Monthly Archives: April 2012

Taking An Unplayable

The things we learn from golf!  I know, I’ve written about that before, but yesterday’s conclusion to The Masters provided such a great example as to why the lesson of the golf course apply to the world of business.

I’m talking, of course, about Phil Mickelson‘s decision-making on number 4. For those of you who didn’t see or haven’t heard about it, Phil was at the top of the leader-board when he hit an errant shot on a par 3. His error was compounded by the fact that it hit a grandstand and bounced further away from the hole. In fact, it wound up in some thick brush. This piece provides a good overview.  For you non-golfers, when your ball winds up in a place like this, you can do one of four things:  Play the ball as it is or take a penalty stroke and use one of three options under the “unplayable lie” rule.  In Phil’s case, two of the three options weren’t available to him – it’s too long an explanation for this space – but the third one – replay the last shot from the previous spot certainly was.  That would have been back on the tee, hitting your third shot (on a par 3) into the green.

San Diego's favorite son pitches one of only a...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Phil elected to play the ball as it was and ended up making 6, and given where his ball was that was about as good a score as he could have expected.  His decision-making process is a great business example.  Phil elected not to cut his losses (take the penalty and start over) and I think it cost him the golf tournament.  This is the same guy who lost the U.S. Open a few years ago making exactly the same decision – try to hit an impossible shot instead of cutting your losses.  Obviously he won The Masters a couple of year back trying and making a difficult shot onto a par 5 from the trees (no, golf is not played in the woods – some of us just go there a lot).  In some ways, that just reinforced what is generally not the best course of action.

None of us like to admit that we need to take the hit and start over.  Most of us talk about “throwing good money after bad” as a negative.  The hard part is stepping back and assessing the situation without emotional involvement about all you’ve invested so far.  You need to build in decision points and discuss where you are with others and adjust the plan.  The caddy is out on the course not just to lug the golf bag and whether it’s in-house staff of consultants like me, someone needs to help make the decision to take the unplayable and live to fight another day.

What do you think?  How do you know when it’s time to go back to the tee or when trying to stick it out is the best course of action?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under Helpful Hints

Standing In Line With Mr. Pepe

It’s Friday, and it’s a food-related weekend with both Passover and Easter happening. So for today’s weekly foodie post, I’m inspired by something that happened last night as we went out for pizza. Now for most of you, that’s not really a big deal. For me, however, pizza is something I have maybe once a year (a boy needs to keep his figure) so when I go, it’s to someplace special.  Frank Pepe Pizza qualifies as someplace special. Coal fired ovens, fresh clams and shrimp, top-shelf ingredients – a great pizza experience. Except for one part of that experience and that’s our business point today.
Pepe’s doesn’t take reservations. You queue up and are seated in the order of arrival. The line usually runs well out the door. This was the case last night when the Mrs. and I showed up. No big deal – it was past the main dinner rush and although it was cold standing outside, tables seemed to be turning – there was a steady stream of people walking out.  So here was what we saw next:

  • Four unoccupied tables remained un-bussed – all that was needed was a quick cleaning and more customers could go from cold and hungry to warm and fed (and generating income);
  • Despite “first-come, first-served,” larger parties were brought from the back of the line to be seated first.  Now, I understand that from the restaurant’s perspective, seating a table of 6 is better than seating a table of 2, but that’s not a perspective shared by those of us who had been waiting 35 minutes in the chill.

The reality is that if a manager had addressed the first point (available, uncleaned tables), the second point would not have been an issue.  There was a bit of grumbling by the parties of 2 that remained unseated while the relative newcomers were let in.  I think it boils down to having a customer-centric perspective, something we talk about a lot here.  While Pepe was doing what was right for the pizzeria, they weren’t doing the best they could for their customers.

The Stones wrote about “standing in line with Mr. Jimmy.”  The song is “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”  The difference is you CAN always find someplace else to get it, and none of us in business should ever forget that.

Happy holiday weekend!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

If An Ad Falls In The Forest…

comScore published the results of a study they did with a number of major advertisers on the subject of ad delivery.  While the study came out last week, it feels as if there is a bit of a drumbeat starting to happen and I thought I’d join the band (hey – we’re always out front here at the screed).  There is an excellent summary of the study on Exchange Wire and if you care to read the entire thing you can download it by clicking through here.  In brief, to get a better handle on the issues associated with display ad delivery and validation as well as to test-drive  comScore’s method for this validation called vCE, twelve leading marketers participated in a U.S.-based charter study, called the vCE Charter Study.

Image representing comScore as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase

The biggest point to come from the study, which seems to be the headline on the growing number of blog posts that reference it, is that 31% of ads delivered were never seen by a consumer.  It also called out that 72 percent of the campaigns studied had some ads running beside “unsafe” content as determined by the advertiser and that a small percentage (4%) of ads targeted to the US ran outside the country.

For a medium that touts itself as highly measurable and targeted, these aren’t great results.  Then again, none of the articles I’ve found put these numbers into any sort of context.  How does this compare to print, for example? As we’ve said before, stats by themselves are pretty meaningless unless you have something with which to compare them.  There is also an interesting nugget that surfaces about ads running lower on pages, or “below the fold.”  There is a common misperception that ads delivered “above-the-fold” are seen, while ads delivered “below-the-fold” are not.  Surprisingly, the findings demonstrate that some ads delivered “above-the-fold” were not seen because users quickly scrolled past them before the ad had a chance to load, and many ads placed “below-the-fold” delivered a high opportunity to be seen.  This might mean that inventory “below-the-fold” can be priced as premium as long as the publisher can prove it was viewed.

To me this all screams out for some human intervention.  Digital ad buying has become a mechanized world as one ad platform talks to another and humans stay out of the mix for the most part.  Buyers need to examine sites for more than their audiences.  Sellers need to pay attention to the analytics that show more than traffic but also “heat maps” of usage.  Both sides need to do a better job of quality control.  One can question comScore’s motives a bit since they’re also selling a delivery validation tool that will allow for both sides of the digital media equation to get more accurate numbers.  Commendable, I guess, but I wish there was some way to redo the numbers based on more human involvement as well as to compare the results with TV and print “opportunities to view.”

What are your thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under digital media, Helpful Hints