing your current offerings to new customers. In Part 3, I covered Quadrant 3: bringing new offerings to existing customers.

I’m going to split our Quadrant 4 (bringing new offerings to new markets) discussion into two parts. In this first post, I’ll cover Macro & Micro Context, which discusses when to look to Quadrant 4 innovation (instead of Quadrants 1-3), and why it’s so hard for established companies to pursue this route. In the next post, I’ll cover a process and case studies for pursuing Quadrant 4 strategy.

QUADRANT 4: NEW OFFERINGS IN NEW MARKETS
At some point, a company’s growth stagnates. The industry that the company plays in grows stale, and/or the company’s offerings reach a market share that simply is not likely to grow further. And, so the company must look to new areas for innovation and growth. Why is this? There can be a variety of reasons related to the niche market dynamics of an industry, which I won’t go into in this post given the range of industries that I’ve been covering in this series. But, usually, if you dig deep enough, you’ll find that the reason for stagnation stems from a macro and a micro trend:

  1. Macro. The stage in which we find ourselves in our current technological revolution, and
  2. Micro. The Law of Diffusion of Innovation related to the company’s current offering(s)

Macro: Technological Revolutions
In The Purpose Economy: Part 3 – Technological Revolutions, I describe the lifecycle of a technological revolution, and how we are currently at the tail end of our current revolution. This is based on research from economist, Carlota Perez captured in her book, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital.

Lifecycle of a Technological Revolution_today

As you can see from the image above, each revolution has a big bang moment where a discontinuous innovation comes to market, inspiring new products and industries, and driving fast innovation and growth. This period can be messy and chaotic, as society looks for economic models for this new technology. Later, come the systems and infrastructure that support the eventual full expansion of the new technology’s potential – an array of innovation with validated economic models. Finally, the last new products come to market, and the new technology that was introduced in the big bang moment reaches a mature market saturation point before the next big bang moment and new, discontinuous technology is introduced.

6th Technological Revolution Around the Corner

Today, we find ourselves at the end of our current revolution: the Age of Information and Telecommunications, whose big bang moment was the Intel microprocessor that was introduced in 1971. Over the course of approximately half a century, each revolution follows the same sequence: big bang moment –> financial bubble –> collapse –> golden age –> political unrest –> next big bang moment. Clearly, we had our big bubble and collapse with the Great Recession that hit in 2008. We’re now well into a golden age where microprocessors have achieved a global market saturation point, enabling the use of mobile devices worldwide, along with an array of software applications that our modern society now relies on, and, dare I say, takes for granted. And, given the current state of affairs across the globe, with frequent shootings and mass killings, divisiveness and political debate of the lowest common denominator, who can argue with the idea that we are experiencing political unrest? Finally, we are 45 years into our current revolution. The next big bang moment is right around the corner.

Understanding the technological revolution you’re operating in, at what stage of that revolution’s lifecycle your company finds itself, and what role your company’s offerings play in this landscape can give you some indication of the potential innovation opportunities available and growth runway left for your company’s offerings.

Micro: The Law of Diffusion of Innovation
Popularized in Geoffrey Moore‘s book Crossing the Chasm, the Law of Diffusion of Innovation, described as the Technology Adoption Life Cycle, follows that

  • 2.5% of our population are “innovators”,
  • 13.5% are “early adopters”,
  • 34% are the “early majority”,
  • 34% are the “late majority”, and
  • 16% are the “laggards”

Fig_-1_-Technology-Innovation-Adoption-Lifecycle_12Dec20_v1

Critical to launching a new offering in a new market, is identifying who are the innovators that actively pursue new offerings in that product segment. For a tech product, you might find these people on Product Hunt, Techmeme or lurking in subreddits. For a CPG company, these early adopters might be brand advocates for existing, related products that are already in market, or folks that are constantly testing out new products. They might be found writing volumes of reviews on Amazon or actively blogging, and can be as broad as the mommy blogger, or as niche as a foodie or beauty blogger.

Next to adopt a new product are the early adopters. Like the innovators, this consumer segment buys into new product concepts early, as they find it easy to conceive the potential of the product without that product being fully validated or perfect.

As Geoffrey Moore argued, the real difficulty for a technology (or any new product) to reach mass market appeal and achieve enough momentum to maximize its revenue and profitability potential is crossing the chasm from early adopters to early majority. Unlike the innovators and early adopters that preceded them, whose decisions are driven more by emotional and social factors, the early majority segment of consumer makes their decisions based on more rational factors and prefers to purchase products once they have been more fully validated by other consumers. But, once a company gains momentum with the early majority, it can expect a healthy business for some time to come. The early majority represents 1/3 of the adoption lifecycle, followed by the late majority, which also represents 1/3 of the adoption lifecycle. This late majority segment does not feel comfortable adopting a new product until it has become a standard. Finally, the laggards segment does not want anything to do with new products. They are very set in their ways, and do not adopt a product until they are forced to (which usually means that the product they like to use is no longer available).

Why Quadrant 4 is hard for established companies
Typically, established organizations struggle with Quadrant 4 because of the very fact that they gained traction with that early majority. As we learned from Steve Blank, a company is a permanent organization designed to execute a repeatable and scalable business model. On the other hand, a startup is a temporary organization designed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model. In other words, the business of a startup is to bring a new offering to a new market, test whether or not the market (i.e. the target customer) will adopt that new product, and validate a business model that will (eventually) generate profits. Whereas the business of a company is to scale that business model.

Once the company gains momentum with the early majority, focus shifts away from innovation and towards offering the company’s product more effectively and efficiently. In other words, infrastructure such as people, processes and technologies are brought into the company to enable the organization to meet consumer demand and offer more of its products at a reduced cost, increasing margin (profits). The initial focus is Quadrant 1: gaining market share. Later it shifts to Quadrants 2 and 3: offering current products to new markets, and offering new products to existing customers, respectively. Quadrants 2 and 3 only require incremental innovation and can leverage the company’s existing infrastructure. Quadrant 4, on the other hand, requires discontinuous innovation, and may need an entirely different infrastructure to succeed.

Understanding where your company’s offerings are on the adoption curve is critical to deciding on which quadrant to focus your innovation efforts.

Pursuing Quadrant 4 innovation
In the next post, I’ll cover a process for pursuing Quadrant 4 innovation and provide some examples of companies that have successfully done so.

To read about Quadrant 1 – grow market share – click here.

To read about Quadrant 2 – new markets – click here.

To read about Quadrant 3 – new offerings – click here.

Marketing Mondays: Your Innovation Roadmap, Part 2 – New Markets

Growth Matrix

In Your Innovation Roadmap, Part 1, I introduced the innovation matrix (featured above) and covered Quadrant 1: gaining market share. In this post, I’ll cover Quadrant 2: bringing your current offerings to new customers.

Critical to exploring both, Quadrant 2 and Quadrant 3 (bringing new offerings to existing customers), is to identify adjacencies to your core business and exploit those adjacencies by developing a proven, repeatable process. Let’s take a look.

QUADRANT 2: NEW MARKETS
This quadrant is particularly important for startups that have achieved traction with their initial target customer segment and are now looking for new growth opportunities. The natural progression is to identify other customer segments that would find value in your company’s offering. This requires minimal changes to your product/service, while presenting an opportunity to grow revenues. Let’s review a few examples.

Expand Geographies.  Uber started with the simple idea of “cracking the horrible taxi problem in San Francisco – getting stranded on the streets of San Francisco is familiar territory for any San Franciscan.” The thing is, getting stranded without easy access to a ride is familiar territory for most people, especially in metropolitan cities like New York, Chicago, London and other cities that rely heavily on taxis and black cars for transportation. So, while Uber launched in San Francisco to solve the taxi problem there, a natural progression for the company was to expand to other markets with similar transportation needs. Eventually, the idea became so prolific that it makes sense to have a presence in any dense, metropolitan area.

So, how does Uber approach geographic expansion? This article on Growth Hackers gives a good in-depth look, but I’ve summarized the key points below, adding in some of my own commentary:

  • Accelerants (Common Pain Points). Uber has identified “accelerants” to adoption, which they define as a “concentrated, temporary need for Uber Services” such as restaurants and nightlife, holidays and events, weather and sports. Uber focused expansion on cities where these pain points were consistently high.
  • Intense City-by-City Launches. Uber customizes a new city launch based on the city’s unique topography, suppliers, special interest groups and culture. This includes hiring a local, entrepreneurial person to lead the city’s launch.
  • Free Rides. Is there an easier way to get people to try your product than offering a free trial? A significant share of Uber’s funding has gone towards subsidizing free rides in new markets or discounted rates on rides.
  • Wow Experience. Getting started as a rider on Uber is dead simple. The product works seamlessly. And, it’s comparably simple to join as a new driver. One key metric to success has been reaching a driver saturation point where Uber can get a car to you within 3 minutes. Anyone that has tried hailing a cab during a shift change knows how valuable this is.
  • Experiential Word-of-Mouth. The above points all contribute to a word-of-mouth machine. Uber is a two-sided marketplace that, for all intents and purposes, is the Facebook of the physical world – achieving viral growth through word-of-mouth. I’d bet that most people first learn about Uber through a referral or, as I did, traveling to cities like San Francisco and NY and experiencing Uber before it reached my city of Austin. By the time Uber decides to enter a city there is pent up demand. Uber uses this demand, and its high public profile, as leverage against local lobbyists and legislators to drive changes in laws to allow TNCs (transportation network companies) to operate within the city. Most of the time, this works. But, as we saw recently in Austin, this isn’t always the case. In Austin, both the City Council and Uber mismanaged the situation, and local citizens paid the price in seeing Uber and Lyft leave the city limits.

Expanding geographic markets is a natural way to grow a business that offers products/services of broad appeal.

Expand Up/Down the Buyer Value Chain. Great companies are built by solving a very particular problem for a specific customer in mind. This is particularly true in tech. Often times, the problem is a pain point that the founder has personally experienced and decided to tackle him/herself. And, thus, the company targets a specific audience (customer) with its first product, builds traction and word-of-mouth, while gathering customer feedback, from that audience, before expanding to other audiences.

The idea of the buyer value chain is that different customer segments have different adoption rates and appetites for paying for a product/service. A company may create a product with an customer in mind. But, the company should then look up the buyer value chain to identify audiences that may be willing to pay more for the product with minor enhancements (a higher margin/lower volume play), and down the buyer value chain to identify customers that may be willing to pay less for a product with less features (a lower margin/higher volume play).

SaaS (software as a service) businesses do this well – particularly around the freemium business model. Freemium is a business model where the company offers a low-cost version of its product/service for free, then offers enhanced versions with additional features or services at a premium (i.e. for a price). The pricing model is tiered, such that the more features/services the higher the price. Conceptually, the idea is that 80% of your customers may use the free version, but 20% will pay for the premium versions. And, that revenue will more than make up for the cost of offering the free version. Valuable businesses have been built off of this model.

One example is New Relic, which started by providing its analytics platform to Ruby on Rails developers because that was a growing, underserved community of developers that were innovative and vocal about products they liked (and disliked). After gaining traction with this community through a freemium model, they expanded to developers using other programming languages. Founded in 2008, New Relic’s market cap is now hovering around $1.64B (as of this writing). Clearly, it’s come a long way from its original focus on Ruby on Rails developers.

Other software businesses have followed a similar approach with freemium. Box started by offering 1GB of virtual storage for free. Individual customers using more storage had to pay for it. And, businesses that reached a threshold of employees using the product, also had to pay for it. Since, customers signed up for a Box account with their email address – usually using their business email – Box has been able to identify companies that had a growing number of employees using the product. This was a critical strategy: infiltrate enterprises by targeting the individual employee and gaining word-of-mouth and adoption within that employee’s company. Then, once that employee’s company reach a threshold of people using Box with the company’s email domains, Box used this as leverage to sell that company’s IT team a premium, enterprise version of Box that consolidated employee accounts into a secure system managed by the IT team. Slack, potentially that fasted growing B2B tech company in history, has used this same strategy: offer free, basic versions of the product to individual customers at the bottom of the buyer value chain; offer paid versions of the product with more storage space to individual customers further up the buyer value chain; and, finally, offer enterprise level versions of the product to businesses at the top of the buyer value chain.

The auto industry also gives us an example of how to expand up/down the buyer value chain. The chassis is essentially the car’s skeleton. Large multi-brand automakers like General Motors will design a new chassis, and then implement it across brands. For example, the Chevy SuburbanGMC Yukon XL and Cadillac Escalade each target a different customer segment, but share the same chassis. Similarly, the Chevy Traverse, Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Cadillac SRX share the same chassis. What differentiates these cars are the exterior designs, price points and associated brands – each targeting a different customer segment along the buyer value chain. Chevy is the everyman American’s brand. GMC is the higher end, professional grade brand. Buick is the economic luxury brand. And, Cadillac is the aspirational luxury brand.

Similarly, Tesla, after launching in Quadrant 4 (as most tech startups do), is deploying a Quadrant 2 growth plan that started at the top of the buyer value chain and is moving downwards over time. In a brilliant strategy, Tesla first launched with its Roadster – a $100,000, limited edition, high performance sports car – in order to build an aspirational brand with wealthy, highly visible and influential customers. This strategy allowed Tesla to, essentially, sell prototypes of very expensive electric vehicle (EV) technology, build word-of-mouth and demand, and begin to bring down the cost of the EV technology. Its next product, the Model S, leveraged improved technology at more efficient costs to offer the vehicle at a reduced price of around $70,000, targeting high end luxury sedan buyers. Next on the product roadmap are the Model X, Tesla’s first SUV offering, and the Model 3 – a more affordable sedan. With each of these products, Tesla creates offerings further down the buyer value chain.

Expand Industry Verticals. Finally, a key opportunity to bring your current offerings to new customer segments is by expanding into new industry verticals. Nike serves as an exceptional example of Quadrant 2 (and Quadrant 3) innovation strategy in the consumer goods and athletics space. The quote below from this Harvard Business Review article summarizes Nike’s approach:

“Nike begins by establishing a leading position in athletic shoes in the target market. Next, Nike launches a clothing line endorsed by the sport’s top athletes—like Tiger Woods, whose $100 million deal in 1996 gave Nike the visibility it needed to get traction in golf apparel and accessories. Expanding into new categories allows the company to forge new distribution channels and lock in suppliers. Then it starts to feed higher-margin equipment into the market —irons first, in the case of golf clubs, and subsequently drivers. In the final step, Nike moves beyond the U.S. market to global distribution.”

As you can see, Nike begins with Quadrant 2 strategy, adapting its core product (the athletic shoe) for a new customer segment (golfers) in a familiar geographic market (the U.S.). It uses endorsement deals to gain visibility and credibility in this new segment (just as Tesla used wealthy, influential Roadster customers to build its brand reputation in the auto industry). Nike also uses this time to adapt its business model for the segment by solidifying distribution channels and suppliers. Then, Nike moves into Quadrant 3 strategy, offering the golf segment more products such as a clothing line, balls and clubs. Once Nike successfully adapts its business model for the new segment and gains market share in that segment, all the while building word-of-mouth and pent up demand for its new products outside of the U.S., Nike shifts back into Quadrant 2 strategy, offering its full golf product line to new customer segments outside the U.S. market. This is a proven, repeatable process that Nike has deployed time and again to enter new verticals within the athletics industry.

B2B companies frequently use a similar innovation and growth approach. Often times a tech company begins by developing its technology for a specific industry. But, over time, as the company’s market share gains (Quadrant 1) level out, and the company looks for new growth opportunities, a natural progression is to find other industries that share similar characteristics with those of its core industry. Then, the company can adapt its technology and messaging to expand into those adjacent industries. For example, a company that services the highly regulated health care industry, might naturally expand to adjacent industries that are also regulated, such as financial services or energy.

QUADRANT 3: NEW OFFERINGS
In the next post in this series, I’ll cover Quadrant 3 strategy. As you may have noticed in this post – particularly the Nike example – Quadrant 2 naturally progresses in to Quadrant 3 and vice versa.

To read about Quadrant 1 – grow market share – click here.

To read about Quadrant 3 – new offerings – click here.

To read about Quadrant 4 – new offerings to new markets – click here.

Political Unrest Seeds the Transformation to a Purpose Economy

Brexit_Run_620x350

“Every few hundred years throughout Western history, a sharp transformation has occurred…In a matter of decades, society altogether rearranges itself – its worldview, its basic values, its social and political structures, its arts, its key institutions. Fifty years later a new world exists. And the people born into that world cannot even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born. Our age is such a period of transformation” –Peter Drucker

Last year I wrote a series on The Purpose Economy, where I asserted that we are actually at the tail end of our current cycle of technological innovation, and on the cusp of a new big bang moment that will bring an entirely new cycle of innovation over the next half century. This is based on several sources, including economist, Carlota Perez’s book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, where she illustrates how society has undergone a new technological revolution about every half century for the last 250 years.

5 Successive Technological Revolutions of the Last 250 Years

Each of those revolutions followed the same revolutionary sequence: (1) big bang moment / technological revolution, (2) financial bubble, (3) collapse, (4) golden age, and, finally, (5) political unrest. Since writing on the Purpose Economy last summer, I have watched the news and political debates in awe. Any doubt that we’re currently experiencing political unrest? Amazing how cyclical and predictable generations and the transformation they undergo are.

Reoccurring Revolutionary Sequence

The latest example of this political unrest is Brexit. I won’t pretend to be an expert on this topic and the nuances of its political, economical and societal effects. But, this morning I read Ben Thompson’s post, The Brexit Possibility. As usual with Ben’s writing, I found this post thoughtful and considerate of the larger picture, while speaking to the underlying nuances. And, it touched on some themes that I believe align with the Purpose Economy with regard to the changes that our government, corporate and labor structures will need to undergo to succeed in the Purpose Economy. It’s also a reminder to not panic. We’ve been through these changes before. We’ll go through them again in another fifty years.

Below you’ll find an excerpt of Ben’s post and a link out to the full post. I hope you’ll take the time to read it. If you’re interested in learning more about the Purpose Economy, click here for the blog post, and below is the Slideshare presentation.


THE BREXIT POSSIBILITY by Ben Thompson.

While it is fine and useful to look at industries like TV or transportation or consumer packaged goods or retail in isolation, if you step back far enough all of these industries are interconnected and symbiotic. TV and our modern transportation system and big consumer packaged goods conglomerates and brick-and-mortar retail all came of age in the post World War II era, and all were built with the same assumptions like the importance of scale, controlling distribution, and crucially, that each other existed. There were positive feedback loops driving the growth of all of them together (and many other industries as well).

The implication of this symbiosis is that just as these different industries rose together, they will assuredly fall together as well, and indeed that is slowly but surely happening for all the reasons I detailed last week. For now, though, leave these particulars to the side; I’ll return to them later.

The key takeaway, and my starting point, is the realization that no single issue or company or industry or country stands alone: everything operates in systems, and both influences and is influenced by the system within which it operates. By extension, any change to one part of the system must impact and change other parts of the system: the greater the change, the greater the upheaval until the system can return to equilibrium. Sometimes, though, the change destroys the system completely.

To read the full post on Ben Thompson’s blog, Stratechery, click here.