« December 2009 | Main | February 2010 »

January 2010 Archives

January 11, 2010

Is listening to customers bad for your business?

In the January 6th, 2010 edition of Forbes, columnist Adam Hartung sets the whole notion of the value of listening to customers on its head. In fact, he argues that listening to your customers exclusively can be bad for your business.

In "Listen To Competitors--Not Customers," Hartung writes that "companies that use customer resource management programs…typically turn to their biggest customer for input, because Pareto's law tells them that 20% of their customers produce 80% of their revenue. But there's no reason those biggest customers should be particularly perceptive." In fact, he asserts "customers rarely know what they want, beyond more, better, faster and cheaper." And the big ones "don't look for change."

Instead, he advises that companies pay attention to their competitors, "especially those on the fringe." As a case study, he cites the rapid demise of Tribune Corp., which was a "powerhouse media company in 2000" and bankrupt by 2009. That company's mistake was that it listened to its big customers (i.e. advertisers), who were only interested in the status quo at a better price, and ignored "fringe" competitors like eBay and Craigslist. "Asking customers what they wanted had done nothing to help management anticipate the market shift," explains Hartung. "A close eye on competitors across media would have shown the inevitable change as it approached."

He sums up with this advice:

To succeed you have to obsess about competitors. And not just about traditional ones, but about fringe ones as well. What customers won't tell you, the market will, through competitive activity. The signs were all there for Tribune and other media companies [Ed: Canwest, for example] to see the user shift that was coming long before their newspaper ad revenues fell off a cliff. The emergence of strong offshore IT centers was obvious to anyone who looked. But by focusing on existing customers, especially the large ones, these companies kept themselves blind to the changes that wiped out huge, profitable revenue chunks….
Leaders can move beyond surviving and enter the world of thriving only if they obsess about their competition. Watch the competitors that grow, and watch the competitors that don't grow, and understand why. Look at how customers behave, not at what they say, and see what tests they are undertaking with competitors--especially with fringe competitors with alternative solutions. See what revenues are shifting to other, often emerging, competitors, even if they are very small. If you want to remain viable, your competition will give you more insight than all the strategic customer councils in the world."

I think Hartung is right. What do you think? Has listening to your customers ever been bad for your business? Do you know who your fringe competitors are?

Is listening to customers bad for your business?

In the January 6th, 2010 edition of Forbes, columnist Adam Hartung sets the whole notion of the value of listening to customers on its head. In fact, he argues that listening to your customers exclusively can be bad for your business.

In "
Listen To Competitors--Not Customers
," Hartung writes that "companies that use customer resource management programs…typically turn to their biggest customer for input, because Pareto's law tells them that 20% of their customers produce 80% of their revenue. But there's no reason those biggest customers should be particularly perceptive." In fact, he asserts "customers rarely know what they want, beyond more, better, faster and cheaper." And the big ones "don't look for change."

Instead, he advises that companies pay attention to their competitors, "especially those on the fringe." As a case study, he cites the rapid demise of Tribune Corp., which was a "powerhouse media company in 2000" and bankrupt by 2009. That company's mistake was that it listened to its big customers (i.e. advertisers), who were only interested in the status quo at a better price, and ignored "fringe" competitors like eBay and Craigslist. "Asking customers what they wanted had done nothing to help management anticipate the market shift," explains Hartung. "A close eye on competitors across media would have shown the inevitable change as it approached."

He sums up with this advice:

To succeed you have to obsess about competitors. And not just about traditional ones, but about fringe ones as well. What customers won't tell you, the market will, through competitive activity. The signs were all there for Tribune and other media companies [Ed: Canwest, for example] to see the user shift that was coming long before their newspaper ad revenues fell off a cliff. The emergence of strong offshore IT centers was obvious to anyone who looked. But by focusing on existing customers, especially the large ones, these companies kept themselves blind to the changes that wiped out huge, profitable revenue chunks….
Leaders can move beyond surviving and enter the world of thriving only if they obsess about their competition. Watch the competitors that grow, and watch the competitors that don't grow, and understand why. Look at how customers behave, not at what they say, and see what tests they are undertaking with competitors--especially with fringe competitors with alternative solutions. See what revenues are shifting to other, often emerging, competitors, even if they are very small. If you want to remain viable, your competition will give you more insight than all the strategic customer councils in the world."

I think Hartung is right. What do you think? Has listening to your customers ever been bad for your business?

January 13, 2010

Email - To Reply or Not to Reply, That's the Question

In his January 13th, 2010 blog for the Harvard Business Review, Peter Bregman took on the whole topic of email etiquette. He started the piece with an anecdote about a marketing consultant who had what he thought was a great meeting about a branding project with the head of marketing at a pharmaceutical company. A month later, Bregman explained, the consultant's follow-up emails and voicemails remained unanswered. Had he lost the job? Was the head of marketing sick? Busy? What was up?

Email is two things: A remarkably easy way to communicate with people and an equally easy way to ignore them. Personally, I think that if you're going to use email, you should try to answer messages in a timely manner, particularly those that need only a short reply. If you don't want to do that, don't use email to communicate with people. Here are a couple of anecdotes of my own. I once tried to get information from a supplier via their hotmail email address, the one printed on their ad. When I didn't receive any response, I called and was told that they rarely checked the hotmail account. I've also dealt with a supplier with an email firewall that blocked the info@ messages from their own site.

There's no doubt about it. Business email is a chore. But it remains the most effective way for communicating with customers, suppliers and other business consultants. Do you remember faxing? Good email etiquette is good business so soldier through your inbox. To reply or not to reply? I say, reply.

About January 2010

This page contains all entries posted to Editorial Blog in January 2010. They are listed from oldest to newest.

December 2009 is the previous archive.

February 2010 is the next archive.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35
Hosted by LivingDot