We are all different. We think differently and we find different tasks more or less easy to do.
For instance someone who is very confident may rely on their intuition. In an area where they have lots of good experience this may be fine. If they want to do something new they are exposing themselves to risk.
Someone who loves people and motivating or enthusing others may well talk to people they know to get information. The risk is that the information may not be objective, ie influenced by the person asking questions.
Someone who loves figures may analyse what has gone on before - but may find it difficult to be confident on predicting the future.
Other people prefer to become very knowledgeable about their product - and other products or services in the market.
All approaches are valid, but incomplete. You may find that you do one or two of the above, but not all.
In order to make good decisions, especially where investing time and money it is important to develop an approach that encompasses a variety of approaches. You may find this hard - perhaps working with a colleague that enjoys the bits you do not is a good way forward.
If you are a small business owner you may not want to spend more time and effort on research - however it does not have to take a long time - and does reduce your risk of failure.
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Does customer service matter?
Customer service clearly matters. Companies like Kwikfit are more about customer service than mending cars and are more successful as a consequence. McDonalds is about service, as are most fast food companies.
What about hotels?
Somewhere in the list of "why we buy" is enjoyment, rather than convenience or necessity. Sometimes we stay in a hotel because it is in a nice place, nice building, and we can do things we like. A comment got me thinking recently.
We stayed in 2 hotels - in one they got our booking wrong, the UHT milk was off in the coffee, it always took 10 minutes to serve, and nothing matched. In the other, everything matched and service was almost like Pizzahut, timely, friendly, and very organised. A straw poll was taken and the first hotel was chosen. We felt able to relax, and actually we were able to overcome two small issues.
In the first hotel it was probably no accident that there were only 3 people staying. In the other, it was full. If that was the pattern - then customer service matters.
The question is why do we as customers go for the better marketed, more easy to find, better serviced offering? Are we always that lazy? Whilst both hotels were in the same village, both lovely buildings, and similar locations. What if the choice had been between one of them and an "express" chain? Similar price, similar everything, other than one building would have been functional and process orientated, and the other traditional English.
Then the answer is more about risk avoidance. e.g. If abroad - would you go to a McDonalds or a local restaurant?
Something to investigate.... As individuals are we in the business of limiting our disappointment, even on holiday? (its not about delighting your customers - is it more about the perception of risk)
If this was your project to investigate how general this was - and then how it applied to individual cases... what would you do?
What about hotels?
Somewhere in the list of "why we buy" is enjoyment, rather than convenience or necessity. Sometimes we stay in a hotel because it is in a nice place, nice building, and we can do things we like. A comment got me thinking recently.
We stayed in 2 hotels - in one they got our booking wrong, the UHT milk was off in the coffee, it always took 10 minutes to serve, and nothing matched. In the other, everything matched and service was almost like Pizzahut, timely, friendly, and very organised. A straw poll was taken and the first hotel was chosen. We felt able to relax, and actually we were able to overcome two small issues.
In the first hotel it was probably no accident that there were only 3 people staying. In the other, it was full. If that was the pattern - then customer service matters.
The question is why do we as customers go for the better marketed, more easy to find, better serviced offering? Are we always that lazy? Whilst both hotels were in the same village, both lovely buildings, and similar locations. What if the choice had been between one of them and an "express" chain? Similar price, similar everything, other than one building would have been functional and process orientated, and the other traditional English.
Then the answer is more about risk avoidance. e.g. If abroad - would you go to a McDonalds or a local restaurant?
Something to investigate.... As individuals are we in the business of limiting our disappointment, even on holiday? (its not about delighting your customers - is it more about the perception of risk)
If this was your project to investigate how general this was - and then how it applied to individual cases... what would you do?
Friday, 18 June 2010
Picking winners - hypothesis testing
Many people who start businesses for the first time do it for a whole host of reasons. Getting out of corporate life, inventing something and falling in love with it, or simply just wanting to have their own business. Possibly down the list of reasons is the opportunity they have identified has a real chance of making good money for them.
People who start new businesses who already have a business understand what is involved in setting one up and making it work. Perhaps the opportunity appraisal is at the top of their list of drivers.
Does the combination of experience and appraisal mean that existing business owners are more likely to be successful?
Statistics suggest that this is true - hence having someone in your team who has previous business experience is very valuable.
It is not foolproof - methods that work for one business do not always repeat. There is just a greater likelihood of them working.
We are interested in collecting data at the moment about drivers to start up new businesses and then monitoring how key decisions are being made. If you are interested in being part of the study - do get in touch.
People who start new businesses who already have a business understand what is involved in setting one up and making it work. Perhaps the opportunity appraisal is at the top of their list of drivers.
Does the combination of experience and appraisal mean that existing business owners are more likely to be successful?
Statistics suggest that this is true - hence having someone in your team who has previous business experience is very valuable.
It is not foolproof - methods that work for one business do not always repeat. There is just a greater likelihood of them working.
We are interested in collecting data at the moment about drivers to start up new businesses and then monitoring how key decisions are being made. If you are interested in being part of the study - do get in touch.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
Research on the hoof
The Bath and West Show June 2010
I have a love of coffee and could remember that previously there have been lots of stalls selling ground coffee. Whilst you can find every "difficult" product under the sun - ie those that do not sell on the high street, there was no ground coffee to be seen. I was there for 4 days and looked pretty hard.
4 years ago there was lots of coffee ground by individuals hoping to catch the eye of supermarkets.
During this time the market has matured and the supply chain settled down. Ground coffee or even coffee shops are no longer "growth" markets in the same way as they were and to some extend consumers have made their choices on brand.
Breaking this down - it is useful to research things over time - you get a picture of how things are changing. This is an example of longitudinal research.
I was working with a wood pellet supplier - Energy2burn - and with a bit of questioning it was a good opportunity to look at the competitive landscape. It was possible to work out margins, concentration ratios, marketing strategies, and predict behaviour. It helped match what I already knew about some companies to reality. This is called cross referencing.
I have a love of coffee and could remember that previously there have been lots of stalls selling ground coffee. Whilst you can find every "difficult" product under the sun - ie those that do not sell on the high street, there was no ground coffee to be seen. I was there for 4 days and looked pretty hard.
4 years ago there was lots of coffee ground by individuals hoping to catch the eye of supermarkets.
During this time the market has matured and the supply chain settled down. Ground coffee or even coffee shops are no longer "growth" markets in the same way as they were and to some extend consumers have made their choices on brand.
Breaking this down - it is useful to research things over time - you get a picture of how things are changing. This is an example of longitudinal research.
I was working with a wood pellet supplier - Energy2burn - and with a bit of questioning it was a good opportunity to look at the competitive landscape. It was possible to work out margins, concentration ratios, marketing strategies, and predict behaviour. It helped match what I already knew about some companies to reality. This is called cross referencing.
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Understanding influence - what do you vote for?
If you go to http://voteforpolicies.org.uk you can read policies and vote on which ones you like. You are then told which party you have voted for. Over 200,000 people have voted and the results at the moment show:
Green party policies are the most popular with 25% of the vote
Labour second with 19% of the vote
Whilst the conclusion to the voting results is that everyone actually had to read the policies (or at least skim read them). What percentage of the population is able or will to do this?
Much of the media attention is on people and what they say. Yougov.co.uk suggests:
34% Conservatives
28% Labour
28% Libdem
The conclusion must be that it is not about policies. So what is it about?
There is the "Leeds United" syndrome. From supporting them since the age of 3 I will never choose another team. Whilst some float as voters, many do not. Many of the "safe seats" are simply that - they are safe seats containing enough people who simply could not vote for anyone else. This guarantees a certain number of seats for each party and a certain share of the popular vote. These people may be interested in policies, but they do not vote for them. Creeping into this section is also the "local" candidate, where you may vote for a good local MP. As long as they are still standing you continue to vote for them.
We also like to vote for "winners" - or the people with a chance of winning. Underpinning this there is some "critical mass" to the size of a party, so the Greens may have the policies - but they have not got the advertising or presence to make an impact. Its a bit like an Oligopoly - we all know there is choice, but due to market power we buy from the most available.
As part of the "critical mass" - exposure and advertising are important, but do remember bias. Different papers "come out" and back particular parties. To what extent are we influenced by this? Whether you like Gordon Brown or not - it was interesting listening to Max Hastings (Former Sun editor) suggest that Gordon Brown has had a really hard bashing by the press. Partly this is "because they can", and whoever gets into power will get what's coming to them sooner or later. Does this influence the floating voters? This is simply a "replacing strategy" either locally or nationally.
If you are into Game theory there is the "hawkes and doves" argument. All parties have finite resources and focus them on the seats that are marginal and where there is "hope". In some seats parties will choose to be "hawkes" and really try and get your vote, hoping that the other parties will not put their resources into the same seat. In other areas you may be a "dove" and not put any resources in. For instance in Chippenham, due to the boundary changes it could be likely that the Libdems take the seat ahead of the Conservative party. Whilst the Libdem leader has visited the Chippenham - David Cameron has not (as yet). If the Conservatives want to win the election they need 118 new seats. In a list of key marginals Chippenham is the 43rd. So why the "no show"?
Finally we do not all vote. Indeed a turnout of 60% is expected. Who doesn't vote? The "don't cares", "too busy", or simply unable to fill in the form and register. The reasons be be very simple, or very complex, but not everyone votes.
If you relate this to products and services sold by SME's it helps explain why businesses and consumers do not buy the logically "best" product or service. Perhaps it is the easiest, the "Leeds United", the "winner", or where tactical marketing has been effective. As a way forward tactical marketing is an available choice, but you must know your market to know that you have a chance of success. This suggests some research and analysis that is followed by some targeted action.
To understand further about "plugging into" your market - visit our main site and download a free worksheet.
Green party policies are the most popular with 25% of the vote
Labour second with 19% of the vote
Whilst the conclusion to the voting results is that everyone actually had to read the policies (or at least skim read them). What percentage of the population is able or will to do this?
Much of the media attention is on people and what they say. Yougov.co.uk suggests:
34% Conservatives
28% Labour
28% Libdem
The conclusion must be that it is not about policies. So what is it about?
There is the "Leeds United" syndrome. From supporting them since the age of 3 I will never choose another team. Whilst some float as voters, many do not. Many of the "safe seats" are simply that - they are safe seats containing enough people who simply could not vote for anyone else. This guarantees a certain number of seats for each party and a certain share of the popular vote. These people may be interested in policies, but they do not vote for them. Creeping into this section is also the "local" candidate, where you may vote for a good local MP. As long as they are still standing you continue to vote for them.
We also like to vote for "winners" - or the people with a chance of winning. Underpinning this there is some "critical mass" to the size of a party, so the Greens may have the policies - but they have not got the advertising or presence to make an impact. Its a bit like an Oligopoly - we all know there is choice, but due to market power we buy from the most available.
As part of the "critical mass" - exposure and advertising are important, but do remember bias. Different papers "come out" and back particular parties. To what extent are we influenced by this? Whether you like Gordon Brown or not - it was interesting listening to Max Hastings (Former Sun editor) suggest that Gordon Brown has had a really hard bashing by the press. Partly this is "because they can", and whoever gets into power will get what's coming to them sooner or later. Does this influence the floating voters? This is simply a "replacing strategy" either locally or nationally.
If you are into Game theory there is the "hawkes and doves" argument. All parties have finite resources and focus them on the seats that are marginal and where there is "hope". In some seats parties will choose to be "hawkes" and really try and get your vote, hoping that the other parties will not put their resources into the same seat. In other areas you may be a "dove" and not put any resources in. For instance in Chippenham, due to the boundary changes it could be likely that the Libdems take the seat ahead of the Conservative party. Whilst the Libdem leader has visited the Chippenham - David Cameron has not (as yet). If the Conservatives want to win the election they need 118 new seats. In a list of key marginals Chippenham is the 43rd. So why the "no show"?
Finally we do not all vote. Indeed a turnout of 60% is expected. Who doesn't vote? The "don't cares", "too busy", or simply unable to fill in the form and register. The reasons be be very simple, or very complex, but not everyone votes.
If you relate this to products and services sold by SME's it helps explain why businesses and consumers do not buy the logically "best" product or service. Perhaps it is the easiest, the "Leeds United", the "winner", or where tactical marketing has been effective. As a way forward tactical marketing is an available choice, but you must know your market to know that you have a chance of success. This suggests some research and analysis that is followed by some targeted action.
To understand further about "plugging into" your market - visit our main site and download a free worksheet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
