Jose Corella
  • Home
  • About
  • Idea Planting
  • Improve Self
  • Home
  • About
  • Idea Planting
  • Improve Self

 Return on Experimentation (RoEX)

1/3/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Google “the future of advertising” and you’ll likely get a plethora of articles on the death of the AOR (or why the AOR model will never die), ad-blocking, cord cutting, the rise of crowdsourcing content, ego killed the advertising star/creative director, or how traditional agencies have reconciled (on paper at least) with crowdsourced content providers and other programmatic / content-at-scale platforms - among other things.  Private conversations with ex-agency types who have jumped the fence and come over to the client/brand side (and current agency friends in confidence) have all told me a similar story: the brand advertising model is changing (fast) and not all big box agencies (or clients) are ready/willing to embrace the change...to their own demise.

As I wrote in my last post, from the client/brand perspective, external macro & micro factors are applying unrelenting pressure on P&Ls, forcing brands to heavily scrutinize advertising budgets while concurrently increasing share of voice, content, and reach across a multitude of platforms in real time (i.e. mobile, always on, immediate, targeted). This brand-advertising disruption often puts clients and advertisers at odds.  And like all disruptions, the us versus them relationship has to go through the familiar phases of denial, denigration, distinction, and then finally partnership. Some forward-thinking agencies embrace the disruptions and are making adjustments, partnering with crowdsourcing platforms and more “agile” (probably the most over-used word in 2015) vendors to develop creative, content, and commercialization tactics at scale.  From the client/brand side we similarly have to challenge ourselves to embrace higher degrees of risk and uncertainty; challenge ourselves to build flexible frameworks where experimentation is institutionalized, measured, and financially supported in the quarterly marketing & business planning process.

Institutionalization not Bureaucratization

If you believe that execution is the only strategy/innovation consumers see then I proffer that only through iterative experimentation can you illuminate consumers' desires in real time.  But how does a CPG brand institutionalize media/advertising experimentation in an industry that does not explicitly place a value on experimentation? A symbiotic industry where upfronts, risk avoidance and predictable quarterly earnings growth are paramount? A measured approach toward systematic experimentation, I believe, is the key. We measure innovation with metrics like Return on Investment and Return on Innovation; is there now a need for Return on Experimentation (RoEX)?

There’s plenty of case studies on how higher levels of empowerment lead to higher levels of employee engagement. I’m suggesting that a measure like RoEX can similarly lead to higher levels of engagement while also providing a repeatable, measurable rubric for downsizing risk into quick-turn snackable experiments. No need to eat the brand-disruption-risk-elephant in one bite.

“Inspiration without allocation is meaningless” - B. Bonin Bough

The good news is that some large scale traditional companies are investing in start up Labs, Incubators, Innovation Centers, and Foundries within their company walls with the goal of experimenting outside their internal processes to unlock value and deliver breakthrough “digital” or “shopper” innovation. There’s even a whole crop of players that specialize in developing brand accelerator programs within traditional CPG companies; promote intrapreneurism if you will.

The challenge then is how do these internal accelerator / incubators not fall prey to the same old corporate bureaucratization that led to their development in the first place? How does the work of the internal accelerator link back to the day-to-day grind of selling cases?  Said differently, how can experimentation be institutionalized on a daily basis versus being the sole proprietorship of these accelerators / incubators? As a recovered corporate financial analyst, I can tell you that unless it’s built into the annual / quarterly business planning cycle, experimentation doesn’t get noticed or prioritized.

Net, whether through an internal incubator or through quarterly marketing planning (ideally both), regular, snackable (read “fast”), and funded experiments are the key; RoEX can be the measure of success.

​
Next: The changing nature of a CPG brand.

0 Comments

This will never happen

7/6/2014

0 Comments

 
Last month, I had the honor of being named to Brand Innovators 40 under 40 (Midwest) alongside some fantastic digital "thought" and "do" leaders.  As part of our selection, we were asked "to look ahead and identify top trends – things that will influence the market and impact the quest to connect to the ever-elusive consumer."  I highly recommend taking a look at all the Brand Innovators' proposed trends as I found the insights illuminating in that they are at once unique yet thematically similar, even across the years that Brand Innovators has been tracking.  For this particular post, however, I’ll be speaking only about my submission.

My Brand Innovators 40 under 40 trends:
  1. Persistent economic bifurcation. Call it the dumbbell effect or the hourglass effect; whatever you call it, it’s here to stay and it is disrupting CPG brands’ strategy. Which leads to…

  2. A bifurcated shelf. On the one hand, store brands are just brands; they continue to erase Points of Difference and earn their shelf presence, advocacy, and brand loyalty with high quality value. The “Private Label” or “Cheaper Store Brand” monikers no longer apply. And on the other hand, premium niche brands (the upper end of the scale) start from a focused loyal base and are specifically designed to cater to their tight segments. In both cases, traditional marketing/branding approaches focused on the middle seem outdated. Which demands…

  3. Dispersed brand marketing and the disintermediation (longest word, I win!) of the traditional agency-advertiser model which was built to sell goods to the middle. Which should result in…

  4. Scaled, efficient content everywhere developed by everyone for everyone (i.e. individualization and customization on a massive scale). A fluid environment where brands facilitate (not dictate) relationship building and communications among potential shoppers and brand advocates. An open environment where User Generated Content (UGC) and Crowdsourced Content become dominant vehicles of transparent and authentic communication.

As I shared the predictions and rationale and had subsequent conversations on the merits - or lack thereof in some cases - of my specific points, I was struck by how easily I could get head nods on points one and two but leery frowns on points three and four.  A particular conversation that comes to mind was one where I was discussing the need to disintermediate the current agency-advertiser model due to 1) the imbalance of working vs. non-working costs, 2) the lack of meaningful/measurable targeted brand data (beyond impressions or GRPs/TRPs), and 3) the prioritization of “tent-pole” campaigns vs. persistent agile content marketing.  Mindful of the barriers of my proposed disintermediation, the response was an incredulous “good luck” with a strong inference of “it will never happen.”

I’m arguing that it will, it has to.  The business/economic world is replete with examples of seemingly non-disruptable, deeply entrenched, and embattled with high fixed cost industries that were, of course, disrupted (music, print, phone, cable, taxi cabs readily come to mind); so why not the agency-advertiser model?  

Consumer attention spans are fleeting (and getting flightier); advertisements are being ignored; CPG brand budgets - even the “big dogs” that big agencies typically anchor their contracts to - are tighter and being scrutinized for every penny (nevermind every dollar); retailers are prioritizing store brands and mimicking traditional brands’ go-to-market strategies; mobile, mobile, mobile…this is what is happening now.  So while I’m not arguing for the outright dismantling of the traditional AOR model (yet), we need an evolution now (or an accelerated timeline at the very least) to meet the demands of a changed landscape for brand managers.  I, for one, don’t want my brand(s) to fade away into the world of obsolescence.

Next: How to accelerate the timeline.
0 Comments

Enough Innovation, Go Evolve

5/13/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
[This piece was inspired by & co-written with my BBF (big brain friend) Keith Knapp - @kknapp.]

Picture waves, currents, and boats.  Some waves/currents are big and some boats are big; commensurately, some waves/currents are small and some boats are also small.  The big boats navigate the small waves & minor currents relatively easy – and stay the course – while the smaller boats may feel the water as choppy and are forced to make changes in direction more often.  When the water isn't too choppy, and the undercurrents are minimal or known, the larger boats can usually get from Point A to Point B more efficiently, while the smaller boats may have to expend more energy as they travel with the changing currents.  Conversely, as major undercurrents begin to change the larger boats have a more difficult time tracking those changes until those changes are physically impacting their ability to sail smoothly; whereas the smaller boats, which by design are closer to the undercurrents, can feel or “sense” the major changes in direction sooner and can make adjustments sooner.  Therefore, travel from Point A to Point B in the most efficient manner is highly dependent on the size of the vessel and the environment in which it operates.

Now the big question: Is the big ship considered innovative when it starts to use a new tool that allows it to track the changes in the undercurrents sooner?  Consider this before answering:
  • The water in which the large ship sails didn’t change, it is still water.
  • The ship itself didn’t physically change; it is simply using a different, perhaps new, tool.

The not-too-subtle reframing of the question then becomes: Did the ship truly innovate with the use of the new tool or simply adjust/evolve to the macro-change in the currents?  Industry says, more often than not, the metaphorical ship (corporation) innovated.  Our argument is that companies - big and small - spend an enormous of energy, capital, and training on innovation when in fact they should be shifting their thinking and resources to evolution. Why evolution?
  1. More achievable. Dreams / big ideas without action are simply that, dreams.  
  2. More efficient. Executed ideas build onto themselves and generate more ideas.

Innovation thought leaders frequently counter with arguments proposing that evolutionary ideas may prohibit truly breakthrough or “innovative” ideas. However, we postulate that steady, incremental, iterative ideation yields far more results - and enables additional “innovation” - at a far greater rate than the proverbial home run.  James Dyson famously made 5,127 prototypes1 before arriving at the final design of the world-renowned bag-less vacuum cleaner.  Mark Zuckerberg, arguably, evolved from CourseMatch to Facemash to Facebook1, learning something from each successive evolution.  Dyson and Zuckerberg each captured the critical insight first (crappy bagged vacuums suck, or don’t, and desire for social connectedness, respectively) and then worked the evolutions...hard.

The bottom line is that we feel that the term innovation is being overused; whether it is during strategy sessions or within goal documents, the fact is that innovation, real innovation is very, very hard.  Organizations should instead be shifting the thinking away from lofty innovation goals and spend more energy toward delivering incremental, achievable - a.k.a. evolutionary - changes in their business models.  To be clear we’re not advocating that organizations should stop pursuing BHAGs; we’re saying that huge, game-changing ideas should be pursued but not at the expense of quickly adopting market-driven evolutions.  

While our proposal may seem like semantics - given that sometimes the “best” innovation is often described in terms of being linear and iterative - changing the dialogue from “go innovate” to “go evolve”, while subtle, can represent a very powerful mindshift.  


1. “Think like Zuck” by E.Walter

Other thought nuggets:
  • By the time the Titanic realized what was going on, it was too late.
  • Would the tools that small boat fisherman were using for eons helped the Titanic?
  • Was the Titanic doomed from the outset due to size and “not invented here” hubris? What could leadership have done differently? Besides listen more.
  • Large companies typically resort to spending more money (on the engine usually) to break through the turbulence of the waters (market); is that a good strategy?  What is?
  • Can you credit an organization or brand with innovation if they / it eliminate(s) or reduce unnecessary clutter? Or is that simplification?

0 Comments

Imitation Innovation

2/14/2011

0 Comments

 
Is imitation a form of innovation? Can it be? I think so.

In less than 16 months (started counting Sep 2009) I witnessed three different frozen yogurt bars pop up in Greensboro, NC:  Feeney’s, Frozato, and Taste.  Now there’s a grand total of four frozen yogurt bars (Red Mango, the fourth, may have been here before I noticed the proliferation) to serve the ~260K residents of Greensboro.  Each seems to have staked out a particular location -  well away from each other - and the corresponding demographic.  

How can / will each bar differentiate itself?  Do they have to? Can all four be successful? Will there be a fifth?  I’ll have to check back in a few years and see.

The point is that when my students were tasked to brainstorm new ideas, they would get frustrated because they often couldn’t invent something never-before-seen new.  I kept reminding them that you may not have to come up with the new idea first, just be better at executing it.  After all, Google didn’t invent search - whether or not they’ve perfected it is an oft debated matter of opinion.  L. didn't invent the condom but they sure are making headlines with their approach.  There are countless others, but the result is the same:  it may not always be a matter of invent, but re-invent, differentiation via the execution.

Now off to get some yogurt!
0 Comments

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner



    So, what else? 

    During my brief stint as an adjunct professor many years ago, I recall that half of my students had dreams of one day starting their own business. One of my favorite parts of the teaching night was when I presented a random idea and asked the students to put on the brainstorm lens - "what else could you do with this...".  Most of the time we would end up in the realm of the zany.  Sometimes, however, we would actually land on something achievable and plant the seed.  This is an homage to ideas - zany or otherwise.

    Categories

    All
    Branding
    City Budgets
    City Government
    Consumption
    Driving
    Entrepreneurship
    Execution
    Green
    Ideas
    Imitation
    Innovation
    Law Enforcement
    Marketing
    Metrics
    My Ideation
    ROEX
    Springwise
    Teachable Lens
    Teaching
    Technology
    Veterans

    Archives

    January 2022
    August 2021
    January 2016
    July 2014
    March 2014
    May 2013
    November 2011
    May 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011


© 2022 Jose Corella. All Rights Reserved.