I (for obvious reasons) am a great believer in hiring professional facilitation services to run workshops and meetings. But that is not always possible. If you are running your workshop in-house, there are some key things to get right to make the time and energy invested by everyone worthwhile.
My top ten tips are:
1. Have a clear, written-down plan, but be prepared to be flexible
2. Set up a “task” that everyone can work towards (people love a challenge)
3. Create a “parking lot” where thoughts not completely relevant can be captured
4. Establish and enforce rules on how to be to get the most of the session
5. Gather everyone’s expectations from the session
6. Start with an energiser to break to ice, even when everyone knows each other.
7. Don’t be afraid to “be in charge”, even if there are more senior people in the room
8. Let the real boss speak last so as not to influence the other attendees
9. Break the day into big and small groups - keep the energy moving
10.End with an Action Plan
For more detail on each of these, check out my website.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The Power of Customer Service
As a consumer's experience of customer service is such a powerful determinant of their perceptions of a brand or business, it constantly surprises me how little attention some companies pay to this.
I recently had the misfortune to deal with Energy Australia. I endured long wait times on the phone until I was finally spoken to by a disinterested voice who had no idea what they were talking about. I got cut off half way through the conversation and never got a call back. Every moment of that conversation told me that Energy Australia did not care two hoots about my custom. And if that was the case, then surely they couldn't be trusted to deal honestly with me regarding my energy options?
Completely annoyed, I took to social media to vent my displeasure and here came across a whole host of other annoyed (ex) customers, which reinforced my new perception that Energy Australia was "big energy", out there to squeeze the lifeblood out of consumers and the planet. Despite never having a problem with the actual product I get from them, I vowed to switch suppliers. All because of a couple of poorly trained and disinterested "service" staff.
Now, the truth is I didn't end up switching (yet). So, does consumer service really matter after all then?
Well, yes, because the reason I didn't quit is a result of the excellent customer service I received when I called up again to find out how much it would cost me to switch. (Nothing, as it turns out, because I don't have a contract.) Here I was fortunate enough to deal with someone who knew what he was talking about and happily gave me reams of information, was courteous and respectful and clearly was a happy little Energy Australia employee. Maybe they aren't so bad, I thought to myself. Maybe they are trying their best in a complicated world? But still, my doubt lingers and I am now more open than ever to switching providers. In fact, I find myself noticing advertising from their competitors, which would probably have gone unseen if not for this experience.
I've had the same experience with airlines, swearing blind I would never fly Qantas or Virgin again. Well, I've gone back to Virgin (on price) and been rewarded with a great experience. Qantas doesn't do itself any favours, but that is another story.
In this case it is easy to think that customer service doesn't matter. That in the scheme of things it is the last thing you might want to be considering, because overall perhaps bad customer service is not a key switching criteria. I disagree for a whole host of reasons, but primarily because of the following -
Every time your brand interacts with a consumer, it creates, reinforces or dislodges a perception about your brand. If you spend millions of dollars trying to create a brand which says to consumers, "we get you, people, we understand your needs and we can satisfy them" or "you can trust us with XYZ"... then why not take the time to ensure that message is consistently reinforced with every interaction with consumers - including at a customer service level? Surely that is just smart business sense?
Unfortunately, the bigger issue is that poor customer service is often a indication of poor corporate culture. And a bit of training is never going to solve that particular problem.
I recently had the misfortune to deal with Energy Australia. I endured long wait times on the phone until I was finally spoken to by a disinterested voice who had no idea what they were talking about. I got cut off half way through the conversation and never got a call back. Every moment of that conversation told me that Energy Australia did not care two hoots about my custom. And if that was the case, then surely they couldn't be trusted to deal honestly with me regarding my energy options?
Completely annoyed, I took to social media to vent my displeasure and here came across a whole host of other annoyed (ex) customers, which reinforced my new perception that Energy Australia was "big energy", out there to squeeze the lifeblood out of consumers and the planet. Despite never having a problem with the actual product I get from them, I vowed to switch suppliers. All because of a couple of poorly trained and disinterested "service" staff.
Now, the truth is I didn't end up switching (yet). So, does consumer service really matter after all then?
Well, yes, because the reason I didn't quit is a result of the excellent customer service I received when I called up again to find out how much it would cost me to switch. (Nothing, as it turns out, because I don't have a contract.) Here I was fortunate enough to deal with someone who knew what he was talking about and happily gave me reams of information, was courteous and respectful and clearly was a happy little Energy Australia employee. Maybe they aren't so bad, I thought to myself. Maybe they are trying their best in a complicated world? But still, my doubt lingers and I am now more open than ever to switching providers. In fact, I find myself noticing advertising from their competitors, which would probably have gone unseen if not for this experience.
I've had the same experience with airlines, swearing blind I would never fly Qantas or Virgin again. Well, I've gone back to Virgin (on price) and been rewarded with a great experience. Qantas doesn't do itself any favours, but that is another story.
In this case it is easy to think that customer service doesn't matter. That in the scheme of things it is the last thing you might want to be considering, because overall perhaps bad customer service is not a key switching criteria. I disagree for a whole host of reasons, but primarily because of the following -
Every time your brand interacts with a consumer, it creates, reinforces or dislodges a perception about your brand. If you spend millions of dollars trying to create a brand which says to consumers, "we get you, people, we understand your needs and we can satisfy them" or "you can trust us with XYZ"... then why not take the time to ensure that message is consistently reinforced with every interaction with consumers - including at a customer service level? Surely that is just smart business sense?
Unfortunately, the bigger issue is that poor customer service is often a indication of poor corporate culture. And a bit of training is never going to solve that particular problem.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Using other people's perspectives to solve problems
One of my favourite brainstorming techniques is where participants spend time looking at their problems from the perspective of other people, and use that output as stimulus for ideas to solve their own problem.
It is an effective problem solving technique because it takes you out of your existing patterns of thinking, which always lead to the same answers, and moves you down new thought pathways bringing fresh ideas into the open. It can also remove the subjectivity and frustration we feel when faced with a tricky, seemingly unsolvable problem, where often the phrase "hitting my head against a brick wall" may well apply. As a technique, it allows you to leave all your preconceptions about how the solution has to look at the door, so to speak, and frees you up to explore alternatives that you may usually dismiss because they don't fit the solution you think you are looking for.
It is a simple and effective way to relook at stubborn problems and get a new perspective on them and you don't need a room full of creative types and a specially designated workshop day to do it. Although idea generation always works best with two brains over one, it is good habit to get into, when looking at your problems, even on your own. When you are stuck for an answer, spend some time asking "how would... solve this problem?" and see what comes up.
Make sure you choose a different perspective through which to view your problem, rather than one that is to close to your own. Make yourself a set of "perspective" cards and pull one randomly out to use - from Richard Branson to Madonna, from an alien to an 80 year old woman - the list of perspectives you can try on is endless. Once you've generated a page full of ideas on how that person would solve your problem in their world, use that as stimulus to come up with ideas on possible solutions for your business issue. You'll be amazed at what you find.
It is an effective problem solving technique because it takes you out of your existing patterns of thinking, which always lead to the same answers, and moves you down new thought pathways bringing fresh ideas into the open. It can also remove the subjectivity and frustration we feel when faced with a tricky, seemingly unsolvable problem, where often the phrase "hitting my head against a brick wall" may well apply. As a technique, it allows you to leave all your preconceptions about how the solution has to look at the door, so to speak, and frees you up to explore alternatives that you may usually dismiss because they don't fit the solution you think you are looking for.
It is a simple and effective way to relook at stubborn problems and get a new perspective on them and you don't need a room full of creative types and a specially designated workshop day to do it. Although idea generation always works best with two brains over one, it is good habit to get into, when looking at your problems, even on your own. When you are stuck for an answer, spend some time asking "how would... solve this problem?" and see what comes up.
Make sure you choose a different perspective through which to view your problem, rather than one that is to close to your own. Make yourself a set of "perspective" cards and pull one randomly out to use - from Richard Branson to Madonna, from an alien to an 80 year old woman - the list of perspectives you can try on is endless. Once you've generated a page full of ideas on how that person would solve your problem in their world, use that as stimulus to come up with ideas on possible solutions for your business issue. You'll be amazed at what you find.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Social media by any other name is just people power...
In the aftermath of the Alan Jones debacle, there is a lot of chatter about the "threat" of social media. Or as Mr Jones himself put it, cyber-bulling. There are questions being asked about how social media should be "monitored" or "controlled". There are warnings to businesses to set up social media steering committees and to be aware of the risks social media represents. Some bright spark even suggests insuring (seriously?) against social media risk.
Here is the problem - all of these descriptions and calls for action forget one, essential thing. Social media is not about "media", it is about consumers finally having, and more importantly, exercising their power; power to influence others, power to change purchase behaviour and ultimately, therefore, power to impact brands where it hurts most - on the bottom line. Power, which for the longest time has sat almost entirely in the laps of brands and businesses.
For all that it is called "media", "media" it is not. Media is what businesses have traditionally bought to sell their message to consumers. Media is a controlled environment through which brands have communicated and connected with their target market and built their personalities and profiles (and if we are being cynical, their facades).
Traditionally, media has been an entirely one way enterprise, with brands telling consumers how to feel, think and act. Social media, it seems to me anyway, is quite the opposite. Social media is about consumers telling brands what they think. And some brands (perhaps like the Alan Jones brand) are still finding that a little difficult to deal with. In fact, the very fact that we call this phenomenon "social media" may well contribute to the problem marketers have with getting their heads around how to engage with it.
The upside of social media is that it can be about a two-way conversation, with both parties listening to each other. Brands can participate in the discussion, and get their view across. Social media can provide instant feedback to brands on what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. Social media, in fact, presents the first real opportunity to establish a "relationship" between your consumers and your brand. This is something brands have been claiming to be doing for years, but it's always been on their own terms. The difference is, this is an equal relationship, where both parties have power, and it requires businesses to seriously rethink how the marketing game works. And that is proving difficult for some to do.
The easiest way to mitigate the risk of a social media backlash is to start listening to your consumers, deliver them good value products and customer service and start treating them with the respect that they deserve. Do that, and you might just find social media is your best friend.
Here is the problem - all of these descriptions and calls for action forget one, essential thing. Social media is not about "media", it is about consumers finally having, and more importantly, exercising their power; power to influence others, power to change purchase behaviour and ultimately, therefore, power to impact brands where it hurts most - on the bottom line. Power, which for the longest time has sat almost entirely in the laps of brands and businesses.
For all that it is called "media", "media" it is not. Media is what businesses have traditionally bought to sell their message to consumers. Media is a controlled environment through which brands have communicated and connected with their target market and built their personalities and profiles (and if we are being cynical, their facades).
Traditionally, media has been an entirely one way enterprise, with brands telling consumers how to feel, think and act. Social media, it seems to me anyway, is quite the opposite. Social media is about consumers telling brands what they think. And some brands (perhaps like the Alan Jones brand) are still finding that a little difficult to deal with. In fact, the very fact that we call this phenomenon "social media" may well contribute to the problem marketers have with getting their heads around how to engage with it.
The upside of social media is that it can be about a two-way conversation, with both parties listening to each other. Brands can participate in the discussion, and get their view across. Social media can provide instant feedback to brands on what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. Social media, in fact, presents the first real opportunity to establish a "relationship" between your consumers and your brand. This is something brands have been claiming to be doing for years, but it's always been on their own terms. The difference is, this is an equal relationship, where both parties have power, and it requires businesses to seriously rethink how the marketing game works. And that is proving difficult for some to do.
The easiest way to mitigate the risk of a social media backlash is to start listening to your consumers, deliver them good value products and customer service and start treating them with the respect that they deserve. Do that, and you might just find social media is your best friend.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
In search of authenticity
On a recent trip to Fiji, my seven year old daughter asked if she could get her hair braided. Upon completion of the rather arduous task, she remarked, "Now I am just like a real Fijian." Except of course, the only people I saw with braids were Australian kids (and the odd adult who perhaps should have known better). Another day, I overheard tour guides offering trips to a "real" Fijian village, where we could partake in a Kava Ceremony and see how life "really" unfolds in Fiji. Of course, this is "real life" on show, which is hardly "real life" at all - but still, it highlights the desire we consumers have for authenticity. And that got me thinking.
Authenticity is a much touted about word in marketing circles and there is a definite trend towards providing a sense of it to consumers. Which is kind of ironic, if you think about it, since it is probably the rampant commercialisation of everything and anything that had led to the demand for authenticity in the first place.
Authenticity, or at least a sense of it, abounds in many forms, mostly related to heritage and origins and source. But for me, authenticity is about transparency. Or better put, my desire for authenticity is due to my lack of trust in brands. I want to know the claims the brand/service is making are real, but I am increasingly suspicious of them all. Is this face cream really going to make me look younger? Is this fruit snack really healthy, or is the fruit bit just a ploy to try and make me think it is healthy? If my hairdresser says I need to use Moroccan Oil on my hair, is it because she believes that there is an authentic reason for this, or is she just getting a percentage of the up-sell.
My husband says I am unnecessarily cynical, but I wonder whether this is where all consumers will eventually end up. If everything is about profit first, then how can you trust anything marketeers say anymore? Can there ever be “real” authenticity when maximising short term profit is the over-riding driver? We always hear that consumers are getting more savvy. What does that statement mean? Does it mean that we think consumers are on to our tricks? And if so, what does that say about our business?
Idealistically, I'd like to believe there is more to our business than squeezing as much profit out of the consumer as possible. I'd like to believe that meeting a consumer need is the desire, rather than the means to the end for businesses. However, I'd settle for being able to make my choices based on real information, not spin. I'd settle for a little transparency and a lot more authenticity from my brands (and my politicians), and I'd bet most consumers would too.
Authenticity is a much touted about word in marketing circles and there is a definite trend towards providing a sense of it to consumers. Which is kind of ironic, if you think about it, since it is probably the rampant commercialisation of everything and anything that had led to the demand for authenticity in the first place.
Authenticity, or at least a sense of it, abounds in many forms, mostly related to heritage and origins and source. But for me, authenticity is about transparency. Or better put, my desire for authenticity is due to my lack of trust in brands. I want to know the claims the brand/service is making are real, but I am increasingly suspicious of them all. Is this face cream really going to make me look younger? Is this fruit snack really healthy, or is the fruit bit just a ploy to try and make me think it is healthy? If my hairdresser says I need to use Moroccan Oil on my hair, is it because she believes that there is an authentic reason for this, or is she just getting a percentage of the up-sell.
My husband says I am unnecessarily cynical, but I wonder whether this is where all consumers will eventually end up. If everything is about profit first, then how can you trust anything marketeers say anymore? Can there ever be “real” authenticity when maximising short term profit is the over-riding driver? We always hear that consumers are getting more savvy. What does that statement mean? Does it mean that we think consumers are on to our tricks? And if so, what does that say about our business?
Idealistically, I'd like to believe there is more to our business than squeezing as much profit out of the consumer as possible. I'd like to believe that meeting a consumer need is the desire, rather than the means to the end for businesses. However, I'd settle for being able to make my choices based on real information, not spin. I'd settle for a little transparency and a lot more authenticity from my brands (and my politicians), and I'd bet most consumers would too.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Playing to the Audience
For completely unrelated reasons, I have been learning a little about book publishing, and more particularly, about how to get your book published. It should come as no surprise to any of you marketing savvy folk out there that it’s all about, well, marketing. The first step to getting a book published is pitching your idea to the publisher with a clear and concise description about the book and why the proposed audience would be interested in it. Ultimately, it is about convincing the publisher that you understand your audience well enough to create something that will interest them. And to a publisher, this means a good shot at sales, and more importantly, profit. Marketing 101, right?
Right.
Yet sometimes I think this simple truth - that the foundation of marketing success lies with knowing your audience well enough to create something that will appeal to them – gets lost amidst the flurry of branding templates, marketing processes and our seemingly pathological desire to make things more complicated than they need be.
Yes, of course execution matters. A lousy writer with a good idea for a particular audience is not going places, most certainly not on display at your nearest Dymocks. Execution matters a great deal. But if execution is the building, then audience is the foundation. And if the execution is not flowing directly from a deep understanding of the audience, we’re going to get into trouble.
Imagine starting with your audience. Spending time up front understanding them and their needs before you do product development, and most certainly before you do advertising development. Imagine the advantage of designing your product with their specific needs in mind. Imagine the clarity such single-minded focus might bring to the creative development process?
The problem is, we tend to work back to front. We start with our brand or product and say, “Right, who will this appeal to?” And that’s understandable. After all, there are factories to fill, assets to use and brand growth targets to hit. Hopefully, though, we then seek an “insight” about that audience on which we can hang our marketing efforts. However, quite often, that insight development phase (or, consumer understanding phase) is short-lived, or worse, skipped over, as timelines tighten and the focus turns to execution. Heaven forbid, we may even find ourselves re-engineering the consumer need to fit the product or brand (or advertising idea), so that we can just get on with the creative development. Not a recipe for a smooth creative process or success, by any account.
Maybe we don’t always have the luxury of starting with our audience, but if we don’t have a very clear understanding of who our audience is and how our product meets a real and meaningful need, before we embark on our marketing development, its bound to end in confusion about what works and what doesn’t. And we end up in this creative development quagmire where we are not sure if consumers are rejecting the very basis of our offering (the insight or strategy) or the execution of that strategy.
Can you sum up your product idea in a 30 second elevator pitch that captures who its for, and why they want it, in a simple, clear and compelling sentence? If not, its probably time to learn more about your audience.
Right.
Yet sometimes I think this simple truth - that the foundation of marketing success lies with knowing your audience well enough to create something that will appeal to them – gets lost amidst the flurry of branding templates, marketing processes and our seemingly pathological desire to make things more complicated than they need be.
Yes, of course execution matters. A lousy writer with a good idea for a particular audience is not going places, most certainly not on display at your nearest Dymocks. Execution matters a great deal. But if execution is the building, then audience is the foundation. And if the execution is not flowing directly from a deep understanding of the audience, we’re going to get into trouble.
Imagine starting with your audience. Spending time up front understanding them and their needs before you do product development, and most certainly before you do advertising development. Imagine the advantage of designing your product with their specific needs in mind. Imagine the clarity such single-minded focus might bring to the creative development process?
The problem is, we tend to work back to front. We start with our brand or product and say, “Right, who will this appeal to?” And that’s understandable. After all, there are factories to fill, assets to use and brand growth targets to hit. Hopefully, though, we then seek an “insight” about that audience on which we can hang our marketing efforts. However, quite often, that insight development phase (or, consumer understanding phase) is short-lived, or worse, skipped over, as timelines tighten and the focus turns to execution. Heaven forbid, we may even find ourselves re-engineering the consumer need to fit the product or brand (or advertising idea), so that we can just get on with the creative development. Not a recipe for a smooth creative process or success, by any account.
Maybe we don’t always have the luxury of starting with our audience, but if we don’t have a very clear understanding of who our audience is and how our product meets a real and meaningful need, before we embark on our marketing development, its bound to end in confusion about what works and what doesn’t. And we end up in this creative development quagmire where we are not sure if consumers are rejecting the very basis of our offering (the insight or strategy) or the execution of that strategy.
Can you sum up your product idea in a 30 second elevator pitch that captures who its for, and why they want it, in a simple, clear and compelling sentence? If not, its probably time to learn more about your audience.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Story Telling as a Research Tool
I am a great believer in the power of stories as a tool for understanding and communicating insight. Story-telling is an intrinsic human habit. It is how human beings have transmitted learnings, values and morals from one generation to the next, ever since we started stringing words together. Stories are also the easiest way to remember information, to make it stick and are therefore a good way to share your insights with your business partners.
Listening to people's stories, rather than their rational answers, often provides a more fertile opportunity for discovering insight. We spend a lot of time in research asking consumers "why" they do things. And the truth is, consumers can only ever answer that question rationally, and we seldom do things for rational reasons alone. In addition, rational answers are not particularly exciting or stimulating from a creative point of view.
Within the subtext of consumers' stories, however, we find people's motivations - the reasons why they may be doing the things they do. And these possible "why"s" provide richer springboards for idea generation - whether that's for communication strategy, new product development or creating ongoing and meaningful engagement with our brands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)