Alright. Maybe I was a little harsh in the last post. But I promise I’m not heartless. Even though I believe there were a lot of crucial missteps on behalf of Microsoft, I can also see their perspective. There is a need for competition in the closed-systems smartphone market. There is a need for better cohesion in closed systems. It’s just a matter of playing the game well – and smart – enough.

The bottom line: there is still hope. More specifically, I believe there is still hope for Microsoft.

Innovation is Not Dead

Remember AOL? Dial-up modems? Palm Pilots? Floppy disks?

To throw in the towel and declare that innovation in a certain market is over is a mistake, and every entrepreneur knows it. But the thing with innovation is that it’s exactly that – innovative. Good, strategic innovation has to at least change the rules ever-so-slightly – not too much that people fear the change, and yet dramatically enough for people to take notice. In order to change consumer habits, innovation – especially in the smartphone market – needs to cause people to stop and say, “Hey – this is clearly better.”

Innovation is not dead in the smartphone market – I’d say it’s just beginning – and Microsoft should be able to think through their smartphone product to create a somewhat different paradigm.

Closed-System Competition

Monopoly is only fun if you’re winning, and if you’re the consumer, you’re usually not winning when a company has the monopoly on a market. Apple has arguably earned their place as the king of closed systems, but there’s no reason it can’t be challenged. If Microsoft finds the right strategy, it could become a game-changer.

We need a little closed-system competition – for the sake of the consumer and at the very least, to ensure that Apple stays on their “A” game.

Surprise Attack

In the last post, I was very fond of the phrase, “too little, too late,” but Microsoft could use their late arrival to their advantage. It’s possible that Apple and Android feel invincible, and now could be Microsoft’s chance to come in from [way] behind and make a sneak attack. Microsoft should take bold chances – and I’d say, the bolder, the better.

You know what they say – “Never underestimate the element of surprise!”

The Secret Weapon

Microsoft could also gain an edge by jumping on the biggest chance they have: INTEGRATION. People are still looking for a cohesive way to jump between tablet and phone and computer without searching for their information, and neither Apple nor Google has successfully wielded this “secret weapon” (although they sure are trying).

Dan Lyons, technology editor at Newsweek, said in regards to this type of integration, “So far, no tech company can deliver this [type of integration]. But Microsoft has all the pieces. It just needs to bring them together.” And if anyone can speak with authority on this subject, it would be Lyons. He recently conducted an experiment in which he used only Microsoft products for a month. His conclusion? Well, I’d recommend reading the full article, but I especially liked his ending insight. He acknowledged that despite being impressed by Microsoft, he wasn’t about to switch his iPhone for a Windows phone; however…

“…later this year or early next, when Lenovo comes out with that slick Windows 8 tablet-slash-laptop, I might just buy one. That’s how change begins. That’s how Apple won people over, including me, over the past decade. It started with iTunes and an iPod. Then I got frustrated with Windows and tried out a low-end Mac Mini. That worked, so I made the leap to an iMac. Then an Apple TV box. Then a MacBook Pro. Then an iPhone. And on and on. So that’s what Microsoft needs to do. Find a product that gives it a toehold and build from there.”

So, Microsoft: hope is not lost. As harsh as the smartphone landscape may appear – and even as harsh as I may have been in the previous post – I firmly believe that you have a fighting chance.

And I can’t wait to see what you do with it.

• How do you think Microsoft can “come back swinging” with a fighting force?
• What is Microsoft’s best bet when it comes to strategy to win the market?
• Do you think there is still hope for Microsoft, or are you more apt to agree with the previous post?

Yes, you read that title correctly. Let me explain.

The other day, I was getting (what I thought was) a routine haircut. As the hair stylist and I were shooting the breeze, she told me a little bit about a three-month trip to her home city – Moscow.

While she was there, she needed to (ironically enough) get her hair cut. Opening up the directory of hair stylists (yep, they have their own directory), she called one – expecting to simply set up an appointment and go in. But that’s not what happened.

This is where the story gets interesting.

When she called for an appointment, instead of saying, “See you then!” they asked her, “What time do you want us to pick you up?” Confused, she tried to explain she’d get there herself, yet they insisted – emphasizing that the pick up was included in her fee (which was about $25 in our terms). So sure enough, a half hour before her appointment, a car service arrives to taxi her away.

But that’s not all.

Apparently, they kept her waiting at the salon a little longer than anticipated. So how did they handle it? Instead of a simple, “We’re very sorry,” they instead asked, “What would you like for lunch?” – at no additional cost. So for the price of one (pretty reasonable) haircut, my stylist got car service and free lunch to seal the deal.

The surprising thing to me was hearing about such innovation in a place not typically known for it. Yet it’s amazing how intense competition triggers innovation. Taking a look at the Russian economy in the last ten years, you’ll find that the cosmetics industry – and that includes hair salons – is one of the fastest growing sectors. In fact, 15-20 new hair salons are opening each month – and that’s only in Moscow.

I’d say the competition is fierce.

But what I love about this story is the way it shows a new-old approach to differentiation.

Many smaller companies believe they don’t have enough money, man power, or momentum to effectively differentiate themselves from their competition. Now, I’m not saying everyone needs to start sending a car service to their clients (and really, I’m not convinced about the profitability of such offerings), but what I want to emphasize is that in today’s world – in markets driven by the need to “humanize” or get closer to customers – there is still one simple (and potentially free way) to differentiate: DELIGHT your customer!

Seth Godin says it best here (emphases mine):

“A few organizations have figured out how to turn customer service into a marketing opportunity and thus a profit center. They figure if they’ve got your attention, if they’re talking to you at a moment when you care a great deal, they can turn that into an opportunity to delight. And being delighted is remarkable and worth talking about.”

To bring us back to the story, the truth is that my hair stylist friend wasn’t even that crazy about the haircut she received that day. Her stylist was a little new and inexperienced, and gave her a “so-so” haircut. But did she care? Not really; in fact, she was delighted. This salon thought raised their competitive edge – and even with so-so results, they differentiated themselves enough to secure a delighted customer.

I’d say that’s something we’d all like to attain (hopefully with better than so-so results, of course).

• Do you have any stories about a time when a company delighted you with their customer service?
• What ways have you sought to differentiate yourself in the market?
• Have you ever used the delight-strategy to set yourselves apart from the pack?

Are you riding trends or are you setting them?

Even more importantly: have you even asked yourself that question lately?

Sure, it’s easier to jump on a bandwagon of the latest trend, but that’s not the entrepreneur’s way. The entrepreneur must seek to stand out in the crowd – a head above the rest. Of course, that’s easier said than done.

Think to yourself: When was the last time you heard/read/seen something that was setting a trend? When was the last time you were in a position to set the trend?

Recently, I’ve been struck by the amount and scope of trendsetting going on in the world. Have you noticed it too? I think it’s important to highlight these stories because they are so different from each other. It’s inspiring – reminding me that trendsetting can come in all shapes, sizes, and spheres. Paying attention to the different types of trends can help us pick apart what exactly it takes to be a trendsetter, no matter the business.

Trendsetting in Quality

CNN Money ran an article about Trader Joe’s, the crunchy grocery store chain known for their neighborhood-grocer feel and eclectic collection of food. The article states: “Trader Joe’s doesn’t pick up on trends – it sets them.” In their case, they set the bar of quality so high that customers don’t mind that the store has, say, only ten different kinds of peanut butter (as opposed to a regular grocery store’s 50 brands) because their customers trust that the quality of the product will be good.

• Ask yourself: How can I raise the quality of my product/service so that my customers trust me MORE?

Trendsetting in Innovation

FastCompany recently highlighted Nike’s newest innovation: the sock shoe – officially called, “Flyknit.” After interviewing athletes (in other words, their customer base), Nike found that what these customers wanted was a shoe that felt like a sock. Nike’s director of footwear innovation, Tony Bignell, explained, “A sock fits great, feels snug, goes unnoticed, and you get no irritation… So the idea was, how do you engineer a sock into a high-performance shoe?” In order to get this product to the shelves, Nike had to develop an entirely new way of engineering a shoe design. Just do it? Oh, they did.

• Ask yourself: How can my customers help me innovate things THEY want?

Trendsetting in Production

Yet another article from FastCompany highlighted what could possibly be the next wave of trendsetting in publishing. Alan Goldsher wrote and published an e-book on Jeremy Lin in 72 hours. That’s 15,000 words ready-to-read in 72 hours. I’m still scratching my head over the reality of this type of production (no doubt this guy has a Keurig station within arm’s reach), and I think it’s worth noting as more and more consumers will expect their products/services to be produced faster.

• Ask yourself: How can I produce my products/services in a more timely and efficient manner (without sacrificing quality)?

So why highlight these three types of trendsetting? If you emphasize the quality, innovation, and production of your service or product – and if you’re asking the right questions along the way – you’re on the right path to being a trendsetter.

There is, however, one more vital ingredient: selling to the right customer. You need to get your product into the right hands. When asked if one could predict what would become a new trend, Henrik Vejlgaard, author of Anatomy of a Trend, recommended looking to the major cities. Since we’re more focused on trends in marketing and business than in fashion, think to yourself: What are the “major cities” of your business that help spread products to other businesses? The vital customer/hub will be different depending on the business, but it’s your responsibility to figure out who and where they are, and into whose hands you need to get your product.

Although it can seem daunting to think about trendsetting in an age of Apple, Google, and Facebook, it’s important to stay on top of your business and try to be on the forefront of the next big trend.

• What other questions do you think are vital to becoming a trendsetter?
• What other inspiring trendsetting examples have you heard of recently?

Do you Yahoo?

If the numbers are any indication, then you probably don’t – you’ve probably taken your search to Google, your social interaction to Facebook, and your entertainment to YouTube. Over the last few years, Yahoo! has been floundering to find its identity, to say the least.

Enter new CEO Scott Thompson (former executive of PayPal) to save the day. His previous experiences make him an odd choice for a company turnaround: he’s been a product manager instead of a media executive, he helped a small-but-healthy business grow – but has no experience turning around a flagging business, and he unabashedly confessed to knowing barely anything about advertising. And yet he is the chosen one to relaunch the suffering search engine company – he is the one responsible for branding Yahoo! with a new identity.

And what will that identity be, exactly?

It’s hard to say, but Yahoo! seems to be focusing its efforts on online entertainment. The close of 2011 brought announcements of partnerships with Bill Maher and Funny or Die comedic videos, as well as launching original video content. A few days ago, Yahoo! also reported their sponsorship of the Sundance Festival – mainly by partnering with the festival to air 12 short films on their website.

So, judging from the recent press releases, I gather Yahoo is re-branding itself as… an online media giant? …a social-networking culture hub? …generally cool and relevant? Or… what? To be honest, I can’t really make heads or tails of their re-branding scheme, and I think that’s a problem. There’s no clear indication of the direction the company is heading in, and I’m fairly certain the audience they’re attempting to reach out to (the young, hip, “YouTube generation”, I presume?) won’t be taking this [vaguely positioned] bait.

And not to beat a dead horse, but doesn’t this seem all-too-familiar? –A little too much like Yahoo! re-branding déjà vu?

Need I remind everyone of former Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz – who, with her ascent to executive power, brought a massive re-branding campaign to Yahoo in 2009? The “Y!ou” campaign sought to humanize the company – playing off of the rise of me-centric internet browsing (made popular, if not invented, by Facebook). That campaign made much more sense than the current one: it was streamlined, seemed relevant, and was bound to work.

Except it didn’t.

So why does Yahoo! think their current re-branding efforts will work? What’s the difference?

If they’re hoping for a new audience from the Sundance folks, they’re probably out of luck. YouTube partnered with Sundance only two years ago, allowing viewers to watch full-length Sundance films on streaming during the festival events. The films chosen were obscure, the audience drawn in was smaller than anticipated, and YouTube has chosen not to partner again with Sundance in this way. If YouTube – an internet giant with branding built on online videos – couldn’t snag the hipster Sundance audience, how will Yahoo! attempt this feat? Unless Yahoo! has some blockbuster short films up their sleeve (does such a thing exist?), it seems doubtful that the Sundance partnership will do much, if anything, to turn the company around.

Yahoo! keeps missing the mark on re-branding because they are failing to capitalize on their current strengths. The fact is that they still get 700 million visitors each month as an online leader in news and sports. They would do better making efforts to become innovators in the world of online news – to re-brand themselves as a “trusted online news source.” They should attempt to cater to their current audience – perhaps offering specialized sports programming, such as the UFC (which, with 50% of their audience between the ages of 21 and 34, is just the type of demographic Yahoo! seems to be coveting[i]).

Instead of focusing on completely changing their identity, Yahoo! should stick to what they’re already doing that’s working – and bump it up a notch. Attempting to copy Facebook and YouTube (or trying to make a new hybrid) is not smart re-branding. The mistake here is that their overhaul will leave people scratching their heads, wondering why exactly they should even consider using Yahoo! in the first place.

Listen, I’m interested to see how this all plays out. Maybe there will be a sudden resurgence of loyalty for Yahoo!… but it doesn’t seem likely. Unless and until we see a miraculous turnaround for the company, there a few re-branding lessons we can take away from this whole situation:

• Innovate – Don’t Copy: Facebook and YouTube became internet giants because they offered something new to the internet consumer. The reality is that, for the time being, they are ahead of the game. Unless your company can offer something truly new to these audiences, don’t attempt to become a copycat. Instead, find a new way to deliver what your company has to offer. Simplify it, humanize it, and streamline it.
   
• Know and Capitalize on Your Strengths: Yahoo! has an audience through its news and sports offerings, and yet they seem to be ignoring this strength staring them in the face. The only justification (if you can call it that) for this is that they must not realize their strength in this area. Don’t follow suit. Figure out who your best and real audience is, what they want, and then give it to them – pronto!
   
• Make Re-branding Clear and Focused: Let’s say you’ve come to the conclusion that you must completely overhaul your company’s branding. Fine, but make it clear. Don’t be vague, and don’t be irrelevant. Re-market your brand in such a way that anyone who sees your company’s logo and messaging will know exactly why they need you.

What do you think of Yahoo’s recent re-branding strategy?

How would you re-brand the company?

Why is it that big companies tend to keep their customers at arm’s length? Instead of taking suggestions, a lot of times companies get cocky and decide what their customers want instead of asking what their customers want. This can create major problems, as we’ve seen before.

On the other hand, there are some companies making great strides to not only connect with their customers, but to involve their customers.

One perfect example of this is My Starbucks Idea, an online forum where Starbucks customers can suggest ways to improve their “Starbucks experience,” as the company likes to say. Starbucks then lists all the ideas that come from their customers. Even if you don’t submit an idea, you have the sense that Starbucks cares.

The same goes for Keurig. Here is another company that is catering to the customer, with great results. Last week, I talked about the I³ qualities apparent in Keurig’s single-cup brewer. Since this company is an intriguing case (and since not much has been written up about them yet on the blogosphere), I wanted to spend one more week looking at Keurig’s next innovation – or, I should say, innovations – keeping in mind that all of these innovations came from customer suggestions.

• Larger Brewer: One of Keurig’s weaknesses is size. Currently, you can only brew, at most, 12 oz. at a time. For someone who tends to order “Venti” sizes, or for someone who merely wants to fill their travel mug with one K-cup, this is a problem. Not to worry, says Keurig, who is rumored to be working on a brewer to accommodate.
• Strong Alliances: Keurig recently announced a partnership with Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. This is a win/win for Keurig as well as for these companies – customers who only drink DD/Starbucks coffee can now enjoy it in K-cup form, thereby increasing business for both parties. In fact, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz revealed that “more than 80 percent of current Starbucks customers in the U.S. do not yet own a single-cup brewer,” so this allegiance is bound to bring strong business to Keurig (as well as make Starbucks customers very happy).
• Environmentally-Friendly: In my last post, I brought up the troubling thought about the amount of waste generated, throwing out all those K-cups. What you may not know is that Keurig has already come up with a solution. They’ve introduced a product called My K-Cup – letting people reuse a single pod with the coffee of their choice – which especially makes their greener customers happy.
• Other Instant Beverage Ideas: Keurig has already branched out into the hot chocolate and hot apple cider realm, so what’s next on the docket? Here’s just a few for starters: lattes, cappuccinos, soup, Airborne, and yes, even infant formula. It’s as if the list keeps going. Soon the question will no longer be:
  “WHAT can I get in a K-cup?” — but — “What CAN’T I get in a K-cup?”

So what does Keurig – and all of their innovation – teach those of us who are not in the coffee business? Keurig teaches us that to truly be an I³ business, you must continue to go full-speed-ahead into your market, while never losing focus of your customer base. Keurig and Starbucks teach us that it’s not enough to acknowledge the customer, but to involve the customer.

This seems like a no-brainer, but I’m still amazed at how many companies take their customers’ suggestions for granted. Keurig (and Starbucks, for that matter) has made it their business to give their customers what they want, and it’s paid off. Big time.

• What else do you think we can learn from this ever-growing, ever-innovating world of coffee?
• Have you seen a payoff in your company by listening to your customers’ requests?
• Have you ever been on the other side – have you suggested something to a company, to see them follow through? How did this affect your relationship to the company?
• How are you involving your customers in the trajectory of your business?

It just dawned on me the other day: the Keurig coffee system is everywhere. In my home, in my office, in my clients’ offices, at the gas station, in the convenience store, at the mall – everywhere! It seems that wherever I am, I can look up and see a Keurig single-cup brewing station beckoning me to brew a cup.

Perhaps you’ve experienced this phenomenon. Maybe you could even look up from your computer right this second to glance at a Keurig coffee maker (it wouldn’t surprise me).

But what I want to know is: When did all this happen? When did a seemingly niche-market coffee maker become ubiquitous?

Sometimes in the business world, an idea is so well-anticipated that it’s an instant smash (most anything by Apple, for instance). Other times, you have a product that’s more of a “stealth hit.” The Keurig is just such a stealth hit – slowly creeping its way into our lives and suddenly ruling the coffee world. That’s not hyperbole, either. I truly believe that the Keurig is redefining how we consume coffee, and this is something to pay attention to (especially if you’re selling coffee).

Think about it. Surveys tells us that 73% of coffee in the US is made at home. That’s not news. And Starbucks has thrived in spite of this. However, consumers want what they want, the way they want it, inexpensively – and they want their coffee fast! In hard economic times, superfluous trips to Starbucks are the first to go. Keurig couldn’t have stealthily cornered the market at a better time.

Still not convinced? While in-home coffee maker sales have grown only 1% annually over the last 7-10 years, 2010 total revenue for Keurig brewers hit $330.8 million – a 67% gain over 2009. Developed in 1998, these single-cup coffee systems are now in 7% of households (and this doesn’t include all those offices with these coffee makers – 200,000 office installations in 2010 alone). This is incredible growth for a product introduced 15 years ago!

In fact, Keurig (which, it should be noted, was bought out by Green Mountain Coffee Company in 2006) is staking such a claim on the coffee industry that even Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks are producing K-cups for the brewers. That’s right – the coffee giants are teaming up with the little guy – who, by all accounts, doesn’t appear to be so little any more.

This type of success begs the obvious question:
What did Keurig do right?

That’s actually easier to answer than you might think. You see, Keurig is a near-perfect example of an I³ Value Proposition in action (see related post), and therein lies its success:

• The Keurig is Innovative: The Keurig entrepreneurs took a few simple ideas – that every cup of coffee should be fresh, and that everyone should choose what type of coffee they want, whenever they want – and made it happen in a clearly innovative way. The innovation was in the engineering to make these objectives easily attainable.
   
• The Keurig is Indispensable: With 2.5 million Keurig beverages made each day, I think we can safely conclude that the K-cup is indispensable to its owners – a part of their everyday lives.
   
• The Keurig is Inspirational: Keurig has come up with the type of product that consumers (and business professionals) are consistently interested in – even after using it day in and day out. I can easily marvel out loud at a Keurig in action, in any office – and have those around me join in. This is after we’ve all seen it do its thing hundreds of times. It’s still a “wow!”

So what’s next? We know they’ve made a great product, as well as countless great cups of coffee – but what will this niche coffee giant come up with next? Also – isn’t there an environmental concern with all those K-cups?

More thoughts on that next time…

Meanwhile:

• Is Keurig just dominating in-home coffee maker sales – or will it begin to impact Starbucks and other destination shops?
• How else do you think Keurig has changed the coffee business in the last ten years?
• Do you use a single-cup brewing system at home or at the office?
• What other “I³” ideas do you see cornering their markets?

Wil Reynolds is Founder and CEO of Seer Interactive, a leading SEO and search marketing firm in Philadelphia.

Over the past 11 years, Wil Reynolds has dedicated himself to doing two things well: driving traffic to sites from search engines and analyzing the impact that traffic has on the bottom line of companies. Wil’s career began at a web marketing agency in 1999, where he spearheaded the SEO strategies for companies that included Barnes & Noble, Disney, Harman Kardon, Debeers, Doubleclick, Hotjobs, and Mercedes Benz USA (to name a few). Although the internet bubble burst, Wil’s passion for web marketing has always been strong. Wil founded SEER Interactive in 2002.

Recently, there’s been lots of news covering Research in Motion, the Canadian-based company behind Blackberry. Although Blackberry has entered the lexicon as a standard reference to smart phones – frequently referred to in movies, TV shows, etc. – the reality is that for the last five years, Blackberry has been losing market share, and losing its position as the definer of email-enabled phones to iPhones and Android.

What must be particularly galling to Research in Motion, more so than the iPhone’s success – which was a truly groundbreaking product (which RIM tried to imitate with their touch product) – is the onslaught of Android, coming at the market from a completely different angle and making major headway. All in all, it has not been a good couple of years for Research in Motion.

So, what’s the lesson here for us?

Well, there are a couple. One is that when trends start shifting, you have to look down the road to see what’s really going on, and what you might need to do to respond.

The fundamental problem with the iPhone being better than the Blackberry was that it wasn’t really better, at least by many measures. Some people prefer a physical keyboard. Some people thought (and for a while it was quite true) that for corporate networks, Blackberry email had much more advanced security than Apple’s initial offering, and more so than Google’s Android system.

Where Research in Motion dropped the ball for Blackberry, however, was not looking at the trajectory of things. What was happening was that people were taking to the touch model very easily, and so that became a major new trend. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, they were looking at the empowerment of a large screen. Third, consumers become almost instantly enamored with having an almost infinite array of creative applications at their fingertips. So in many ways, the App Store and all the things related to customizing your experience were what set apart the iPhone, and later Android-based phones.

Look down the road at where your competitors are going. This is especially true in a highly-competitive market, and particularly if you are a leader in a category. Do not be dismissive of what the new competitor’s bringing to the table. Instead, ask yourself, What really changes, if I could fast-forward where they’re taking this? What is possible? What has been impossible for us, but maybe is possible for this new model – and can we adapt? Can we “join in”?

Without asking those questions – and it’s not likely that RIM’s executive suite were asking those questions, because that’s what happens when you’re on top – it’s easy to look down your nose at everything else that’s coming. It’s easy to only see the deficiencies of those players, missing where their strengths could develop, given enough time.

Given that this was Apple and later, Google, entering the market, it was arrogant to be dismissive of their ability to hammer away at a potential advantage, and make it the actual point of differentiation of their value proposition.

Apple didn’t just represent email, but functionally – from a user interface point of view – better email, and not just phone, but equal phone capabilities. The iPhone doesn’t just have download-able widgets – which Blackberry already had in some interesting little applications – but formed an entire ecosystem of completely flexible applications, that would not feel like, look like, or function like everything else that was previously available.

It was truly groundbreaking stuff, which of course is Apple’s strength. For all of us not competing against an Apple-caliber corporation, there still is a lesson to be learned about really “fast-forwarding” your competitors’ advantages to Where does that leave us – one-, three-, five years from now?

When you think about your competition, you most likely think of other companies with similar offerings to yours. These are your direct competitors, but they are certainly not your only competitors.

A more complete view of “who else” and “what else” is vying for your target customers’ attention (and budget dollars) requires that we look at alternatives – other ways to solve the same problem you solve.

Let’s look at competition earlier this decade in the Sales Force Automation and CRM space. Companies that equipped sales professionals with leather planners and filing systems or Palm Pilots (remember them?), integrating information through Microsoft Outlook, were looking to improve their sales force productivity. They were using alternatives to Salesforce.com or Oracle/Siebel’s CRM software.

They were addressing the same general problem of keeping track of customers, but not necessarily solving the problem in the same manner (or even as effectively) as Siebel or Salesforce.com.

Overlooking this point is a frequent source of much pain, for market planners and sales teams alike.

Before your offering existed, it is highly unlikely that your market was simply not addressing their need in some other way. Companies were doing bookkeeping long before and even during the advent of back-office computing. Many markets would show similar adoption behavior regarding new processes, systems, and product acceptance.

Often, when examining a competitive landscape, it is too easy to simply look at obvious peer group competitors. This often leads to making a case as to why your particular product offering is better, faster, or cheaper.

Imagine you were trying to talk your grandmother into getting an iPhone, discussing its relative merits over Android or a Blackberry… and she points across the room and says, “What do I need a new phone for? I’ve got one right over there on the wall!”

Companies often lose sight of the larger issue – the possibility that your prospects already have a way of doing things in a way they perceive as better or at least “not broken.”

You are not just competing against others offering similar products or services; you’re competing against every other way to “get it done,” possibly including the toughest competitor of all, “The way we’ve always done it.”

If so, what is your compelling story for change and transformation? What is your message to the marketplace – the message that counters the “status quo?”

What is your “You should switch now!” value proposition?

If you don’t know where you’re going, it doesn’t much matter which direction you take the organization. Objectives are necessary in order to have a clear and clean cut view of where the organization is going.

There are strategic and tactical objectives, which document the future of the firm or a specific market roll-out. They should be built around concept of messaging must be central, so both strategic and tactical objectives support the validation, communication and execution of the product’s Value Proposition– representing a set of promises that your target market will agree is innovative, indispensable and inspiring.

Strategic objectives are the high-level goals that drive strategy and long-term direction. These include corporate goals (which lay out the major, grand-scheme plans of the organization), financial goals (the key financial metrics that drive the firm’s success), and market impact goals (the key metrics that will allow you to measure your position or success in the marketplace, such as market share, markets served, number of customers, etc.)

Tactical objectives aren’t tasks, per se, but are more immediately tangible than strategic objectives. They reflect the key areas of project management, overall efficiency and time management, and translate easily into “to-do list” items for your Action Plan, and benchmarks for your timeline.

Keep objectives as clear and specific as possible. Use time-bound targets that are as measurable as possible. For example: Sell 100,000 units by May of 20xx for revenue of $$$ million.

IT Industry research leader, Gartner, Inc. comments on the importance of tying goals to actionable strategy and results: “Aspiring ‘to be the market leader’ or ‘to be seen by our clients and partners in their success’ is admirable, but lacks the specificity and clear linkage to action and measurable results to propel go-to-market efforts.”

Do you know where you’re going? Have you established major strategic objectives as well as tangible tactical objectives? Are these goals clear, specific, and measurable?

As you formulate and refine your value proposition, the best thing you can do for it is to simplify. There are few practical steps will help you get to the “pearl of great price” of your offering, and really let it shine. By this, I mean highlighting and not hiding the true main point (the net-net “goodness”) that proves most compelling to prospects.

Simplify by reducing the number of features or benefits in your story. Obviously, don’t reduce the actual features that make up your offering, but do reduce the number of features you communicate. Even this may seem counter-intuitive, in that it is easy to feel that “more is more.” However, given the crowded marketplace and ever increasing levels of market noise, it is a strategic imperative to deliver a simply understood story to your market.

I find that the more complex the product, the less effective it is to deliver the proverbial “fire hose” of information to an already overwhelmed audience. The point of reducing the number of features communicated is twofold: to force you to evaluate which features really matter to prospects, and to enable you to deliver those points more clearly.

Simplify by reducing the number of words you use to communicate a feature. Use simpler language such as “this means…” and “this doesn’t mean…” to frame key points. There is a time and place to introduce the twenty-page PDF with detailed schematics and charts… it just isn’t at the front end of the communication and sales process.

Simplify by reducing the use of jargon and dense wording. I don’t mean language that’s simplistic or condescending— I do mean language understood by a non-technical executive who understands business terms and concepts.

Finally, simplify by reducing the number and depth of slides in your PowerPoint presentation. The old adage of “tell them what you’re going to tell them; tell them; then tell them what you told them” is a simple and still effective way to approach any presentation. The middle part is where many business product and services companies fall into their own snare of complexity.

PowerPoint is a wonderful tool to capture and share new ideas—and is also a collector of “dust balls” of too many ideas and details. We’ve all sat through (or given) one-hour PowerPoint talks that left everyone, including the speaker, more confused than when the talk began. You can clarify and simplify any presentation (or document) by taking this simplification test:

• Can I capture my essential offering in one slide? You can state your Value Proposition (using the Offering Concept Statement) and add a few short clarifying bullets—but that’s it!
• Can I describe what my product does in one slide of less than 50 words (adding up all the bullets)?
• Can I describe, on one slide, what our product/service brings to the market that is new, useful and exciting (your offering’s I3 dimensions)?
• Can I describe, on one slide, what in our company’s history points to our distinct ability to deliver this specific value proposition (credibility from your corporate foundation)?
• Can I describe, on one slide, a way of looking at our offering financially that is compelling—emphasizing a key financial benefit or dynamic unique to your offering (Cost Effectiveness from your Corporate Foundation)?
• Can I describe, on one slide, what in our present people, processes and resources points to our distinct ability to deliver this specific value proposition (Capability from your Corporate Foundation)?

Be direct. Be clear. In short—keep it short. Your prospects will appreciate it and understand your story better as a result.

In my last post, I included a video in which Barry Schwartz, author of The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less, suggests that while some choice is a good thing, a lot of choices might not be.

If you look at how Japanese automotive companies established their beachhead in terms of small car sales when they first came to the United States in the 1970s, there were some cultural and economic factors that were in their favor, such as the cost of gas and so on, but the other part of it was that they just had a simpler line-up.

They radically simplified the number of varieties you can have of a particular car model and that made it much simpler for a consumer to say, for example, “I think I want to buy a Honda.” Your head didn’t have to explode in making that decision.

General Motors, on the other hand, is the perfect example of what happens if you offering is too spread out. For years, GM had all these brands– Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, etc… –and none of them were particularly good or reliable (IMHO)! Now, they’ve finally gotten rid of a bunch of lines they previously could never bring themselves to shoot down (forced to do so by their recent bankruptcy and reorganization).

Once again, the lesson to be gleaned from this is to examine your desire to provide variety – and do what marketers like to do – which is to stratify a market to capture little pieces of everything along the continuum. Does that actually undermine your opportunity to create a distinct beachhead in a given market, with a superior offering for that market?

It’s counter-intuitive in a lot of cases. Naturally, you’d say, “Well, I want to offer a different color for everyone’s taste, so I can sell more stuff,” but go back to the example of the iPhone again. You can’t get an iPhone 4g other than with a black back. They don’t have the option of a white casing, like the previous incarnations did. Now, perhaps that could have been a manufacturing thing, whatever, it doesn’t matter. The point is, that’s it! It’s black. That’s what you’re going to get. Moreover, it’s cool. They sold you on it, and that’s how it is.

As much as we intuitively think variety and freedom of choice are good, we gravitate towards companies and products that FOCUS the variations offered and the choices we have to make. Does your company offer a lot of options? Too many? How could you simplify your offering, and streamline your customers’ decision-making process?

It’s a familiar scene– a guy walks into a Starbucks looking for a cup of coffee, looks up, and stares at the menu like a deer in headlights for five minutes, overwhelmed by all the choices he has to make before he can pay $4 for his delicious beverage. Cappuccino, frappuccino, macchiato, americano, mocha, latte or brewed coffee? What size? How many shots of espresso? Hot or cold? Regular, decaf, or half-caf? Skim, whole, 2%, or soy? Do you want a flavor in that? Whipped cream? For here or to go?

We’ve all turned on the TV, flipped through 500 channels and gave up and turned it off because “there’s nothing on.”

It may seem counterintuitive, but freedom of decision often leads to indecision. In this video clip, Barry Schwartz, author of The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less, talks about this puzzling phenomenon, and suggests that while some choice is a good thing, a lot of choices might not be. (It’s a little long, but worth watching!)

I couldn’t agree more with the central idea that one can offer too many choices. In fact, a great case in counter-point is Apple. Apple has refined the art of reducing options without making consumers feel constrained. Compare them to, lets say, a company who’s lunch they’re eating (IMHO): Research in Motion. RIM keeps coming out with a new model seemingly every day, and it makes it hard to make a Blackberry decision.

If you want to buy an iPhone, the only decision you really have to make is how much memory you want. There’s not a whole lot of other options. You can argue that the choice between a 3GS and a 4G is a choice, and it is, of a kind, but fundamentally, the way you’re going to interact with the device is identical. Whereas Blackberry offers phones that flip open, one that slides out, one that doesn’t even have a keyboard – and all these things are things that make you wonder if you’re making the right choice. On top of that, Blackberry (and Apple will soon follow) is offered on many networks, with phone varieties that are carrier specific.

In the case of the iPad, again, there’s really only two decisions: Do you need 3G, or WiFi? That’s the big decision (the other is 16GB, 32GB or 64GB – which is less complex) and I know all about that choice, because I went through that very decision when my wife surprised me with an iPad on my birthday. She said she wasn’t sure which I needed, so she got the WiFi model, but I could exchange it for the 3G version if I wanted.

I found myself paralyzed between desperately wanting to open up the box and tear off the cellophane wrap– but knowing that once I did that, because there’s a big restocking fee, there would be no turning back– or I had to get to the mall to get the other one.

I wrestled with that decision for nearly an hour, debating what I should do. That choice made it hard for me. I ended up, like most boys with toys, choosing to tear open the cellophane and enjoy my iPad immediately. Immediate gratification won out. I don’t regret that decision, for a variety of other reasons, but the point is, choices make it hard.

What do you think? Is it better to have more options, or to keep it simple?

[Stay tuned for part two]

We tend to think of “mission” in the singular. “Your mission, should you choose to accept it…” and such. As a marketer, however, your mission is two-fold – you have both the corporate mission, and your product’s mission to consider.

The corporate mission is your company’s overarching mission – why you are in business. Most likely, some version of this is already spelled out somewhere, in a “Mission Statement” or similar declaration of purpose and/or vision for the organization.

Your product’s mission is, similarly, why it exists.

This isn’t a recitation of what your product does, but rather, why your company funded its development, and what the overall expectations and requirements for it are. These expectations are at least financial, market impact (share, prominence) and organization (reduced cost to deliver, replace older technology, etc.)

Look at both of your statements and ask yourself, “are these aligned?” – do they look like they belong together? It doesn’t matter whether you are in a position of authority to change your corporate or product mission – what matters is that you note the degree of or lack of integration – and start thinking about the ramifications of these distinctions.

A tightly aligned corporate and product mission (and by “product” I mean product and related services that together make the “offering”) can just mean that your company is newer and has fewer product extensions… or … your company has a very tight overall focus.

A loosely aligned mission profile isn’t necessarily “bad”, but could mean challenges ahead for acquiring resources to fulfill your product’s mission. An example of this would be a packaged software vendor launching a Software as a Service (“SaaS”) offering. The culture and norms in such an organization could be at sharp odds with a nascent product group – pushing the envelope and making everyone uncomfortable. However, if this company’s Mission was tied to delivering Business Process enablement via technology, services, “any means necessary,” – the new product offering might actually be a very consistent and meaningful addition to the company’s capabilities.

The point here is to be aware of both your larger corporate mission, and specific product mission, and how they fit together. How much sense does this offering make in light of the company’s general mission? What impact does this have on your go-to-market strategy?

“Remarkable marketing is the art of building things worth noticing.”
—Seth Godin, author, “Purple Cow”

Product excellence and possessing stellar sales teams are “givens” in today’s B2B world. Existing business literature and marketing “science” have created a global economy in which product and sales excellence are now considered the baseline or “table stakes” for business—the minimum for companies to enter the game.

In a world where most players are aware of the baseline for competition, you need to meet that baseline level of performance to simply close the first deal or attract any market interest at all. Promises of excellent customer service or product excellence, by themselves, just don’t cut it as differentiators, even if you are strong in those areas (as demonstrated in the video in my last post). They’re the foundation of good business, but think about it<— you lay the foundation of a building, and what do you have?

A well-fortified hole in the ground.

You don’t stop there, of course— you keep building on that foundation. It’s what you do above the ground—beyond the minimum prerequisites of good customer service and basic functionality —that people notice.

These givens are the “infrastructure” of current business practices, which serve to elevate the importance of strategic messaging to a higher plane.

The entire organization and its culture must center upon the message of the company and its product. While at first blush, this might sound like a dangerous disregard for those fundamental, “real” aspects of business value— quality, features and support— it actually affirms these attributes.

By pulling the entire organization together around the message the company wants to communicate, “disconnects” in quality, features and support become even more evident and urgent. As champion NASCAR crew chief Ray Evernham put it, “Everyone should feel as if his signature is on the finished product.”

• So, what should the business product or services vendor do?
• How do you make messaging— the communication of value to the marketplace— an integrative process (vs. simply another functional process)?
• How do you build your go-to-market process and plan around your messaging?