Strategic Planning Analogy #444: Beware of One Choice

THE STORY
Imagine what it would be like if car dealers had only one model of car available to sell. Regardless of who I am or what type of one model they had, I’m sure the salesperson would have a rationale for why that was the perfect car for a person like me.

And if the next customer was completely different from me, that salesperson would have a rationale for why that same car was the perfect match for them as well.

In fact, I’m sure that salesperson would have a rationale for almost anyone as to why that was the perfect car for them. After all, he only has one model to sell, so he has to convince you that this is the model for you to buy. Even if it is really not the car for you.

Beware of the salesperson with only one choice.

THE ANALOGY
Although car dealers have lots of models to try to sell you, there are many businesses which have only one or two items to sell. Included in that second list is often many business gurus and consultants.

Often times, they have had success with a particular business approach in the past. They’ve probably written a book about it. Now they want to use that same approach at your business. They are like the car salesman with only one car to sell. They will try to convince you that their approach is just right for you. They will point out their prior successes to “prove” that you should do it, too. After all, it is the only thing they have to sell, so sell it they will—regardless of who you are.

Of course, the problem is that businesses are a lot like people. They aren’t all alike. Just as there is no one-size-fits-all automobile, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to business strategy.

There’s a reason why car dealerships have a variety of models to sell. Not everyone needs or wants the same thing. And all businesses should not need or want the same strategic solution.

Beware the business consultant with only one choice.

THE PRINCIPLE
The principle here is that there is no one best strategic solution for everyone. And that’s a good thing. After all, if there was only one strategic solution, then you would only need one company within an industry—the one operating that one strategy best. Everyone else would be an inferior redundancy. And if you are not that one company, then there would be no reason for your company to exist.

Fortunately, the variety within the marketplace allows for a variety of go-to-market strategies. This provides viable options for lots of participants.

Start With the Right Question
So, to begin the strategy quest, be sure to start with the right question. The wrong first question to ask is “What is the best strategy?” That’s a bad question because there is no best strategy. Just as there is no one best car for everyone, there is no one best strategy for all businesses.

The right strategy for a small entrepreneur may be very different from the best strategy for a huge Fortune 100 multinational firm. They have different resources, different strengths, different capabilities. Forcing them to take the same approach to achieve the same ends would be a mistake.

Instead, the right first question to ask is “What is the best strategy for my business?” The point is that who you are is just as important as what you do. There must be a fit between the two. Until you understand who you are in relation to the marketplace, you don’t know what moves make the most sense for your business.

Strategies are about finding places where you can win. If you are short, you will not win at basketball, no matter how successful basketball may be for tall people. You need to find the sport where your talents have the best chance of winning.

So if a business consultant comes in saying “I have the best strategy solution,” tell that consultant they are answering the wrong question.

Judge a Salesperson by their Questions
How can you tell if a business consultant is answering the right question? Check to see if their opening moves are more about telling or more about asking. If they immediately start out by telling you what must be done, this probably means that they have a preconceived notion of what is best and they are going to shove it down your throats whether it is appropriate or not (like the car dealer with only one car).

By contrast, if they start out by asking a lot of questions about your business and your company, then they realize that the best solution depends on how it fits with who you are. Therefore, they need to ask you a lot of questions about who you are in order determine the best solution for you.

This is what a good consumer-centric car salesperson will do. They will ask you a lot of questions, like how you plan to use the vehicle, what are critical concerns, etc. Only after they first understand your situation will they begin to make a recommendation.

Beware of “Proof by Example”
The one-solution consultant will often try to impress you with how superior their solution is via examples. They show how others used this process to great success. Therefore, it should work for you, too.

But here is the problem with examples. Yes, you can find examples of businesses which succeeded with a particular approach. But if you look long enough, you can find examples of companies which failed with that same approach. In addition, you can find examples of successes and failures for all of the approaches. Consequently, an example of a success by one company with a particular approach does not guarantee that you will have a similar success with that approach. And it doesn’t prove that you wouldn’t have even more success with an alternative approach.

That is why in the US, the law requires that advertisements for weight loss products must put a disclaimer on their examples and say that not everyone will lose as much weight as those shown in the examples. Otherwise, the examples can be deceptive.

I remember reading about a company which had an inferior product that most customers didn’t like. They received lots of complaints. However, one day they got a letter from a satisfied customer (their first ever). They used that one satisfied customer in their advertising, and sales rose dramatically (even though the product was still bad). Yes, it was an example of success. But it was not a fair representation of reality.

So beware of blindly accepting examples as proof of future success. Ask yourself how similar your situation is to the one in the example. Check to see if there have been failures. Find out what the differences were between the successes and the failures.

Leaders Aren’t Imitators
Finally, there is the concept of “first mover advantage.” The principle is that those who stake an early claim to a strategic position tend to have an advantage over late-comers. Early participants have a better opportunity to claim ownership of the position in the consumers’ mind, because the consumer has no preconceived leader already in their head. These early arrivers easily claim the customers looking for this position at a time when there is less competition.

By the time the late-comers arrive, customers are already satisfied with the early arrivals. The customers now already have a firm leader in their mind (one of the early arrivals) who owns the space. The late-comer has to work harder to steal away well-entrenched market share. As a result, the early arriver tends to be more successful.

If the business consultant is proposing an approach which succeeded in the past, that success may have been a result of first mover advantage. Others following in their path will be late arrivers and not see the same advantages. Therefore, the approach may not work as well anymore. I spoke more about this concept here.

If you want success, that often requires staking out new claims in new territories with new business models. And this won’t happen if you are always trying to imitate successes of the past. If you imitate the leader, then you will always be a follower. And followers rarely have the advantage. So beware of consultants who want you to blindly follow old rules and will not take risks to be innovative with you.

SUMMARY
Strategic planning is a very personal thing. The right strategy depends on the particular company and their particular situation. It is not a one-size-fits-all process. Therefore, it can be a mistake to just pull a strategy “off the shelf” which worked for others and expect it to work for your firm. If you call in a strategy consultant to help you with your strategy, make sure they understand this principle. Become very nervous if the consultant has a preconceived notion about a single approach that they want to force on every client.

FINAL THOUGHTS
There’s a reason why car salesmen and consultants are often held in low esteem by society.

Strategic Planning Analogy #267: It Must Be Better

THE STORY
Many years ago, there was a comedian who specialized in doing impersonations. Now, it used to be that a lot of comedians did impersonations. This comedian, however, put a unique spin on the genre. He specialized in doing impersonations of people who died long before the invention of recorded sound.

For example, he would do impersonations of people like Abraham Lincoln or Aristotle. It was interesting to watch, but was it accurate? I have no idea what Aristotle sounded like or what his mannerisms were. For all I know, this comedian could have it all wrong and not even be close.

But in the end, I guess it doesn’t matter. Since nobody else knows what Aristotle sounded like or acted like, nobody could challenge the accuracy of the impersonations. As long as the comedian was funny, the audience would accept his impersonations. It was those other comedians, who did impressions of people we knew, who were more sharply critiqued (“Hey that’s not what John Wayne sounds like”).

THE ANALOGY
When nobody knows what truth is (and nobody is able to discern the truth), then nobody can effectively challenge your position. This was the situation the comedian was in. Nobody knew what those ancient people sounded like or acted like, so the audience could not challenge the comedian’s impression of these old people. They just sat back and enjoyed the show.

However, if someone is doing an impression or imitation of something you are very familiar with, then the criticisms come flying. You know what “truth” is because you have experienced the real thing. Any variation from the real thing will be noticed as a flaw or defect. Rather than just sitting back to enjoy the show, you compare the imitation/impression to the reality (as you remember it) and get upset if the imitation does not live up to your expectations of what truth is. You’ll shout something like, “I know what John Wayne sounds like and acts like, and that was not it!”

This situation is similar to what happens in business. In product development, you have one of two strategic choices: either create something totally new, unlike anything else in the market OR create a “me, too” product that is a variation of something which already exists.

The first choice would be like our comedian, who did impressions that were totally new to you (you had never heard the voice of these people before—you have no reference point). Similarly, totally new products have no reference point—what you invent defines the category. It is accepted as authentic and people enjoy it for what it is.

The second choice (offering a “me too” product) is like comedians who do impressions of people we are very familiar with (you have a reference point). You are more critical, because you have a benchmark to compare it to. Any variance from the original reference point makes your product less “authentic.”

THE PRINCIPLE
The principle here is that the less the familiarity, the greater the acceptance. Therefore, if you blaze new trails in product development towards areas unfamiliar to your customers, your development efforts have greater potential for acceptance.

We could see this principle at work in the comedian story. We are more forgiving of the comedian going where we’d never been than ones covering familiar impressions with a slight imperfection. I also experienced this principle recently in a restaurant. This was no ordinary restaurant. It was an exotic restaurant specializing in exotic foods which I had never eaten before. Heck, I couldn’t even pronounce the words on the menu, let alone understand it.

When the food came out, I had no preconceived notion as to how it was supposed to taste. I had never eaten anything like this before. Some of it tasted fine. Some of it tasted very odd to me. But since this was a nice restaurant with a good image, I assumed they were all supposed to taste like that. It never occurred to me that the dishes might be prepared wrong. They supposedly had excellent chefs, so I just took it for granted that these concoctions were supposed to taste that way—even if I didn’t like it.

But what if I was wrong and the food really was prepared poorly? What if this really was bad tasting food? I wouldn’t know. So I was satisfied, whether it was right or wrong, because I didn’t have a pre-conceived notion of what “good” would taste like. I just sat back and enjoyed the dinner.

Now if this fancy restaurant had served me a hamburger, I would have had a reference point. I could have complained if their gourmet burger drifted too far away from my concept of what a hamburger is supposed to look like and taste like. But they did not offer a “me too” burger. They offered me a taste of the unknown. A taste of the unknown is always yummier than an off-beat version of the familiar.

You can also do this at the low end of the restaurant spectrum. Quiznos has had great success with their $4 Torpedo. The beauty of the Torpedo is that it is so unlike anything else out there that there is no reference point to tell if it is a good torpedo or a bad one—so you accept that it is a good one, and worth the $4.

Quiznos knew that having a $4 item on their menu would be a key to success in this recession. They could have lowered the price of their familiar regular sub sandwich to $4, but that would have caused problems. First, once you lower the sub to $4, there is an expectation that $4 is now the right price for that sub. It would be difficult to raise the price back up later without ruining the new perceived value. Second, the regular sub is not designed to work in the business model at $4. Either you have to cheapen the sub (which would be noticed, since people were familiar with it) or you have to lose money on the deal.

By contrast, the Torpedo was designed to work in the business model at $4. It wasn’t a “cheapened” anything, since it was brand new. Sure, it had less meat than a regular sub, but the Torpedo never was a regular sub and was not expected to be one. It was a Torpedo, and this is how Torpedos are supposed to be. They had never been anything else. A strategic piece of genius!

So what does this mean for your strategy?

1. It is almost always better to create something brand new, where you can define the parameters of success, than to copy someone else, who has already defined success (as being them). When you control how a product is defined, then you can define the perfect product as the one you are offering. Apple has been very good at this.

When Toyota invented the Prius, they made a brand new car which defined what a hybrid is supposed to be. After that, anyone else who tried to make a hybrid brand had to be compared to the definition of the perfect hybrid—the Prius. And of course the Prius is the superior Prius, so it wins. Worse yet were automakers who tried to make a hybrid version of a non-hybrid car people were already familiar with. That didn’t work, because their familiarity with the gas hog version biased them against the hybrid version (familiarity made them more critical).

2. When positioning your product, don’t spend too much time comparing it to the status quo product. If you make too big a deal out of the status quo, you are acknowledging its leadership, which makes you an also-ran. People will say, “If you are so good, then why does the status quo have higher sales?” Instead, position yourself as an entirely new way to solve an old problem. There’s just something about saying that “my revolutionary new way is better” which sounds more believable than saying “I’m making basically the same thing as what is already out there and successful, but I’m better.”

3. Sometimes you can get around cost pressures by replacing the familiar with a cheaper unknown which is positioned as a wholly new product. Cheese was getting very expensive, which is a problem for companies like Taco Bell, who use a lot of cheese and want to keep their prices low. But Taco Bell has never been afraid of inventing new menu items nobody has ever heard of. So the new items substituted cheaper cheese sauce for cheese. However, since these were brand new items that never had real cheese in them, it didn’t look like a cheap substitution. It was just how the new item was supposed to be. This is far more successful than if they had taken familiar items and did the substitution. Then, Taco Bell took this cheap sauce and put hot spices in it and invented “Hot Lava Sauce.” So now the cheaper substitute was a unique, premium item in brand new menu items.

SUMMARY
Winning strategies tend to blaze new trails rather than rework the familiar. The revolutionaries get to define the category in their favor and tend to receive less criticism. Because they define the category, they must be right.

FINAL THOUGHTS
Even if your product is not all that revolutionary, that doesn’t mean that you cannot package it in a revolutionary manner. Chrysler was making fairly ordinary trucks, but they were packaged as revolutionary because they had the magic Hemi engine.