Where Should You Spend Your Time?

June 30th, 2010

Stefan Doering (New York Entrepreneur Week) started an important Linked-In discussion, asking “As CEO, Where Do You Spend Most of Your Time?” Many leaders of businesses large or small, I suspect, would react much as Doering’s audience ….

“On Monday I had a room of 30+ entrepreneurs glaring at me…. It started when I asked them how much time they spend in the following three basic areas of (any) business … The room fell silent when I told them how much they should spend:
Marketing: 60-80%
Production: 10-30%
Administration: 10%
…. [ because ] There is no one in your company that can sell your company better than you. No one!”

Doering’s is timely advice to anyone with an interest in making their business more successful, but it is especially pertinent to the majority of entrepreneurs whose business is the creation of their subject matter expertise – their superior ability to make or do something useful.

Marketing isn’t intuitive to many of us, and not comfortable for many others. If you’re one of these ….

First – Take time to something about marketing. The web is full of useful sources, great discussions, and access to real expertise. Linked-In and similar networking sites are particularly useful.
Second – Invest a lot of time getting to know your customers. Spend more time listening than talking. Find out what makes their business and their customer tick. Spend less effort trying to explain why your offering is so good and more effort figuring out how to solve their problems.
Third – Structure every aspect of your company – from product design, to sales, to invoicing, to customer service, to how the phones are answered and the emails responded to – to make it easier and more attractive for your customers to deal with you.

Remember – The ONLY source of your profits is a throng of customers eager to spend their $$$ with you.

Growing a Solar Business with Marketing Research

June 29th, 2010

In a recent Marketing Intelligence & Strategy project, I helped a small business owner:
1. Understand local markets and potential buyers for solar energy systems in residential and commercial buildings.
2. Create programs to educate local architects and builders about solar technologies and the viability of solar-electric and solar hot water systems in home and commercial building environments.
3. Implement a marketing communications program to inform homeowners and commercial building owners about the availability and parcticality of solar energy systems in the local marketplace.
For more about the insights and recommendations of this MISA project and its results ….

http://rcbrothers1.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/growing-a-solar-business/

More on ‘Green’ Chemicals

June 28th, 2010

A recently completed study by Marketing Intelligence & Strategy assessed market opportunities in the US and Western Europe for selected commodity industrial chemicals made by a new biology-based process. Key conclusions included:

1. In both the US and Europe, users of large volume commodity chemicals and solvents are eager to learn about and purchase ‘greener’ alternatives.
2. There is widespread acknowledgement that claims about the ‘green-ness’ of materials and processes are difficult to verify and thus difficult to accept as the basis for important business decisions.
3. Most industry figures would welcome a consistent, comprehensive way to assess cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of incumbent materials and ‘greener’ alternatives.
4. New REACh regulations being implemented in Europe represent a substantial hurdle, especially for smaller manufacturers, particularly those not already established in the Europe and marketplace.

Markets for “Green” Chemicals

June 23rd, 2010

Here is a quick summary of a consulting project I recently completed.
If this sort of assessment would be valuable to you, please contact:
Bob Brothers
Marketing Intelligence & Strategy
bob@market-intel.com

Working with the client’s VP of Business Development, Marketing Intelligence & Strategy Associates created profiles of the US and European marketplace for a selected family of industrial chemicals. MISA prioritized important market opportunities and developed marketing strategy and implementation recommendations for “green” versions of these products, made from a new, environmentally friendly manufacturing process.

MISA Principal Bob Brothers conducted interviews with key industry participants and utilized published information sources, to:

- Define the size and value of key end uses, and profile major suppliers and consumers of the targeted products.
- Explain the buying decision processes of key potential customers, and their protocols for evaluating and approving new products and suppliers
- Determine key customers’ and end users’ attitudes, materials selection and marketing practices around “green” products and formulations.
- Explain the impact of European REACh regulations upon targeted market segments in the EU and the resulting limitations and opportunities for the client to enter the European marketplace.

Insights and recommendations provided by MISA gave the client confidence to accelerate its investment and business development activities in the new “green” manufacturing process.

Advice to New Employees

April 28th, 2010

Some good advice for new grads in their first job – and a good reminder for the rest of us – in a recent post over on Yahoo Finance. Yahoo’s 6 career damaging mistakes:

1. Thinking that because you have your degree, you shouldn’t have to do grunt work.
2. Not being thorough.
3. Thinking that what you post on social networking sites doesn’t matter.
4. Procrastinating.
5. Not putting effort into forming relationships with older colleagues.
6. Not saying “thank you.”

Here are a couple of more —
- Not being a team player. In much of your college work, you were on your own, competing, even, against your classmates. In business, however, you’re almost always part of a team, collaborating to accomplish a task. The more you can learn to get things done with and through other people, the more likely your long term success.

- Not learning the Big Picture. Again, in college, you’re typically given a well defined problem with an outcome that falls within a well defined set of possibilities. Although your early job assignments will probably be small manageable pieces of a larger business problem, the important business problems are hardly ever clearly defined or understood, and rarely do they have an obvious path to a solution. Context, history, and relationships often matter as much as the technology and analytics. Those who can put it all together are rare and valuable to your employer.

And – especially for young women – be mindful of the image you project. Study after study show the advantage – for both men and women – of being attractive, but a reputation as the office ‘hottie’ is not an ingredient for long term career success. Study and model you behaviors and appearance after people at the level of your boss’s boss. They have already achieved some measure of success, and they provide you with a clear indication of what your employer values and rewards.

Hot Button!!!

April 26th, 2010

My most recent posts – about innovation in the US – really hit some people’s hot button. A near universal anger focused on what should be a small and minimally controversial element in the Rx for making the US economy more innovative: Improving the quality and availability of education in the US.

I was surprised by the near universal disdain for our schools because of ‘lazy and incompetent teachers’ and the near universal anger at ‘throwing more money at the problem.’

There certainly are lazy and incompetent teachers in the system, and we need better ways to deal with them (just as we need better ways to police medical malpractice than the currrent system of professional non-oversight and lack of legal review of incompetent and negligent doctors). But to suggest (as some readers did) that the solution is to do away with teachers’ unions or to abandon public education is political rhetoric disconnected from rationality.

Of course, education alone will not solve the problem of innovation in the US; far less will it single-handedly create millions of new middle class jobs. But a quality education, available to all Amaericans, if a vital piece of the foundation.

US Wins / Loses Innovation Test

April 21st, 2010

A pair of recent columns highlights the hope and the despair of innovation as the driver of the US economy, prosperity, and job creation. THE HUFFINGTON POST points out the dismal and deteriorating record of US innovation over the past few years and suggests some broad avenues to get us heading back in the right direction. Tom Friedman, meanwhile, recounts the inspiring (but perhaps not easily duplicated) story of the globe-spanning start-up of a new medical device company by a small team of physician-entrepreneurs.

First, the good news. Friedman tells the story of EndoStim, a small start-up that couples invention by US physicians and US venture capital with Israelis designers, Uruguayan manufacturing, clinical trials by hospitals and surgeons in Chile and India. According to Friedman’s account, the majority of the highest paying jobs that EndoStim’s success will create will stay in the US – close to the source of the ideas and the funding. The ability of entrepreneurs (by their thousands) to quickly, cheaply and repeatedly orchestrate the best resources from around the world, Friedman contends, will be the key to our wealth and growth in the modern world.

The Huffington Post takes a decidedly bleaker look at innovation in the US. It cited a study by Information Technology and Innovation Foundation that ranked the US “dead last” among the 40 surveyed countries in our progress of innovation. Patents issued to US inventors fell 2.3% in 2009, while patents issued to non-US applicants increased 6%. Reasons, according to HuffPo, include:

- The pitiful state of US education, our society’s pitifully low level of math and science competency, and our unwillingness to invest in our children’s future.
- Our unwillingness – public and private – to invest in research and development, the source of new technologies and products
- Financing and tax structures which starve the entrepreneurial enterprise, and immigration policies which discourage foreign inventors from starting up their new ventures here.

HuffPo offers some solutions – New, faster and much more accessible broadband service to reach the vast majority of US homes and businesses; research, investment and tax policies with nurture and reward green energy development in the US; and Federal policies which encourage foreigners to plant their inventions and their start-ups in America.

While Friedman’s feel-good story of success and HuffPo’s somber assessment both offer some interesting and useful ideas, neither article offers an adequate answer for a US middle class starved for challenging, high paying jobs. Here are some additional remedies …

1. Fix the US educational system, by investing more in primary and secondary schools and making college much more affordable and accessible to the majority of American kids.
2. Massive new investment in scientific research and development – thorough direct government spending and policies which encourage and reward private R&D and investment
3. Create and aggressivley support business incubators to provide access to the range of diverse, global resources which powered EndoStim’s success.

I’m sure you can suggest additional ideas …

Competing and Winning

April 19th, 2010

WINNING means different things to different people. To some, WINNING is ….
- Destroying your opponent so he can’t be a challenge to you
- When your best is better than everyone else’s best
- When you accomplish something useful and unique, regardles of what others are doing
- When you help others to become winners
Which kind of winner are you? And who do you honor most and respect?

Competitive Intelligence – Consensus?

April 3rd, 2010

My two previous Competitive Intelligence posts (here and here) generated a lot of discussion – but a surprising convergence of views about the scope and limitations of competitor intelligence, and about how insights about competitors fit into the larger universe of what I believe is most accurately termed “Business Intelligence”.

Debra D (from the healthcare insurance field, commenting at a Linked-In group) perhaps summarizes it best:

“Competitive intelligence is about understanding the broader market dynamics which includes understanding customers’ and suppliers’ motivations and drivers, not just competitors…. The point of CI is well beyond just understanding what the competitors are up to. Woe to the company whose CI efforts and resources just focus on the competition.”

Interestingly, the usage of the term ‘competitive intelligence’ to lead her definition highlights the semantic confusion around terms such as business vs market vs customer vs competitive intelligence that seems to obscure a general sense of agreement among all of us commentators.

The underlying message seems to be that too narrow a focus – a fixation, if you will – on a single dimension of business intelligence (even if you excel in that dimension!) will blind you to important and eventually dominant events in other dimensions.

I suspect there’s an even deeper message here, too –that creating and maintaining business success is a lot like building a healthy life. It comes not from doing one thing (be it cardio workouts or vegan diets, customer service or applications research, for example) exceedingly well but by doing an excellent job of orchestrating the smooth and symbiotic functioning of all the supporting parts and functions. It’s a message I’d like to think about some more and to write about soon.

Go here to read verbatims from many of the best comments

Competitive Intelligence – Collected Comments

April 3rd, 2010

Here are some excellent comments, representative of the discussion around my 2 earlier CI posts —

Andy M – Owner
Hi Bob,
Your intelligence and research on the competition is vital to knowing why customers buy ( or dont Buy ) your product. Much of our work is in the retail arena, specifically consumer electronics and mobile phones… we go to retail outlets, ask the sales staff about a product, and let them talk freely about the pros and cons of each product and the brand as a whole.
Our USP is that at the time, we are wearing a hidden camera and record the whole interaction. With the technology as good as it is, we can then replay the DVD with our client and see how the product is marketed in store AND what the sales people say. Interesting viewing and an excellent sales tool.

Nelson Pérez Alonso – Presidente at CLAVES Informacion Competitiva and Owner, CLAVES Informacion Competitiva
In our experience, we have to control many dimensions of competition, a) what others are doing the companies that make similar products, as our customer and what the entrepreneurs are trying to develop to meet the same needs of consumers b) as being managed distributors or retail distribution channel as to recommend or not our products or services d) positioning in the mind of the consumer to satisfy the needs of our customers.
There is a difference in sgmento B2B in the B2C with large differences in methodology. We are developing intelligence systems, combining desk research, clipping, interviews with competitors, census of outlets, mystery shoppers, consumer surveys even to blind tests.
The key points are the definition of the variables to be monitored, frequency of survey and delivery and fundamentally how to distribution of the information provided within the client company to generate management decision and actions.
All this points of view we think are a little more difficult in Latinamerca because we have a culture more informal, less proffessional, and sistematic but we still continue doing our work and trying to chance minds of enterpreneurs
—-
Dr. Alexander Linder – Director Corporate Consumer and Market Insights (Swarovski)
Hi Bob,
I am really happy to read what you write in your blog. I am always pushing the direction to tell the marketing guys not to limit competition just to a similar product or a substitute, but rather to see things from a share of wallet point of view. Of course, it depends, what you are buying. If your decision goes in favor of a midsize car, Audi A4, BMW 3 series and Mercedes C Class can definitely seen as competitors. Or if you are looking for a HiFi-system, I think the same is true for Pioneer, Sony, Kenwood etc.
But things change when you look at a “leisure” shopping trip on a Sunday afternoon. You walk through a shopping mall or the aisle of seduction, how I call it. In my opinion, the brand that has the “right” product, makes you feel welcome, can offer you a perfect service and will make a lasting impression will most likely make the race. And that’s not always your brand…
The challenge for me is identifying your share of wallet competitors, because you have to monitor them in a certain way. One way is to ask our consumers about their favourite brands of different sectors, like clothing, jewellery, handbags, leather accessories, electronics etc. and then you ask them about possession of the different brands mentioned. Thus you get the brands, that are most likely in the relevant set of your consumers.
Linked-In group Marketing Research Bulletin
———
Sean Campbell – Competitive Intelligence and Qualitative Market Research Professional
Agreed that looking at your own customers for inspiration is good but alone it isn’t the way to plan a long term growth strategy.
Effective CI looks at the current competitive canvas and off of it for threats that are emerging. Otherwise you get blindsided by a competitor who isn’t just looking at gaining insight from their own customers but yours as well. ;).
Solid CI looks forward into the future by pointing out clear opportunities for your business, to the side (to see threats that are “merging into your lane”), and helps you get a higher res version of what moves your competitors have made in the not so distant past.
The short answer is that you need competitive intelligence that looks outward and away from your own customer base as well as good deep intelligence on what your current customers like about what you have today and what they want to see from you in the future.
Linked-In group: Northwest MRA

Debra Donahue – Vice President Market Analytics and Online Products, Mark Farrah Associates – Health Insurance Data and Market Analysis
Competitive intelligence is about understanding the broader market dynamics which includes understanding customers’ and suppliers’ motivations and drivers, not just competitors. The point of CI is well beyond just understanding what the competitors are up to. Woe to the company whose CI efforts and resources just focus on the competition. Staying aware of the competition so the company is not blindsided, should be one of the functions of CI, but agree that a company fixated on competition will miss one market opportunity after another.
Linked-In group: Medicare Advantage Healthplan Colleagues
—–
Bryant Holt – Consultant at Sears Holdings Management Corporation
Excellent article. I beleive CI has its place. Information should not be looked upon as single points in time. If we aggregate the information over time and relationships, the CI could be synthesized into meaningful value propositions that could be tested, or used as potential predictors. I don’t belive you saying it, and therefore, would not rule it out.
Linked-In group DuPont Alumni
—————-
David Kaplan -Entrepreneurship Consultant
Hard to argue with looking to customers inspiration and direction; but that begs the question of what options they may have for fulfilling their needs. CI is certainly no substitute for customer focus, though it can help achieve that in a couple of ways. First, by making it clear what else appeals to customers (in addition to your own products or services), second by helping you understand what your competitors think customers want and third by helping you spot changes in your competitor’s behavior that may stimulate you to think hard about what is going on in your market place. One useful way to think about it is that competitors don’t compete with your products, they compete for your customers.
——-
Charles Stromeyer Jr. – Entrepreneur, Independent Consultant, and Volunteer
I agree with David. I’ve had first mover advantage on two separate occasions which means by definition that there were no initial competitors.
Not having insight from competitors forces the entrepreneur to merely make an educated guess about how potential customers will evaluate the products or services offered, and makes it harder to optimize customer service.

David Geraghty – Partner at Omega Business Partners
Bob, You are correct that businesses need to focus attention on patterns and choices consumers make that otherwise would be spent on their products or services.
I spent 18 years providing employee benefits programs to small & mid-sized businesses. My competition went beyond direct competition with other brokerage firms. In fact, I watched CPA’s, banks, attorney’s and HR consultants begin to capture this market as well as my client base.
We continue to evolve responding to the needs of customers providing new services related to payroll, investments, HR administration and other government regulated changes.
Competing in the B2B environment I observe macro trends, i.e. regulations, industry movement, business behaviors. A micro scale is direct communication with customers, suppliers / vendors and relevant movers.
I enjoyed your article, “What is Business Intelligence?”
Thanks for sharing.
Linked-In Group: Global MIT Enterprise Forum
——-
Prasad Devineni – Director & Partner SMOTEC PLUS
CI fixation is absolutely true with the major industry players. I used to be the director of CI practice for 10 years at Kline and for the last 5 years moved to marketing and sales of chemicals. Being a convert from CI to sales, these observations are right on the money. Customers do value alternate products and their value proposition is different. For long term growth of the company, you can not depend on CI as it is like driving the car forward by looking in the rear-view mirror. However, CI has its advantages to analyze and correct the direction in the short term if you have money to spend.
Linked-In Group: Brazil Sugar and Ethanol
—-
Guillermo (Bill) Cabiró – Strategic Analytics: Integration of Market Intelligence & Business Performance Metrics provides a profitable advantage.
Bob, Good article. It all boils down to creating value for the customer faster or greater than your competitors.
Regards, Bill
Guillermo (Bill) Cabiró – Strategic Analytics: Integration of Market Intelligence & Business Performance Metrics provides a profitable advantage.
Bob – Good article. Bill Gates said recently that he is worried about the unknown little guy working in a garage, inventing the next disruptive tehcnology that may obsolete MSFT. Regards, Bill
Linked-In group: Specialty Chemicals Network
—-
Donnie Edgemon -
The Market Intelligence Blog – Submitted on 2010/03/22 at 10:10pm
Bob – I’m glad you wrote this. I’ve found that CI is most popular in cash-flush companies in mature industries, and normally with #2 companies instead of #1s. Companies spend money on CI when they can’t figure out how to deliver value that will attract new customers, and can’t figure out how to deliver new value that existing customers will pay more for. In other words, companies that focus on CI are playing defense, and are bound for decline. The following question should be a prerequisite for any CI spending: “Is there any way that I could apply this money toward innovation or finding new markets?”