Posted: October 27th, 2009 in Innovation
“I’m Proud of My Middle School Honor Roll Student.”
- Bumper sticker seen on westbound I-94
“Pride cometh before a fall.”
- proverb
Gentle readers of my past postings know that I’ve been exploring the Seven Deadly Sins as a means to understand the ways in which corporations regularly sub-optimize—or even kill—innovation.
Having taken on both Envy and Lust in previous postings, I now turn my attention to Pride.
I’m neither a theologian nor an historian, but it seems to me that sometime since the Middle Ages, Pride underwent a partial makeover, rising above the rest of the Deadly Sins, to acquire at least some virtuous aspects.
In modern society, we now have ambivalent feelings about Pride. On the plus side, it’s laudable to be proud of: 1) inclusion in a particular group (gay parades are built around it; James Brown said it loud—he’s black and proud); 2) one’s own workmanship (“Made with Pride in the USA”); and even, 3) someone else’s accomplishments (Lou Gehrig will forever be known as, “The Pride of the Yankees”).
And yet, the rehab hasn’t been complete. The first sin, the sin which felled Lucifer, still has its dark core, however softened it may have become around the edges. Augustine got it right when he defined Pride as, “the love of one’s own excellence.” The downside of Pride was, and continues to be, the preoccupation with self, an arrogance borne of a belief in one’s superiority to others. Not for nothing is “I” the center of prIde.
But the risky and complex business of Innovation (at least Best Practice Innovation) is first and foremost, a team not an individual sport. Success—systematic, repeatable, bankable success—is possible only in a collaborative and team-centered environment. To this end, winning Innovation organizations harness diverse yet unified groups of individuals, governed by the checks and balances of a highly functioning collective, to unrelentingly uncover, understand, and ultimately solve, deep consumer/customer needs. Go-it-alone mavericks, incapable of leaving their egos at the door, are stumbling blocks, not help-mates in the cause.
How many CEOs, COOs, VPs of Marketing, Heads of R&D have suffered from the sin of Pride in their Innovation efforts? How many of these Prideful Innovators, convinced of their superiority to a team, certain of their unfounded consumer instincts, have rushed headlong into the pit of failure, often dragging the rest of us with them in the process?
Those who have logged more than a few laps around the Innovation track know what I’m talking about. We’ve all lived with the Prideful Executive who rejects wholesale the well-researched recommendations of the Innovation team because, “trust me, I know that I’m right.” We’ve all watched with professional horror as the Prideful Executive pushes an innovation to market that meets his/her own personal needs and likes—just not those of any actual consumers. And we all saw the disasters which inevitably ensued coming miles before they hit.
Oh, Dear Innovators, avoid the trap of Pridefulness. Yes, be proud of this discipline in which you labor. Take pride in your collaborative successes that make a real difference in consumers’ lives. But be Humble Innovators, relying always on the team. For ain’t none of us smarter than all of us.
Next in the series: Greed
Posted: August 25th, 2009 in Innovation
Gentle reader:
You may recall that last posting I proposed the notion of the Seven Deadly Sins as a useful construct for exploring the chief ways in which corporations inadvertently, but routinely, kill innovation today. I made the case for this framework starting with Envy. And maybe you bought into my line of thinking on this first Deadly Sin. But I can just hear you thinking: “Sure, Envy’s the easy one, let’s see him take on Lust.”
Well, here goes.
Let me start by suggesting that Lust is Love’s evil twin—closely related and yet diametrically opposed. As all good Corinthians know, “Love is patient, love is kind…It is not self-seeking…It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
Lust—the intense, inherently self-centered desire for another is essentially a one-way relationship. He who lusts has no concern for the needs and well-being of his object of desire. Said object’s only role is to fulfill the base wants of the luster. The luster knows only the most superficial things about the lustee: body shape and dimensions, hair color, mannerisms, etc.
In the world of innovation, those guilty of this Deadly Sin hunger for whole segments of consumers: e.g., empty nesters, Hispanics, small business owners, teen girls (inadvertent Lolita reference—sorry), desiring what they can provide (dollars) without knowing, or even wanting to know, what they need. The Lusting Innovator can cite chapter and verse all of the external demographic data for the sexy segments in their cross hairs: market size, growth trends, income, purchasing habits, geographic distribution, age, education level, etc., and yet, beyond these superficialities, knows nothing of substance about them.
As in the carnal world, the innovation relationship based on Lust has no long-term future. Most likely, it never gets off the ground as the target market spurns the unwelcome overtures of the Lusting Innovator as misplaced, selfish, and objectifying: “You don’t know and value me as a person!” Very rarely, the Lusting Innovator gets lucky and through an unrepeatable combination of shiny objects, empty promises, the right lighting, and blind good fortune finds his advances accepted. Marketplace success! Alas, that relationship soon fails as the intended quickly comes to realize that they’ve been sold a bill of goods. At that point they move on to someone else who can actually meet their needs.
Hollywood is of course, the great Luster. The success of “The Devil Wears Prada,” “The Passion of the Christ,” and the “High School Musical” franchise shine a sexy spotlight on their underlying markets: Women over 30, Christians, and Tween Girls, respectively. As Lust kicks in, clueless studio execs greenlight questionable projects for no other reason than they are aimed at these very same targets. Predictably, “Georgia Rule,” “The Nativity Story,” and “Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience” result.
Hollywood will never learn, but maybe, just maybe, the rest of us can. Do not lust after your customers, dear innovators—fall in love with them. In so doing you’ll end up watching out for their best interests, which (as love would have it) coincide exactly with your own.
Next in the series: Pride
Posted: July 19th, 2009 in Innovation
Focus groups are a helpful way to conduct market research. While there are many guidelines for correct moderation,successful research starts with good planning – and ends with good analysis. Here are 7 tips to help you get the most out of your focus group research:
1. Use the right techniques at the right stage of research
This may sound obvious, but companies often fail to recognize the nature of their project and the right kind of research to conduct. As a standard rule of thumb, use exploratory research at the beginning of the project, and then move to more directed techniques such as hypothesis validation.
2. Limit the research scope
When planning research, companies have two options - to have a broad scope covering many areas, or conduct in-depth research in a specific subset. This is a difficult decision to make, and companies are often tempted to pursue both - usually leading to unsuccessful research uncovering few new impactful insights. The right scope is one that is not too narrow to limit opportunities, but not so broad that researchers cannot get any deep insights. Of course, a scope that is broad and in-depth would deliver the best of both world, but projects seldom have the budget to successfully pursue that.
3. Avoid validation of personal opinions
This is probably the oldest market research mistake, and unfortunately still a prevalent one. Market researchers are trained to avoid personal biases – but others often find it hard to forget them. The longer marketers and managers are in an industry, the more opinions they form. And worst of all, many start to see even the smallest reference from consumers to mean complete validation of an important insight.
4. Be careful of early conclusions
A close cousin to #3, early conclusions stem from jumping to “answers” early in the research instead of forming hypotheses. The correct technique is to always remind the team to rely on the data and findings to generate conclusions – at the end of research.
5. Maintain continuity
Companies often use independent moderators for research, even changing them from group-to-group to keep costs low. While this is great for the project’s budget, the loss of information from one moderator to the next severely impacts the potential of research. Moderators are your front lines for conducting research, and the more integrated they are throughout the project, the higher likeliness for strong insights. The same goes for other team members - as much as possible, maintain continuity.
6. Know who to listen to – and who to ignore
While it’s the moderator’s responsibility to ensure all respondents participate in the discussions – and to control the more talkative ones, marketers in the backroom should always be aware of the same. It’s easy to think something is true because you heard it repeatedly – but only from the same respondent.
7. Call it a day – reaching theoretical saturation
Chances are, you will reach theoretical saturation in some parts of your research – and it is important to recognize it. Rarely will you reach complete saturation for the entire topic, but you should recognize when you are hearing the same things over and over again. Depending on where you are in your research, it may be time to change gears and move on.
Posted: May 29th, 2009 in Innovation
When it comes to the game of innovation, failure is not only an option, it’s an expectation. And I don’t just say that because I’m a Cub fan.
We all know that failure is part of baseball. The Cubs have only 16 post-season appearances in the last 106 years – that’s a pretty low success rate. And even the Yankees miss the post-season more often than not. But did you know that even the best, most innovative companies still fail 40% of the time?
These stats may sound discouraging, but there’s hope! There are practical, tangible things you can do to encourage risk-taking and an innovative mindset in your company whether you’re the CEO or an innovation team member.
Celebrate failure
Most companies do a great job of celebrating their successes. Credit is shared. Parties are thrown. Trinkets are handed out. Careers are accelerated. Failures are often the opposite. It’s hard to find the people who worked on a failed project and when you do, they will likely explain why the failure was someone else’s fault. These behaviors are stifling for an innovation culture because they encourage people to take small bets and achieve small wins instead of risking failure. And innovation growth goals won’t be met this way.
What if we celebrated our failures – just as we celebrate success? It may sound at best idealistic and at worst absurd. Have you even been to a failure party? Or even know someone who has? I do. In fact, I hosted one. It was a low key event compared to those high flying success parties. People were reluctant at first, but we did it anyway. As a group, we shared what we had learned about the consumer, the product, the manufacturing process, and the corporation. We recognized the effort that so many people had put into the project over the years and honored them for making the right, albeit difficult, decision to kill the project.
In the moment, I admit, I even questioned if it was the right thing to do. How could we celebrate the project that had failed on our watch? But afterwards, I knew for sure that it was the right thing because of the reactions of our team members. More people expressed their thanks and appreciation for our little failure party than ever had for a whiz-bang success party. It made them feel like the work they had done was valued and they didn’t have to hide or feel ashamed of having been part of it. This failure made us smarter for the next project. And maybe, just maybe it made people more comfortable taking a risk the next time around.
Give it some time
An innovation culture can not be grown overnight. You have to make some big trades – like clearly defining your innovation strategy, committing significant human and financial resources, and implementing a customer-driven process. And you have to play some small ball – consistently communicating management support, establishing rewards and recognition programs, creating incentives, and yes, even throwing some failure parties. And then you have to be patient. In April or May, you can’t yet tell how the season will turn out.
When it comes to innovation, the best advice just might be, wait until next year…
Posted: May 19th, 2009 in Innovation
You remember the Seven Deadly Sins: Envy, Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, Wrath, Pride, and Greed? Well, if not from Dante’s Divine Comedy, then at least from the Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman/Kevin Spacey movie.
And just as Kevin Spacey’s character used the Seven Deadly Sins as a means to kill people, I propose that they are equally (if not more) effective in killing innovation. I’ve seen it play out again and again in the marketplace. Unfortunately, I don’t have the services of a Morgan Freeman to make it stop.
Let’s start with that green-eyed monster, Envy: “a feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another.” In the world of innovation, Envy leads to the development of “me too” products—one competitor coveting the breakthrough success of another and responding by launching an undifferentiated also-ran.
Knock-offs of Hot Pockets, Swiffer, and Bertolli; Blackberry’s Storm; Microsoft’s Zune; numerous teeth whitening strips; most of Hollywood; all of Private Label. The list goes on and on.
Don’t get me wrong, there can be valid strategic and base business reasons for “me too” offerings. Innovation just isn’t one of them.
In the plus column, the presence of “me-toos” often benefits consumers by exerting downward price pressure. But at what cost? The downside is not insignificant. By definition, these knock-offs do not offer consumers any new or real benefits, merely more of the same. And in so doing, they create more noise and clutter in the marketplace—do we really need upwards of 25,000 new products each year in grocery retail?
However, let me suggest that the biggest problem with “me too” offerings is that they have a negative effect on innovation itself. Companies launching “me toos” are the innovation equivalent of hyenas who eat the lion’s kill. (In that way, they embody another Deadly Sin: Sloth—but let’s leave that exploration for another posting.) Breakthrough new product and service development is a lengthy, costly, risky adventure. The fact that your competitors are sitting idly by, waiting to share in the spoils of your victory (should you prove successful) only makes the prospect of innovation even less attractive.
So what’s a conscientious lion to do? Reform the hyenas? Not possible. Give up the hunt? Not advisable.
In my experience, the only prudent approach—and the optimal one at that—is to ensure that you have insulated your breakthrough innovations from competitive intrusions to the greatest extent possible. Having started with in-depth consumer insights is a necessary, though not sufficient, requirement for sustainable innovation success. Ultimately, proprietary protection can be achieved only when new offerings simultaneously solve real, unmet market needs in ways that leverage your unique core competencies, IP, and brand extendibilities. Of course, this can be left to happenstance. However, the surer course of action is to take stock of these “proprietary assets” prior to performing any market research in order to inform that research and subsequently uncover important unmet needs that you can address better than any of the hyenas out there.
Next in the series: Lust