I once read a book called “Jeffrey Gitomer’s Little Black Book of Connections: 6.5 Assets for Networking Your Way to Rich Relationships”. The very first statement in the book, and I mean THE very first (printed in large letters on the inside cover), is this:
“All things being equal, people want to do business with their friends. All things being not quite so equal, people STILL want to do business with their friends. HINT: To climb the ladder of success, you don’t need more techniques and strategies, you need more friends.”
That’s it in a nutshell. When you create a friendship, based on honesty and personal responsibility, trust takes over and both parties look for ways to further benefit each other within the relationship. Within the constraints of prudence, generosity gives way to generosity.
If you place a high priority on trust within friendships, it means treating the other party with respect, being willing to listen, and making decisions that are in both parties’ best interests. Communication is frequent and forthright.
When you have that kind of relationship, mistakes made are construed to be “honest mistakes” and the tendency to deal with those issues productively is much greater.
However, we don’t strive to create good relationships just so that the occasional mistake will be tolerated. We need to continue to strive to be the best and not use friendship as an excuse for mediocrity.
What we need to shoot for is this: All things being MORE THAN EQUAL, people want to do business with their friends.
In a marriage, the spouses can’t just each bring 50% to the table. Each individual has to bring 100%. You can’t “kind of” commit to a marriage, and you can’t “kind of” commit to good customer relationship management.
In both marriage and business, the cost of not having a good relationship can be very high.
In a marriage, it costs a lot to get divorced: estimates that I have seen indicate that the average cost of a contested divorce is between $20,000 and $40,000—and that is just considering legal fees.
The cost of losing customers due to poor relationship management can also be high. One firm with which I am acquainted lost 30% of its total business in a week through lack of attentiveness to customer needs. What are the symptoms of a negative relationship?
I have worked with companies that are naturally good at relationship management, and others that are horrible at it. You can recognize right away the difference between the two. In companies that are horrible at relationship management, every perceived problem is automatically escalated to the highest volume, and the blame is always placed squarely in the other camp.
If you have been around multiple businesses, you know that there is often a negative tendency to attribute differing priorities between the company and the customer to “unreasonableness”. If the customer wants something that the company doesn’t seem to be able to provide, the company is being “unreasonable”. Likewise, the company thinks that the customer is “unreasonable” for wanting what it wants. If you have been around enough marriages, you’ll see the same negative tendency.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
Good relationship managers both in marriage and in business make the “exchange of differences” productive and positive, work to resolve differences when possible, and ensure that respect and personal responsibility remain a focus. In this way, the customer/spouse always feels valued—even when the decision is to “agree to disagree” or to resolve the difference at a future date.
One byproduct of good relationship management: it keeps the tone of conversation amicable and placid, and that can go a long way in helping both parties feel out the “difference between the differences”. When there isn’t a productive dialogue, all differences seem large—but logically, we know that there are degrees of differences, and each difference has its own importance relative to the others.
Because the skills necessary for good relationship management both in business and in personal relationships are so comparable, I often tell both the staff at my firm and our clients that learning good relationship management (within sales work, project management, personnel management, etc.) will benefit them in their personal lives—because that is the truth. How we handle workplace relationships can spill over into our personal lives, and vice versa.
There is a good deal of humor surrounding the analogy between sales work and dating, and between customer relationship management and a marriage. The joke that applies immediately after the marriage ceremony is this: “Now, a lifetime of good customer service to ensure retention!”
The marketing/sales process is like a courtship—a romance, if you will—occurring between the company and its customers.
Boy meets girl
Think of the classic story: boy meets girl, and a romance begins. Let’s take the boy’s viewpoint. Within the romance, the boy (if he’s smart) tries to find out as much as he can about the girl. He scrutinizes her closely – who is this girl? What makes her tick? How can he endear himself to the girl in the most efficacious manner?
The boy finds out, as best he can, all he can about this girl. Now he puts on his proverbial thinking cap. He takes stock of what he has to offer, based on what this girl wants. He tries to figure out what he can change about himself to improve his chances.
So, this boy comes up with his checklist and starts to transform himself. Why? So one day, one memorable day (for better or for worse), he can ask that girl to marry him.
In my business, we refer to this as the “See, Transform, Act” model. The boy sees the girl, transforms himself for the girl, and then he acts!
Hopefully, she says yes… and then, as mentioned… a lifetime of customer service to ensure retention!
Possible courtship roadblocks
Now, obviously there is rarely such a thing as a simple romance, and rarely such a thing as a perfectly executed business plan. Various factors, many unexpected, introduce themselves along the way. Here are a few (still from the guy’s point of view):
The girl plays “hard to get”. You begin to execute a plan for finding out all about your customer, and the customer indicates interest. Yet, for some reason, you aren’t able to get the information that you need from the customer to move forward!
The girl doesn’t share all of your ideals. When the customer doesn’t share your ideals, you have to ask yourself if the relationship will feature enough points of compatibility.
The girl wants too much change. The customer likes you, but doesn’t like your product. How much transformation are you willing to undergo for the sake of the customer?
The girl doesn’t know what she wants. The customer knows they need something, but isn’t sure about what they need (but somehow knows enough to know what they DON’T need when they see it…which turns out to be practically everything.) But for some reason they still are interested in you.
Comparisons between marketing/sales and a courtship abound! But now, let’s move to consider the marketing/sales that takes place inside the marriage: customer relationship management.
This article is part of the Branding and Government Contractors series. Click the link to read the introductory post and a list of articles.
Problem: Lack of clarity in brand position and messaging creates unnecessary “friction”. In other words, a poor brand can create confusion as to the purpose of your company and the value of your services. As a result, building relationships contracting officers and program managers can be more difficult.
Solution/Advantage: Accomplishing audience awareness of your brand’s existence isn’t enough; recognition of your brand is only the first step. In order to create new opportunities, your audience must also:
Understand your brand and its relevancy to their mission
Retain relevant information about your business for future reference
Feel strongly enough about your brand to prefer you at the point of making a business decision
If you don’t have a clear, value-oriented message, the relationship-building process will be much more difficult. Resistance created by a weak brand will hinder your ability to accomplish the goal of being the preferred vendor and contract winner.
Your audience encounters you at different points in the decision-making process. What can you provide to help them to move efficiently along the decision path? What information will aid them during the process? How can you automate aspects of the educational process?
What information is right for each stage? How can you stay in touch without overreaching? Are there other means of strengthening the relationship?
The essential information about your business must be delivered in a tiered way—the right information at the right time, in the right place and through the proper/right channels. This can have a profound impact on how you are able to engage effectively with decision-makers in government.
This client was a national consulting firm providing essential services to drive high profile fundraising campaigns. Already well known for its core area of business, the company had spent the previous two years introducing and fine-tuning several new services (including IT services) that were designed to change how the company was perceived by its market.
The firm had re-positioned its brand, but strategy and tactics were playing catch up. The client needed that “catching up process” to occur quickly; to meet revenue goals, the firm had to begin targeting an audience of 500 non-profit prospects within the year. Functions performed in this engagement included:
Strategic direction and project oversight for research, brand messaging architecture, go-to-market analysis, and marketing strategy development
Development of marketing campaign concepts to show the client dynamic ways in which marketing strategy could be implemented
Provided counsel as to how the company could improve communications with existing clients to increase client satisfaction/retention and firm profitability
Provided insight as to how the client could develop strategic partnerships to improve brand awareness and lead generation
The result of these initiatives was a strategy by which the firm could approach its client prospects while simultaneously establishing itself as the clear leader and innovator in its field. The strategy development process established firm consensus at all management levels, leading to tactical implementation within the established timeframe.
The last three years have produced a shakeup in the non-profit sector. At the height of the economy before 2008, I was contacted by at least two non-profit start-ups per month. Since then, I’ve heard only from a couple over three years. I’ve personally seen several non-profit organizations go out of business or take a hiatus. There has also been some consolidation, as non-profits combine to eliminate mission redundancy and increase operational efficiency.
So what is the non-profit market forecast? Based on trends and studies (such as from Guidestar, Blackbaud, and the recent Nonprofit Research Collaborative report), I expect non-profits will have the opportunity to realize revenue increases throughout 2011 and into 2012.
Taking the prevailing economic climate into consideration, here are five areas of strategic focus for the remainder of 2011 and 2012.
1. Clarify your messaging. Clarity and consistency in messaging are more important than ever. Organizations that are well understood by key audiences stand the best chance of remaining top-of-mind when spending decisions are made.
2. Build affinity into community. A non-profit that wants to be preferred need to capitalize on like-mindedness by finding ways to welcome the audience into its mind and heart. Successful non-profits create communities by consistently engaging the audience in ways that are both intellectually and emotionally satisfying.
3. Improve online marketing skills. Online marketing/fundraising continues to grow. Social media is a big part of that trend, but it must be used properly. A recent study from Idealware shows that Facebook holds great potential for non-profits in many areas. However, only about 30% of organizations who use Facebook have successfully increased donation revenue through its use.
4. Get the right people on board. No compassionate executive likes to lay off people in a difficult economy. But non-profits should view this economy as a buyer’s market and look for position upgrades that will advance the organization’s capabilities. Many non-profits face increased demand for services, so increasing capability/capacity where possible is very important.
5. Align systems for optimal efficiency. Many non-profit organizations have poorly aligned systems, such as constituent/donor relationship management and online marketing tools. Select the right system, make sure it is properly integrated, and get the training necessary for all staff to fully exploit available capabilities.
This client had three practice areas: business process transformation, project management consulting, and organizational change management. The company (offices in Maryland and New York) had an excellent reputation for helping its government clients to solve complex problems within short timeframes.
Though it had achieved great success in the public sector, the client struggled to move that success into the private sector. Initial marketing efforts were unsuccessful, and the client was unsure if it had the right messaging and marketing plan. Functions performed in this engagement included:
Direction of client work sessions to brief executives on brand/marketing strategy process and drive discovery for future work
As a result of these projects, the client gained the knowledge and confidence necessary to begin an effective approach to private sector prospects while continuing its public sector excellence. The client was prepared to effectively launch its refined and refocused brand, engage in a strategic pursuit of new business, and instill the new brand position in employees across the firm.
I typically see technology companies measuring marketing cost as: dedicated in-house marketing staff + outsourced services + material (and similar) expenses.
This measurement does not reveal the true cost of marketing because it does not fully measure the allocation of resources necessary to drive business growth through the marketing process.
In order to understand the true cost of technology marketing you need to build one or more scenarios that consider how marketing will be implemented within your company. Putting the scenario(s) together need not take a lot of time.
When doing so, there are four helpful considerations, often overlooked, that will help you to keep from making critical errors in judgment in cost evaluation.
1. Marketing is 50% performed by non-marketing staff. If 50 hours are invested by the “marketing team,” 50 hours will be invested by other people. For technology marketing to be successful (and cost effective), many people within a company need to be involved in the process. The actual portion of total marketing effort that is performed by the marketing team varies from firm to firm, and from one stage of development to another. But the 50/50 rule is one to get you thinking.
2. Will your strategy run out of money before it generates ROI? If you take six months to revitalize your brand, three months to begin executing a marketing plan, and three more months to begin closing leads, you might be waiting 12 months to realize substantial ROI on your investment. If that is too long to make an investment without seeing results, you’ll need to build a different scenario—one that is practical and accomplishable.
3. Lack of knowledge and/or lack of commitment can increase costs exponentially. If you’ve neglected your brand and marketing efforts, there might be some “catch up” work to be performed before liabilities start turning into assets. You need a good strategy and total company commitment. Remaining in a “knowledge poor” or “commitment poor” positions kills marketing projects and wastes money, so you need to allocate resources to make sure the correct knowledge is acquired and the necessary commitment is sustainable.
4. Now, what about the cost of NOT doing certain things? Example: The marketing team has rightly recommended a content marketing strategy. But key subject matter experts (including firm partners) refuse to make content generation a priority, so the recommendation is squashed. Meanwhile, competitors develop robust content marketing strategy and develop strong pipelines leading to more qualified leads and customers.
This is by no means an exhaustive set of considerations. However, taking these items into account will help to make sure that your company understands the true cost of what you are proposing to undertake!
Both for-profit and non-profit businesses that consider using social media are confronted by three questions. Answering each of these questions is critical to exploring whether the use of social media will bring a net benefit to your organization.
1. How do you decide if social media is right for reaching your audience? This decision largely depends on whether and how your constituency uses social media. You also want to find out if social media interactions have the power to influence your constituency’s behavior (such as purchase or donation decisions). To learn this, you can conduct an online survey of your constituency. In addition, a recently released Pew Internet report sheds new light on the impact of social media—including who is using each major social media site, and why.
The picture of how to use social media effectively is becoming increasingly clear, impacting the ability of both non-profits and for-profits to make educated decisions on using social media effectively for business.
Many people claim that tracking the effectiveness of social media is difficult. I don’t see it that way. The effectiveness of social media can be tracked in ways very similar to typical web analytics: simply use the right tools to ascertain whether your activity results in action. It is more a matter of discipline than capability.
One thing to be aware of is what I call “social location shift”. This is what occurs when a portion of your constituents moves from one location (such as your existing website) to a newly introduced location (such as your Facebook page). This can result in initially promising results from social media analytics, only to find that the total net effect is the same. Social media success depends on the ability to expand audiences and/or create more dynamic relationships. (In my reading about social media, “social location shift” hasn’t been much discussed; hence, my emphasis on it here.)
3. Do we have the internal capability/personality to use social media? The answer to this question depends to a large extent on current use of social media by your staff for personal or professional purposes. If it is something that your people feel drawn to, you are more likely to be able to harness existing tendencies.
However, it may be possible to make effective use of social media even if your current team doesn’t naturally orient in that direction. The ability to do this effectively is dependent on reducing social media participation to a process with expected results. This is true of marketing activity in general—though it does require a particular skill set, there are many tasks that can be performed by “non-marketing staff” if the process is understood and the benefit is explained.
Strong companies with forward-thinking corporate cultures properly utilize technology to create advantage. As a Communications expert with a background in Information Technology, I’ve viewed with interest the try/fail/try/fail/try/succeed efforts to introduce new technology in business environments.
Today, at least by my observation, the average office worker is more embracing of technological advancements at the office than was the case ten years ago. However, resistance to the introduction of new systems can still be a struggle. This is often due to a general disconnect between IT staff, executive leadership, and the end-users.
A Case In Point: Office 2007
I saw this disconnect present itself very glaringly with the introduction of Microsoft Office 2007, which was the first version of Office to sport the new “ribbon” interface as opposed to the traditional menu bar. This transition was not difficult to those who are early and eager adopters of technology and like to play around with a lot of different systems (with different user interfaces). Nor was it a problem for such individuals as user interface developers who, while debating the pros/cons of the approach, were able to figure the system out pretty quickly. But the change was creating a good deal of consternation for the majority of end-users. The updgrade caused efficiency loss at many companies. Resulting concerns regarding the supposed inevitable havok caused some companies to postpone the upgrade.
IT offices were concerned about user adoption of 2007, but often failed to implement a reasonable transition plan before rolling out the upgrade. Those who think from a Communications mindset, and hence who are concerned about how new ideas will be received, would have (and did) think of a solution.
The Solution
When providing Communications insight to one IT team, my primary concern about receptivity to the Office 2007 upgrade centered around Microsoft Word as the most frequently used application in the suite (in the environment under consideration). Outlook, though a source of concern, did not change to the ribbon for its main interface.
The first thing we talked about was the communication schedule. We wanted to be very out-in-front in defining the upgrade schedule, and we wanted all users in the organization to be aware of precisely when the upgrade was going to take place. However, we knew that this would lead to an “anxiety period” both before and after the upgrade if we did not take additional steps.
We needed to avoid any anxiety for two reasons. First, anxiety leads to anger, leads to resentment. Second, this process wasn’t just about this particular upgrade—it was about building a trust relationship between IT and the users. How this effort was handled would affect the success of future efforts.
We knew that IT could talk about benefit in the upgrade all day and not have the necessary effect—some user groups (this one included) have an inherent distrust of IT’s optimism regarding how easy to use new systems will be.
So to counter the anticipated anxiety, we targeted early adopters in the company and worked to upgrade their systems before the general upgrade schedule was released. Early adopters in the user interface learned to enjoy the advantages of the upgrade and then bragged about those advantages to other users. This introduced jealousy. Jealousy is a powerful motivator in getting people to want something that they previously disdained.
We did a bit of research and found an Office 2007 add-in that would reintroduce the traditional menu system alongside the ribbon interface. When the Office 2007 upgrade was performed, the add-in was installed as well. This allowed users to explore the new system while being able to reference the old system when the frustration level got too high. The supposed benefit of the task-oriented ribbon system was to make tools easier to find and use. Making the old menu system available allowed users to see whether or not that was actually true over time, without anxiety about whether or not they would be able to perform critical, time sensitive tasks.
The rest of our communications process revolved around good messaging, positive reinforcement, and support availability. The early adopters, who had been using Office 2007 more than a month before the rest of the staff, eagerly answered the questions of their coworkers and mitigated support requests that would have otherwise been directed to IT technical support.
The Result
The combined efforts of IT and Communications created a very smooth transition process in adopting a significant product upgrade. So, how did this help to build a strong corporate culture?
The joint effort helped to prepare a process for introducing new technology in a productive manner. The users developed a more trusting attitude towards how the IT team would perform in future situations. Executives developed a more open attitude to proposals regarding the introduction of new technology; concern about user confusion and possible backlash (resulting in productivity loss) was reduced.
Additional Tidbit
Once, a number of years ago, I couldn’t get a company executive (who held the IT purse strings) to realize the efficiency increase in putting two flat-screen monitors on every desk—something that my office had long-since introduced for efficiency in research/writing, graphic design, user interface development, etc. The executive wouldn’t even try it out himself for two weeks.
So I instructed that two beautiful flat-screen monitors be given, free of charge, to his executive assistant. Shortly thereafter the green-eyed monster took charge. It was only a matter of time before two displays became commonplace in the corporate office.
