Smart Innovation

Travel Innovation

Seth Godin has an interesting post entitled "Random Travel Thoughts" and it got me thinking about innovation and how the travel industry is about as innovative as a bucket of boiled beets (don't get me wrong, I love beets ... pickled beets, beets in salads, sour beets ... but there is only so much you can do with a bucket of boiled beets).

Why is that?  Seth talks about the theater of travel.  Wow, what a concept.  what if we focused on the travel experience being more like theater.  The experience from the time you make your reservations to the time you get to your location.  Right now everyone thinks that travel is about getting on the plane and landing.  But the entire experience is different.  It lasts longer. 

Right now airports with their cruddy chairs and poor design seem more like a ugly coffee shop.  What if Starbucks said "we'll make coffee and then serve it in crappy coffee shops"?  How well do you think that would have worked in terms of innovation.  It wouldn't.  Starbucks would be lost to some irrelevant past.  Starbucks is about experience not about coffee.  Starbucks stopped thinking like a coffee shop and started thinking like theater.

The travel industry needs to do the same thing, stop thinking like they have been and start thinking like some other industry.

In fact, so do you.  As someone once said "the thinking that got you here is not the thinking that will get you to where you want to be."

So think different, be more creative, think like someone else, some other industry ... get out of your box.  What aspects of theater can you put into your business ... think about that.

- See you on the wire

Steven

Are Blogs Useful?

This post is less of a musing (an idea thought out and analyzed) than more of a rant (just me going off on a specific topic).  And the rant is about what I'm doing right now ... blogging.

The question at hand is: "Are blogs useful?"

Now that is a tough answer and I'm sure many people will immediately say "yes," but I want to look at the idea through a different lens.

I've got probably 40 different blogs that I read on a daily basis through my Google reader.  And most of the information I get is either redundant or not very useful.  So can I reduce the number of blogs that I read considerably and get the knowledge that I'm looking for and not just information overload?  Probably, but how?

This question actually came up when I was researching how to get more exposure for my personal blogs.  And in many occasions I read "post more" or "post at least six times before noon."  That's a lot of posts.  And I'm not quite sure how much value a bunch of short blurbs can provide.  However, I'm not sure how much value a long blog listing can provide if people don't read it either.  What I want is the knowledge and golden nuggets I need without all the noise.

That is the problem in the current blogosphere ... too much noise and the signal to noise ratio is degrading significantly.

So, the question is ... Should I post more with shorter posts or keep it to longer posts with shorter periods ... And how about the rest of the blogosphere ...

"How Can We Keep Blogs Useful?"

Comments?

Interruption Marketing – Business Model Innovation

Interruption Marketing – Business Model Innovation

Musing

Everyone hates advertising … agreed?  Ok, maybe not everyone, but from the point of view of the consumer (those of us who are exposed to advertising) to those of the producers (not the ad firms, but rather the manufactuerers, software companies, food companies, etc … i.e. the guys that make products that are advertised to get your attention) most of us are tired of being interrupted to look at products that are irrelevant to us while we wait for the show to go on.  As Seth Godin puts it, basically, we live in a world of interruption marketing.

So my question is, with the internet, Tivo and other technology can we finally say goodbye to advertising as we’ve known it in the past.  Interruption marketing is an old world concept that is still around because we haven’t figured out a better way.  I day “death to advertising” and recreate a new business model where finding the perfect customer who is willing to buy a relevant product is born.

The question is: “Can the historical advertising model be replaced with a new business model?”  This is an important question that Seth Godin hints at in his “Permission Marketing” book.  But we need to delve deeper to see if we can create a new business model that is fundamentally different from the Google advertising model.

“Can innovation be used to create an entirely new business model?”

Netflix did it with direct to your door DVDs by making a couple of slight, but highly consequential changes to the Blockbuster model.  Tivo did it by crafting revenue streams outside the advertising world.

If advertising is an externality (where you are forced to view ads without permission or compensation … i.e. traditional TV), can interruption advertising be driven into the ice age?

Over the next few weeks, I will explore how business model innovation can change an entire industry and if it is possible in the advertising world.

See you on the wire

Steven Cardinale

Always Be Leaving - Sales Innovation?

Musing

There is a blog discussion happening discussing ABL and its implementation.  Pete, Rick and I have been discussing the day-to-day implementation of ABL.  The question that comes to mind:

"IS ABL a sales innovation?"

I think it is.  If you look at Clayton Christensen's The Innovator's Solution (which by the way is a great book and should be digested by everyone, including sales people) he basically speaks of innovation as acquiring non-consumers of your product.  By quickly identifying who would be interested in consuming, and just as quickly identifying who will not consume, the ABL technique exhibits an attitude of innovation.

To discuss Pete's observations:

1.)  "What does ALWAYS BE LEAVING mean?  Does it mean that if I, as a salesperson, recognize that I can't identify or solve a prospect's problem, I should be leaving? "

My answer - Yes absolutely.  If you can't solve someones problem and that is your goal (which as good salespeople we should be doing ... diagnosing & solving vs. selling), then the quicker you discover that someone will never buy your solution the quicker you can move on to other discoveries.

In fact it goes further.  ABL as a core principle essentially states that good sales people are constantly trying to disqualify potential customers since they consume a huge amount of time and will not benefit from the solution we represent (notice it is the fact they can't benefit, not the fact we can't sell that makes the difference).

The problem is that we've been taught to Always Be Closing, to never let go, to convert that sale.  There is a 180 degree difference between never letting someone go and constantly pushing them away.  And it is difficult as sales people to let a prospect go.  It becomes an ego thing (I can close him), an insecurity thing (if I don't close him I can't close anyone), a starvation thing (I NEED this sale) ... it becomes anything but a "if I can't solve his problem he won't buy anyway" thing.

That is the mental attitude necessary.  Sales people must realize, if they can't solve the client's problem (and this may require helping the client recognize they have a problem by diagnosing symptoms the client does not see yet), that person will NEVER buy (and if they do it was pure luck).

2.)  With regards to this post, are you suggesting in your latest post, that I should solve a prospect’s problems even if the right solution is a solution other than one I can provide to them for a fee?

Yes, it may sound counter intuitive, but absolutely.  Your solution needs to be the right solution for the right symptoms that the customer has.  Just because you sell cardiac bypass surgery tools doesn't mean you should sell them to someone who only needs an Angioplasty (sorry for the graphic example, but it demonstrates the point).

Also, when you work from a consultative point of view the customer views you as an asset vs. a sales problem to get around.  Stop acting like a sales person and more like a partner and you'll start to get treated like a partner (they will buy from you when it is a good fit, you'll be trusted and brought back for future discussions, you'll be able to protect pricing).

I'm not saying do free consulting, since you'll end up giving away a huge amount of free time.  But not pushing a solution that doesn't fit the customer's problem is the main point of ABL.  Two sides of the same coin.

If y0u can't help the customer today, then spend your time finding a customer you can help and move on.  And allow this customer to find a doctor more appropriate to their condition.

Start thinking and acting more like a doctor / diagnostician and less like a sales person and your sales numbers will soar.

See you on the wire

Steven Cardinale

I got a comment from Rick Roberge regarding ABL and my "The Sales Call" blog.  It is always good to hear from others and be exposed to their feedback (both good and bad).

Rick's blog lead me to a post entitled "The End of Solving Seth Godin's Problems."  I agree with Pete (the author's) point of view and it is echoed my "The Sales Call" post.

Sales people typically only sell (i.e. present) and the don't diagnose or problem solve.  They are always worried about the sale (and rightfully so).

The buyers don't know they have a problem, they can't self diagnose, and don't want to be sold to.

What's a poor sales guy to do (and by the way, all you entrepreneurs out there, you may not think you are sales guys ... but you are).

This really begs the question, can you train (or retrain) a salesperson or an entire sales team to think in this new paradigm.

Unfortunately I think YOU HAVE TO RETRAIN else your cost of sales will skyrocket, your sales cycles will lengthen and you'll have a very hard time understanding why your not making your revenue numbers.

So here is my question:

"Do you trust a sales process or trust a salesperson?"

Right now, I tend to believe that you put together a tight sales process cookbook, train your sales team on the process, monitor their activities against the process and believe that the process will create revenue.

Notice there is no selling in the process.  It is a diagnosis and a leaving process in which your sales team quickly moves from presenting solutions to diagnosing issues and presenting solutions (not necessarily your solutions).

So, in the process vs. person stand off, who will win?

See you on the wire.

Steven Cardinale

The Sales Call

Seth Godin recently blogged on the death of the sales call in which he discussed why the sales call is outmoded and and close to extinction.  He's ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, the traditional sales call should be relegated to the trash heap.  The problem is that the traditional sales call is what we've all been trained on and only a very few (and I mean a very, very few) sales teams understand the approach of ABL (Always Be Leaving).

Seth speaks of "An unprepared salesperson should be shown the door. What about an unprepared or unmotivated buyer?" which leads me directly to ABL.  ABL comes courtesy of "Mastering The Complex Sale" which is a must read book about the new sales process.

What is interesting is that when I read "Mastering The Complex Sale" I didn't realize they said that any good sales person should always be leaving a prospect and looking for better places to spend their time.  I only realized that after I took their seminar.

And it is very hard to do: Because as sales professionals we are typically taught Always Be Closing ... what a crock of $#%!.  Seth is right, if someone does not have symptoms a clear and present danger/problem, they are not ready to buy and sales people should not be ready to sell.  ABL and find someone who does have symptoms of the lack of your solution.  And by the way, read the book.

And listen to Seth.

See you on the wire

Steven Cardinale

Introduction

Innovation has become the hip and trendy buzzword in business today.  But what exactly is innovation?  What does it mean to innovate?  According to Wikipedia innovation is:

1. the process of making changes to something established by introducing something new
2. the act of introducing something new: something newly introduced (The American Heritage Dictionary).
3. the introduction of something new. (Merriam-Webster Online)
4. a new idea, method or device. (Merriam-Webster Online)
5. the successful exploitation of new ideas (Dept of Trade and Industry, UK).
6. change that creates a new dimension of performance Peter Drucker (Hesselbein, 2002)

With the basic premise that innovation leads to creating something new.  However, with the large number of product launches that fail and the massive costs involved with failed product launches, it seems that a smarter way of innovating is called for.

That is what this blog is all about ... how to create, craft, execute, and deliver on innovation in a smarter and more predictable pattern.

I hope you find this blog useful.  It will become a counterpart to my blog on entrepreneurship at http://entrepreneursjourney.blogs.com and I'm sure I will come up with ideads that will move across both blogs (such as the musing -> problem -> solution - > take away approach to large topics).

See you on the wire

Steven Cardinale