Monthly Archives: June 2013

Hitting The Line

If you’ve ever played  or watched tennis, one thing you know is that the players seem to approach each point with a plan.

tennis

(Photo credit: Marc Di Luzio)

To a certain extent they play the points backward – what shot do I want to set up, which positioning and speed of the serve will let me do that, and where do I want to hit it?  Part of the equation involves moving the opponent around, far away from your intended target.  Ideally, you can hit it just next to a sideline or the baseline depending on your plan.  The nearer to the line the shot lands, the more likely it is to be a winner.  There’s also an increased chance you lose the point by hitting it out.

Often when one watches high-speed Motorsports, the “high line” is the one that many drivers choose on an oval course.  Generally, the racing groove nearest the wall allows the cars to go faster even if they’re travelling a slightly longer distance (think of concentric circles – low vs. high).  It’s better to go faster and generally the high line is way to do that.  It’s also the line closest to the wall.  Hit the wall – go over the line – and you’re done.

There are similar analogies in golf (aiming for a target along a preferred line with a hazard line along the same flight path) and baseball (bunting very near a base line almost always works better for a hit than closer to the pitcher but it’s just as likely to be a strike for a foul ball).  What each of the athletes involved needs to do is to develop a plan that revolves around their tolerance for risk and the availability of a reward.  You might get spectacular results and you just might cross the line, crash, and burn.

Think of those athletes as you approach your business.  What’s your tolerance for risk?  Is the value of the reward worth going over the line?  I think most great athletes hit those lines – the places where very few can put themselves consistently and win.  To me, that sounds like a pretty good business plan if you can tolerate the risk.  You?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under Thinking Aloud

Ratings Are Back-Assward

I saw something this morning with which I agree totally. It’s a statement, reported in MediaPost, by Starcom MediaVest Group CEO Laura Desmond about how media is measured and how consumers’ multi-screen consumption makes the traditional methods far less useful. As she said: “We need to invest in new measurement techniques for brands.”  That’s right, except that for the most part what we hear about has nothing to do with brands.  In fact, what we do now, and what I expect the industry will do in the future is completely backward.  Let me explain.

When you read about the most-viewed content of the week, have you ever seen a mention of a commercial?  Nope.  It’s all about programs – The Voice or Idol or Duck Dynasty.  The measurements, as Ms. Desmond said, tend to be channel-specific and, therefore, might not reflect all of the consumption that’s occurring.  The point that’s missed from a marketing perspective is that brands use these ratings to estimate how many times their ad was seen and what value they derived from their investment.  My question is this:

Why are we measuring for one thing and reporting for another?

If what we’re after is how many people are seeing a message, why do we care about the vehicle in which that message is delivered?  The industry makes the programming entities measure themselves (fair, since that’s who’s getting paid to deliver the message) but then assumes everyone watching sees the message (OK, I know some folks adjust the numbers slightly but humor my rant here, please).  Why aren’t we working on a system where a brand message carries some sort of tag across all channels that would allow all the impressions to aggregate?  Further, those tags could be used much like cookies to track conversions.  Since it’s the brands that pay for the impressions, should it be their own results that are tracked?

If the industry follows Ms. Desmond’s thinking and does invest in new techniques to measure cross-channel results, they’ll have a hard time if what they’re measuring are programs.  Many programs aren’t in all the places brands want to go.  Some are sold by different sales entities across channels.  It’s backward to measure an inconsistent series of channels instead of the consistent brand who is paying the bills.

What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Thinking Aloud

Bad Golf And Worse Food

It’s Foodie Friday and I know you’ve been wondering where I’ve been. Sorry about the infrequent posts this week.  I’ve written before about the golf outing I go on every year and I’m in Myrtle Beach with the crew celebrating our friendship and playing an awful lot of (bad) golf. CalabashWe come to Myrtle for the golf and fellowship – we definitely don’t come for the food. In 19 years of visiting we’ve found a few (and only a few) decent restaurants and so we’ve taken to cooking for ourselves a lot. While our food definitely tops out at the “advanced amateur” level, it beats most of what we’d pay for here. That said, the restaurants – a mixture of national chains, Calabash seafood joints, and sports bars – don’t make it worth the effort of money we’d spend on dinner for 12.

Why I bring this up is that they seem to do a good business which raised the question in my mind of standards. We’re not food snobs – most of us enjoy simple food prepared well using high quality ingredients and we’re not looking for fancy sauces or molecular gastronomy techniques.  The standard to which we hold professionals is very different (apparently) from the one most of the folks visiting here seem to have.

The business question is this.  I don’t think the cooks are less skilled nor the service staff any less capable.  I do think that they’re playing to the bar set by their clientele and that’s a trap for any business.  We need to be focused on “best” and not on”this will get us by.”  Many folks like fried seafood buffets (a specialty around here) but using old oil for frying or frozen, imported fish rather than changing the oil regularly and fresh local catch is meeting the low expectations that come either from not knowing any better (McDonald’s is fine until you taste Fatburger or In & Out) or from a business that doesn’t focus on repeat customers.  Very few businesses are afforded that luxury.

Since golf is delayed by a tropical storm passing through (good planning  I know), we’ll be cooking another meal here.  That’s some restaurant’s loss (and given this group it’s a substantial loss).  Our job in business is to make eating out at our place a more attractive proposition than staying home.  The higher we set our own bars the more likely we are to do that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, food, Helpful Hints