Book club #2
This week has been one of trains, literally I’ve been to Hull and back. Via Colchester. In fact I am on one now – Peterborough is whizzing by my window.
When I get a week with more than a days worth of travel I make sure I have my bag (the new and awesomely well designed Eastpak Pacer available at their delightful Carnaby St. store) packed with a business read.
This week What Would Google Do? Has been my company. I think Google is probably one of only a few organisations we could seriously ask this question of, without answering; ‘be smug and self satisfied’. Its changed business, moved the rules of market places, and I hate the word but I think a paradigm has shifted. Ahhhhhhh!
Anyways, the book looks at the economy, demand and supply and the whole long tail economics thing that we are all familiar with. But the section that shouted out at me was a statement that has prompted something I think we might try.
Jeff Jarvis, author of WWGD, and made famous for Dell Hell, says that in this world of interconnected customers- kill your ad agency. We produce ads, so get your hands off that door knob and cancel the cab. I think Jarvis is referring to the behemoths, the ‘advertising is at the heart of what we do’, 30 sec TVC are the only love guys, you know square glasses and a 7th floor pool filled with moccachoccachino.
With this blood on your hands, he suggests re-engineering the model, (please remember to wash bloodied hands prior to handling models) and making customer service the only focus. He shouts at us to consider this the new marketing. For us to strive for the best and let the interconnected market place champion this awesome service. Let the buzz create and drive your brand. In a market where interconnectness is a bit wonky – then I guess you could encourage it. This is what got me thinking.
It’s a good read, I barely remember Doncaster, and it made me wonder whether we could create a way for our clients to assess us publically, after every job, so that we could share the real us, the experience, and move away from the powerpoint us. Perhaps it could grow and all agencies could be part of this showing the experience of working with them.
I would love a point of view from anyone who uses agencies out there. Is this feasible? Would it be worthwhile? Could agencies bin their ad spends, and rely on a platform of service visibility?
PS. Want a real example of this new interconnected world? Now this blog has been published, search for ‘Eastpak pacer’. I’m there – bigging it up Google P1, 6 down. No need for an ad – just a quality product, provided faultlessly with me and my opinion. How cool is that as a demo?
Love that: the real us v. the powerpoint us. I tweeted it. (Thanks for the kind words. Glad you liked it!)
November 6th, 2009 | 11:13pm
by Jeff Jarvis
Wow. Total pleasure. I admit to being pretty bowled over. Overjoyed with your visit, welcome from us here at hive!
Whilst you are here? I have to ask a question, if that’s not too imposing? Do you think there is any market that wouldn’t be improved by taking a google style business model?
November 6th, 2009 | 11:30pm
by Tim Scorer
I have no doubt there are some. In the book, I argue that though lawyers and pr people can use some techniques, they can’t be open because they have to do clients’ bidding. The real answer to your question is that I don’t know because I don’t know a lot about many markets. How’s farming Googley? Well, transparent information makes a difference. I suspect that networks would improve clout. What do you think?
November 7th, 2009 | 3:21pm
by Jeff Jarvis
I think that the principles of turning your organisation inside out is applicable to loads of markets, especially if you have some permission to keep some stuff under your bed! I guess that as long as you are open in what’s not available then the rules are not broken too much.
When I look the big companies that the ‘adults’ seem to work for they seemed to be impenetrable – “I am at BA, or IBM, or some big bank” it was all about belonging, exclusivity and knowledge superiority. Ten years on, company walls seem really outdated and a little insecure. Perhaps openness will catch on and customers will migrate to businesses that are open. Those organisations that aren’t will suffer and all markets will be seen to be open.
I also cannot help but conclude that much of what is becoming big business desired now is small business common sense and reality. Corporate brands, products wrapped in a service offering, and leadership access all have been features of small business. It seems that open source shopping where your customers have a clear route to tell you what’s needed and input into strategy is the next on this list. With this in mind, I think that perhaps it exists in many markets already, just not scaled up and MBA visible yet?
November 9th, 2009 | 11:40am
by Tim Scorer
I’ll quickly declare my interests and then get on with a contribution – I work for a 70,000 ‘employee’ strong uk, department store & web retailer.
Looks like we are so behind the curve we’re current!
Because we are all co-owners of the company for the past 50 years we have had a weekly magazine called the “Gazette” that was free for anyone to pick up and read in our stores. It contains our weekly sales figures and all sorts of other data that most other companies would keep close to their chests eg anonymous letters holding management to account.
We also pride ourselves on good customer service. I think this openness is very complimentary and is why we have been so successful.
Had dinner last night with a mate and he told me he asked one of our sales chaps whether he should buy a Kindle etc now or wait for the Apple equivalent post Christmas. Our guy told my friend to wait. How open is that? True we need to expose our inner replenishment and supplier ordering processes so that we are able to send the potential customer a reminder when the product does come in, but I bet we make loads of money from him over the next ten years in any case because of our openness.
2 quickies:
1. I don’t think we publish the Gazette online. We should. I’ll follow it up.
2. Paradoxically our ad spend has rocketted in the past 5 years from virtually nothing to many millions.
My point…. A better strategy to be open AND spend cash on marketing potentially with a behemoth if they are the best bang for your buck?
December 18th, 2009 | 5:52pm
by Sid
Oh and I almost forgot…farming already is getting Googley.
SEDEX is a platform we are beginning to get all our suppliers to take part in to ease the exchange of information in a B2B relationship. Any reason we shouldn’t open this out more?
Having “secrets” breeds mistrust. We got a lot of bad publicity earlier in the year because incorrectly word “got out” that we were asking our suppliers whether products had been made in Israel and we were going to boycott these goods.
In fact it was just part of a process where we were tighting up all of our country of origin data so that consumers could make their own choices across the board eg we actually have lots of customers who positively want to buy Israeli.
If this data was all in the open then there would have been less chance of mis-interpretation.
December 18th, 2009 | 5:59pm
by Sid