HBR: Shoppers Need a Reason to Go to Your Store — Other Than Buying Stuff

Does your store make small pickups a convenience? Should our building supply stores provide a compelling or memorable physical experience? How do you balance between time-well-saved and time-well-spent for your customers? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by B. Joseph Pine II:

Shoppers Need a Reason to Go to Your Store — Other Than Buying Stuff

The holiday season, which is by far the most important time of year for retailers, highlights the increasingly intense battle between physical stores and online websites. Given the large number of casualties this year — witness the bankruptcy filings of such venerable institutions as Toys ‘R Us, The Limited, H.H. Gregg, Gander Mountain, Payless Shoes, and RadioShack, to name but a few — retailers must finally wake up to the core terrain over which they’re fighting: customers’ time.

Online retailers offer consumers time well saved. People can find what they want, when they want it, with incredible ease and convenience, and with the physical good shipped directly to their homes in a matter of days (and increasingly, in large cities, hours). As often as not, they don’t even have to pay shipping costs, and returns are a relative breeze. While the U.S. Census Bureau puts e-commerce’s share of the U.S. retail market at less than 10% as of the first quarter of 2017, online sales are growing at almost 10% per year. Should that trend continue — and it appears to be accelerating slightly — online retailing will account for nearly 20% of the total in 2025, over 30% in 2030, and about 50% in 2035.

To address this threat, one path physical retailers can take, of course, is to compete by going online themselves and even using their physical stores as a pickup spot — a strategy that many bricks-and-mortar retailers have taken. (One retailer I know saw a 35% bump in sales when it gave customers the option of picking up merchandise in its stores that they had bought online.)

But that alone will not save many retailers’ physical stores. They have to provide a compelling reason for consumers to visit them that online retailers can’t match. The best way is to compete on the basis of time well spent — to offer an experience so engaging that customers cannot help but spend time with you! And the more time they spend with you, the more money they will spend.

Consider what I think is the best new retail format in ages: Eataly. This Milan-based retailer (which so far has 13 stores in Italy, five in the United States, and five others in other countries) manages to combine all things Italian cooking into one amazingly engaging space: a café, one or more restaurants, a cooking school, and — especially — rows and rows of Italian groceries, kitchenware, and small appliances for sale. Consumers often spend hours there, and then memorialize their visit with photos posted to their Instagram feed or other social media outlets.

Many retailers (even banks) incorporate cafés to engage the senses and encourage consumers to linger, such as Restoration Hardware’s new 70,000-square-foot place in Chicago, which features a courtyard café, an espresso bar, and a wine room. Others, such as cosmetics retailers Lush and SABON, focus on getting consumers to experience their goods in the store, knowing that will increase the chances they will make a purchase.

Another approach is to focus on the story of each product, as happens in L’Occitane en Provence when customers encounter associates. Yet another way to offer time well spent is to stage special events, which even Walmart is doing this holiday season: It’s hosting 20,000 parties across its 4,700 stores, knowing that’s something Amazon cannot do. The Christmas season, of course, furnishes the perfect time-tested tactic that has worked for decades for department stores: Santa Villages and other Christmas extravaganzas for which people gladly pay to give their kids a festive experience.

Interestingly, many of the most engaging retail experiences have come from manufacturers. There’s American Girl Places, which immerses girls in its doll’s stories; Nespresso Boutiques, which lets people experience its espresso machines before they buy them; LEGO Stores, which feature play and building; and, of course, Apple Stores, where every product is live and workshops offer skills, “geniuses” offer support, and sessions offer inspiration. (Even Starbucks started out as a manufacturer before Howard Schultz turned it into an experience stager.) And recognizing the demand-generating power of physical engagement, numerous online retailers have opened up their own bricks-and-mortar stores; examples include Warby Parker stores, Bonobos Guideshops (bought by Walmart), and mass customizer Indochino Showrooms.

Those that are best at staging experiences have even figured out that when consumers truly value the time well spent they encounter in these places, the retailer can charge for that time via an admission or membership fee. Billed as the world’s most beautiful bookstore, Livraria Lello, in Porto Portugal, charges an admission fee of €3 just to enter the store — and then consumers get that money back if they make a purchase. Universal CityWalk in Hollywood charges from $5 to $50 (depending on location and time of day) per vehicle — not for parking per se but specifically to send the signal that it is a retail place worth experiencing.

Generally, though, retailers charge for particular experiences within their stores and do not charge for admission to their stores. American Girl charges for its café experience, a photo shoot and magazine cover, and even a doll hair salon experience (not to mention birthday parties that can run into the thousands of dollars). Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI) charges customers $20 to $40 to tackle the 60-foot climbing walls and structures it has in its flagship stores, offering instruction and also essentially getting customers to pay to try out its mountain-climbing equipment. And the Mall of America charges for the various rides in its Nickelodeon Universe theme park in the middle of the mall.

Wingtip, a men’s store in San Francisco, doesn’t charge for the retail experience — as engaging as it is, with superb merchandising of clothing, including a bespoke experience, plus wine and spirits, cigars, and a barbershop fulfilling its theme of “Solutions for the Modern Gentleman”; instead it created the Wingtip Club in the top two stories of its building for which it charges membership fees. The club is a refuge from the bustle of the city, with a lounge, bar, game room, whiskey corner, and golf simulator; members spend hours at a time there. The price of a membership is a $3,000 initiation fee and then $200 per month for unlimited access. All members (men and women) receive a 10% discount on merchandise.

There will always be physical stores for pickup convenience and the commoditized or very inexpensive merchandise like Dollar Tree stores sell. But providing a compelling or memorable physical experience is a different strategy that can work. Physical retailers must choose between time-well-saved and time-well-spent strategies. Whatever they do, they should be careful not to choose a middle-of-the-road approach that fails to excel at either.

Original Page: https://hbr.org/2017/12/shoppers-need-a-reason-to-go-to-your-store-other-than-buying-stuff

 

Advertisements

HBR: How to Reduce the Costs of Salesperson Turnover

What is your strategy when a salesperson leaves? How do you handle the vacant period? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Andris A. Zoltners, Sally E. Lorimer, PK Sinha:

How to Reduce the Costs of Salesperson Turnover

 Even the best sales forces can’t keep every good salesperson. Loss of salespeople to competitors occurs frequently in high-growth industries in which the demand for experienced salespeople exceeds the supply, such as in fast-evolving technology markets. Poaching of salespeople also occurs when sales are driven largely by relationships. For example, wealth management companies frequently recruit advisors who have built a strong book of business at competitive firms.

Companies facing high sales force turnover situations can try to reduce undesirable loss of salespeople, but they should also use another strategy, by taking steps to reduce the negative consequences on customers and the company when salespeople do leave, as some inevitably will.

These strategies focus on minimizing sales loss during three critical phases surrounding a salesperson’s departure – the withdrawal period, the vacancy period, and the hiring/orientation period.

Managing the Withdrawal Period

In the period from when salespeople contemplate leaving until they actually depart, salespeople often stop putting full effort into the job. Too frequently, departing salespeople are distracted by their job search. Or worse, if a departing salesperson plans to work for a competitor, the salesperson might feel pressure to convince customers to defect. Minimizing withdrawal period sales loss requires a proactive approach.

It starts with detecting the possibility that a salesperson might leave as early as possible. First-line sales managers are critical to this effort. By keeping in touch with their people, managers can identify and address emerging issues before they escalate to the point where salespeople decide to leave.

One company with a large internal sales force used an early-warning system to track call agent behavior and predict the likelihood of resignations. Signals of impending departure included fluctuating productivity, an increase in the number of vacation days taken one at a time, a drop in call quality, and increased off-phone time. By tracking these signals, the system could direct incoming phone calls from important customers to agents who were not at risk of leaving. In addition, managers could meet with employees at risk of leaving to talk through their situation and try to prevent their departure. Managers could use solutions such as job rotation, job enhancement, relocation, and greater control of their work schedule.

Even when intervention can’t preempt an unwanted departure, early detection gives companies more time to prepare for a smooth transition of relationships with customers before a salesperson leaves.

Managing the Vacancy Period

From the time the salesperson departs until a replacement is found, two strategies help minimize sales loss.

The first is to shorten the vacancy period through aggressive and proactive sales force recruiting. One medical equipment company minimized vacancy time by keeping a bench of screened and trained candidates who were ready to jump into sales positions quickly when needed. Bench programs work best in large sales forces in which the sales job requires significant training time. If training needs are modest or the cost of maintaining a bench is too high, constant recruiting can create a “virtual” bench. By maintaining a list of viable job candidates before an opening occurs (including employee referrals, candidates who rejected past offers, employees in other functions), companies accelerate hiring and reduce vacancy time.

The other key to minimizing the costs of the vacancy period is to avoid lapses in customer coverage. This is especially important for major customers that depend upon and trust a departing salesperson who has in-depth knowledge of their business or who has participated throughout a long sales cycle (which means sales are often left half-completed). Even the most loyal customers may see the salesperson’s departure as a reason to consider competitive offerings. Providing temporary coverage of major customers by a sales manager or by another salesperson until a permanent replacement is found can avoid sales loss.

Managing the Hiring/Orientation Period

Once a replacement is selected, it takes time for that individual to become fully productive.

The costs of this period can be reduced by making it a priority to get salespeople up to speed quickly. Sales managers play a critical role in onboarding and training new salespeople to help them understand the culture, learn the products and customers, and become fully engaged. Hiring experienced salespeople also helps accelerate the learning curve.

An Ounce of Prevention

Defensive approaches can protect companies in high sales force turnover environments. Two strategies help minimize sales loss across all three phases surrounding a salesperson’s departure.

First, build multiple connections between customers and the company. The risk of customer loss is especially great when departing salespeople hope to bring customers along to a new job with a competitor. Take action well before a departure is imminent. Get a sales manager or sales specialist involved with customers in deals with long sales cycles. Provide customers with resources they value outside the sales force, such as a customized ordering website or easy access to customer service or technical support personnel. Such resources can encourage customer loyalty that outlives a connection with an individual salesperson.

Second, use CRM systems to capture critical information. Such systems can document customer needs, track the sales pipeline, and help ensure essential information is not lost in transition.

Turnover of salespeople too often results in missed sales opportunities and loss of business. Even the best sales forces experience some disappointing departures. By taking defensive steps now, and working diligently during the three phases that accompany an individual’s departure, those costs can be minimized.

Original Page: https://hbr.org/2017/11/how-to-reduce-the-costs-of-salesperson-turnover

 

HBR: Listening to Your Customers When Your Customers Disagree 

What should you do when customers have conflicting opinions? Are you listening to social media channels? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Alexandra Samuel:

Listening to Your Customers When Your Customers Disagree 

Smart companies recognize that both their marketing and their broader business strategy need to be informed by carefully gathered customer insight. But what do you do when your customers disagree—especially if their disagreement echoes throughout your various social media channels? What if their needs or desires are mutually contradictory?

That’s the situation the airline industry may soon face, thanks to the FCC’s reconsideration of in-flight mobile phone use. Customers have long been clamoring for in-flight phone liberation, but since its announcement the FCC has also been flooded with comments from passengers who dread the prospect of noisily chatting seat mates. Should the FCC move away from its pervasive ban on in-flight phones, those conflicting views will become a problem for individual airlines—or even individual flight attendants.

When you’re faced with a decision that’s going to make some customers angry no matter what you choose, it’s hard to know which voices to listen to, or whether to listen at all.

There is no more valuable time to listen to your customers than when they disagree, however. If you take the time to dive deep into a controversial topic—ideally with a group of customers who have been providing ongoing input into your business—you have a better chance of identifying strategies that will either help you satisfy competing interests, or focus your attention on the most crucial customer groups.

In a survey of 1,014 Americans who weighed in on the topic last month(January 2014), we heard the following about mobile phones on airplanes:

  • 44% of respondents agree that the FCC should permit the usage of cell phones on planes in flight, while 45% oppose the idea.
  • 40% of respondents say they would be very likely or somewhat likely to choose airline carriers based on their in-flight mobile use policies. Of these, the majority (54%) would choose a phone-fee carrier; 29% would choose a phone-friendly carrier, and 17% would prefer a carrier with lower mobile rates for in-flight phone use.
  • 55% say the regulation of phone usage should be a joint responsibility of both airlines and FCC. Only 12% thinks it should be the exclusive responsibility of the FCC, while 15% thinks the airlines should establish the guidelines.

These survey results reflect the public divide on this issue—and also show that rules on cellphone usage can indeed sway people’s ticket-buying decisions. If you’re in the airline industry, you better be tuned in to your customers.

So what should a business do when customers have conflicting opinions? Often the answer lies in looking more closely for nuances and patterns other than the overarching disagreement. For example, our data shows that while customers are divided on the issue of whether cell phone use should be permitted in flight, they do agree on some issues. Most notably, a full 70% think that airlines should have at least partial responsibility for determining the guidelines, so airline carriers can’t stand on the sidelines and let the FCC sort it all out.

Here are best practices to help you find the best path forward among your battling customers—and that could help airlines navigate through this turbulent issue:

Find a middle ground. While the public is evenly divided on whether cellphone use should be allowed in flight, most passengers (80%) object to voice calls. At the same time, most would-be in-flight cell users primarily care about texting (72%) Internet access (69%), and email (65%); only 28% are interested in making voice calls.

Almost half (43%) of all respondents think that if cell phones are allowed in flight, it should be for data use only, and only 18% think phone use should be totally unlimited. Allowing data in flights but not calls therefore appears to be a potential middle ground.

Figure out which groups of customers feel which way. Only 25% of would-be in-flight talkers say they’d be prepared to pay roaming rates for in-flight phone or data use. But if these consumers fly more frequently than other consumers, it still might make business sense for airlines to try to meet the needs of these consumers. They should explore providing different offerings for different groups. Failing that, they will need to determine who their most valuable or strategically important customers are and target their approach accordingly. If they know that some customers are alienated by phone use, but others are prepared to pay richly for the privilege, you can at least make an educated decision.

Educate the opposition. While the overwhelming reason (80%) for opposing cellphone use in flights is that people don’t want to hear other people’s calls, half of those who disagree with in-flight phone use also worry about safety (54%). These stats suggest education on actual risks could soften opposition. If you end up making a decision that you know will make one set of customers unhappy, look for opportunities to change their minds. For example, the data-only solution may still make customers unhappy if they are worried about safety, but evidence suggest that the risks are low , so airlines may find that passenger education can relax some of those worried opponents.

Equip your employees. Flight attendants are right to worry about what cell phones would mean for their workload: 55% of people who believe in setting some limits on in-flight phone use think flight attendants should be the ones to help enforce those limits by warning violators. While many also think that signage (44%) and signal jamming (41%) should be part of the picture, there is clearly a widespread expectation that flight attendants will be a key part of enforcement. This highlights the need to educate your people in the front lines: Whichever consumer group you end up siding with, equip your employees (including your social media community managers) with the information and the tools they need to answer people’s questions and address opposition to your decision.

Ultimately, any business dealing with conflicting customer opinions will have to understand the factors driving people’s attitudes. Should the FCC change its rules on in-flight phone use, the airlines that will benefit will be those that understand not just the broad dimensions of disagreement among their customers, but the specific preferences, concerns and purchasing patterns of each group—otherwise they will be flying blind.

 

HBR: Selling Products Is Good. Selling Projects Can Be Even Better

As building suppliers, we tend to focus on bigger projects such as new homes and commercial buildings. Is your company or yourself focusing on small projects? Are you helping your customers complete their projects? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez.

Selling Products Is Good. Selling Projects Can Be Even Better

In the beginning companies sold products. And then they sold services. In recent years, the fashionable suggestion has been that companies sell experiences and solutions, solving the needs and aspirations of customers.

Companies, indeed, do all of these things. But increasingly, what companies sell are projects. To understand the difference, think of an athletic shoe company, such as Nike or Adidas. A focus on products means a focus on selling running shoes. A focus on experiences might mean they sell you a membership to a local running club. A focus on solutions might mean they figure out how to help you reach your goal weight. While these clearly offer more value than simply selling you a pair of shoes, they also have limitations. Selling products limits the revenues you can make from clients: Unless you are innovating and continually updating your product offering, customer attrition tends to be high, and incentivizing repurchases can be hard. Selling experiences provides intangible benefits that are hard to quantify and measure, often focusing on meeting the needs of one single customer, preventing any mass production. Selling solutions became popular in the early 2000s when customers didn’t know how to solve their problems. But today, in the internet age, people can do their own research and define the solutions for themselves.

A focus on selling projects would mean helping someone do something more specific, such as running the Boston Marathon. Nike could provide you with its traditional sports gear, but in addition it could include a training program, a dietary plan, a coach, and a monitoring system to help you achieve your dream. The project would have a clear goal (finish the marathon) and a clear start and end date.

And that is just one type of project. More so than products, the possibilities with projects are endless.

From Products to Projects at Philips

Consider the evolution of Philips. Founded in Eindhoven, in the south of The Netherlands, in 1891 by Gerard Philips and his father Frederik, it began by producing carbon-filament lamps. Its success was achieved by a culture of innovation and the speedy introduction of new products. Over more than a century of profitable existence, the range of products offered by the company has mushroomed. Today, Philips produces everything from automated external defibrillators to energy-efficient lighting for entire cities. It even applies its smart sensor technology to teeth brushing.

This profusion of products means that Philips is cash-rich, yet sales have stagnated in the last decade, and concerns about the company have been reflected in its stock price. Faced with this changing reality, Philips took a long, hard look at itself. It identified the absence of focus and lack of strategy implementation capabilities as crucial elements that needed addressing. Five years ago, with intensifying competition, the Philips board split the organization into three different companies: Consumer Health, Lighting, and Healthcare.

It then went on to launch “Accelerate,” a program aimed at accelerating growth by transforming each new independent company into a focused organization. At the heart of the changes brought about by the Accelerate program are projects.

Over the years, Philips had become an intricate, blurred matrix. Accountabilities and responsibilities were shared between products, segments, countries, regions, functions, and headquarters. It set out to simplify this convoluted and archaic organization structure.

To do so, Philips put projects center stage. Projects were identified as the best management structure to break up silos and encourage teams to work transversally (end-to-end) in the organization.

As part of this, Philips Health Tech was divided into just three divisions. Essential to making this happen was a substantial increase in the work executed through projects. The shift was from selling customers a few products every year to creating an engaged relationship over decades.

One of the biggest challenges facing Philips Health Tech is that the life expectancy of its products is becoming shorter and shorter. Soon after launch, products are copied by the competition, which means they must be priced more cheaply. Soon, they become a commodity. This removes any opportunity for steady, high margins over the long term. Philips has experienced this even with its high-end health care products. Shifting its emphasis to selling projects rather than products was a strategic response to this problem.

For example, Philips sells high-tech medical devices. In the past it sold them simply as products (and it still does). But now Philips seeks out the projects in which its products will be used. If a new health care center is being considered, Philips will seek to become a partner from the very beginning of the project, including the running and the maintenance of the new center.

Among the results of this project focus at Philips is a partnership with Westchester Medical Center Health Network aimed at improving health care for millions of patients across New York’s Hudson Valley. Through this long-term partnership Philips provides WMC Health with a comprehensive range of clinical and business consulting projects, as well as advanced medical technologies such as imaging systems, patient monitoring, telehealth, and clinical informatics solutions.

In similar long-term partnerships with Philips, hospitals have been able to significantly improve radiology volumes and cut MRI waiting times in half. These organizations are seeing a 35% reduction in technology spending while improving clinical quality.

The Project Revolution

Philips is not alone in using an increased focus on selling projects as a means of disruptive transformation. At Microsoft, the company’s entire focus has shifted to Cloud services, most of which are offered as projects. It now has around 10,000 operating projects. Airbnb, valued this year at $30 billion, recently announced that it will start selling “experiences” — small tourism projects — as a way to create new revenue streams and address the increased regulatory scrutiny in some of its bigger markets. The biopharmaceutical industry is also seeking to work with governments and other purchasers on focused treatment programs, rather than simply offering individual drugs.

Clearly, the shift to becoming a project-driven organization and selling projects rather than products or services presents sizeable challenges to corporations and their business models. Working in projects throughout my career, I have identified these as the important ones:

  • Revenue streams. Revenues will be generated progressively over long periods of time, instead of right after the sale of a product. This will affect the way revenues are recognized, as well as accounting policies and the overall company valuation.
  • Pricing model. New pricing models will need to be developed. It is easier to price a product, for which most of the fixed and variable costs are known, than a project, which is influenced by many external factors.
  • Quality control. Delivering quality products will not be enough to meet customer expectations. Implementation and post-implementation services will also have to be of the highest possible quality to ensure that clients continue to buy projects.
  • Branding and marketing. Traditional marketing has focused on short-term immediate benefits. Marketing teams will need to promote the long-term benefits of the projects sold by the organization.
  • Sales force. The buyer of the project will no longer be the procurement department of an organization. Sales will be pitched to leaders of the business, so the sales force and sales skills will have to be upgraded with strategy and project management competencies.

Stop for a moment and consider what your organization is selling. Is it a project? Increasingly, the answer is clear and affirmative. If not, beware, your products might soon become part of a project sold by someone else.

 

HBR: 5 Ways to Focus at Work, from an Executive Who’s Struggled with ADHD

Are you struggling to stay focus at work? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Jack Kosakowski it explains how to get back on track.

5 Ways to Focus at Work, from an Executive Who’s Struggled with ADHD

By nature, I’m messy and disorganized — and my mind can be too. I have trouble sustaining attention on just about anything.

In grade school, this meant I didn’t do well in classes. In college, it meant that I largely blew them off and spent most of my time partying. (When you’re at a party, no one expects you to focus.) After college, I was diagnosed with ADHD, as 11% of kids are these days.

That certainly explained a lot, but it didn’t let me off the hook. Once I entered the working world, I knew I had to make some changes. I couldn’t spend my life running away from this problem, especially if I wanted to succeed in sales, my chosen field. I’d have to organize and track my interactions with prospects and clients and stay attentive to their needs.

Through a lot of trial and error, I’ve discovered several work-arounds that can help anyone struggling to stay focused at work.

Pursue roles that match your passions and attention style. Most people find it easier to stay focused on things they’re deeply passionate about. Even if they’re “scatterbrained” by nature, they may be fully present when teaching a class, treating a patient, or building a house. So try to work in a field that you love.

But go a step further and look for a job that meshes with the way your mind works. For me, that meant going into social selling. It allows me to use written communication in short bursts across multiple platforms. It also allows for lots of quick conversations. I reach out to business leaders and prospects over Twitter DM, Facebook, and LinkedIn messaging.

Whiteboard your tasks. I list everything I have to do each day, with no exceptions. A small, 2-foot-square whiteboard sits on my desk. All my short-term responsibilities are listed on it, in the order of when they’re due: sales calls, proposals, meetings, contracts, and more. A larger, 6-foot-square whiteboard is mounted above my desk, listing my long-term responsibilities: business growth, prospecting, website changes, and so on.

These lists stare at me all day. I update them constantly and stick to them religiously. When I find myself thinking about a task other than the one I’m supposed to be working on, I glance up, make sure it’s listed for me to tackle in the future, and immediately switch back to the task at hand. And to keep myself focused only on one task at a time, I make sure nothing else is in my line of sight. I have a mini-cabinet on my desk to hide magazines, books, gifts from clients, and other potentially distracting objects.

Structure your days. I do long-term tasks only on Wednesdays. On the other four days, the short-term whiteboard rules my schedule. I don’t give myself the option to improvise or change my mind about this (unless there’s an emergency). I’m strict with myself, because if I allow myself to shift back and forth between the two whiteboards at any time, I’ll just keep bouncing around among different tasks and not get anything done.

Some people structure their work differently — switching to long-term tasks every other day, halfway through the day, or every other week. Find the pace that works for you, and keep to it.

Never multitask during a conversation. When you’re not focused on the person you’re speaking with, they know it. If you’re on the phone, they can hear it in your voice and inflection. If you’re meeting in person, they pick up on it through subtle, or sometimes not so subtle, cues.

When I’m speaking with someone in a professional setting, I don’t allow myself to do anything else at all. I can’t. If I so much as open an email during a call, I’ll miss what the other person is saying entirely. I prefer video conferencing over speaking on the phone — it engages me visually, reducing the risk that my attention will wander. If I’m talking to someone in person, I set aside my phone and other distractions.

I’ve also learned to “scan” conversations for key points. As the person is talking, I pick up on certain lines and phrases — the points I would write down as a summary of what they’re saying. It keeps me listening with intent.

As a result, people know they’ve got my undivided attention — something rare these days. They like talking with me, which matters a lot, since my work is all about relationships.

Have somebody always holding you accountable. Even when you take all these steps, there may be times your mind starts wandering. That’s why it’s helpful to have someone who knows your struggles and can help get you back on track.

For me, that’s my wife, a partner in my business. She keeps an eye on my whiteboards as well as my calendar. But it doesn’t have to be someone that close. It can be an assistant, a colleague, or even a boss.

People who are similarly invested in your business want it, and you, to succeed. And there’s reciprocity — you have their back, they have yours. You can hold each other accountable in different ways. Maybe you’re teaching them how to be more confident speaking in front of a group, or sharing some of your savvy with a new technology. We all have things to work on.

 

Opening up to colleagues or bosses about your struggle to focus can be nerve-wracking, because no one wants to be judged. But in my experience, if you give people insight into your world and your unique ways of getting work done, they’re likely to open up to you about their challenges as well. It leads to a more empathic, collaborative, and human work environment.

 

HBR: The Most Common Reasons Customer Experience Programs Fail

What are your Costs-to-Acquire, Customer Penetration, and Customer-Lifetime Value? Do you have a Customer Experience strategy? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Ryan Smith and Luke Williams.

The Most Common Reasons Customer Experience Programs Fail

Most customer experience (CX programs) are positioned as strategic, but quickly veer away from business objectives and become simply about tracking CX metrics. Time passes slowly, data continues to mount, and paralysis sets in. Big, strategic goals evolve into score improvements and incrementalism instead of gleaning useful insights that allow change with confidence.

So where does it all go wrong?

Most CX programs are broken in similar ways:

  1. They are not designed with change or innovation in mind.
  2. They have “soft” metrics rather than real business goals.
  3. They move slowly and without purpose.

Mistake #1: Forgoing change and innovation

Ask your CX program leader about the purpose of the program. If the answer is something other than, “So we can make intelligent changes that benefit the customer and the business,” you may have a serious issue. CX programs must be about change.

At the most rudimentary level, basic programs track performance over time. Yes, that’s useful, but why is it important? Because you want to improve over time. This means you must do things differently than you did them before. While it’s not complicated, this is a frequently overlooked premise to having a CX program—it’s about change.

Effective CX programs prioritize the importance of what gets measured and stack those data against your desired outcomes—what’s called “driver analyses.” Good driver analyses unlock the method for having the most change in the fewest possible moves.

While executing driver analyses enables change, it’s not actual change. It’s just more data until you do something with it. The reasons change doesn’t often happen are reporting paralysis, the lack of “think time,” and failure to collaborate.

Reporting paralysis can occur when teams are so wrapped up in distributing data, ensuring data quality, or writing up insights that they forget the purpose of data. If you “measure everything and report everywhere,” you’re not being strategic with your data.

Building in “think time” can help with this. Instead of just measuring, manufacturing, and distributing, build in time to understand the implications and applications of the data. This will give you clarity and confidence in what you’ve seen, how the pieces of the puzzle fit together, allow hypotheses to be formed and plans for change to be made.

Collaboration is also important if CX is going to result in any real change. CX experts must work with other departments and stakeholders to push the agenda for customer-focused improvement. Yes, it’s hard to do this when no one has time to meet, much less collaborate. But the CX program is uniquely positioned to try to make this happen anyway. They own the customer, they’re the advocate, and they have the analysis. Most importantly, the CX program reminds everyone else why they have to make time for the customer, above all else.

Mistake #2: Linking metrics to business outcomes

Most CX programs use their own tracking measures as emblems of success or failure. If a score improves, that number is heralded and CX teams use it as evidence of innovation and improvement by the team. Often, these results are accepted at face value.

But the problem with this approach is you really can’t control for all other things that could cause scores to rise, and you can’t assume that a rise in scores is good for net revenue. When it comes time to set key performance indicators (KPIs) for the program, be sure to match them up against input from both your CMO and your CFO.

What are the kinds of things you might want to consider? Here are some examples:

  1. Cost to Acquire and Serve a Customer (CAC and CSC): The better you understand your customer and prospect base, the more you build experiences and services they crave, the lower your CAC and CSC should be.
  2. Customer Penetration and Share: Customer penetration is simply increasing the number of customers you have. Share of wallet is the ultimate measure of how they spend their money when the ultimate point-of-sale (POS) decision occurs. Study the drivers and barriers of both to optimize here.
  3. Customer Lifetime Value: This is the net present value of all future customer revenues with account for attrition and your discount rate. It’s a complex measure, but the best firms understand it and make it a central part of their scorecard.
  4. Customer Churn: A well-run CX program can contribute to gains against customers shifting away from your brand (attrition) or abandoning it altogether (defection).

There is place in the world for performance benchmarking survey metrics like net promoter score (NPS). Many firms aren’t sufficiently sophisticated with respect to the above measures, so measuring NPS or other metrics may be the only empirical evidence available. When this is the case, though, be certain to study KPI success or failure with caution. A satisfied customer is not necessarily a profitable one.

Mistake #3: Moving slowly, without purpose

A CX program is a living, breathing thing. It’s either in a state of growth, peak productivity, or decline. CX programs are like mountain climbing — if you aren’t confidently moving through the problem, you may be wasting valuable energy trying to figure out where you’re going.

While it’s critical that CX programs be well designed and methodologically sound, sometimes wasteful activities are allowed to creep into the design process and bog down the program. Lack of momentum and sluggishness spell doom to a CX program, and leadership must propel the program.

True CX leadership comes from:

  1. Ownership. There must be a program owner: a single person who is ultimately responsible for the success and quality of the program.
  2. Expertise. The leader doesn’t have to know everything about the business, research methods and analytics, or strategy to be effective. But the more they know about each, the more effective the program will be.
  3. Resources. Multi-million dollar budgets aren’t necessary to create or capture value. Start with a basic budget commensurate with those of an IT program. Let them demonstrate value to earn more resources.
  4. Empowerment. Give your leader the authority to be successful.

Going slowly when you don’t intend to is clear evidence that the program has slipped into neutral in the leadership camp.

There are many obstacles and detours that can prevent full ROI from your CX program. In our experience, these three are the most common. To avoid them, remember that CX programs are not merely about watching scores go up and down. The goal is to create experiences that add value to the customer and the firm simultaneously, and this requires constant change. So think about what ideal experiences you want customers to have, and work backwards from there. Work quickly. And re-invent as needed.

Original Page: https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-most-common-reasons-customer-experience-programs-fail

 

HBR: A 2×2 Matrix to Help You Prioritize the Skills to Learn Right Now

Take time to reflect on the mix of activities in your working day. What would help you the most? Learning to write more clearly, improving meeting skills, or learning to manage your time more productively? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Marc Zao-Sanders.

A 2×2 Matrix to Help You Prioritize the Skills to Learn Right Now

So much to learn, so little time.

The world is bursting with learning. There are several million business books, 3,000 TED talks, 10,000 MOOCs, hundreds of thousands of e-learning courses, and millions of self-published articles on platforms such as LinkedIn and Medium. The article you’re reading right now is just one of thousands of articles on HBR.org. Picking the best and most relevant from all this is hard.

Yet it’s essential. The modern worker has very little time for learning — less than 1% of their time, according to Bersin, a division of Deloitte. And it’s more important than ever to learn continuously as the shelf life of skills shorten and career paths meander and lengthen.

So there’s a significant pressure on us all to learn the right stuff. How do we identify what that is?

One approach is to apply a time-utility analysis (similar in form to a cost-benefit) to the subjects you’re interested in learning. “Time” is time to learn. It’s effectively the opportunity cost to you of achieving competence. “Utility” is how much you’re likely to use the desired skill. For example, today’s manager spends a lot of time emailing, gathering data, running meetings, and making spreadsheets, so the utility for improving at these activities is especially high.

Combine time and utility, and you get a simple 2×2 matrix with four quadrants:

  • Learn it right away: high utility, low time-to-learn
  • Schedule a block of time for learning it, ideally in your calendar: high utility, high time-to-learn
  • Learn it as the chance arises — on a commute, lunch break, and so on: low utility, low time-to-learn
  • Decide whether you need to learn it: low utility, high time-to-learn

2x2 Learning.png

Once you’ve decided what you want to learn, you can use this same framework to zero in on specific skills to focus on.

Let’s illustrate the method with a single workplace activity with high utility: spreadsheeting. Knowledge workers spend almost half an hour in a spreadsheet every day. And in major corporations, this is almost synonymous with using Excel: there are almost a billion users of Microsoft’s spreadsheet program, and more than four-fifths of businesses globally use Excel. A time-utility analysis might suggest you want to get better at it.

But Excel contains over 500 functions and many more features; that’s a lot to learn. Where would you even begin? For a time-utility analysis to be of any use, we need it to help us at this level, down here in the weeds. To get a sense of utility, we reviewed dozens of articles written by Excel experts about their preferred Excel features. We used this analysis to compile a list of the 100 most useful Excel functions, features, tips, tricks and hacks, ordered numerically by utility. We combined this with our own data on how long each of these features takes users to learn, and plotted the two against each other. (Yes, we got a little excited about this project. Don’t worry, you don’t have to delve into this level of detail when you’re prioritizing your own learning.)

Exel Learn.png

As you’d expect, there’s some correlation (r=0.3), so the more useful items take longer to learn in general. But the scattered effect gives rise to some useful, tangible pointers for prioritizing what to learn.

You’ll find the quickest wins in the bottom-right quadrant, which we’ve labeled “Learn it right away.” In here we have time-saving shortcuts that can be applied frequently, like Ctrl-Y (redo) and F2 (edit cell) and a nice combination formula that cleanses your spreadsheet of errors (IF(ISERROR)).

The quadrant “Schedule a block of time for learning it” hosts the highly useful but more complex features, such as conditional formatting and pivot tables — these were deemed the two most useful on the entire list.

Bottom-left is those less useful but quick-to-learn items like Ctrl-5 (strikethrough) and Show Formulas (Ctrl¬).

Finally, in the top-left quadrant are the theoretically least appealing items, such as Get External Data and Text to Columns.

But for all of these, you, the individual learner, will impose your own opinions and experience on an analysis like this: “Actually, I already know Ctrl-Y, and I’ll never need to get external data.” And that helps filter out even more items, leaving you with an even more manageable list.

How would you apply this to your working, learning life? You probably don’t want to learn only about spreadsheeting, and you’re unlikely to have the kind of data we’ve used above at your fingertips. But you may have an idea of some of the skills you’d like to acquire or develop.

Consider the mix of activities in your working day. What would help you the most? Finally being able to use Photoshop, getting a grip on Agile or Waterfall, learning to write more clearly? Are there meta-skills that would help you do all of these things better — like coming across the way you intend to in meetings, or learning to manage your time more productively? You could assign approximate scores for time (to learn) and utility for each of these and plot a scatter chart like the one above. Or you could just estimate: Classify the skills on your list as either low or high in utility and time to learn, and place them in the corresponding quadrant. Either way, what shows up in the bottom-right quadrant? You may discover some learning bargains.

You can use this approach just for yourself, or across a team, department, even your entire company. Since you probably don’t have much time to learn, learn to make the most of what you have.