Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Brand’ Category

New ways to work are new because they have not been done before.

How many new ways to work have you demonstrated over the last year?

New customer value is new when it has not been shown before.

What new customer value have you demonstrated over the last year?

New ways to deliver customer value are new when you have not done it that way before.

How much customer value have you demonstrated through non-product solutions?

The success of old ways of working block new ways.

How many new ways to work have been blocked by your success?

The success of old customer value blocks new customer value.

How much new customer value has been blocked by your success with old customer value?

The success of tried and true ways to deliver customer value blocks new ways to deliver customer value.

Which new ways to deliver unique customer value have been blocked by your success?

Might you be more successful if you stop blocking yourself with your success?

How might you put your success behind you and create the next evolution of your success?

Image credit — Andy Morffew

Defend – Protect your success in its current state.  In short, do what you did last time and do no harm.

Extend – Modify and adapt your success. In short, sell similar offerings to similar customers.

Transcend – Obsolete your best work before someone else does.

All three elements can be important to a company’s success and longevity, but it’s more important that the company’s resource allocation aligns with its priorities.  But how to tell if the company’s resource allocation matches its priorities?  Well, even though I was the one that asked it, I think that’s the wrong question because how a company allocates its resources DEFINES its priorities.  Though we don’t usually think of it that way, I think it’s a good way to think about it.  It’s a straightforward thing.  If it’s a priority, allocate the resources. If it’s not a priority, don’t allocate the resources. But there’s confusion when a company declares its priorities but those words contradict how resources are allocated.  Here are two rules to help navigate the confusion:

Rule 1. When there is a difference between how people spend their time and what the company says is a priority, company priorities are defined by how people spend their time.

Rule 2. When there is a difference between how the company spends its money (projects, investments, equipment, other) and what the company says is a priority, company priorities are defined by how the money is spent.

We’re all pretty clear on what the company says are the priorities, but how do you tell if the words are aligned with the actual priorities?  Well, measure how the resources are allocated – measure how you spend your time.

Open your calendar and move forward in time by one month and you will see a collection of standing meetings.  These are the meetings that are on the schedule and are the meetings that WILL happen.  Sure, there will be other meetings that come up, but the standing meetings, the regularly recurring meetings, are a good indicator of how you’ll spend your time.  For each meeting in week five, determine if the meeting is a defend, extend, or transcend meeting.  If the meeting agenda defines work that protects things as they are, that’s a Defend meeting.  If the meeting agenda defines work that modifies or adapts success, that’s an Extend meeting.  If the agenda defines work that obsoletes what’s been successful, that is a Transend meeting.  Categorize the meetings of week five and tally the hours.  Then, repeat for weeks six through eight.  You now have a good measure of your resource allocation and the company’s priorities.

If all the meetings are Defend meetings, the company’s priority is to defend what’s been successful.  This indicates the company’s priorities have a short-term bias.  If this is the case, I hope you have an unfair monopoly.  If not, you might consider adding some medium-term work to adapt and extend your success. If half the meetings are Defend meetings and the other half are Extend meetings, that’s a better balance between short-term and medium-term priorities.  But I hope there are no startups in your space because, without some Transcend work, one of them might soon eat your lunch.  If almost half are Defend, another almost half is Extend, and some are Transcend congratulations.  You have a reasonable balance of short and medium priorities and a splash of long-term priorities.  I’m not sure the balance is exactly right, but it’s at least a great start.

A similar characterization/quantification can be done for how the company spends its money.

Take a look at the open job requisitions on the company website.  Do those positions do work that defends, extends, or transcends?  Count them.  What does the data say?

Review and tally last year’s capital equipment purchases.  Did they defend, extend, or transcend? Do the same for this year’s capital budget.  How do you feel about all that?

Count the people who do projects to keep the production line running (defend), count the people who do new product development projects with the same DVP as last time (defend), who do new product development projects that adapt the DVP (extend) and who do technology development that builds on the DVP (extend) or decimates your best product (transcend).  What does the tally say?

Review this year’s training budget.  What are the relative fractions of extend, defend, and transcend?  Do you feel good about that?

There is no best ratio for defend, extend, and transcend.  What’s important, I think, is to be objective and clear about how the resources are allocated and to be open and honest about how all that aligns (or not) with the stated priorities.  And most important of all is what you do when there’s a mismatch between resource allocation and the stated priorities.

Image credit — Tommy Wong

Cigarette companies rebranded themselves because their products caused cancer and they wanted to separate themselves from how their customers experienced their products.  Their name and logo (which stand for their brand) were mapped to bad things (cancer) so they changed their name and logo.  The bad things still happened, but the company was one step removed.  There was always the option to stop causing cancer and to leave the name and logo as-is, but that would have required a real change, difficult change, a fundamental change. Instead of stopping the harm, cigarette companies ran away from their heritage and rebranded.

Facebook rebranded itself because its offering caused cancer of a different sort.  And they, too, wanted to separate themselves from how their customers experienced their offering.  The world mapped the Facebook brand to bullying, harming children, and misinformation that destroyed institutions. Sure, Facebook had the option to keep the name and logo and stop doing harm, but they chose to keep the harm and change the name and logo.  Like the cigarette companies, they chose to keep the unskillful behavior and change their brand to try to sidestep their damaging ways.  Yes, they could have changed their behavior and kept their logo, but they chose to change their logo and double down on their unhealthy heritage.

The cigarette companies and Facebook didn’t rebrand themselves to move toward something better, they rebranded to run away from the very thing they created, the very experience they delivered to their customers.  In that way, they tried to distance themselves from their offering because their offering was harmful. And in that way, rebranding is most often about moving away from the experience that customers experience.  And in that way, rebranding is hardly ever about moving toward something better.

One exception I can think of is a special type of rebranding that is a distillation of the brand, where the brand name gets shorter.  Several made-up examples: Nike Shoes to Nike; MacDonalds Hamburgers to MacDonalds; and Netflix Streaming Services to Netflix.  In all three cases, the offering hasn’t changed and customers still recognize the brand.  Everyone still knows it’s all about cool footwear, a repeatable fast-food experience, and top-notch entertainment content.  If anything, the connection with the heritage is concentrated and strengthened and the appeal is broader.  If your rebranding makes the name longer or the message more nuanced, you get some credit for confusing your customers, but you don’t qualify for this special exception.

If you want to move toward something better, it’s likely better to keep the name and logo and change the offering to something better.  Your brand has history and your customers have mapped the goodness you provide to your name and logo.  Why not use that to your advantage?  Why not build on what you’ve built and morph it slowly into something better?  Why not keep the brand and improve the offering?  Why not remap your good brand to an improved offering so that your brand improves slowly over time?  Isn’t it more effective to use your brand recognition as the mechanism to attract attention to your improved offering?

In almost all cases, rebranding is a sign that something’s wrong.  It’s expensive, it consumes a huge amount of company resources, and there’s little to no direct benefit to customers.  When you feel the urge to rebrand, I strongly urge you to keep the brand and improve your offering.  That way your customers will benefit and your brand will improve.

Image credit Quinn Dombrowski

Your core business, the long-standing business that has made you what you are, is both your greatest strength and your greatest weakness.

The Core generates the revenue, but it also starves fledgling businesses so they never make it off the ground.

There’s a certainty with the Core because it builds on success, but its success sets the certainty threshold too high for new businesses.  And due to the relatively high level of uncertainty of the new business (as compared to the Core) the company can’t find the gumption to make the critical investments needed to reach orbit.

The Core has generated profits over the decades and those profits have been used to create the critical infrastructure that makes its success easier to achieve.  The internal startup can’t use the Core’s infrastructure because the Core doesn’t share.  And the Core has the power to block all others from taking advantage of the infrastructure it created.

The Core has grown revenue year-on-year and has used that revenue to build out specialized support teams that keep the flywheel moving.  And because the Core paid for and shaped the teams, their support fits the Core like a glove.  A new offering with a new value proposition and new business model cannot use the specialized support teams effectively because the new offering needs otherly-specialized support and because the Core doesn’t share.

The Core pays the bills, and new ventures create bills that the Core doesn’t like to pay.

If the internal startup has to compete with the Core for funding, the internal startup will fail.

If the new venture has to generate profits similar to the Core, the venture will be a misadventure.

If the new offering has to compete with the Core for sales and marketing support, don’t bother.

If the fledgling business’s metrics are assessed like the Core’s metrics, it won’t fly, it will flounder.

If you try to run a new business from within the Core, the Core will eat it.

To work effectively with the Core, borrow its resources, forget how it does the work, and run away.

To protect your new ventures from the Core, physically separate them from the Core.

To protect your new businesses from the Core, create a separate budget that the Core cannot reach.

To protect your internal startup from the Core, make sure it needs nothing from the Core.

To accelerate the growth of the fledgling business, make it safe to violate the Core’s first principles.

To bolster the capability of your new business, move resources from the Core to the new business.

To de-risk the internal startup, move functional support resources from the Core to the startup.

To fund your new ventures, tax the Core.  It’s the only way.

“Core Memory” by JD Hancock is licensed under CC BY 2.0

This is a special post for me. It’s a huge milestone. With this post, I have written a new blog post every Wednesday evening for the last ten years. That’s 520 Wednesdays in a row. I haven’t missed a single one and none have been repeats.  As I write this, the significance is starting to sink in.

Most of the posts I’ve written at the kitchen table with my earbuds set firmly in my ears and my family going about its business around me. But I’ve written them in the car; I’ve written them in a hospital waiting room; I’ve written them in a diner over lunch while on a three-week motorcycle trip, and I’ve written them at a state park while on vacation.  No matter what, I’ve published a post on Wednesday night.

I write to challenge myself.  I write to teach myself. I write to provide my own mentorship. I have no one to proof my writing and there are always mistakes of grammar, spelling and word choice. But that doesn’t stop me. No one limits the topics I cover, nor does anyone help me choose a topic. It’s just me and my laptop battling it out. It doesn’t have to be that way, but that’s the way it has been for the last ten years.

I used to read, respond and obsess over comments written by readers, but I started to limit my writing based on them so now my posts are closed to comments. I write more freely now, but I miss the connection that came from the comments.

I used to obsessively track the number of subscribers and Google analytics data. Now I don’t know how many subscribers I have, nor do I know who has visited my website over the last couple of years. Now I just write. But maybe I should check.

When you can write about anything you want, the topics you choose make a fingerprint, or maybe a soul-print. I don’t know what my choices say about me, but that’s the old me.

What’s the grand plan? There isn’t one. What’s next? It’s uncertain.

Thanks for reading.

Mike

image credit — Joey Gannon

If you’re trying to innovate within a successful company, I have one word for you: Don’t.

You can’t compete with the successful business teams that pay the bills because paying the bills is too important.  No one in their right mind should get in the way of paying them.  And if you do put yourself in the way of the freight train that pays the bills you’ll get run over.  If you want to live to fight another day, don’t do it.

If an established business has been growing three percent year-on-year, expect them to grow three percent next year. Sure, you can lather them in investment, but expect three and a half percent. And if they promise six percent, don’t believe them. In fairness, they truly expect they can grow six percent, but only because they’re drinking their own Cool-Aid.

Rule 1: If they’re drinking their own Cool-Aid, don’t believe them.

Without a cataclysmic problem that threatens the very existence of a successful company, it’s almost impossible to innovate within its four walls. If there’s no impending cataclysm, you have two choices: leave the four walls or don’t innovate.

It’s great to work at successful company because it has a recipe that worked.  And it sucks to work at a successful company because everyone thinks that tired old recipe will work for the next ten years. Whether it will work for the next ten or it won’t, it’s still a miserable place to work if you want to try something new. Yes, I said miserable.

What’s the one thing a successful company needs? A group of smart people who are actively dissatisfied with the status quo. What’s the one thing a successful company does not tolerate? A group of smart people who are actively dissatisfied with the status quo.

Some experts recommend leveraging (borrowing) resources from the established businesses and using them to innovate. If the established business catches wind that their borrowed resources will be used to displace the status quo, the resources will mysteriously disappear before the innovation project can start. Don’t try to borrow resources from established businesses and don’t believe the experts.

Instead of competing with established businesses for resources, resources for innovation should be allocated separately. Decide how much to spend on innovation and allocate the resources accordingly. And if the established businesses cry foul, let them.

Instead of borrowing resources from established businesses to innovate, increase funding to the innovation units and let them buy resources from outside companies. Let them pay companies to verify the Distinctive Value Proposition (DVP); let them pay outside companies to design the new product; let them pay outside companies to manufacture the new product; and let them pay outside companies to sell it.  Sure, it will cost money, but with that money you will have resources that put their all into the design, manufacture and sale of the innovative new offering. All-in-all, it’s well worth the money.

Don’t fall into the trap of sharing resources, especially if the sharing is between established businesses and the innovative teams that are charged with displacing them. And don’t fall into the efficiency trap. Established businesses need efficiency, but innovative teams need effectiveness.

It’s not impossible to innovate within a successful company, but it is difficult. To make it easier, error on the side of doing innovation outside the four walls of success. It may be more expensive, but it will be far more effective.  And it will be faster. Resources borrowed from other teams work the way they worked last time. And if they are borrowed from a successful team, they will work like a successful team. They will work with loss aversion. Instead of working to bring something to life they will work to prevent loss of what worked last time. And when doing work that’s new, that’s the wrong way to work.

The best way I know to do innovation within a successful company is to do it outside the successful company.

Image credit – David Doe

One of the best ways to learn is to make a prototype.  Prototypes come in many shapes and sizes, but their defining element is the learning objective behind them.  When you start with what you want to learn, the prototype is sure to satisfy the learning objective.  But start with the prototype, and no one is quite sure what you’ll learn.  When prototypes come before the learning objective, prototypes are inefficient and ineffective.

Before staffing a big project, prototypes can be used to determine viability of the project.  And done right, viability prototypes can make for fast and effective learning.  Usually, the team wants to build a functional prototype of the product or service, but that’s money poorly spent until the business model is validated.   There’s nothing worse than building expensive prototypes and staffing a project, only to find the business model doesn’t hold water and no one buys the new thing you’re selling.

There’s no reason a business model can’t be validated with a simple prototype. (Think one-page sales tool.)  And there’s no reason it can’t be done at the earliest stages.  More strongly, the detailed work should be held hostage until the business model is validated.  And when it’s validated, you can feel good about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  And if it’s invalidated, you saved a lot of time, money and embarrassment.

The best way to validate the business model is with a set of one-page documents that define for the customer what you will sell them, how you’ll sell it, how you’ll service it, how you’ll train them and how you’ll support them over the life of your offering.  And, don’t forget to tell them how much it will cost.

The worst way to validate the business model is buy building it.  All the learning happens after all the money has been spent.

For the business model prototypes there’s only one learning objective: We want to learn if the customer will buy what we’re selling.  For the business model to be viable, the offering has to hang together within the context of installation, service, support, training and price.  And the one-page prototype must call out specifics of each element.  If you use generalities like “we provide good service” or “our training plans are the best”, you’re faking it.

Don’t let yourself off the hook.  Use prototypes to determine the viability of the business model before spending the money to build it.

Image credit – Heather Katsoulis

To meet ever-increasing growth objectives, established companies want to be more entrepreneurial.  And the thinking goes like this – launch new products and services to create new markets, do it quickly and do it on a shoestring.  Do that Lean Startup thing.  Build minimum viable prototypes (MVPs), show them to customers, incorporate their feedback, make new MVPs, show them again, and then thoselaunch.

For software products, that may work well, largely because it takes little time to create MVPs, customers can try the products without meeting face-to-face and updating the code doesn’t take all that long.  But for products and services that require new hardware, actual hardware, it’s a different story.  New hardware takes a long time to invent, a long time to convert into an MVP, a long time to show customers and a long time to incorporate feedback.  Creating new hardware and launching quickly in an entrepreneurial way don’t belong in the same sentence, unless there’s no new hardware.

For hardware, don’t think smartphones, think autonomous cars.  And how’s that going for Google and the other software companies? As it turns out, it seems that designing hardware and software are different.  Yes, there’s a whole lot of software in there, but there’s also a whole lot of new sensor systems (hardware).  And, what complicates things further is that it’s all packed into an integrated system of subsystems where the hardware and software must cooperate to make the good things happen.  And, when the consequences of a failure are severe, it’s more important to work out the bugs.

And that’s the rub with entrepreneurship and an established brand.  For quick adoption, there’s strong desire to leverage the established brand – GM, Ford, BMW – but the output of the entrepreneurial work (new product or service) has to fit with the brand.  GM can’t launch something that’s half-baked with the promise to fix it later. Ford can come out with a new app that is clunky and communicates intermittently with their hardware (cars) because it will reflect poorly on all their products.  In short, they’ll sell fewer cars.  And BMW can’t come out with an entrepreneurial all-electric car that handles poorly and is slow off the start.  If they do, they’ll sell fewer cars.  If you’re an established company with an established brand, the output of your entrepreneurial work must fit with the established brand.

If you’re a software startup, launch it when it’s half-baked and fix it later, as long as no one will die when it flakes out.  And because it’s software, iterate early and often. And, there’s no need to worry about what it will do to the brand, because you haven’t created it yet.  But if you’re a hardware startup, be careful not to launch before it’s ready because you won’t be able to move quickly and you’ll be stuck with your entrepreneurial work for longer than you want.  Maybe, even long enough to sink the brand before it ever learned to swim.  Developing hardware is slow.  And developing robust hardware-software systems is far slower.

If you’re an established company with an established brand, tread lightly with that Lean Startup thing, even when it’s just software.  An entrepreneurial software product that works poorly can take down the brand, if, of course, your brand stands for robust, predictable, value and safety.  And if the entrepreneurial product relies on new hardware, be doubly careful.  If it goes belly-up, it will be slow to go away and will put a lot of pressure on that wonderful brand you took so long to build.

If you’re an established brand, it may be best to buy your entrepreneurial products and services from the startups that took the risk and made it happen.  That way you can buy their successful track record and stand it on the shoulders of your hard-won brand.

Image credit – simpleinsomnia