Lead With the Pain Points

I frequently share Dave McClure's rant about pain points (link to article) when I talk with CEOs and CMOs about messaging and value propositions. He points out the importance of taking the perspective of the customer and the need to consider the customer's pain points. 

Too often marketing presentations and pitches focus on the product features or the team. The pitches take the perspective of the presenter, rather than the audience. Sometimes they describe a big trend -- such as social or mobile -- suggesting everyone who rides the trend will win. Even when I see a list of benefits, they often lack context about the target customer, the use case, and the pain points.

Instead I encourage people to write pitches following this outline:

  1. Who is the target customer, and what is the use case and current pain point? Think of this as a qualifying question, that the audience will be interested in hearing the rest of the presentation only if they match that target and can related to the pain point.
  2. How does the product or service address that pain point? Specifically map the product benefits and features to the pain point. Avoid throwing in some pray-and-spray features hoping to broaden the appeal. Matching product to need is more important than providing a sea of benefits. 
  3. Why is your company uniquely qualified to provide this product of service? Specify the experience, assets, or qualifications that tell the audience you will deliver. 

Give it a try. It takes some hard work. And it takes courage to aim each pitch at a specific target.

The Future of Email

Here is an answer I posted on Quora.


I am betting what we know of email will become more of a notification service plus a way to communicate with people outside our regular networks. 

Facebook and Google+ are our networks of our friends and family. Twitter is our network of interests and associations. LinkedIn is our network of professional contacts. And project workflow tools (such as Asana, Trello, LiquidPlanner, Basecamp, MavenLink, etc.) are networks of people in our projects. Instant Messages work for our closest friends/family/coworkers with whom we have the permission to interrupt them.

We will want more of our communications to be "in context" with our particular network. That will lead to appropriate sharing and limit the number of documents emailed once and hidden on some person's hard drive.

Gmail already facilitates this separation of types of emails with their tabs -- to keep primary correspondence separate from network notifications and from email promotions/SPAM.

This blog about AngelList says it well: No email at AngelList. Note the instances of email:

First, when we need to communicate with people outside the company.
Second, when we need to have a conversation with an ad hoc group of people inside the company. HipChat is not great for ad hoc groups that only need to discuss a single task like, “how should we negotiate this deal.”
Third is laziness and stupidity (guilty).

The challenge will be to undo the reliance on business email among +/- 30-40 year olds who started in business with email so prevalent but who are also reluctant to adopt new tools. They are today's and tomorrow's business leaders, and will set the tone for many years.

I'm Back!

I have been distracted for the past several years as CEO of a start-up called Trust.MD, so have failed to keep up with my blog. It has been an interesting ride, and I found I enjoyed the CEO role.

Just the same, the role sapped all my attention. I learned first-hand with a start-up that there is always at least one more thing to do -- potential sales contact, administrative item, meeting to plan. I cannot recall q time I pushed back from the table and said "I am done, for now".

It has also been interesting in the Health IT marketplace right in the middle of the 2012 election, where one side wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and then through the implementation. The whole industry is spinning, trying to guess where things will go next and trying to build capabilities quickly in these complex ecosystems.

I will be sharing some of my experiences and lessons learned in upcoming blog posts.

State of Collaboration: Return to Essentials

in ,
There is much hype about new collaboration tools and "collaboration 2.0" approaches.  Indeed more of us are spending more of our time in collaborative efforts with others.  But our recent survey of collaboration experiences points out how much of successful collaboration requires some back to basics approaches to team management and proper use of well-established tools. The survey report  at All Collaboration points out the following:
  1. Complexcollaboration is already a significant work activity for many people, andwill only grow in importance. Most respondents have multiple collaborative projects underway at any given time. The purpose of these collaboration projects spans virtually the entire spectrum of enterprise needs. Collaboration efforts extend well beyond a group/department to include collaboration with other departments, partners, vendors, and customers. Collaboration is viewed as being essential across the board in the future, significantly more than the reality today. Individuals as well as organizations believe that they need to collaborate substantially more than they do currently.
  2. Successfulcollaboration requires mostly the good principles of project managementapplied to dispersed teams. Getting the old-fashioned basics right is critical. Most important advice from the respondents on effective collaboration is to: i) Define goals, roles, timelines and deliverables clearly, ii) Communicate the process and progress frequently and clearly, and iii) Select team members who bring real knowledge and expertise. Key challenges to effective collaboration include organizational culture and priorities, and collaboration process and tools.
  3. Keepit simple on the collaboration tools. Email, audio and web-conferencing, and file sharing are rated the most effective tools for collaboration. Wikis, IM, video conferencing and discussion forums rank low on effectiveness for collaboration. Selection of right tools and proper training are identified as potential areas for improvement.
If collaboration is a big part of your work life, I suggest you visit All Collaboration and read the survey report.
Read More

Google Needs "Public Editor" Like at NYT

in , ,
Normally I love all the new releases from Google.  I give them the benefit of the doubt, and know they will refine them to make them even better.  However, the release of Buzz indicates that sometimes Google can get ahead of itself. I appreciate the intention of Buzz and can see how powerful it could become.  At the same time I found the user interface awkward because it was never clear to me with whom I was sharing an entry.  Now the recent news about how Buzz was making my contacts list public caused me great alarm.  My biggest fears were realized. I immediately turned off the service (bottom of the Gmail front page). This latest slip adds to the growing amount of concern I hear every day about what Google does with its data.  We all know they make lots of money from selling advertising on their sites, based on targeting ads according the data.  But what does that really mean? I believe Google would be wise to borrow a concept from the New York Times, who have appointed a Public Editor to listen to the readers, be an advocate for the public, and essentially keep them honest.  As a regular New York Times reader I have been impressed with some of the dust ups the Public Editor has taken on, and my overall impression is the role has improved the paper's credibility. Google's watchdog would need a different name, such as Privacy Advocate, but the intention could be the same.  The advocate would consider the user's data privacy and security concerns, review all Google offerings and practices for compliance, and speak out loudly when there are issues.  The most important thing would be for the person appointed to have the credibility, fire in the belly, and independence to do the job well and instill confidence.
Read More

First Broadband Olympics?

in
This might be the first Olympics where I spend more time watching online than I do on television.  Kudos to NBC for a great web layout and IPTV! With their web coverage I get to follow the stats and watch the clips that matter to me.  I am bummed about the delays, to give first priority to the TV telecast.  And I wish I could see more of Bob Kostas online, giving his balanced commentary.  But now I get to focus on the sports, countries (not just USA), and events that matter to me. And I am OK with the pre-roll advertising and might even pay a premium for this type of custom access.  But please post the Tom Brokaw profile of Canada from Day One. This Olympic Games coverage seems to be the boldest step into the internet age.  It raises the question of which Olympics will we experience greater web viewership than TV viewership, perhaps measured by minutes of exposure.  And perhaps even before that crossover point, advertisers will see greater advantage reaching out to the web audience (targeting, attention span, measurability, etc.) than through TV advertising.  NBC (or whomever hosts future games) might be wise to cover their best with bosth media for the next 4-8 years to capture it all.
Read More

Mobile Internet Growth Validated

in
Back in June 2008 when I wrote my blog and presentation about the The Mobile Internet Revolution is Here, there were some detractors who said that others had predicted that for years with little results to show.  In that presentation I applied the principles of the Tipping Point. The latest data indicates explosive growth over the past year.  The Fierce Mobile article about a Quantcast report points to 148% growth in the mobile web usage in 2009.  According to this source, mobile page views represent 1.3% of all web page views for North America. The report seems to focus just on page views from browsers, so misses all the other mobile internet traffic generated by client software on mobile devices that receives and sends email or Twitter messages, pushes news stories, etc. The Mobile Internet Revolution is indeed already here.
Read More

Security Imperative for Cloud Computing

in ,
The recent New York Times article, Is Our Data Too Vulnerable in the Cloud?, points out the real concerns and risks of our storing all our data in "the Cloud". While some of the commenters point out that many of these security concerns apply as well to data stored on enterprise servers, laptops, and desktops -- the perceptions and fears are real.  Any further hiccups in cloud computing can set back the growth of these services, as a result of low user confidence. As evidence consider how many people we all know still fear paying bills by internet. What is needed  is for cloud computing service providers to display the equivalent of a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" to certify their data security is up to the standards of the best enterprises.  This will help consumers and CIOs feel more comfortable leaving their data in the cloud. To be effective this certification needs to address network and physical security, and also needs to apply global standards to meet the different needs of different jurisdictions.  For example the theory of cloud computing is that we should not care where in the world our data is stored; but EU enterprises have stricter privacy rules than many others and need to know their data security is up to EU standards regardless where it resides. Who will provide this certification? Perhaps auditors? Perhaps anew entity that creates a trusted brand? Someone ought to. Soon.
Read More

Viva Data Liberation Front!

in
I am often amazed by how much Google understands and practices good business logic.  The latest is their support for the Data Liberation Front.  This is a group of employees dedicated to "Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google's products.  Our team's goal is to make it easier to move data in and out." There is much evidence that Google wants to be leaders in cloud computing.  And they seem to realize that cloud computing is attractive only if it is possible to make our data portable, cost effectively, and easily.  The old web strategy of trying to create "Stickiness" usually involved having customers invest much time and effort to add their own data and meta data, and thus make it difficult for them to move.  But instead, Google has realized that many people might be reluctant to invest themselves totally in cloud computing (such as in Google Apps) if it is difficult to get their data out somewhere down the road and move to another service.  Fixing this increases the trust level. I wholeheartedly support this approach.  I have found myself checking on several cloud computing sites (PBWorks and Evernote to name two) and have invested in their use only when I saw I could get my data out in some common format -- such as XML files. Good for Google!  May this initiative set a standard for others to follow.  And may it help cement Google's leadership.
Read More

Wake up music industry!

in
Glen McDonald's well-reasoned open letter to the music industry bears some study. It is getting linked all over the net.   He is a music fan who is willing to pay for music, but is sick of all the tricks and nonsense -- like many of us.

Wake up music industry! Oh, and the movie industry needs to pay attention too.

Over and over we marketers see the advantages of giving customers what they want, and the perils of not meeting their needs.
Read More

Right and Left Brain Advertising

in
Always On posted an interesting article about the growing need for marketers to apply both their left and right brains to advertising.  This is further evidence of the broadening role of marketing.  Not only is there a greater need for creativity (right brain) to craft compelling value propositions and break out of the pack, but with the growth of narrow-casting media and micro-marketing it is important for marketers to be scientists (left brain). 
Read More

Caring for Customers Through the Full Cycle

in ,
Most marketers invest much time, thought, and energy in acquistion of customers.  And many (but perhaps too few) pay attention to current customers, especially in recurring-revenue businesses.  But how many even consider how to treat customers as they want to leave, in hopes that a positive experience might make it easier to bring them back in the future?

Think about it.  How many times have you heard the horror stories about customers trying to quit?  How often does that turn a mildly-dissatisfied customer into a raging anti-customer?  I just had an experience trying to quit a music service via an online connection, it took three tries, and it was painful.  There was a rumor several years ago that the only way to quit AOL was to use swear words in a chat room and get kicked off; my one experience with AOL was less extreme but still an unpleasant exit, even during the trial period.

As businesses mature this needs to be a higher concern for marketers.  Holding customers becomes more important than winning new customers.  And having a positive reputation through the entire customer life cycle is even more important.
Read More

Subscription versus Ownership?

in ,
One of the most significant open issues regarding internet-delivered content (music, videos, etc.) is ownership versus subscription. As I have raved about the Yahoo! music service to my friends, I have been surprised to learn how many insist on owning their music. Even David Pogue, a respected New York Times writer lands firmly on ownership in his Blog posting.

I lean toward the subscription model for most run-of-the-mill content because (a) I see how much money I have wasted on music and DVDs I enjoyed only once and (b) I like the ability to switch to a new service provider that has a superior offering. In fact I look forward to the day when much PC software (such as Microsoft Office) is sold on a subscription model.

Perhaps it will take time and earned trust for more users to believe that with the subscription model they will always be able to find their favorite things. Or (more likely) we will find that service providers will need to offer both flavors for their customers.
Read More

Yahoo! Music Unlimited Gets it Right! On the First Try!

in , ,
I am impressed.  Normally I expect big companies (like Microsoft) to need several releases to get new products and services right.  That is the failure of marketing versus internal politics.

Yahoo! has broken this trend with their release of Yahoo! Music Unlimited.   I have become a fan of subscription music, and have tried most of the new services. Listen, from Rhapsody, was doing a good job for me for awhile. Then today I tried Yahoo! and was amazed at how much they got right on the first try. They have an impressive music catalogue. The use interface makes sense.  They have some good personalization.  And their transfer to other devices is very straight forward, as well as a nice bonus.   Note that I like it without even mentioning the category-killer price of $6.99 /month for pay-as-you go.

 Although I have signed up for the month-by-month service, I already feel I will stick around a while.   Good job Yahoo! marketing and technical teams!
Read More

Cellular "Sin" Tax -- or Just Short-Sightedness?

in
So now municipalities have discovered that cellular customers need their service so much that they are willing to pay extra taxes. In the article "In Cities Facing Budget Deficits, Cellphone Becomes a Taxpayer" in the New York Times, Ken Belson tells about the extra taxes the users will bear. Haven't they heard the story about killing the Golden Goose? Of course people will pay these taxes in the short term. Cell phones have become a necessity. But the long-term implications of this extra burden for cell phones is dangerous. Maybe the cell phone companies are learning, as did the Local Exchange Carriers, that the highest return on their dollar is money invested in lobbying. And we all know that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Read More

Five Stages of Marketing “Grief”

in
I have often referred to the psychologist’s five stages of grief when I have been helping companies understand what might be going wrong with their new product or program launch.

The TLC Group in Dallas has an interesting article on applying the grief stages to other traumatic life events, including an amusing and informative example of dealing with a dead car battery.

With thanks to them, I will apply the same model what I have seen in many companies.

  1. Denial — What is the first thing you hear? “The reports must be wrong!” Or “the reporting is missing the real data.”
  2. Anger — Once this reality sets in, many companies blame the sales force or channels for failing to get the story out. Or they blame the customers for being stupid. It is usually someone else’s fault.
  3. Bargaining — This can consist of begging the channels or sales force to give it one more shot. Or can involve begging management for more advertising money or more time for the product or program to just catch on.
  4. Depression — In the corporate world, many start to worry about their jobs and look for transfers out of the department. This can be a harsh reality for many people.
  5. Acceptance — OK, so the product or program is a dud. Let’s either shut it down or reinvent it based on what is working well.
In my view, successful companies move through all these stages but do it quickly. They want to give new products and programs a fighting chance, and they also want to stop the bad ones as early as possible.

What about your products and services? What stage are you in?

Read More

Demand the most from your CMO

in

In my conversations with CEOs and General Managers I hear three consistent themes:

a.                   Top-line growth is vital to the success of the company, now that we are climbing out of the tech recession.

b.                   Companies need to look for new strategies for products, services, alliances, go-to-market approaches, etc.  The business world is different, and same-game strategies are no longer good enough.

c.                    They want their CMOs to step up to the challenges of the full range of strategy, alliances, product/service development, and lead generation.

At the same time, many leaders say their current marketing teams fall short of this set of challenges and they are wondering what to do.  It is possible these companies need to upgrade their marketing leadership and key team members.  But it is also possible that CEOs need to demand the most from their marketing team, and give them the latitude and requirement to take the company to new places.

I will share five starter questions for CEOs to discuss with their marketing team that will open the dialog and quite possibly open the team’s horizons:

1.          “Why exactly do our customers buy from us?”  Many companies are simply happy that their customers are buying, and have lost touch with the real motivations.  In my experience, few executive teams can clearly articulate their value proposition, and instead refer to strings of vague PowerPoint bullet-points that could apply to almost any company.  Those companies that learn what motivates their customers are best positioned to reinforce those attributes, seek other customers who would value those, and reduce wasted investment in unrelated attributes.

2.          “Are we learning everything we can about our customers and how they use our products/services?”  It is amazing to see all the useful customer information that companies “spill on the floor.”  Every point of contact, even to resolve problems, is an opportunity to learn more about the customer.  One leading company set a goal to learn two new things about every customer at every touch point, while avoiding asking the same question twice.  For example, has your telephone company ever asked you whether you use cable or satellite TV services?  Think of how easy that would be for them to do during one of your calls, and how much it would help them market their new services. Harrah’s is a leader in this effort.  Then once you are collecting the data, the question becomes:  “What are we doing to properly use the insights?”

3.          “Do we provide a complete solution for our customers, and if not then what are we missing?”  Many products and services require customers to do some work to create the full solution to meet their needs.  For example, people who buy high-end sound systems often need help setting it up, companies who buy software need to install it and need extra hardware to run it.  Too many technologies are products in search of a market.  If your solution is incomplete, then by what channels and alliances can you complete the solution better than your competitors do?

 4.         “Are we meeting the needs of our customers across their entire lifecycle?”  Many companies are discovering that delivery schedules, customer service, or upgrade ease are proving to be bigger differentiators than the core product/service itself.  The CMO should be responsible for defining the entire customer experience.

5.          “Do we make appropriate use of new media to increase our market impact at lower cost?”  Many realize that the days of mass-media advertising are behind us, and the future lies in narrowcasting, product placements in other media, blogging, podcasting, etc.  Netscape built a leading national brand without spending much, if any, on traditional advertising.  Check whether your marketing department wants a bigger media budget and wants to win a Clio advertising award, or whether they have new experimental ideas for meeting your marketing targets at half the budget.

I encourage CEOs to try these discussions with their marketing groups.  They might be surprised by the response.
Read More

Sell the benefits versus sell the technology

in ,
Time and time again we see technology companies use the tech terms to try to sell the technology.  One good example was ISDN; how many remember what that term means?  It failed as a higher-speed access technology for consumers, and partly because of the same mindset that allowed the telcos to call it ISDN.  Similarly, what is iDEN, GPRS, 1xRTT, and other catchy consumer phrases?  Most people do not know.  And they should not care.
We are watching the same trend with VoIP - voice over internet protocol.  Phil Harvey makes mention of a mini-survey of VoIP users who did not even know the term VoIP.  Watch for AOL to figure out how to make this simple and appealing to customers with their recent announcement.  I note that in their press release AOL makes minimal use of the term VoIP. 5:24:01 PM    comment [0]		  
Read More