Differentiation in a Sea of Sameness

I was sitting at a table with fellow Best of Show award judges at Interop one year trying to weed through the many entries, most of which sounded the same. The program coordinator asked us which companies and products we’d like to nominate. One judge known for his brilliance and irreverence immediately raised his hand and without looking at a single entry said, “I have one. Mine’s the most robust, scalable, global solution.” We all laughed and others followed suit in jest. Just about every award entrant claimed to have the most robust, scalable global IT solution and the similarities didn’t end there regardless of what product or service the companies were offering.

Editors, like award judges, face the same challenge every day. “Matching press releases” from competitors and adjective-laced announcements that use the same language are too common. After awhile it becomes second nature to mentally edit out the content-free drivel.

Having had the privilege of working on “all sides of the desk” as a PR and ad agency exec, a corporate-side exec, journalist, award judge, and conference chair, I understand the challenges each of these roles is facing, which I’ll be discussing in greater detail at the upcoming Product Management Education Conference. I’ll also be talking at length about why so many products, services, and companies sound the same, the traps people knowingly or unknowingly step into, and what to do about it. Here’s a preview:

Q: Why do so many companies, products, and services sound the same?

A: It’s hip to use the latest buzz words and buzz phrases. The problem is, they lose meaning when their incorrectly applied and everyone else is using them. Different industries speak their own languages. Positioning and competitive differentiation may not be based on all the facts. And, there are usually a number of people involved in the process each of whom wants to leave his or her “fingerprints” on the brand image. These are just a few examples.

Q: What can you do about it?

Take a look around you. Study the competition and see what they’re saying. Listen to customers. If you want to be seen as different it’s important to accurately communicate why you’re different. Just make sure you can back up your claims with products, services or business practices that accurately align with what you say.

Be realistic. A lot of companies claim to be “the leader” or “leading provider” of something. There are reasons for this but the phrase loses meaning when it’s misapplied and overused.

Be Authentic. Quite often companies are not doing a good job of communicating what actually makes them different. There are effective ways to accomplish this without using the same overused string of adjectives everyone else is using.

Be Memorable. It’s easy to overestimate the amount of information people will remember or misjudge what may resonate with an audience. There are technological solutions that can help. There are some non-technical techniques you can also apply that will help leave a more memorable impression.

Be Relevant. This should go without saying but it is quite possible to address everyone and no one at the same time.

Be concise. It’s easier to create a memorable image when your message is simple and straight to the point. Endless, adjective-stuffed sentences miss this point. It’s a trap that people fall into all too often.

Be brave. It’s easy to give up and give in when all the effort that goes into differentiation gets pounded down by groups comprised of persons determined to leave their fingerprints on everything.

Be uncomfortable. In today’s dynamic business environment, lots of things change quickly like products, customer preferences, competitive environments, etc. Complacency is a bad thing.

Be objective. Myopia is dangerous.

Be patient. There are many good reasons why you will naturally become impatient during the process but giving up isn’t the best option.

Some companies masterfully differentiate themselves while others are drowning in a sea of sameness. There is a lot you can learn from the companies that are doing it well. Just resist the urge to cut and paste.

What Business Plans and Software Development Have in Common

In a perfect world, business plans and software designs would be static roadmaps to success. The reality is both change but not necessarily as anticipated.

Entrepreneurs and executives are familiar with the concept of adjusting a business plan because the assumptions on which the plan was based are faulty, the market shifts, the economy crashes, or some other variable alters reality. Adjustments to the plan don’t come easy, however, because the plan is the basis for execution and a lot of hard work went into the plan.

Software developers often experience similar frustrations having built software based on a set requirements that have changed. Hence the rise of agile development which calls for iterative design.

Now imagine a business plan that anticipates change.

Traditionally, “Plan A” is The Plan and “Plan B” is the alternative plan only to be executed if Plan A fails. In Getting to Plan B authors John Mullen and Randi Komisar propose a different model in which Plan B is the refined plan, not the alternative plan. (Komisar is a partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s premiere venture capital firms.)

And, of course, because the model is iterative, Plan B is not necessarily a destination point.

Earlier I said that business plans tend to evolve over time. They evolve because plans involve some level of guesswork also known as assumptions or a hypothesis. Assumptions can be dangerous because people often assume they’re right even in the absence (and especially in the absence) of testing. A hypothesis anticipates testing. However, testing for the purpose of business planning is often approached with the goal of proving the hypothesis is right as opposed to determining whether the hypothesis is right.

Some business books have made the point that assumptions are dangerous because they’re untested. Instead, it is better to form a hypothesis and then test it.

Apparently, something important is getting lost in the testing phase.

No wonder the next logical model has been suggested!

Why the parallel? The traditional approaches to software development and business planning are predictive. Both focus on detailed plans that make deviation from the plan time-consuming and expensive if not fatal. Agile software development and iterative business planning are adaptive, meaning they adapt to change. An agile approach does not necessarily guarantee success but unlike more rigid practices, course correction is anticipated and occurs with greater frequency and hopefully with less amplitude.

Web Design Issues Persist

I spend a lot of time interfacing with a lot of companies, most of which are high tech. Quite often my work involves an analysis of what they do and how they are positioning themselves competitively. Sadly, some web sites just don’t do their owners justice. Still.

I’ve been using the Internet long before the World Wide Web was born. Since then, our collective notions of what makes a good web site have changed but there are two fundamentals that often go overlooked which are 1) Make it easy for the customer or prospect to find what they’re looking for and 2) Give them the information in an easy-to-consume form (or usually a collection of forms).

Over the past few months I’ve been to some web sites that really need help. The owners know they need help because they complain that visitors aren’t engaging the way they’d hoped. Yes, of course, there are things like good design and SEO and good copy and all that but for now we’ll just stick with some basic concepts because it is sometimes the basics that people forget. Here are some of the mistakes:

1. Requiring users to download a PDF to basic info about the company that’s usually available on an “About Us” page.

2. Having pages that are five or more screen lengths long, including the home page.

3. Branding the top half of the web page but not the bottom in favor of placing data sheet details on every page including the home page.

4. Making people watch amateur videos to learn about products and having no real content on the web page itself.

5. Having microsites that are not linked to the master site and nearly impossible to find unless you have the URL. Yet, that’s where the core information about a product or division is located.

6. Having blank pages that appear on a menu with or without “coming soon” messages.

And the list goes on. I wish I could say these were all very small companies. They’re not.

I can’t speak for the site owners but I can say a trap people fall into is “just because we can we should” which extends especially to things like Flash, videos, and cheap web site space that allows you to scroll an entire book’s length. Flash, videos, and layers of information ad infinitum have their place and should be used to improve the site experience, not detract from it.

Videos are a great tool but should be used to supplement other information. If videos are all you have sans basic, contextual content, don’t expect lots of people to tune in. Even fewer will actually watch it.

Information overload is also a bad idea, particularly when it gets down to the data sheet level of every one of the 250 features your awesome product offers. Again, keep the medium in mind. Data sheets in PDF form are great for nitty gritty information. Web pages are better for clear, concise overviews.

And while we’re on the subjects of PDFs. Having a corporate brochure is fine. Substituting a general description of your company with a link to a PDF is not fine.

Microsites are a good idea, particularly if you have strong, differentiated brands or are targeting different market segments. However, a Microsite should always have some relationship however slight with its owner kinda like a parent company’s relationship to its subsidiaries.

And blank, “coming soon” aka “under construction” pages? Nah. Add the menu item when the link will lead to content.

On the flip side of all of this are masterfullly designed sites that have just the right of information, presented at the right level for the medium, and guess what? They combine different media types (web page content, videos, PDFs, etc.) so all visitors can easily understand the broadbrush and dive into more information in an appropriate format of choice at their leisure.

As you might have guessed, some of the companies with less-than-stellar web sites are competing against those who have spent more time on usability. It’s not just a matter of budget but how that budget is used to craft the messages and brand image.

Information Silo Problem Still Not Solved

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Search Engine Strategies conference and was reminded in a session that data interoperability still has a way to go.

The company, which will remain nameless, is a huge technology provider that is known for its hardware, software, and systems. Part of the company’s software mantra, particularly as it relates to middleware, has to do with connecting data from one information silo to another. Middleware is not new, neither are web services or Internet applications, all of which are trying to make data more accessible to the masses.

The reason for addressing the data interoperability problem is simple: Different departments and different companies use different types of computers and software. Because the data types and formats differ from one application to another, the applications often cannot share information unless some type of connection/translation has been enabled through programming, application interfaces, or industry standards. The result: Lots of time wasted duplicating tasks and information, poor communication, and less-than-optimal collaboration, among other things.

To listen to vendor speak it would seem that the data interoperability problem has been solved. This particular vendor, which also has one of the industry’s largest global services organizations, suffers from marketing disconnects due to “information silos.”

After following this company for 20 years on several levels I found it ironic to hear those words. On the other hand, there has always been a disconnect between what vendors promise and what the practical reality is.

Once again, the cobbler’s son has no shoes. Yeah, a lot of progress has been made as it relates to data interoperability but universal peace and love isn’t here yet. As nice a notion as it is, absolute interoperability goes against the grains of corporate competitiveness and commercialism which is why different companies implement industry standards differently “enhancing” or “optimizing” them in a manner that does create competitive advantage and product differentiation.

Two decades later we’re still creating, faced with, and trying to solve the same problems. Just don’t say that in your marketing materials.

Restructures, Work Furloughs, and Restarts, Oh My!

The prolonged economic downturn is causing CEOs and senior executives to rethink how they do business and unfortunately solutions that may look attractive in the short term may well backfire in the long term.

Restructuring is a good idea when it’s clear that the current structure isn’t working but restructuring can also be a very dangerous strategy, particularly when it’s based on assumptions about what isn’t working and why, and what will work and why. Change based on facts rather than assumptions is always a safer and more reliable strategy but it takes time which can be frustrating to executives who are driven to act immediately. Nevertheless, it pays to look before you leap.

Work furloughs provide a means of cutting costs but they have to be reasonable to work. It may be that employees would be willing to reduce work hours by a couple of days a month to avoid layoffs; however, pulling the plug for months or years until the economy recovers really qualifies as a layoff and employees will be inclined to treat it that way.

Relaunches can breath new life into companies but the success of them depends on several factors including the economy, the effect they have on current customers, and how much more appealing they are to prospects. If you’re planning to relaunch your company make sure your new value proposition is objectively more compelling and that your customers and prospects agree with it. Otherwise, the outcome might be worse than the status quo.

If you’re going to make a major change, make sure the potential benefits and detriments have been carefully identified and contemplated from an objective point of view. Knee-jerk reactions to tough times are rarely a good idea.

Morton Salt’s Seasoned Customer Service

A lot of companies talk about customer-centricity but very few take it as seriously as Morton Salt.

As a matter of course, food manufacturers offer 800 numbers, online forms and perhaps online chat services that give customers an opportunity to sound off. However, first, the customer must navigate through a tedious call center “tree”, fill out a long form, or wait far too long between chat sequences only to have the problem minimized by a customer service representative (CSR) or dismissed in a letter from a corporate executive.

The Disconnected Elite

Back when the world started getting connected, well before the Internet when pagers were the rage and cell phones were the size of lunch boxes I imagined that the Digital Elite would ultimately be those who were disconnected rather than those that were the most connected.  For 20 years people have been tellling me I’m crazy but in the last three years more people have started to see the possibility.

New Coke is Alive and Well at Clear Channel

History has a habit of repeating itself or at least it seems that way. 

On May 19, 2009, KKSF, a San Francisco-based radio station and its Texas owner Clear Channel announced a format change from from smooth jazz to classic rock.  The move although not unique is eerily reminiscent of The Coca-Cola Company’s New Coke strategy that proved to be a textbook marketing failure.

Is Redbox a Threat to Netflix?

If you’ve been to a local Lucky or Savemart recently you may have noticed a red kiosk from which you can rent movies for a dollar a night.  Netflix CEO Reed Hastings thinks Redbox Automated Retail, LLC will be Netflix’s main competition by the end of 2009’ however, Redbox is not exactly another Netflix.

Keeping Up with Social Networks

Social networking has become a necessary evil for most of the people I know. Some love it, some do it because their friends and business contacts expect them to show up on the popular sites. For those of us on multiple sites, the question is how to keep up gracefully.