If the innovation war is just beginning, then you need to make sure you’re fighting it outside your organization — not inside.
The old way of succeeding in business was to hire the most clever, educated, experienced and motivated people you could afford and then direct them to come up with the best customer solutions possible, organize and execute their production and marketing predictably and efficiently, and do their best to outmaneuver the competition.
But the battlefield of business success is changing. Future business success will be built upon the ability to:
Utilize expert communities.
Identify and gather technology trend information, customer insights and local social mutations from around the globe.
Mobilize the organization in organic ways to utilize resources and information often beyond its control.
Still organize and execute production and marketing predictably and efficiently in the middle of all this complexity.
At the same time, market leaders will be increasingly determined not by their ability to outmaneuver the competition in a known market, but by their ability to identify and solve for the key unknowns in markets that will continue to become more global and less defined. Future market leaders will be those organizations that build superior global sensing networks and do a better job at making sense of the inputs from these networks to select the optimal actionable insights to drive innovation.
By this point, hopefully you are asking yourself two questions:
Have you ever wondered why with all of the people trying to innovate, more innovation isn’t created?
I’ll give you a hint…
Often, something gets lost in the translation between what people think their customers want and what their real desires are.
Part of the reason so many people fail to innovate is that they fail to recognize that ideas and innovation are not the same thing. Ideas are easy, innovation is hard. For ideas to translate into innovation they must be based on unique insights that unlock new customer value.
In their book The Other Side of Innovation, Chris Trimble and Vijay Govindarajan assert that:
Innovation = Idea + Execution
Successful innovation is based on how effective firms are at execution, and that ideas aren’t as important as execution. But the equation could be better because many companies are good at generating ideas and at executing their ideas, but are still bad at innovation. The problem is not that companies don’t know how to execute, but that they often fail to identify a unique insight that unlocks sufficient new customer value to displace existing solutions.
So let’s modify the equation to be:
Innovation = Insight x Execution
The equation improves by multiplying the two elements instead of adding them because if the insight is not unique or does not unlock new customer value, then even the best execution doesn’t equal innovation.
But even this modified equation doesn’t go far enough. Instead it should be something more like this:
In 2011, I was a regular contributor to the American Express OPEN Forum on the topic of innovation. Here is the first one of that year:
Have you ever woken up in a cold sweat in the middle night from a nightmare focused on you throwing a big party that nobody comes to? Or, in real life, have you ever thrown a big launch party for a new product or service, made a lot of noise with advertising, marketing and public relations – only to have the sales returns be anemic at best?
According to a Linton, Matysiak & Wilkes study from 1997 titled Marketing, Witchcraft or Science, the success rate for new product introductions in the food industry is only between 20 and 30 percent. But, there is a key insight inside that data not to be ignored. The results highlight the power of market research and strategic marketing:
The bottom 20,000 U.S. food companies in the study combined for an 11.6 percent success rate.
The top 20 U.S. companies in the study enjoy a 76 percent success rate for new product introductions.
Sure, the 1997 data is coming from a single industry that many of you may not be in, but other data I’ve seen from the Product Development Management Association (PDMA) and other sources are similar and reinforce the importance of market research and strategic marketing. Worded another way, success in the market is often:
In support of my crowdfunding project over on IndieGoGo I am offering an incredible deal to the first TEN (10) individuals to grab this perk:
In exchange for each $500 investment, the first TEN (10) people anywhere in the world will get:
One of only TEN (10) spots in an online seminar where I will personally train you on how to facilitate a Nine Innovation Roles workshop or public seminar
A share of any Nine Innovation Roles Workshop leads that I can’t fulfill myself
A Nine Innovation Roles Seminar Pack – which includes TEN (10) Nine Innovation Roles Group Diagnostic Tools to use with your first set of workshop participants (a $199.99 value)
This is a great opportunity to add the Nine Innovation Roles Group Diagnostic Workshop to your roster of innovation services that you offer to clients. You should be able to charge between $2,000-$5,000 + expenses for each of the sessions you facilitate depending on the length and amount of custom content, so you should recoup your $500 investment after running your first workshop or public seminar.
The Nine Innovation Roles diagnostic workshop will create a fun, interactive experience for innovation teams or organizations to use to help people better understand what roles they fill on innovation projects, why the team’s or organization’s innovation efforts are failing, and how they can together improve the innovation performance of their teams or organization.
So, grab this Amazing Innovation Keynote and Nine Innovation Roles Workshop Deal and help your innovation teams be more successful in the future. Don’t wait. Be one of only TEN (10) people worldwide to get this perk, or pre-order the seminar kit and run run workshops or seminars on your own.
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
It’s a wedding proposal from an actor in my hometown to his now bride to be, and is a great example of re-imagining a traditional activity in our society – the marriage proposal.
The things I love about it are not the actual creative execution but the principles exemplified by the experience:
If you have a great product or service, people will be willing to help you sell it
If it’s really good, they may go out of their way to help you sell it – or even do so without asking your permission
Oregon fosters creativity 😉
Focus on more than the transaction – Make magic!
Skills can from other contexts can be valuable to the current challenge
Have fun with everything you do and you’ll have better results 🙂
Don’t just ask people to help, make it fun to help
Give people something to talk about and feel the love spread 🙂
Even if your customers or community do the sales pitch – YOU’VE GOT TO CLOSE
What magic are you making?
Are there boring transactional parts of your business that could use a little love and magic?
Don’t be afraid to invest in reducing the friction in your adoption process. You’ll improve the value access performance in your innovation equation:
Innovation Success (or even business success)
= Value Creation
+ Value Access
+ Value Translation
I had the opportunity to attend the Front End of Innovation a couple of years ago in Boston and of the three days of sessions, I have to say that unlike most people, my favorite session was that of Dr. Clotaire Rapaille. The author of “The Culture Code: An Ingenious Way to Understand Why People Around the World Live and Buy as They Do”, Dr. Rapaille extolled the crowd with his thoughts on ‘codes’ and ‘imprints’.
For me this particular session was the one that most synchronized with how I view the front end of innovation. For me, the front end has nothing to do with ideas or managing ideas, but instead is all about uncovering the key insights to build your ideation on top of.
Now, there are lots of insights that you can build your ideation on top of to create potentially innovative ideas. Consumer insights is one of the building blocks and the one that Clotaire Rapaille has built his empire on. Dr. Rapaille’s core premise is that there is a ‘code’ for each product and service that drives its purchase and adoption. That ‘code’ in turn is driven by the ‘imprints’ that people make when they first understand what something is for the first time and the sensations and feelings they associate with it.
For example, kids don’t grow up drinking coffee, but they grow up smelling coffee from a very young age, most often in the home. So, most of us imprint coffee to the home and our mothers and have a stronger feeling about the smell of coffee than the taste. What does this mean for coffee sellers? Well, instead of focusing on the taste to drive sales (the logical response), they are more likely to have success by focusing on the smell and on creating images that make the product feel like home.
Taking the concept of ‘codes’ and ‘imprints’ further, Dr. Rapaille spoke about how he doesn’t trust what people say, and so he instead focuses on what people do. If you look back at the coffee example, our logical brain would tell us to prefer the coffee that tastes the best, but the reptilian brain will prefer the coffee that smells the best because of the strength of the imprinting. And according to Dr. Rapaille, the reptilian brain always wins.
To make his point, Dr. Rapaille talked about how we remember our dreams – because the cortex arrives late for work. Translation? Our logical brains (cortex) arrive after a decision has already been made by the reptilian brain or the emotional brain and so the logical brain gets put to work justifying the reptilian or emotional brain’s decision with logical reasons. How else would you explain the purchase of a Hummer after all?
Sounds easy right? Well, it gets more complicated as culture gets involved. For example, another of Rapaille’s examples that was not shared at the event is how in the United States the code for a Jeep is ‘horse’ and so the headlights should be round instead of square because horses have round eyes, but in France the code for Jeep is ‘freedom’ because of the strength of WWII liberation imprints – meaning that the marketing strategy for Jeep in France is completely different than in the United States.
Because imprints happen in general at a very young age and given the reach of Dr. Rapaille’s work, you can see very quickly why so many organizations are marketing to children, even for products that are for adults – seemingly as a way to make sure that ‘imprints’ are made so that there is consumer demand to draw on in the future. Or is that conspiracy theory at work?
Dr. Rapaille at the Front End of Innovation also spoke about how when it comes to technology, people want to be amazed, people want the technology to be magical, and to use his favorite phrase – people want to say “wow!” For wow to happen in technology according to Dr. Rapaille, we must strive for simplicity – one magical step with no cables.
Meanwhile, in our organizations we must try and identify what our organization’s ‘code’ is and better leverage multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural teams to drive creativity, while also being careful not to change the code of the organization so much that people don’t recognize it, or trust in it. And finally to use one of Dr. Rapaille’s many generalizations, Americans love to try things (they learn that way), and they love the impossible, so don’t be afraid to ask them to do it.
When I distill all of what he had to say and what he has had to say other places, for me it boils down to one key insight about the limitations of innovation methodologies like:
Customer-led innovation
Needs-based innovation
Jobs-to-be-done
This insight is that the reason that asking customers what they want is problematic is because of the inconsistencies between imprints and intellect, between the reptilian brain and the logical brain, and between knowing and doing. Taken together this ties in nicely with something I have believed for a while now…
When it comes to driving adoption, it matters less what you say and more what you can get others to do. As marketers we are far too focused on trying to get people to ‘tell a friend’. We should be more focused on getting people to ‘show a friend’.
So, what is your code for successful innovation?
What do you want others to show?
Please think about it and let me know what you come up with in the comments.
For those of you who want to know more, check out this embedded via from PBS’ “The Persuaders” with Douglas Rushkoff:
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
‘Who should be responsible (if anyone) for trend-spotting and putting emerging behaviors and needs into context for a business?’
I believe this question should really be broken up because there are three VERY different (and incredibly important) pursuits intermingled here:
Trend spotting
Putting emerging behaviors into context for a business
Putting emerging needs into context for a business
Only at the very beginning of a business, when it is all or nothing for a small team of founders, should responsibility for these three tasks be combined. The reason responsibility for these three different pursuits should be split up is because each requires a different way of thinking, that often requires different types of people to generate the most relevant and actionable insights.
As I’ve written before, insights and execution are the real keys to business success, and in building any successful innovation – the insights come first. So, combining these three pursuits properly and getting the insights correct is incredibly important – otherwise you’ll design, build, and distribute a solution that misses the mark with customers.
Trend spotting requires big picture thinking, a talent for separating the notable from the unimportant, the ability to see how potential trends connect together, and the vision to see the impact of this trend intersection (what megatrends might they point to, etc.).
Putting emerging behaviors into context for a business requires an incredible capacity for insightful observation, the ability to spot influential thinkers who are good at identifying and describing changing behaviors, and the skills to synthesize a collection of perspectives into a cohesive view of the future. This view of the future must of course have a strong chance of being correct.
Putting emerging needs into context for a business is incredibly difficult and requires understanding how emerging trends and behaviors will intersect with new technologies and other business capabilities to expose new customer needs. Those new needs then represent potential growth areas for businesses to enter with new solutions. The goal of course is to identify and act upon these emerging needs before the competition has the opportunity to observe these needs as expressed behaviors and actions and react.
The one skill that all three share in common however, is the ability to disconnect one’s own perspective from the changing perspectives of others. Whether you as an organization choose to hire people into these roles, hire in consultants to provide this insight, or to spread the responsibilities around the organization, you must have a strategy.
Personally, I believe organizations may soon begin creating insight networks within their organizations in the same way that they currently do with innovation. This means having a central insights team at Corporate HQ with strong executive support that is responsible for managing the process, the distributed global network, its training/certification, and its outputs. This does not have to mean starting a new team – companies could incorporate these responsibilities within an existing dedicated-innovation infrastructure. So, can an insight management software industry be far behind?
And last but not least you will need to assign people to monitor trends and emerging behaviors and needs from Six Ways to Sunday:
Demographic and Psychographic Changes
Legal and Political Changes
Different Geographies
Different Industries
New Supplier and Technology Capabilities
New Business Capabilities and Business Models
Do you have a strategy and responsibilities in place for spotting trends and emerging needs/behaviors in your organization?
What are you waiting for?
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
I had the opportunity to meet and chat with local ethnographic researcher Cynthia DuVal about the role of ethnographic research in the innovation process, and she shared an insight that I thought I would share with the rest of you.
She mentioned that it is important for a good ethnographer or researcher to consider the timeline of the development process when extracting insights. Why is this important?
Well, if you’ve got a 12-18 month product or service development process to go from insight to in-market, then you should be looking not to identify the insights that are most relevant today, BUT the insights that will be most relevant 12-18 months from now. If you can go from insight to in-market faster than that, that’s fantastic, but the point still holds.
If your research team takes all of the data they’ve gathered and extracts insights for today, then you are innovating for the past, and if they develop insights too far along the time continuum then you are innovating for the future. You can’t really innovate for the past (your offering won’t be innovative and will be beaten easily by competitors). If you innovate for the future, then adoption will be slow until customers become ready. The trick is to task your insights team to provide guidance for the future present.
The ideal of course is to design a product based on customer insights appropriate to the time of the product launch to maximize the useful life of the customer insights.
The product or service are an expression of the customer insights, and it is the useful life of the insights that we are concerned with, not the useful life of the product or service (a post-purchase concept). When the insights reach their sell by date, sales will begin to tail off, and you better have another product or service ready to replace this one (based on fresh insights).
Now, extracting accurate customer insights for the present is difficult enough. Doing it for the future present is even harder. But, if your team starts out with that as its charter, they will likely rise to the challenge, for the most part.
Because the team will likely only get the insights mostly right, it is important that your go-to-market processes include a great deal of modularity and flexibility. In the same way that product development processes have to design for certain components that are ‘likely’ to be available, but also have a backup design available that substitutes already released components–should the cutting edge components not be ready in time.
To innovate for the future present, you must maintain the flexibility to tweak branding and messaging (and even the product or service itself) should some of the forecasted customer insights prove to be inaccurate and require updates. It is also a good idea to evaluate, as you go, whether or not a fast follower version (e.g. iPhone OS v3.1) of the product, service, and/or branding or messaging will need to be prepared to address last minute customer insight discoveries that can’t be incorporated into the product or service or branding/messaging at launch.
So, will your team have the flexibility necessary to innovate for the future present, or will you find your team innovating for the past or the future?
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
My presidential campaign picked up a lot of steam in 2008, but of course I came up short.
Should I make another run for the presidency in 2012?
If you didn’t know I was a front-running presidential candidate in 2008, check out the video:
SORRY – THIS ISN’T AVAILABLE ANY MORE
(which is too bad because it was very cool)
Of course I am kidding, but I was rifling some through old posts and I came across this video. This campaign was one of my favorite pass along marketing campaigns of 2008. It allows you to embed your name or a friend’s name visually in the video in several spots and send the video to them. I thought it was a lot of fun, and probably money much better spent than if they had bought a commercial on the Super Bowl.
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
The twittersphere erupted with news of GM’s announcement that it was refusing to pay for 2013 Super Bowl advertisements and $10 Million worth of advertising on Facebook.
Much of the popular press and self-proclaimed social media experts are jumping on the bandwagon and calling GM “idiots” for ending their advertising of Facebook and talking about how GM “doesn’t get” social media. If you listen to the amount of noise out there you would think that there was consensus that GM was wrong in making these moves.
I disagree. GM is making the right move.
Companies need to re-think how they spend money on marketing and advertising to make money in the showroom. Traditional advertising is becoming more expensive all the time and as the saying goes “I know I’m wasting half of the money I spend on advertising, only I don’t know which half.” The key here is that with advertising you pay to blast everyone that sees it with a single message – including people who just bought what you sell and those who will never buy what you sell just to hit the people who are considering a purchase of what you sell. As a result it is expensive and nearly impossible to place the right message with the right people at the time (and only those people). So I am not surprised at all that GM is re-evaluating its advertising spend, possibly investing more (not less) in the future in social media. Done well, you can be more impactful with pull marketing and social media than you can with push marketing and advertising.
So, personally it seems odd to me that so-called social media experts are in favor of a company spending money advertising on social networks. Wouldn’t it be smarter for them to advocate that GM spend money on build an interactive, engagement-driving social media campaign instead of spending money on advertising?
Something like the Chevy Game Time App?
Wait a minute, did the same company that doesn’t “get social media” launch an app built by hometown company – Detroit Labs – before Super Bowl 2012 that rocketed into the Top 10 free apps for the iPhone on Apple’s App Store (a top 10 that included Facebook and Instagram)?
“For all intents and purposes, all of the expectations that we had and that GM had were far exceeded… in a positive way!”
– Henry Balanon, Detroit Labs Co-Founder
Hmmmm…
First let’s be clear. Social networks and social media are two separate things, but people talk about them as is if they were one thing.
A social network is a place where people connect online and interact, whereas social media is content that is created to be shared. But, many so-called social media experts confuse the two, and confuse advertising with social media too. Advertising on a social network is not a social media strategy – it’s still advertising. Identifying the content that you should place on your Facebook page or other digital destination and creating a reason for people to tell others that they should come to that digital destination, well that’s a social media strategy.
Now, I must disclose that I specialize in helping companies creating pull marketing strategies to drive an increase in inbound sales leads by researching the customer purchasing journey online and then helping them attract and engage customers, partners, or employees by placing the right content in the right places at the right time. Part of this is achieved by using my proprietary single content input, multiple content output methodology and yes, that sometimes includes using social media. But social media is a tool not a religion, and it needs to be used only when appropriate.
I think GM made the right call in ceasing to advertise on the Super Bowl and Facebook and here’s why:
Super Bowl advertisements are expensive and for GM much of the cost is allocated against people who will probably NEVER buy a GM car
Facebook advertising is not very prominent or engaging
Their Chevy Game Time App experience should have given GM an idea that next year they can drive huge engagement during the Super Bowl (without advertising)
If GM is so clueless at social media, then why does the Facebook page for Chevrolet look so much better than the Facebook page for Ford or Toyota or Dodge. Honda is the only one I looked at amongst the car companies that had a more social feel at first glance, oh and Honda has the most likes of these companies too – go figure. But the engagement of people on Facebook around these brands is tiny in comparison to BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Harley-Davidson – both in terms of the numbers of likes and the number of people talking about them.
So, yes GM still has things to learn about engaging on social media (and about building better products too), but then so does every company. Social media and pull marketing are two new tools in the toolbox for every CMO, brand manager, and product marketer, but as long as we all continue to instrument for learning, as marketers we will continue to get better at utilizing these new tools to attract, engage, and retain the people who will love our products and services as much as we do.
Keep innovating!
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.