Have you considered the exclusivity of your relationships?
This follows on from the post regarding the value of the data and the priority attached to the relationship or the data. I want to further explore the value of the relationship and shine some light on a different approach.
It’s the same scenario as the previous article, imagine you’re in a store, purchasing a product and you’re asked for your email address. How do you respond? Do you have a default answer? When was the last time you chose a different response and what prompted that change?
Depending on how you value your time, how you value access to your time (and distractions) such as providing your email or how you value the privacy of your email address, you’ll respond differently to the request. All of these are currency that can be traded:
- Your time
- Access to your time – this is different to (1) since it relates to an acknowledgement that there is a route to your time, but you can safeguard it. Whereas (1) is more protective of time as a resource or possession.
- The privacy of your email address
These can be traded for items in the following non-exhaustive list:
- Discounts – immediately applied
- Discounts – off future purchases
- A free product/service
- Entry to a competition
- An item/service that others don’t have access to
The one I’m interested in exploring further is 5.
Let’s consider two ways of thinking:
- A company asking customers for email addresses so they can email them once a week with slightly reduced clothing that the company wants to sell before it has to sell in bulk to a discounter, so that it can clear space for the new season’s stock.
- The concept of fashion store charging for admission, maintaining exclusivity and ensuring that the experience warrants charging for entry.
That first option is the one followed by the majority of companies. We have to question, just how big a financial incentive is required to gain valuable email addresses/contact details. After all, we primarily want to focus on those people who are most likely to buy. More than that, we want to focus on those that we can convince to buy more than they would have done. It’s a balance between offering enough to get people interested but to keep the discount percentage low enough you’re not losing out. Isn’t this the attitude of 95% of retail companies? But it doesn’t feel an equal relationship. We’ll continue to explore the impact on emails, but recognise that there are other, more modern and interactive channels available as well.
That second option introduces another concept that alters the relationship. It focusses on entertaining the customer, providing a valuable experience that the customer would pay for.
Now let’s extrapolate that further by using the same principles.
Can we develop a mailing list that people would pay to be on?
What would we have to offer that customer in order for them to want to pay to access it?
Following the fashion store concept from above, exclusivity is the angle. That fits (5) as above. Instead of a situation where the item of value is the email address and we request that item so we can use it as the channel to contact the customer/prospect, we end up with a situation where the email address becomes the channel but is offered to us (potentially along with payment) so that the customer can access the list. The relationship is reversed.
Nightclubs, restaurants and social clubs/business clubs have been using exclusivity for decades (and centuries in some cases). This isn’t new. Before email, there were postal lists you could pay to be on. Again, this isn’t new.
That relationship reversal then implies one of two choices:
- We provide a service centred on exclusivity and customers will pay to access that service via an email list. But the service/product is what they want access to. Or
- We provide a service that is in the email content itself. And customers pay to receive that email.
The first is similar to exclusive wine clubs, members clubs, etc. The channel isn’t important, it’s the end product that counts. There’s little value to the email itself; it’s a conduit or an access channel to the product. Some of the crowd-funding platforms such as Kickstarter blend the mass-market with the exclusive by restricting access to early adopters or sponsors.
The second is interesting because it would have to be a information-only service since it’s delivered over email. We’re then left with the question of what content could be provided with a degree of exclusivity and create a demand from prospects? For that, we can look to previous centuries (and the current century and stock market information). The value is in the effort, skill and knowledge involved in the financial analysis that isn’t in the email. Part of the perceived value is in the brand and reputation. Hence the existence of con artists creating ponzi schemes on the back of fabricated or incremental reputations.
We’ve covered the concepts of the items of value that a potential consumer could be traded, the items that they could be traded for, explored the idea of creating a chargeable service and how exclusivity could apply to that service.
Where does that leave us?
We could create exclusivity in our relationship with customers by restricting the size of the segment (e.g. first 100), we could offer that email for a cost, we could create a difference in the products/services specific to the segment or we could create an exclusive product where the channel communication itself is the product.
Testing is not just for software, but for the business processes, organisation or service that you’re implementing?
I’ve seen many test routines that are too artificial, too removed from the reality of what the users will go through. Fortunately this factor has improved over time, especially with more focus on user stories.
Let’s consider one of the best examples of testing I’ve ever seen. Guitar amps are generally fragile. They’re usually robust enough for scrapes and minor bashes as you’re carrying them through doorways, but they don’t survive being dropped down stairs very well.
One amp manufacturer had a test routine of removing the glass valves (they’re replaceable consumables) and then throwing the test amp from the roof of the building to emulate the journey that some amps go through. On the ground, they inserted valves and powered it up to see if it would work.
How does that compare to your test routine? Is yours as accurate to the reality that it will be used in?
Here’s a clip of the actual test
Downloadable template in Excel and pdf for use with the forthcoming book Running with Knickers on Your Head covering change and service improvement in front-line services.
Use this for grouping suggestions by affinity, i.e. those with the same theme go in the same column.
Excel download: Suggestions Template
Pdf download: Suggestions Template
Downloadable template in Excel and pdf for the RACI and RASCI matrices for use with the forthcoming book Running with Knickers on Your Head covering change and service improvement in front-line services.
Excel Template: RACI Matrix Template
PDF of RACI Version 1: RACI Matrix Version 1
PDF of RACI Version 2: RACI Matrix Version 2
PDF of RASCI: RASCI Matrix
I heard this quote the other day, but I didn’t catch who originally said it.
Art requires rigour, science requires creativity
The first point is that it’s contrary to the standard view. The second point is that both perspectives are valid and that there shouldn’t be that much of a difference.
It then made me think of typical transformation programme roles and the relation between creativity and rigour. Most roles have a balance between the two, with that balance changing according to the standard role and, at times, according to the demands on that role.
For instance, process analysts should generally follow a set of standards. Business Analysts have to be more creative, but still have methodologies to follow. Service Designers have less rigour methods, usually a composition of tools and techniques rather than the standardised methodologies of previous decades. At the more rigorous side, project managers have their methodologies and frameworks to follow. Programme managers see a wider scope and have more creativity in organising the interdependencies. Which then fits nicely with my normal comment that a Business Architect has more in common with a Programme Manager than a Project Manager; there are more skills in common, even though the professional methods involved are different. Which leads me to the Business Architect who has to know when to be standardised and when to be creative. There has to be the flexibility to modify the approach to suit the needs of the client, depending on the stage of transformation.
The following tweet made me consider, initially thinking about the place of Manchester in innovation, but also the wider concept of personal transport versus climate.
It rains in Manchester. From personal experience, Manchester doesn’t feel the rainiest place in the United Kingdom, but it does have a reputation for significant rainfall. That doesn’t dampen the city’s spirits. We just do things differently (that’ the obligatory Tony Wilson reference done)
How fast is cycling? pic.twitter.com/5Q7zLZiBIn
— Horace Dediu (@asymco) September 10, 2017
The type of personal transportation afforded by a bicycle, whether electric or not, isn’t ideal in a climate that features rain heavily on its calendar. The cyclist has to wear weatherproofs, need a change of clothes in the office, probably a shower, and then the reverse on the way home. Or they could just get wet.
That doesn’t prevent cycling in Manchester; it just makes us think more about our journeys. We can’t be as relaxed in planning them.
That creates inertia to change. Which prompted me to think about climates where single person vehicle commuting could be more suitable. Regardless of Britain’s position in the world ranking of innovation, does that mean that Britain will get overtaken by other countries with more suitable climates?
Britain’s transport infrastructure always feels more intensive compared to any other country I’ve travelled to. I’ve seen the quizzical expressions when explaining to US colleagues that we may have to set aside a day to travel 250 miles in the UK (it doesn’t always but it massively depends on which 250 miles you want to travel). But I’ve yet to experience Japan or similarly densely populated countries. With innovation being driven by warmer climates, especially in terms of Silicon Valley, or countries with larger infrastructure (e.g. China, Germany and again, the United States), you can imagine solutions being solved for those countries and climates, not the UK’s. To be clear, it’s no-one but the UK’s and EU’s role to alleviate transport issues in the UK, let innovation solve the problems of each country. Some will be applicable beyond the geographical boundaries in which they were developed, some won’t be. Which then creates an inequality. It’s not the inequality created by resources or the centralisation of power or empire. Instead, it’s an inequality created by provenance of ideas in relation to the location.
Which reminds me, I wonder how the doors on Tesla’s model X fare in Manchester. Our rain is usually accompanied by wind so it blows sideways, not falls down.
Some organisations have a different approach to how they handle the status of a document. The approach belies a more fundamental culture of how work is commissioned and reviewed and how staff are viewed.
One of my clients exhibited odd behaviour regarding commissioning work and approving it.
Due to the nature of the engagement, decisions were made by me and then relayed to the client. That, almost unilateral, form of decision-making has not be the norm for my engagements. Instead, I’d have preferred to have reviewed the actions while I was working on those actions (rather than after the fact). It was all a bit backwards compared to any other client engagement, where we would address scope questions early on and progress from that more detailed, joint understanding.
Even though I was assessing business capability maturity, it felt contractual. I would have preferred a more collaborative approach, but the organisation’s approach to generating change was a contractual one. It’s an issue I’ve seen before but not as stark as with this client.
What I’d noticed with this client, was that if a document were released (no matter what version or draft status), it would be treated as final and published. The review comments would imply that the author had made mistakes and that it should never have been released in that format. Fortunately that didn’t happen to me, but that’s probably more to do with how I released documents. My documents had the same version control I’m used to including with many clients and consultancies. Draft documents (assuming little or no sensitive content) are published early to the intended audience for review, in order to influence the outcome and content of the report. The more sensitive the content, the more restricted the initial distribution and the earlier that guidance is requested.
With this particular client in mind, that approach would raise conflicting issues. The reviewers wanted to be able to influence the outcome of the commissioned work, due to the political status within the organisation. But the reviewers wanted to meet as a group to review the version, not necessarily as a steering group, to guide the work to completion, but as a review panel.
I had to tread carefully as to what documents I would release to anyone, regardless of draft status. While I’m used to not initially sharing electronic versions of documents with some clients, it was more important with this client. It created an odd culture, where people would complete work before releasing it, which then created rework and longer delays due to having to fit in reviews and changes.
Perversely, it also created a set of behaviours where many documents never reached a true state of finalisation or approval. Instead, they continued in some draft existence until ignored or replaced. That was a common occurrence, where I’d be looking for a previous strategy document, to find that it never reached completion, but became generally accepted as defining a destination or discarded. However, there had been no formal acceptance or rejection of the content, just a tacit decision across many people.
Reverse-Engineering the Culture
I think that much of the commission and review behaviour occurred due to the hierarchical nature of the organisation. That culture enforced a situation where superiors reviewed the output of their underlings. Couple that with an admonishing culture, rather than a praising culture, and you end up with a situation in which documents have to be final, or the critique becomes more about the person than about the document itself.
This was more than just a client seeing a document and then acting on it, treating it as a final document, e.g. to assist with negotiation or alter their position within the organisation. This was a systematic approach to not adhering to how artefacts are created and developed through to release and acceptance.
There was a severe hierarchy in the organisation where one grade couldn’t comfortably jump a grade when communicating, instead everything had to be passed up or down the chain. While organisations can work like that, many adapt and maintain the lines of communication even with flexibility and the exigencies of operating in any modern market. This organisation did not flex and those that did flex were generally put them back into place.
All of this led to gross inefficiencies and confusion due to navigating the corporate hierarchy. I’ll reiterate, the concept isn’t rare, but the ultra-strict adherence to hierarchy is rare.
This particular client compounded the inefficiencies from the hierarchy with the inefficiencies of poor document version management (or rather the document acceptance process), resulting in intricate, exhausting dance of what to share and what not to share, who to share it with and who not to share it with. All of this encouraged and promoted a contractual culture rather than a collaborative culture.