The new table stakes of customer-centricity

When the cost of information was high, it used to be that you could get away with uncompetitive pricing.

Before virtually everyone had access to high-speed internet anytime, anywhere, you could get away with silo-ed sales channels and disconnected customer experiences.

Before your customers had frequent exposure to best-in-class customer service, or easy to use on-line checkout or relevant personalization–or whatever counts for meaningfully useful these days–you could get away with parts of your value proposition being less than ideal.

But in a world where the power continues to shift from brands to consumers, where your customer doesn’t care how you happen to be organized, where she increasingly expects you to know her, remember her and tailor experiences to her precise wants and needs, the table stakes continue to rise.

Sure, you can probably get away with some of your short-comings for a bit longer.

But getting away with something hardly demonstrates leadership.

And failing to understand, and to act upon, the differences between “nice to have” and table stakes is a sure path to failure.

 

The useless jury

Whether we acknowledge it or not, much of the time many of us are playing to one or more juries.

I’m not talking about a literal jury–or even one of those goofy panels HLN puts together for sensational legal cases.

I’m talking about those sometimes nameless and faceless people that we consciously or unconsciously allow to drive our attitudes and behaviors.

We not only believe that there are these groups of people who are out there constantly judging us, but we take action to seek their approval, to get them to agree with us, to persuade them to buy whatever it is we are selling. To try to make them like us.

There are useful juries of course. Hopefully we all have friends, confidants or other members of our tribe whose input is trusted and valuable. They help us sharpen our message and fine-tune our product or service. They give us confidence to walk through our fear.

The customers we have or want are useful juries as well. Ultimately if they aren’t voting on behalf of our value proposition it matters a lot. And we have the choice to adjust our strategy and try to win them back, or move on to something new.

The useless jury, however, is the most pernicious.

Sometimes they take the form of the relentless defender of the status quo. They are filled with fear and hate most change, particularly if it might somehow reflect badly on them.

Sometimes they are the folks that aren’t engaged enough with your project to fully understand what it is about and who it is for–and you are powerless to change that. If they aren’t willing to do the work, they don’t get a vote.

Mostly, though, the juries that bring us down–that keep us stuck–are those whose judgment is irrelevant, yet somehow we feel compelled to listen.

When, as Seth reminds us, you choose your customer first then you can be emboldened to say and accept that “this is not for you.”  And if it’s not for them, why does their opinion matter, why do you have to listen, why let them hold you back?

It’s time to dismiss all the useless juries in your life.

 

 

When the vehicle becomes the destination

If you read most marketing magazines, attend a typical industry conference or listen to professional service firms pitching their latest offering you hear mostly about tactics and techniques.

Whether we’re talking about social media, mobile apps, big data analytics, cross-channel integration–or whatever the buzz-phrase of the moment happens to be–there is a tendency to glom on to how something works and whether whatever is being sold can deliver ROI as a stand-alone investment.

Yet the reality is that your journey toward impactful customer-centricity, toward being truly channel agnostic, and ultimately delivering on the promise of a frictionless customer experience, isn’t merely about picking the right individual component pieces that move you closer to your vision.

This is not to say that individual investment decisions aren’t important or that one should completely ignore ROI calculations.

But the remarkable brands of tomorrow are likely to be run by leaders who understand where they need to get to and are committed to work through the ways to get there. They realize that their brand is an eco-system and creating it requires ruthless experimentation, making some bold investments, driving a culture that puts the customer first and aligning the organization and metrics against that end vision.

In an ever-changing and fast-moving world the vehicles we choose are likely to come and go.  When we hold too tightly to them we  risk losing sight of the destination.

Running to stand still

A typical day for most of us is likely jam-packed with activity: going to meetings, scrambling to meet deadlines, responding to interruptions, running errands, maybe squeezing a bit of personal time in between family commitments. And on and on.

To paraphrase the African proverb: it doesn’t really matter whether we are the lion or the gazelle. All we know is that with the rising of the sun we feel we had better start running.

The ability to be connected anytime, anywhere drives many of us to obsessively check our in-box, go to social media sites dozens of times a day (what if we miss something!?!?) and keep our smart phone always at the ready just to be sure we stay abreast of any text messages.

Yet…

How often is our daily agenda controlled by things that we tell ourselves we are supposed to do versus truly need or want to do?

How much of our time is spent on things that seem urgent, but are hardly important?

Why do we feel we must constantly know what’s going on?  Is it because we see ourselves as super heroes who might be called into action at any moment to save the planet? What are we afraid of if we don’t get to that e-mail for a few hours?

How much are we driven by the warm blanket of busyness that keeps our mind full rather than allowing ourselves the space to be mindful, present and intentional?

And how often, at the end of the day, do we beat ourselves up for not having accomplished much at all?

If we are honest with ourselves, how much is just running to stand still?

Exhausting ourselves on purpose, ultimately seems devoid of purpose.

Humblr.

If we’ve learned anything from Ron Johnson’s 17 month tenure at the helm of JC Penney, it’s that he and his new team could have benefited mightily from demonstrating greater humility.

All too often when conflict emerges among nations, families, teams or individuals, it’s a visceral need to be right that stands in the way of progress and compassionate connection.

If I’ve learned anything from my own journey during the past few years, it’s that I am at my absolute worst when I let my ego run the show. Defensiveness and self-righteousness are my enemies, not the solution.

Kindr.

Gentlr.

Humblr.

A new way to connect.

It might be worth a try.

Consumers and producers

At any given time we are likely one or the other.

As consumers we read what somebody else wrote, purchase what someone else made, ponder ideas someone else created, observe problems we hope someone else will fix.

Going to a movie, listening to music, attending a sports event, relentlessly checking Facebook or keeping abreast of the latest scores on ESPN are all about taking in content generated by someone else.

Being a consumer is typically passive and enjoyable. Little is required of us.  And it’s almost always undeniably safe.  I might feel a bit guilty about spending my Sunday afternoon watching golf on TV but hey, no harm, no foul.

As producers we are doing the work, writing the blog post, making that new product, bringing our art to the world, challenging the status quo, being the change we wish to see in the world. But as Seth reminds us, this might not work.

By its very nature, producing takes more energy, more focus, more grit and is riskier than mere consumption. Producing something with the potential to be truly meaningful and remarkable is more challenging and riskier still.

Of course we are all consumers and producers. There is no such thing a pure consumer or a 100% producer. On any given day, we will spend our waking hours engaged doing some of both. Life is a mixture of give and take.

So it’s not about being one or the other. And it’s not about labeling consumption as inherently bad and production as fundamentally virtuous.

But I do think it’s worth thinking about whether we’ve got the right mix.

And working to produce a better outcome.

 

I’m indebted to Reverend Aaron White of the First Unitarian Church of Dallas for his recent sermon that inspired this post.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should

“I believe a life of integrity is the most fundamental source of personal worth.”

- Stephen Covey

It so happens that my daughter’s high school has been plagued by multiple bomb threats during the past few weeks. Yesterday (presumably) the same budding domestic terrorist left a package of .22 caliber shells in one of the bathrooms, triggering a 90 minute lock-down and the fifth early dismissal of the year. Now the FBI has been called in. Frightening stuff.

Of course this morning–as has been the case with prior incidents–the street in front of the school is lined with TV reporters, their brightly colored vans and tell-tale telescoping satellite poles visible from well down the street.

Of course I don’t know what is driving this sick individual (or group) to wreak havoc on our school–and obviously it could be far worse.  But I do think there is a decent chance that they are driven by a desire for attention.  So if you work at one of these media outlets, you may well be encouraging this destructive behavior.

Certainly the media is fully within their rights to cover whatever they choose. But just because they can, doesn’t mean they should.

This is of course just one, very personal, example of this type of phenomena. But it’s not hard to find others.

Maybe you work in the financial services industry, and you prop up your profits by misleading teaser rates and gotcha’ nuisance fees.

Maybe you are a politician and you spin the facts to distort reality, or employ procedural technicalities to advance your agenda.

Maybe you are a religious zealot, who uses one section of the Bible (or the Koran) to justify a particular set of behaviors, while conveniently ignoring other parts of the same doctrine that contradict beliefs you’d like to maintain.

Maybe you are a direct marketer and use deceptive copy to trick people into opening your mail pieces.

H. Jackson Brown Jr. once wrote: “Live so that when your children think of fairness, caring, and integrity, they think of you.”

Fine advice indeed.

 

Your back-up monkey

You might have seen the story from yesterday that many were doubting that Iran successfully launched–and safely returned–a monkey into space.  This skepticism emerged from perceived differences in the before and after photographs of said space monkey.

The normally reliable (ahem…) Iranian press ministry explained that the confusion stemmed from their having issued a post return photo of a “back-up monkey.”

If you are anything like me, you probably find it easy to laugh at such buffoonery.  But then I realized I have my own set of back-up monkeys I rely upon from time to time.

When I want to avoid a difficult set of facts, send in my back-up monkey.

When distraction serves my interests better than a focus on the task at hand, call up my reliable old friend.

When reality conflicts with the way I wish the world would be, my back-up monkey shifts the attention.

Chances are you have your own version of a back-up monkey.  And at first he may seem harmless.  And fun.

But dig deeper and I think you’ll find he’s keeping you from your best work.

 

Neiman Marcus & Target: A glorious failure

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

-  Samuel Beckett

If you pay attention to this sort of thing, you know that several months back Neiman Marcus and Target made a big splash when they announced a partnership to jointly market a limited collection of fashion items for the holidays. This announcement was followed by a lot of PR hoopla and a high-profile television and social media advertising campaign.

And guess what? It was a bust.

The product offering failed to generate the sales frenzy that past designer collaborations from Tar-zhay have, and the merchandise has been marked down 50 – 70%. The media are now out with their post-mortem bashings, many taking the “I knew it was a bad idea all along” route.

Having previously led strategy and corporate marketing at Neiman Marcus for several years, I’ve gotten plenty of questions about my take on the strategy and its execution (NOTE: full disclosure, I remain a Neiman’s investor). Frankly, I think much of the criticism misses the mark entirely.

Clearly, a lot of the execution was messed up. Prices were generally too high, designer brands were extended too broadly and some of the product was just plain goofy: a $50 Rag & Bone boys’ sweater? That was never a good idea.

Big picture, however, the concept was fundamentally good for both Target and Neiman’s. Target is well-known for enhancing its fashion cred with such partnerships; so for them, this was a no-brainer. If they made any money on it, all the better. But the real value is in brand enhancement.

For Neiman Marcus, the strategic value may be less obvious but, in essence, their foray into “mass-tige” is no different from Karl Lagerfeld or Jimmy Choo doing their special offerings at H&M. The goal is to generate buzz and expose their brands to a demographic that they need to cultivate for the long-term. Forging a longer-term and/or more broad partnership would be dumb. But experiments, such as what was tried here, can be shrewd moves indeed.

Which brings me to my last point. What gratifies me the most is that Neiman’s actually tried something bold and, arguably, counter-intuitive. Neiman Marcus’ last CEO–and my former boss–Burt Tansky was a brilliant merchant and remains a luxury and fashion industry icon–and rightly so. But he was hardly a risk-taker and fundamentally not wired to say ‘yes’ to strategic innovation. Kudos to Karen Katz and her team for being willing to push the envelope.

It’s so very easy to label something a failure after the fact and to castigate management for its ineptitude. The far easier path for leaders of course is to never try. You rarely get criticized for the things you didn’t do.

It’s a terrible strategy to eliminate the possibility of failure. Great companies and great leaders are not characterized by an absence of failure.

Without trying, there is no growth. Without failure, there is no learning. The key is to fail better.

So was the Neiman Marcus and Target partnership a failure? In the immediate-term, definitely. But the overall grade from where I sit is “Incomplete.”

If the lesson Neiman Marcus takes away from this project–and it is a project, not a strategy–is to pull back on innovation, to stop experimenting, than it will be a huge waste of time and resources. If it strengthens their resolve, if they apply their learning to improve the process of innovation, than it will be the most glorious of failures.

The gift of prophecy

“It’s the end of the world as we know it…and I feel fine.”

- REM

So today is the day that, according to many, the Mayan calendar predicts the world will end. Of course these guys didn’t even see the Spanish coming, so I’m not sure why we give their forecasting skills much credibility.

Our world is filled with people offering up bold, highly confident predictions. Re-elect Obama and we will sink into a morass of Socialist despair. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. Cut government spending and we will sink into a recession. Or cut that same spending and we will finally trim our deficit and enter a brave new world of prosperity.

As Nate Silver reminds us, we must learn to distinguish a true signal from a universe of noisy data and input.

And we must consider the source.

And remember that the past is less and less a good indicator of the future.

I’ve had some success persuading people to buy into my (or my team’s) view of the future. And my batting average isn’t bad.

But when I, or anyone else, starts believing that they have the gift of prophecy, well that is a dangerous thing indeed.