by Fronetics | Apr 7, 2015 | Blog, Leadership, Strategy
There are times when change is good. There are also times when change is bad for business.
The phrase “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is often attributed to Thomas Bertram Lance, businessman and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Jimmy Carter. He was quoted in the May 1977 issue of the magazine Nation’s Business, though the sentiment feels as old as human existence. If something is working, and has always worked, then why change it? There are many adages along the same lines: leave well enough alone, never change a running system, don’t change a winning team.
True, humans are always evolving, but we also like consistency and stability. In his book Handbook of Contemporary Economics, Morris Altman wrote, “Without some stability over at least the short term, it is hard to conceive of humans engaging in sustained goal-oriented activity.” Change, adaptability, and flexibility, especially in business culture and lore, have turned from buzzwords to commandments. There are some things, though, that don’t require change. Assess whether change is necessary, rather than assuming it is because it’s socially and commercially popular. Ask:
- Are there assessment tools in place to monitor the business’s success?
- Are customers reporting satisfaction?
- Do your goods match customer needs?
- Do you understand the current market and your place amongst competitors?
- Are profits growing?
- Are overall finances sound?
- Are things running efficiently?
- Are current practices meeting regulations?
- Do you have the right people to meet your objectives?
- Are employees engaged, trained, and developing?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then why change? According to Harvard Business Review change could alienate your base, confuse people, damage your brand, and lose you money. Cadbury and its parent company, Kraft, are experiencing intense backlash due to a change in the Cadbury Creme Egg recipe. People are protesting, writing letters, posting negative comments online, and accusing the company of “ruining Easter.” We’ve seen this before. According to TIME’s article on the top 10 bad beverage ideas, “April 23, 1985, stands as one of the most significant dates in business history — the date the 99-year-old Coca-Cola company announced it was scrapping its original soda formula for a newer, sweeter version.” This change brought with it over 40,000 letters of protest, not to mention the bad press. Within three months the original soda formula, Coca-Cola “classic”, was back and met with an incredibly positive reception.
Some companies opt for a subtler approach to change by expanding its traditional offering. Instead of changing the successful product line for women, Dove expanded into the male market, creating Dove Men+Care, while still adhering to their public image and mission of creating personal care products that support natural health and realistic beauty.
The Harvard Business Review lists Brooks Brothers as a company that successfully found new opportunities without changing its values, “Instead of simply sticking to selling classic clothing, and waiting for outside catalysts (such as the popularity of the fashion in the television show Mad Men) to increase its popularity, the chain innovated around the edges by offering more fashionable accessories — shoes, belts, bags and the like — while leaving its core basically unchanged.” Capitalizing on this opportunity did not drive customers away because Brooks Brothers’ base products remained.
Remember that change has a cost. Are your consumers willing to pay the cost, especially if they didn’t require the change in the first place? Will your partners in the supply chain be willing to do business with you if the change you implement doesn’t suit them or benefit them? Think about some of the elements, for example, of a brand change:
- Content
- Communication
- Collateral
- Contacts
Things such as graphic design, business cards, letterhead, social media, advertising, re-launch, etc. all require real time and money. You must assess if your change will reap real, solid benefits. You don’t want to expend the effort, time, and money to change if you don’t have to, especially if it requires reversing the change or worse, killing your business.
by Fronetics | Nov 27, 2014 | Blog, Leadership, Marketing, Strategy
The Dunkin’ Donuts in Boston’s Back Bay Station is a well-oiled machine. The whole process – ordering a cup of coffee, paying, and receiving said coffee – takes seconds. The experience is something reminiscent to Seinfield’s Soup Nazi.
For customers who frequent this Dunkin’ Donuts expect this. They have timed their commute down to the minute and they know that if they can move through a line of 30 or so people in seconds – and make the train. For customers who don’t frequent this Dunkin’ Donuts the experience can be jarring.
On the other hand, there is a small coffee shop I visit in Maine. It takes minutes (think two digit numbers) to get a cup of coffee, and then more minutes to pay. Customers who frequent this coffee shop savor this time that it takes to get their coffee. The minutes waiting allow for conversations or quiet meditation.
Watching someone new enter the coffee shop is always interesting. There are those that start to wait in line and then leave when, after minutes, they are no closer to getting coffee. There are others who wait it out, checking their watch or smart phone every few seconds as if this will speed up the process. These people generally leave in cloud of frustration.
These two businesses know their customers. They have taken the time to understand what the needs are of the customer and they have tailored their business to address these needs.
To grow your business you need to take the time to determine who your target customer is, what their needs are, and how you can address these needs and bring value to the customer.
by Fronetics | Sep 16, 2014 | Blog, Content Marketing, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy, Supply Chain
I work with companies from the supply chain and logistics industries to identify and execute strategies that will grow their business. Too often I see companies who have invested time and money into developing a B2B inbound marketing strategy and have fallen flat. Here are six reasons why inbound marketing strategies tend to fail:
The ideal customer is not being targeted
A successful inbound marketing strategy will attract and engage the “right people” – ideal customers. It is therefore essential that time is taken to understand who the ideal customer is, the needs of the customer, and the customer’s pain points. Your company’s website, social media presence, and email communications, should speak to your ideal customer.
Content is not published consistently
A common pitfall is establishing a blog, but only publishing content on a sporadic basis. To establish your company as an industry leader and gain leads, you need to publish content on a consistent basis. For example, your company needs to commit to publishing blog content every Tuesday.
Content is not quality content
All content is not equal. If you want your inbound marketing efforts to succeed, your content needs to be quality content. Your content should be well-researched, sourced, and edited. Grammatical errors and misspellings are inexcusable.
More isn’t always better
It is easy to sign up for a social media account. I’ve seen many companies who have decided to jump into social media feet first and have established many social media accounts, only to become overwhelmed. If you want your inbound marketing strategy to succeed, it is more important to be active on one social network than inactive on five.
Lack of strategy and commitment
A 2014 study of B2B marketers found that companies that have a strategy in place are more likely to consider their efforts effective than companies that do not have a stated strategy in place. Companies that do not have a strategy in place, and who do not have someone in charge of the strategy tend to fail.
A focus on sales
Content that informs and educates attracts and engages. Content that is “salesy” not only fails to attract and engage, it turns customers away.
Is your inbound marketing strategy falling flat? Assess your strategy – honestly. Has your company fallen prey to these common pitfalls?
by Jennifer Hart Yim | Jun 5, 2014 | Blog, Manufacturing & Distribution, Strategy, Supply Chain
This article is part of a series of articles written by MBA students and graduates from the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.
By now we have all heard the story of GM’s faulty ignition switches that are being linked to thirteen deaths and thirty one front-end collisions. The ignition switches in car models: Chevy Cobalt; Chevy HHR; Pontiac G5; Pontiac Solstice; Saturn Ion; and Saturn Sky, lacked the torque specs required by GM engineers. Heavy key chains, bumpy roads, or an accidental knee hit were all reasons reported that could cause the ignition switch to rotate to the off or idle position. Once this happened, the driver would lose control and the air bags would fail to deploy if a front end collision occurred. A total of 2.6 million vehicles were recalled, of that 2.2 million were in the United States. For this type of recall, GM was not requiring vehicles to go back to the manufacturer or be disposed. Rather, a more robust key ignition was distributed to all authorized GM dealerships and customers were told to bring their cars to the local dealership and a new ignition switch would be put in for them.
Despite the massive recall and all the negative publicity that goes along with such an event, GM still posted positive numbers in their quarterly earnings. GM posted an operating income of $0.5 billion for 1Q14, which is included the $1.3 billion recall-related charge. Furthermore, GM controlled approximately 17% of the U.S. market share. After the ignition switch incidents started to gain traction, GM swore to reorganize their global engineering department, and they did. So, if GM’s sales profitability is surviving, their negative press contained, and their market share intact, what exactly went wrong?
Two-thirds of General Motors automotive costs in 2014 are from supplier sourced parts. However, this was not always the situation. Back in 1999, GM underwent an extensive effort to disassemble their vertical integration in hopes of reducing overall costs. At this time, Delphi Automotive was owned by GM, but separated during the same year. For decades, GM was Delphi’s only customer, and even when Delphi executives knew GM was going to make them a public company, they were only able to move 22% of their business to other customers. When GM officially made Delphi a public company, 82.3% of their shares went to GM shareholders. That means that only 17.7% of Delphi was sold to public investors. In order to survive as a company, Delphi had to start making cost reduction decisions. To do this, companies often lay off employees and make cheaper parts, Delphi was no different. Now during this same time period, GM executives were focused on focused on costs reductions and were driven by numbers, hence the selling off of Delphi. It should be noted that if a company sells off their single largest parts supplier, fully aware that the move may cause the supplier to go belly up, there will be some strained relationships. Delphi was now thrown into a position where they must compete with other parts suppliers for GM’s business. An important part of the deal GM made when selling off Delphi was to keep all current supplier contracts. In addition, GM gave Delphi the opportunity to match any competitor’s bid until 2002. The earliest model of a recalled GM car was 2003.
Strained supplier relationships are not ideal for business, but should not affect the quality of a product, such as an ignition switch. Let’s fast forward to 2008. Delphi had declared bankruptcy three years prior and GM was beginning to pull them out of their financial burden. A contract was found between GM and Delphi that was drafted in 2008. The document is a little difficult to follow, but there are a few interesting lines in Section 5.09 Product Liability Claims. It appears that, GM said they would share the blame with Delphi for any claims against them. However, GM would not be held responsible if one of Delphi’s parts, or a part made for Delphi by a third party, fails. The contract continues on to say that GM would pay any legal fees if a claim was made against Delphi, but Delphi must defend GM through a potential lawsuit. This contract was drafted and signed in 2008, during which Delphi was bankrupt, so it appears they had little negotiating power.
This raises concerns specifically about the ignition switch specs. It came out that GM officials knew the ignition switch they purchased from Delphi was not up to their standards. After some more research, an email transaction between Delphi officials in regards to the plunger, the vital part that holds the key slot in place with a spring, and the ignition switch. At the end of the document, the original engineer drawings are attached. From the technical drawings it can be seen that Delphi did in fact outsource the design specs, and possibly the manufacturing, for the plunger design. Another document, that was preceding the email transaction, appears to inform GM that the plunger part was changed and the responsibility of the supplier is “closed”. This could have been a legal move meant to save Delphi if any claims were made related to these parts.
After all of this evidence, where does the blame lie? It would appear that GM used their powers to force Delphi into a contract that held them responsible for any claims against their products. While Delphi did warn GM that the torque requirement for their ignition switch did not meet GM’s requirement, it is unclear whether or not a verbal warning will play into the legal battle. This case is currently ongoing, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Connor Harrison holds a B.S.M.E and MBA from the University of New Hampshire.
by Fronetics | Jan 28, 2014 | Blog, Logistics, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy, Supply Chain
Social media and social media technologies have rapidly changed the way companies do business across every type of industry. Social media brings businesses closer to their customers, provides a platform for communication and building thought leadership, and when executed properly it can help drive business and provide a significant return on investment. Businesses that ignore social media forgo these opportunities and miss out on potential business development opportunities.
According to The McKinsey Global Institute, 90 percent of companies who were using social media or social technologies for their business reported benefiting from their efforts in 2012. And how could they not? Utilizing a social media technology can increase a company’s reach into their industry and provides optimal channels for communicating with their customers.
The supply chain and logistics industries are two industries that have not adopted social media and social technologies as quickly as others. Business owners in these have a difficult time seeing past the “social” aspect of these technologies and understanding what the implied benefits of using social technologies can mean for their business. Many find themselves asking “why?” instead of “how?” when considering implementing a social media strategy, and ultimately allocate resources elsewhere within their businesses.
The Fronetics white paper, Social Media and the Logistics and Supply Chain Industries: Why Not Participating is a Risk You Can’t Afford to Take, provides meaningful insights into why supply chain and logistics companies need to be using social media and the value of these technologies. Learn how to move past the barriers to adoption, how to leverage social technologies, and learn what a social presence can mean for your business.
To learn more about why your business needs social media, download Social Media and the Logistics and Supply Chain Industries: Why Not Participating is a Risk You Can’t Afford to Take today.
