Listening: A Strategy and Marketing Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

Looking for a short-term initiative that will help streamline and focus your marketing strategies for maximum benefit? Consider a marketing audit or assessment, also known as a marketing analysis.  A marketing audit used to be a comprehensive review of all aspects of the marketing mix: products, price, promotion, distribution/sales and strategy/positioning.  They were used before budget cycles or strategic planning, when a new executive came on board, and before engaging a significant branding or advertising campaign.

Today’s marketing audit or marketing analysis is still a comprehensive review of marketing practice; but it looks quite a bit different than it did a decade ago for several reasons. The pace of change, especially in communications, makes promotional strategies obsolete very quickly. Additionally, the demand for transparency and responsiveness’ to stakeholders or other constituents means the process must look at more than just customers.

The modern marketing analysis should accomplish two core outcomes:

• Provide a simplifying and unifying focal point, and
• Identify ways to streamline and synergize current efforts.

The simplifying and unifying focal point gives the organization a guiding star by which to navigate in otherwise chaotic times. For many this is identifying the timeless customer need that is a through-line for all the organization’s products and services. It answers the question “What business are you in?” In other situations the focal point can be a specific strategy, brand initiative or the launch of a specific marketing program.

Identifying ways to streamline and integrate efforts is a particular challenge for companies that tend to create silos according to functional tasks like sales management, advertising, PR, Web and Search Engine Marketing, and Social Media.  Creating a unified strategy for promotion will help strengthen execution, create alignment and reinforce brand messages.

If you Google or Bing “marketing audit” you’ll likely find outlines and to-do lists for self-assessments. As of August 2010, most of what’s available is very similar to what you would have found at the library way back in 1990 when I first wrote about audits and starting doing them for clients.

In contrast to audit protocols of the past, today’s marketing analysis should cover:

• The core business that underlies your products and services. Is there ambiguity about this core or elements that distract?
• The regulatory or activist initiatives impacting manufacturing and distribution. Where do stakeholders’ environmental and social justice concerns intersect with marketing?
• Integration and alignment of sales strategies with traditional and new media promotion. Were your strategies for sales, advertising, pr, Web and social media designed to work together, or are one or more parts “bolted on”?
• The “Soft Stuff” – the human environment of marketing, including employee understanding of and/or commitment to current strategies and programs.

Beware the assessment that says you’ll get a comprehensive audit for $500 or even $1,500. Think about it. Most consultants charge $200 to $250 an hour. Do you think they can accurately assess your firm and its situation in 2-6 hours? More likely this is how long it takes them to plug your name and company details into a boilerplate report, that –surprise! – reveals you need to hire them for additional services.  Be willing to pay for a quality service that can stand on its own without obligation for further involvement by the consultant.

Be clear about your own objectives for the process.  How deep do you really want to go? Are you looking for a few new ideas? Or do you want a comprehensive management assessment that gives you high ROI recommendations?  I won’t even ask if you want a quick fix, because everyone does.  Are you willing to entertain a bigger fix if the audit suggests it? Are you pondering questions about your company’s strategy or direction, but don’t want to get bogged down in a long-term process? Consider your desired future end state and communicate that to the consultant as you engage in the audit process. Clear objectives at the start will help create a better end product.

At some point in the lives of many of America’s newspapers, their purpose shifted. Many went from seeking to “empower a democratic society with a free press” to “delivering an audience to advertisers.”

We in the Seattle area watched this month as nearly three decades of changes in the newspaper industry brought down the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It would be simplistic to say that loss of the original purpose was the turning point in the newspaper industry’s demise. Many complex factors including the rise of the Internet have contributed to their current dire circumstances.

While many reporters and editors remained motivated by the ideal of a free press, their management was focused on a specific form of revenue creation (selling advertising) which did not allow newspapers to adapt as the market has changed.

Ted Levitt made this point years ago in his famous “Marketing Myopia” article: adapting over time means focusing on the evolving needs of customers, not selling a particular business model. Holding fast to the importance of a free press as an agent of enlightened democracy might have helped newspapers cling less tightly to the advertising paradigm and evolve their revenue models in service of the greater purpose.

A focus on how we seek to make the world a better place helps companies stay clear and resilient in troubled times.  When economic conditions are volatile, business models focused on purpose provide clarity about what needs to change and what should never change in the business. This focus on purpose does four things for an organization:

• Provides a strategic focal point for aligning all aspects of the organization
• Creates the basis for powerful, trust-based marketing
• Establishes a foundation for positive corporate culture, and
• Taps the motivation and passion of employees and other stakeholders.

According to an article in the February 12 Gallup Management Journal, it’s more critical than ever that businesses and customers know what companies stand for.

The article describes the work of GSD&M Idea City in Austin Texas, a branding agency, as it helped Southwest Airlines describe their purpose. While many see Southwest as simply the low-cost provider, for founder Herb Kelleher, the point is making air travel accessible. The agency gave him the language to describe his purpose: “democratizing the skies.”

A friend of Hosfeld & Associates, Kip Gregory, author of Winning Clients in a Wired World, also runs a purpose-driven business. He works with clients to help them tap the enormous potential of the Internet and everyday technology to make their businesses more profitable. For Kip, the Internet is a banquet and many businesses can’t find the door in.

In talking with Kip about his purpose, I paraphrased: “You’re not in the technology business, Kip, you’re in the abundance business. Hundreds of the resources you share with clients are free, and yet they offer the opportunity for breakthroughs in productivity and profits.”

Kip is successful because people recognize he’s not a geek who loves technology (not that there’s anything wrong with being a technology-loving geek); but a client champion who uses technology to make them more successful.

Studies suggest that purpose-driven businesses outperform companies without a purpose. Southwest Airlines is one of several firms cited in the book Firms of Endearment, which describes the characteristics and performance of companies committed to a purpose. Firms of Endearment (or FoEs) that they studied returned a 1,026 percent for investors over the 10 years ending June 30, 2006, compared to a 122 percent return for the S&P 500.

Companies with purpose are not immune to economic downturns. Some of the firms described in the book, including Harley Davidson, have taken significant hits in the last several months. Yes, further studies suggest that companies committed to purpose recover more quickly after economic challenges.

Companies with purpose, those that take a stand and build their business on making the world a better place, stand out with consumers. They foster trust and loyalty. Companies with loyal customers succeed in good markets, and have more going for them in difficult times.

If you’d like to find out how to align your organization’s operations and brand around a compelling purpose, please contact us.

Periods of economic uncertainty and transition place greater demands on organizations to engage in adaptive change processes. As a result, the idea of “what really works” in strategic planning has changed dramatically in the last 15 years.

Added to this are increased employee expectations for engagement, collaboration, and the opportunity to create positive social and environmental outcomes through their work.

• What really works in strategic planning?
• What must clients do to ensure a high quality process and outcome?
• How do we build progressive values for success and meaning into both the strategic planning process itself and the resulting strategic plan?

What Really Works In Strategic Planning?

Following we provide insights about what works in strategic planning, followed by some of the reasons traditional planning may have failed in that regard.

When the strategy is clear to everyone. Strategy needs to be simple enough for anyone in the company to understand.

• Avoid top-down approaches. Many organizations suffer from planning that goes on at the most senior level of the organization and doesn’t integrate wisdom from “the front lines.” Top-down planning also suffers as a result of a lack of understanding and buy-in. The most effective approach is one that combines top-down and bottom up approaches.

• Numbers aren’t the whole story. Strategies that are about hitting particular financial targets alone aren’t really strategies. Financial targets are goals that we want the strategies to deliver.  A strategy is the mobilization of company-wide efforts needed to create the desired outcomes. Financial targets are the “what.” Strategies are the “how.”

• Create shared language. The language of the executive office is often financial, but that doesn’t “translate” very well in other parts of the organization. Using planning tools that create shared language in all departments and levels of the organization helps make the strategy clear.

The strategy is resilient. One common critique of strategic plans is that they are obsolete as soon as they are written. Resilient strategies are based on organizational strengths and assets that have long-term strategic potential.

• Avoid strategies that are “borrowed” from other companies. Some companies try to copy what they see working for their competitors or peers in their industry.  While great ideas can often be picked up from others, successful strategy is based on the unique assets and strengths of each organization.

• Base strategic plans on long-term opportunities, not short-term trends. A very common practice in organizations is to mistake tactical strategies for strategic planning. A short-term market opportunity then replaces organizational mission and strategy. Without balancing short-term and long-term, the organization short-changes itself on profitability and risks creating a culture driven from one crisis to another.

The strategy is fully implemented. Many organizations create reasonable strategies that are not fully implemented. When this happens, one of the following may be occurring.

• Invite people into agreement with the strategy. If the strategy process has not sufficiently included key perspectives in its development, the outcome will likely have opponents. Strategy processes that integrate differing views ultimately create stronger outcomes.

• Translate the strategy to day to day work. For many, the intuitive process of figuring out what strategy means for their work is fun and challenging. For others, it’s asking them to do the impossible.  Creating measurable action steps, and in some cases, metrics and financial targets, is a critical step in strategy implementation.

• Role model at the executive level and follow through. In order to give the strategy a chance, there has to be managerial commitment and follow-through. If the strategy was developed without their buy-in or if the strategy is not robust enough, managers will become fearful that it doesn’t address the reality of today’s challenges. If they face resistance because key perspectives weren’t addressed in planning, they may lose the will to enforce it. If no one seems to get the strategy, they may become frustrated and conclude the strategy “doesn’t work.”

The Client’s Role in Getting a Good Outcome?

Robust strategies that help organizations become more successful and profitable require quality input from the client.  Clients need to consider carefully if they can make these commitments in order to get a better outcome from a planning effort:

• Will you commit a reasonable amount of time? Although many processes take too much time and cost too much, it is also true that you can’t craft a robust, fully articulated organizational strategy and action plan in a weekend retreat with a SWAT analysis and a brainstorming session.  A reasonable amount of time for strategy development is 6 to 9 months. This time frame allows for comprehensive organizational and competitive analysis, as well as client research. During that time, the strategy process should not bring day to day activity to a halt. Rather, the process should feed new information into daily operations on an ongoing basis.

• Will you create opportunities for participation at all levels of the organization? Finding appropriate ways to tap the genius of the entire organization are essential to crafting practical, doable strategies and engaging the entire organization it their implementation.  Strategy design isn’t necessarily a consensus process, but there must be broad input and dialogue. Some of the best strategies and innovations are “stumbled upon” in the initial stages of planning. They sometimes are small, unnoticed or under-valued aspects of the organization that only emerge with broad participation.

• Will you ask clients or customers what they really want? Committing the time and money to conduct client research is essential to strategy design. The primary sources of break-through innovations and thinking are efforts that solve clients’ problems in new and unique ways.  WE all have our own standards of what quality or good work means. It’s important that we not mistake that for what customers or clients truly value. One of the key elements to sound strategy is focusing on what creates perceived value for clients. The only way to find out what creates perceived value for clients is by asking them. Without research, strategy making devolves into guesswork.

Creating Both Success and Meaning Through Strategy

“A path without heart is never enjoyable. You have to work hard even to take it. On the other hand, a path with heart is easy; it does not make you work at liking it.”
-    Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan

Employee loyalty and enthusiasm are two of the greatest strategic assets of any organization. We tap the potential of these assets when organizations serve a purpose that creates meaning for their work.

Organizations can create meaningful engagement in the ways they conduct strategic planning exercises, as well as in how they incorporate values and mission in the resulting plans.

Strategic planning processes can create anxiety and uncertainty, over and above that generated by the changing dynamics that make the planning process necessary. The following elements can help organizations bring out the best in their people as they go about strategic planning processes.

• Collaborative Engagement – Creating opportunities for engagement, dialogue and input from all levels of the organization is essential to creating understanding of and support for strategic plans. It is also the primary way to tap the genius within the organization to find its own solutions.  While we do not conduct planning from a consensus model, we do design ways to get engagement and information efficiently and in ways that make participants feel heard and valued.

• Build On What’s Already Working – Focusing the organization on what’s working creates hope and a foundation upon which to build new strengths. What do clients or customers already really appreciate and want from the organization? What’s the opportunity to leverage existing strengths and capacities for further growth? What are the “stumble upon” initiatives that are working that can be amplified?

Additionally, strategic planning offers an opportunity for organizations to step back and integrate social and environmental values and opportunities into the core business. In 2008, almost 60% of companies surveyed by McKinsey and Company reported that they were integrating environmental and social missions into their core strategy to a greater degree than they were five years prior. Although cost savings and new marketing opportunities motivate some of these initiatives, such practices also attract top talent. “Recruitment and retention consultancies like Kenexa, Hewitt Associates, Robert Half, and Towers Perrin have published figures demonstrating a link between environmentally friendly workplaces and engaged employees,” writes Andree Iffrig, author of Find Your Voice at Work: The Power of Storytelling in the Workplace (Limegrass 2007). Environmental and social values pave the path with heart that employees want to walk.

“After” Approaches Emphasize Stakeholders, Systems Perspective and “Third Way” Thinking

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld (with Jenny Mish)

Thousands of sustainability oriented startups are creating game-changing innovations in products, services, industry partnerships, supply chain management and more as they seek to integrate values of social justice and environmental stewardship into their business practices.

As startups, they represent one part of the new sustainability economy. The other side is existing “traditional” businesses seeking to integrate sustainability into both the culture and business processes at the same time. For the former group, the challenge is making it work without a roadmap. For the latter, it’s creating change in systems that seem to have worked “just fine” before sustainability came along.

Until recently, there hasn’t been much recognition of the role that marketing can play in furthering sustainability. Superficial promotional claims of green characteristics of products and services in the 1980s — what’s now known as “green washing” — actually created something of setback for the sustainability movement. Today, marketing functions – such as product design or supply chain transparency– that are critical to success may not – in some organizations – have been seen as part of marketing.

As more organizations have succeeded in integrating sustainability, marketing researchers and people in the field are noticing an emerging picture of what sustainability oriented marketing looks like.

Jenny Mish, a doctoral candidate in marketing at the University of Utah, and I saw the outlines of this emerging picture in data she gathered as a part of her doctoral work. She completed a study of “Exemplary Triple Bottom Line Companies,” in the summer of 2007. She identified several themes emerging as characteristic of marketing in sustainability oriented companies:

• They view their situations through a complex, systems perspective – highlighting interrelationships of components and stakeholders
• They take a long-term triple bottom line approach – finding third-way solutions instead of creating trade-offs between goals
• They engage a broad array of stakeholders
• They integrate full-cycle product (or service) costs into their understanding of what creates value and relevance for customers
• They emphasize relational, trust-based communications and sales approaches

Many of these organizations express these characteristics as “authenticity” – saying they reflect their values (“This is who we are”). Comparing Jenny’s interview data with my consulting experience in the field, we have created a series of polarity diagrams that demonstrate the contrast between marketing that is not at all sustainability oriented and marketing that fully embraces sustainability. This comparison begins to create some guidelines for those companies who want to practice sustainability oriented marketing. This offers a picture of what they might or should be striving for.

Marketing “Before” And “After” Sustainability

This series of three diagrams contrasts a simplistic, single-bottom line oriented approach to marketing with a complex, triple-bottom-line approach to sustainability marketing:

• It’s important to stress that the two ends of the spectrum do not exist in pure forms. The right side of each diagram actually represents a collage of sustainability oriented marketing“best practices.”
• We suspect that lower profitability on the left side is the result of a more limited marketing skill set that coincides with a simplistic approach.

Figure 1. Managerial Orientation

To make a transition to sustainability oriented marketing, the values and perspectives of sustainability must be reflected at the top. Although some studies show that sustainability efforts can “start from the middle,” – marketers need agreement and support from other managers to make sustainability a
priority. Without this, the pressure on marketers to drive only short-term sales targets will create either/or situations where marketers are forced to choose between profit and sustainability goals. Figure 1 contrasts the managerial orientation of the two ends of the spectrum.

Figure 2. Relationships with Stakeholders

What we see in organizations that make this transition is that at some point the expectation of the marketing function flips. The extreme polarity on the left represents marketing as strictly the job of “selling.” (Again it’s important to stress that the two ends of the spectrum are not descriptions of actual businesses, but rather extreme points of view.) At some point, exemplary organizations pursuing a triple bottom line demonstrate a perspective that marketing is the stewardship of relationships in the context of assumed reciprocity. They certainly don’t remove the sales imperative from the table. However,marketing is charged with accomplishing the goals of the organization for sales, profit and mission by providing superior benefit and relevance to not just customers alone but also to other stakeholders.

Figure 2 depicts the key relationships of which marketers become stewards in a sustainability oriented setting.

Figure 3. How Stakeholder Relationships are Stewarded

The final figure demonstrates how various aspects of marketing practice – from budgeting to research to pricing to promotion – change in character when the purpose of marketing shifts from “selling stuff” to “stewarding relationships.”

What we notice in this chart is that a much higher degree of marketing sophistication is required to practice marketing from a stewardship perspective. For example, whereas many organizations do not have a defined approach to pricing – for example, they price intuitively based on what the market will
bear – sustainability oriented organizations must develop the capacity to measure the full cycle cost of a product or service and base their pricing accordingly.

The approach to market intelligence or customer research also changes. On the left, consumers are studied so that their needs can be addressed in sales and promotion. Sustainability oriented marketers, on the other hand, seek to foster ongoing dialogue with customers and other stakeholders. It’s considered a continuous conversation, where even “co-creation” may take place when that is valuable on both sides.

Another characteristic that was noted from Jenny’s study is that in sustainability oriented marketing, marketing functions and expertise are dispersed throughout the organization. Marketing – or rather stewardship of stakeholder relationships – is “everyone’s job.” It’s important to note that many companies who haven’t consciously adopted sustainability principles yet practice a high degree of ethics and have high standards for authenticity and trust in customer and other stakeholder relationships. We sense that these companies are well placed on the continuum toward the right hand side of the polarity diagrams even if the ideas of social justice and environmental stewardship are not yet part of their corporate consciousness.

What Does All This Mean?

For those companies who are already embracing sustainability, this comparison of “before” and “after” may identify new areas to deepen their practice. For those who are just getting started, leaders in organizations may want to take note of the following:

• Marketers need to be supported in integrating sustainability and its values into their practices. They may need to be challenged to hold financial, social and environmental goals simultaneously. Or they may need assurance from the top that the company is serious about measuring success by all three.
• Marketers may also need to be challenged to think and act from a systems perspective. They need to be supported and trained to look for “third way” solutions rather than seeing multiple bottom lines as areas for trade-offs. In the end this may pay off in innovation. The ability to hold multiple objectives simultaneously and search for the “third way” has led, in the past, to new products and services, as well as more efficient manufacturing and delivery systems.
• The overall marketing skill of the organization must be enhanced. Marketers should receive professional development in areas where they may lack experience. A sense of “stewardship of relationships” should be fostered in the company as a whole so that sustainability oriented marketing becomes “everyone’s job.”

A “printer friendly” version of this article, with larger graphics, is available here.