Every time I turn around there is something new and better on the horizon in digital marketing – new hardware, new software, new tools, new channels, new targeting opportunities, new tracking capabilities, new providers, new pricing models, new ad units, new everything. If consumers are overwhelmed by choice in this fast moving marketplace then marketers are doubly so.

Consumers adopt along a well-documented bell curve, while smart marketers watch and follow that consumer curve. In our current environment, there are many overlapping curves to watch, and placing your bets on which ones have staying power or will achieve the uniqueness or scale that makes them attractive to marketers is extraordinarily difficult – and risky.

The risk to marketers in all this change takes many forms. Jump too fast to trial a new offering, channel, or approach and you may get ahead of the consumer adoption and have inconsequential or too highly segmented, early adopter-only participation. Wait too long, however, and you might lose the opportunity to stand out or capture incremental value. Of course, all things in marketing being relative, your risk and potential reward depend on your business goals, competitive environment, and target audience demographics. Groundbreaking ideas, whether in a category, in the industry, or even just within your own organization may bring some advantages but it also introduces uncertainties.

How to manage marketing risks:

• Work with proven providers. As trusted partners roll out new offerings you can quiz them on the readiness of those offerings and even perhaps participate in beta trials.
• Don’t bet the farm. When trying a new approach or effort make it part of your test budget first with rigorous metrics for success.
• Set expectations. If you don’t know what the impact will be – say so. Inventive marketing requires some stomach for the unknown.
• Watch progress closely. Build in out-clauses and other stop measures that may limit the bleeding on something that isn’t working, but make sure you have the appropriate metrics tracked and have allowed enough time to truly assess results. Look outside of expected results to see if there are unintended impacts either positive or negative from your new efforts.
• Make sure you are doing it for the right reason. If this risk doesn’t have an associated and large enough potential reward, then reconsider.

The internal, operations side of the business is a whole different set of risks. New tools and other first-time efforts exact a hefty toll in training and trialing, whether for an agency or for a corporate marketing department. Processes all down the line may be impacted by a seemingly minor change. Multiply that across all the tools and relationships that have the potential for regular change and you may induce staff fatigue around a constant state of transition.

If you swap out key partners, processes, or tools too often within your organization you risk never really maximizing your expertise in an area. It simply takes time to learn to excel at our complex tasks. On the other hand, if you don’t keep current with the latest tools, knowledge, tactics, and opportunities on behalf of your clients or brands you will be obsolete quickly. So how do you make the right changes, offering enough stasis and stability to your practice to support excellence while staying on top of your game?

• Evaluate whether the incremental benefits offered by the change make the investment worthwhile. Include a time frame, if you can, in which you are likely to be able to benefit from the transfer.
• Don’t be swayed by emotion or competitive pressure. Do an objective evaluation of the features, functionality, costs, and benefits as they relate to your specific situation. Use an outside consultant to help you make the go/no go decision if you can’t detach from the emotion.
• Reach out to your networks for feedback.
• Bring the teams impacted by the proposed change into the conversation. Assess how attached they are to their current state of affairs and if they are likely to resist or embrace adoption efforts.
• Designate a leader for the change process and have them develop a transition plan with associated costs and timetables and report back on them regularly. Track training and adoption time in a separate category from other work so you can really see the cost.
• In early change state, consider creating at least one super user who is responsible for training internally and assumes an overseer role to limit errors.
• Learn to look at the ripples created by change efforts across an organization and prioritize how many you will attempt in any one time period even if they are not directly related. Err on the side of caution. Better to successfully navigate fewer evolutions then to suffer from taking on too much at once.
• Don’t necessarily consider it an either/or situation. You may be able to add incremental capabilities or tool sets and still keep the old for a time period if that does not multiply costs unacceptably. That way you can trial something first with a subset of staff or projects/clients and spread out some of the learning time and the risk.
• Don’t be afraid to change course in the middle. If it truly doesn’t feel right for your team, is not as promised, is overly taxing on the organization, or more costly then you anticipated don’t wed yourself to a disaster. Allow yourself the option to reconsider or postpone.

In the end, “better” is often a very subjective term that needs to be weighed against your organization’s mission and business goals, and carefully balanced with your ability to execute. In this age of newer and better we can easily get caught in a hamster wheel of perpetual change. It is a rare and valuable skill to be able to separate the new and better from the just new.

Article source: ClickZ

 

One of the ideas that is very familiar in our current world is the notion of a competition.  Many times, this is most prominently demonstrated in sporting events such as the Super Bowl or the Olympics.  In these types of competitive situations, there is a small number of ‘winners’ and many ‘losers.’  In this environment of a ‘zero sum game’ there is only one championship and there can only be one winner.

Unfortunately, many people equate the ‘zero sum’ competition of sports to the realm of economics and opportunity as well.  Politicians frequently refer to the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ of life or the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in an attempt to embed the notion that one person’s success must necessarily come at the expense of somebody else.  There is most certainly some competition for customers and markets within the economy, but there is a much more powerful creative phenomenon that many people do not fully understand.

The world of voluntary transactions is vastly different from the world of athletic competition due to one key characteristic.  When transactions are voluntary for both sides, the only way that business takes place is if both people are made better off.  The reason that this conclusion can be made is because people who are not made better off by a particular deal have the option to walk away.

This simple principal holds the ultimate key for creating a life of success.  When you provide something for somebody else that has a value in excess of what they pay for that product or service then you have made their life better.  When they pay you for that product or service, it creates profits that make you better off.  (Note that if either of these cases are not true, either side can simply choose to walk away and seek business elsewhere)

Another highly important aspect of this principal is the notion that you do not need to take anything away from anybody else to become successful.  You only need to provide a product or service to your customers that is sufficiently valuable that they voluntarily part with their money in exchange for what you provide.  Instead of thinking in terms of competing for job opportunities, think in terms of providing a value to your employer that vastly exceeds your compensation.  Instead of thinking in terms of timing investment markets to ‘cash out’ at the opportune time, think in terms of investing in ventures that provide a valuable service to everybody with whom they do business.

The competitive mind is one that thinks in terms of how resources are distributed.  The creative mind is one that thinks in terms of how resources can be increased.  The competitive mind is jealous of what other people achieve.  The creative mind is inspired by what other people achieve.  The competitive mind thinks of ways they can get more.  The creative mind thinks of ways to make more.

Each of us has both the opportunity and responsibility to create our success.  In order to do so, we must develop the maturity to see through the limitations luck and coercive entitlement that grant rewards to some and deny them to others, but do nothing to generate value.  In the end, the only question that remains for each of us to answer is what we are doing today to create success.

 

One of the criticisms frequently leveled against private industry by the political class is that it is a “winner takes all” environment.  The output of competitive markets is often blamed for the disparity between the “haves” and “have not’s” of society.  However, there is another critically important “winner takes all” effect that needs to be understood.

Consider the fact that in most political elections, the winning side typically garners somewhere between 50% and 55% of the votes.  Because of this, they subsequently claim to represent “the will of the people” due to their success in claiming a narrow majority of the votes cast.  However, almost every election leaves a significant portion of the population unrepresented by the winner . . . regardless of who that winner happens to be or which political party they represent.

The effect created by this phenomenon is an extreme “winner takes all” situation where the winning side of elections can use the power of government to force their will on the side who loses.  This is demonstrated very blatantly by authoritarian regimes where the winning party (frequently running in a rigged election) enforces its policy on the populace without opposition.

In contrast to this situation, consider the interplay of a free market where each consumer can make their own choices.  If a particular person desires to purchase a green vs. blue tie, there are a multitude of profit seeking business entities who are more than happy to satisfy your preference.  If you are concerned about animal cruelty, you have the choice to purchase your food from farms that go out of their way to treat their animals well.  The characteristic of free markets that many people find unappealing is the fact that many other people make choices that they do not personally agree with.  In these cases, they often seek to force their will on the populace through the political process.

On balance, do we really think that our interests are better served by a government that structurally ignores over 40% of the electorate?  Is it really better to use the power of government to enforce the will of a narrow majority onto the whole population?  Or is the populace better served by a free market where competition for revenues and profits creates choices for consumers?  The specter of inequality is frequently cited as the driving motive for government action, but pause to consider all of the other things can be done with the authority of government?  Thomas Jefferson was believed to have expressed the sentiment (later iterated by Gerald Ford) that a government big enough to give you all you want is also big enough to take away all you have.  It is most certainly true that we should be careful what we wish for, because it may not be quite what we were hoping for if we get it.