Segmenting the Unemployment Rate

Any data set is a lot more useful if you segment it.

As an example, let’s say you find out that your e-commerce website converts at a rate of 3%. That is, for every 100 visitors, 3 make a transaction. That’s somewhat useful data, but it isn’t actionable -- i.e. you can't do much with it -- until you segment it. 

You need to break the users into segments: by gender or age or income, etc. When you do, you’ll find actionable insights that will allow you to take actions that will increase your conversions. For example, you might find that men between the ages of 30 and 40 that make more than $100k per year actually convert at the rate of 20%, but that most of your site’s visitors are in lower converting segments, thus the aggregate 3% conversion. With information like this you can adjust your marketing to bring more higher converting users to your site -- you'll get more marketing bang for your buck.

We must do the same with our unemployment data. The unemployment rate -- last time I checked -- was 9%. This number is quoted over and over again in the media as if, by itself, it actually means something. 9% unemployment is not actionable.  It must be segmented.

For example, the U.S. unemployment rate for those with graduate degrees is 2%, college grads 4.5%, high school grads 9.7%, non-high-school grads 15%. 

It’s critical to recognize the difference between these segments. The data is telling us that for the educated segment of our population, unemployment is at or well below its natural rate. But for the uneducated population it’s super high. This is actionable data. This tells us that there isn’t necessarily a shortage of jobs. There may actually be a shortage of qualified labor. Politicians should keep this segmentation in mind when evaluating "job creation" vs. "job training" programs.

Soap Operas & The Internet

You may not know that soap operas are called soap operas because they were originally created as a way to sell more soap.  Putting a quality drama on television during the day is a great way to get peoples' attention.  Sprinkle in some ads for soap and you have a pretty nice business model.  This is what's known as the "interruption-based" advertising model.  The viewer shows up to watch a drama and gets interrupted every 10 or 15 minutes with profitable ads.

Many of the top internet companies are beginning to look a lot like soap operas.

Facebook is covered with irrelevant display ads and requires you to install all kinds of apps to work effectively.

Irrelevant advertisements have started to pop up in my Twitter feed.

LinkedIn has gone from a super clean site to a mess.

Spotify and Pandora ads are poorly targeted and happen too frequently.

Don’t get me wrong.  I recognize that these are businesses that need to generate revenue and I have no problem with them doing so.  I guess I’m just a bit disappointed that as internet companies have evolved into real businesses, they’ve defaulted to old fashioned disruptive marketing to make money. Each of the companies above have built great products and innovated significantly.  You can't say the same about their business models. 

Transactional Differences Between B2B and B2C

Recently I heard a quote from Steve Jobs about B2B businesses.  He pointed out that one of his favorite things about working at Apple was that, in some ways, his job was easy.  All he had to do was create amazing products and eventually consumers would buy them.  This, he noted, isn’t necessarily true in a B2B environment.

It’s an interesting and important insight.  To sell an iPhone, all Apple has to do is build it, put it on its website or in a retail store and an independent actor with full decision making authority will come to the store, give the cashier their credit card and make the purchase.

Imagine the same scenario in a B2B environment.  Apple makes the same great product, but there are a multitude of differences that make the actual sale dramatically more complex.  In a B2B environment before a simple transaction can happen, the following things must happen first.  The buyer needs to:

• Be sure they’re not already buying iPhones (in a big company it’s possible that the buyer doesn’t know)
• Assign a procurement team to survey a variety of teams within the organization on what features are most important to them in a smart phone
• Prioritize those features
• Build a framework for valuing smartphones
• Review that framework with multiple teams
• Research other smartphones to see if there’s a better option
• Potentially request a proposal from those other options
• Determine a budget for smartphones
• Negotiate pricing with the vendor
• Once a decision is made to go with the vendor, they must get buy in from multiple groups and multiple levels (this is where its more about emotion than process, any person at any level could stop the deal based on their own whims)
• Check vendor references
• Write up an agreement with the vendor
• Have legal team review the agreement
• Negotiate legal and business terms with the vendor
• Circulate negotiated agreement among senior managers and executives
• Request sign off from the appropriate executive
• Get sign off from appropriate executive
• Issue purchase order
• Receive and process invoice
• Pay invoice based on negotiated terms

Finally, if Apple is able to get through all of these obstacles, they’ll finally get a check.  These transactional differences illustrate why a super strong sales team can be a true competitive advantage for B2B businesses.

Mastering the Complex Sale

I just finished Jeff Thull's bestselling book, Mastering the Complex Sale. 

I highly recommend it for individuals focused on complex and exploratory sales.  It gives some excellent perspective.  It points out that there have been three key phases in selling over the years. 

Era 1: Cold Calling, Presenting Your Features (me, me, me), Answering Objections

Era 2: Consultative Selling: Asking questions that lead the prospect down a path into your solution

The third era, and the one that Thull promotes, is around truly understanding a prospect's business and key business process and to diagnose problems and their impact.  Much like a doctor, Thull encourages you to spend time asking questions to determine whether the patient (prospect) has a problem at all and what is its impact.  Only after you and the prospect have a detailed understanding of the problem and the impact can you discuss a solution.  And in many cases, you may find that the prospect doesn’t have a problem or it isn’t a material problem, and you should walk away.  Just like a doctor wouldn’t operate on someone that didn’t need an operation, you shouldn't make a sale if there isn't a problem.  

Here were some of the key insights I took away from the book.  

• Don’t present.  Always have one foot out the door.
• You don’t want a decision on the solution, you want a decision on the problem
• There’s no such thing as a decision maker – there are multiple people involved in decisions.
• People make decisions based on emotion (Boeing is based in Chicago because the CEO wants to live in Chicago)
• There isn’t a decision to buy, there is a decision to change.
• Credibility comes from asking questions about the prospect's environment or situation that they haven’t thought of themselves.
• Most prospects have a positive present state, they don’t feel they need to change.
• Key question: How does the absence of my product manifest itself in my customer?
• Procurement creates a framework for a decision and they always make the right decision within their own framework.
• Most salespeople are selling with 90% of their product’s value behind their back because the problem isn't understood by the prospect.
• Include all costs in your ROI analysis – including the cost of their resources to implement.
• Talk about your top 3 pieces of value, but know all of them.
• When diagnosing, get to the people that are closest to the data.
• Don’t be a person that makes a sale, be a person that transforms your client’s company.
• Take the customer backwards to get them to move faster, focus on the problem.
• Don’t focus on bringing the prospect a positive future – a positive future implies they’re incompetent now.
• Good salespeople mention the side effects or potential negatives of their solutions (like a doctor).
• Don’t get emotionally involved, always be leaving.
• If you can’t quantify the cost of the prospect's problem then there is no problem.
• The decision to change is made during the diagnosis of the problem.
• Don’t talk about your value proposition, talk about value hypothesis (e.g. net profit).
• If you’re feeling pressure during the sales process you’re doing something wrong.
• Go for the no.
• Crisis drives change.
• You cannot sell a group.
• Find out out who owns the business metric that is impacted by your product and work with them to diagnose.
• The hardest part of a psychiatrist’s job is getting the patient to see that they have a problem.  Same thing for salespeople.
• When reaching out to someone cold, be sure that the message you send could not have been sent to anyone else in the world.
• When a prospect goes cold, use the rule of two to give them the opportunity to tell you the truth.  “When I don’t hear back from someone it’s usually for one of  two reasons: 1.) they’re really interested in moving forward but they have some legwork to do internally to get the pieces in place or 2.) they’re really just not interested.  Either one is fine of course.  Which one is the case here?”

Pinterest

A lot has been written about Pinterest, the social photo sharing website, in the last few weeks.  Fastest company ever to get to 10 million monthly uniques.  Very impressive.  What's even more impressive is how they're monetizing these users at a very early stage with a somewhat brilliant idea.  Here's how it works:

• I post a link to a pair of sneakers that I like from say, Sports Authority, to my Pinterest page
• You see the image and click on the link
• Pinterest runs an instant query to determine whether or not Sports Authority has an affiliate program
• If they have one, the link is automatically converted to Sports Authority's affiliate link and you're sent to Sports Authority's site
• You make a purchase from Sports Authority
• Pinterest takes their commission

A very innovative (and frankly gutsy) idea.  Twitter and Facebook are probably kicking themselves for not thinking of it years ago.  

The Razorblade Strategy

Yesterday I wrote about how I'm long on Amazon. One of the reasons is that they’re in the process of aggressively implementing the Razorblade Strategy.  The Razorblade Strategy is when one item is sold at a low price in order to increase sales of a complimentary good.  It was made famous by Gillette -- they sell their razors for next to nothing and the blades at a high premium.  This creates a profitable recurring revenue stream, and recurring revenue is generally better than one-time revenue.  Printer companies also do this very well.  Printers cost almost nothing and Hewlett-Packard, as an example, makes nearly all of its profits on the sale of the toner (again, recurring revenue).  I remember reading that one ounce of HP print toner costs more than one ounce of Dom Perignon...

The price of Amazon's Kindle has nosedived over the last several months -- you can get one for $79.  Rumor is that they’re even losing money on manufacturing the devices.  They're hoping that by lowering the price more people will buy a Kindle and then buy the profitable digital media to put on the device.  This is a perfect example of the Razorblade Strategy at work and exactly why I believe they’ll compete well against Apple in the digital media space.

Typically, the major risk involved with the Razorblade Strategy is when the price of the complimentary good falls.  But with Amazon's scale and dominance in media there's relatively little risk for them there.

Amazon should race as fast as they can to get a Kindle in the hands of every consumer.  Good execution of the Razorblade Strategy, and a price of $79 versus Apple’s cheapest iPad at $499, is a critical and promising step in that direction.

A Viral Marketing Framework

Uzi Shmilovici had a good post on Techcrunch yesterday on the 8 different ways one can do viral marketing.  I’ve written in the past how I don’t believe you can “do” viral marketing. But I do believe you can do a few things:

1. Build a product or service with ‘network effects’ so people are intrinsically inclined to tell their friends: (e.g. the telephone has a network effect because it’s a worthless product if your friends don’t use it -- it's naturally viral)
2. Build a product or service that’s so awesome that people are inclined to spread the word
3. Make it really easy for people to spread the word about your product or service
4. Use gimmicks to get people to tell their friends.  I don't mean 'gimmick' in a bad way but there are tactics you can use that give you a temporary bump in new customers.  Though they're not truly viral marketing activities as the increase in customers doesn't continue to spread past a few degrees as a real virus would

That said, Uzi's 8 ways of doing viral marketing are interesting.  I'd encourage you to read his post before reading on.

To help me think through his approach, I've applied his 8 methods to my framework above and included an example of each:

1. Network Effects

(1) Inherent Virality – your friends must use the product for it to work (example: the telephone)

(2) Collaboration Virality – the product is more valuable if your friends use it (example: Amazon’s ratings & recommendations system)

2. Make an Awesome Product or Service

(8) Pure Word of Mouth Virality – people tell other people because the product is awesome (example: most of Apple’s products)

3. Make it Easy to Tell People

(3) Communication Virality – include your tagline with the product (example: tagline in Hotmail’s email message stating, “sign up for a free Hotmail account”)

(5) Embeddable Virality – include a link back to your product in your content (example: link to Youtube in embeddable Youtube videos)

(6) Signature Virality – include a “powered by” link even in white labeled products (example: Intel logo on laptops)

(7) Social Virality – allow users to broadcast that they’re using your product through social networks (example: Turntable.fm forcing users to attach their account to their Facebook account)

4. Gimmicks

(4) Incentivized Virality: give users a benefit for telling people about your product (example: Living Social’s me+3 = free promotion)

As I've said before, viral marketing should be a mostly passive activity -- it's an output of building an amazing product or service.  So while all of the above are worthy activities, most of your energy should be spent building that amazing product or service that people can't wait to tell their friends about (see #8 above).

Touchpoint Frequency Graphed

A couple weeks ago I wrote about Touchpoint Frequency & the Attention Asset.  In short, if you touch a client or prospect too often with communications that are of poor quality, you will deteriorate the value of the attention you've built with them. I built the graph below to illustrate this concept.  The idea is to walk that fine line of communicating extremely high quality messages with the right frequency.  I believe that you can communicate every day, as long as the message is of high enough quality.  The challenge is staying on the blue line...

Touchpoint graph

A Couple More Thoughts on Enterprise Tech Versus Consumer Tech

Two other quick thoughts on this topic... Why is enterprise tech behind consumer tech?

1. Slower development cycles: B2C companies can innovate and release much faster than B2B (often B2B product changes need multiple approvals), "MVP" as a development strategy doesn't go over well with big companies

2. Many large companies (especially banks) are still on old operating systems and web browsers -- many top banks still use IE6.  This requires enterprise providers to dumb down their products and allows for less innovation.  I don't think Facebook or Youtube are even operational in IE6

Microsoft Office: Winning at B2B and B2C

I've been thinking more and more about how and why consumer technology is so far ahead of enterprise technology.  There are a variety of reasons why, though as I've said, I believe that the primary reason is simply that it can be; i.e. the "B2B" structure simply allows businesses that are focused on the enterprise to get away with less than cutting edge technology and products (i.e. a good Biz Dev team just needs to sell a few people on the product and those people force their employees to use it). That said, there are certainly exceptions.  Take Microsoft Office for example.  An almost ubiquitous enterprise product that is used in the office and at home.   Employees use the product in the office and they like it so much that they buy it for their home computer.  By creating an awesome product, Office has been able to dominate both the B2B and B2C markets.  This is an amazing accomplishment when you think about it.  To do this they have to have the unique combination of an elite Biz Dev team and an elite product/engineering team.

Of course, Google Docs and other web-based applications are legitimate competitors to Office and are taking market share.  As more and more users begin using Google Docs at home you could see them demanding that their IT departments switch over to the enterprise version.  To obviate this, Microsoft has created a "Home Use Program" where they offer their enterprise users Microsoft Office Professional for use at home for only $9.95 (the same product goes for ~$382 on Amazon).

A very smart and probably necessary pricing strategy to help Microsoft keep their unique stronghold on both the B2B and B2C markets.

Beware of the Low Hanging Fruit

One of the most significant challenges that comes with the launch of a new initiative is knowing whether or not it truly has long term potential.  

To make this assessment even harder, when most initiatives launch there's always some low hanging fruit that can give you the perception that the initiative is working.  Smart engineers or good business people can usually prioritize the quick wins and grit their way to some success in the first few days or weeks of a launch.  But what's hard to evaluate is what will happen once all of that low hanging fruit has fallen off the tree.  A couple ways to help address this:

1. Ask each team member to create one perfect case study of success out of the initiative as fast as they can.  Rather than going out and getting 30 wins, ask them to get one win and dive into the detail.  Why did that win work?  What were the challenges in getting it there?  What might make this win different than others?  What might make it similar?   By diving into intense detail and building a case study on a winning opportunity, managers will be able to understand the strengths and challenges that they didn't know about at the beginning or can't see just by looking at results.  So often the true path to success lies in the detail.
2. Keep a simple to read and easy to update log of initiatives; include learnings (what worked/didn't) and results against your goal.  Use this log to set a benchmark for future initiatives.  Over time, this log will help you get a good feel for when the initiative has turned the corner on the low hanging fruit and is picking up steam or fizzling out.

Low hanging fruit is a good thing.  It can help build momentum and excitement around a new initiative and is often a great way to pick up insights that help a team move faster or prioritize more effectively.  But it can be a trap that leads to over-investment.  The simple steps above have helped me avoid that trap in the past.

Charge More than your Competitors

Jim Keenan had a good post a while back titled, The "Lowest Price" is a Business Model not a "Sales Tactic". The key line in the post was:

Pricing is a business model, it's not a sales tactic.  Yes,  you can wiggle a little on price.  It's to be expected, but competing on price has no place in sales -- unless it's your business model.

It's a great post, I recommend checking it out when you get a chance.

That said, I'd like to extend the idea a bit.  In my mind, a good salesperson shouldn't want to compete on price; in fact, on the contrary, they should want to be the highest priced player in the market.  Not only does the highest price lead to higher commissions but it also implies that you're not afraid to compete on product (to justify the price, you must have good quality).  And it raises the bar on the quality of your sales talent and sales approach (you have to be better than the rest).

A while back, I was on a sales call and the prospect said, "you know, I've done some research and it seems that your product is more expensive than your competitors."

Our answer was this: "well, you can stop doing research on that, because our prices are higher than anyone else in the market, much higher."

While bold, most people would be amazed at how productive this can make the sales process.  It also goes right to the heart of the matter (gets the elephant out of the room) and levels the playing field in the process; i.e., "do you want to work with the best?"

Apple is a perfect example of this approach -- their prices are far higher than Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. but they can justify it because they're perceived to have higher quality products.  Apple never competes on price strategically, and I'm sure their salespeople on the ground don't even try.

Of course, this sales tactic has to be supported by product quality and company strategy, but regardless, I want the salesperson that wants to sell a product that's of the highest quality and proudly quotes a price that is consistent with that value.