Obvious and Upfront Value

As a, now former, product guy, I've done lots of thinking about what makes a product "worth while" in the space. Over time, I've developed a litmus test to ensure that product decisions, whether large or small, are good ideas. Now, this test isn't an end all be all but that said, I think you'll easily be able to see where it applies.

Often times, product folks, (or marketers) are in a position to make a decision about the future of your product. (For the sake of argument lets agree a product can be something tangible, including software, or intangible like giving a gift to charity, anything a person will pay for and derive some type of value from) Its equally as common that you have to make a decision between multiple features each of which are likely compelling. So, how do you choose?

Now the obligatory nod to the entire industry and many groups of practice around how to make these choices. Admittedly, I'm a practitioner of Pragmatic Marketing, of which I am a big fan, but sometimes even that process, as good as it is, can be a bit heavy. So how do you choose if you don't have time to spare on a process or a tool?

There are two questions you should ask yourself:

1. Does this feature provide value to one of your user groups?


If yes proceed to question 2. If no, rethink your feature.


2. Is the value provided by this feature obvious and "upfront"?

Meaning, will your customers recognize the value it provides easily and quickly?


Every product must show value. That much is a given. No one pays for, or even uses, products that don't have value. People LOVE a product that shows its value simply by existing and being used.

What does that look like? How do you know you've gotten there? Well, lets take an online software system of any kind. You know you've gotten there when your users no longer ask questions like "where do I go to find this data". That should be obvious to anyone using the system. In a CRM system for example, users should never have to ask the question "how are we doing with sales this quarter" answering that question should be obvious and upfront in the daily usage of the system.

What about donating to a charity? People donate for a variety of reasons, one of which is to feel they have done something good. Usually, people will donate to a cause that they feel does the most good. So for you .org types, that means your product needs to easily display the value it gives to its cause. What is the "value" of my dollar? What did my donation accomplish? That information should be obvious and upfront when donors are making the decision to donate and it should be reinforced after the donation.

Try asking those 2 questions about your product decisions for a week. Post the results back here and share any thoughts you have!

Change is Coming

Just a quick little update for those that follow this blog:

Effective January 10th, I'll no longer be in the technology industry. I have made the jump over the for non-profit space and will be heading up marketing at Cure International. That said, the focus of my blog remains the same and is exceedingly relevant to my day to day.

Check out Cure.org for more information.

Drop us a quick prayer if you're feeling up to it!

- Matt

Consistency & Individuality

From time to time, I fill in for our campus pastor on stage at the church. We have about 800 to 1000 people in attendance over the course of two services in a given weekend. On top of that, our church uses a campus model. That basically means that we have several campuses broadcasting the same message to about 10,000 people each week, so consistency in message is important.

Lots of organizations today have a similar issue. They have a large, diverse and disbursed base that they need to communicate a consistent message too. All things considered, that's pretty easy to do with the web these days.

The problem comes in with people. Sure, you can "enforce" every word that comes out of your peoples' mouths but it sounds that way. In sales, the individual style of the rep is often times the factor that wins the deal. Recently, when selecting some new technology to partner with, the style of the rep was what "broke the tie" between two very similar technology choices.

Back to my church for a second. While they place a high value on consistency in message, they place an equally high value on "sounding like yourself". When preparing remarks that I'll use on stage, I'm free to be myself within some guidelines. This makes the message delivery sounds more genuine, which leads people to listen and receive it more effectively. This, of course, leads to greater buy in and continued attendance.

The same principles apply to coaching your sales reps. Give them guidelines, but don't give them exactly what to say. Let your reps be themselves and do what they do best, deliver your message and build relationships with soon-to-be clients.

Early and Often

Anyone in the software space has heard the phrase "release early and often".

Many folks regard this as a high risk strategy. With complex systems, early releases can be regarded as careless and even dangerous, so most organizations tend to stay away from the idea.

On the flip side, I've yet to meet a client who didn't want an issue or enhancement addressed quickly. In fact, the happiest clients I have are the ones who believe their provider to be flexible and responsive. They seem to look past issues if they know the provider is ready to fix them quickly and efficiently when they come up.

As it happens, early and often doesn't only apply to software releases (or software in general). Think of early and often as a communication strategy.

Clients feel more engaged when you communicate with them frequently and on a personal level. No not an email that "feels" personal but on a real personal level. Pick up the phone or pen an email directly to a few clients now and again. Let them know what you're thinking, invite them to the table to discuss the future of your organization and do it often. Share your organization's thoughts with them even if they aren't completely polished, you'll be surprised how much you will learn and how little you really know about those you serve. Having conversations with your base doubtless will save you time and money (or read more properly money and money). By talking to them and presenting ideas and thoughts early, you can gauge the response and change course if necessary before wasting.... you guessed it time or money.

Doesn't sound like "traditional" marketing huh? I challenge its likely to be more effective. By communicating early and often you'll forge a sense of partnership while constantly reinforcing your brand's presence.

This strategy isn't meant to espouse carelessness or frivolity, but flexibility and relationship. Clients who feel like partners in your organization's journey are usually in it for the long haul... even if things don't always go according to plan.

Downgrading from perfection

In today's world what is valued more? How messaging is said or how authentic the message is?

I challenge that being perceived as authentic is more valuable than being polished.

Today, over anything else, customers value relationship. Maybe instead of spending time grooming our images attempting to come close to perfection, people (including customers who, by the way, are people too), would find it easier to relate to business & organizations who are a little less perfect..... just like people.

Comming Soon....

So,

I have received comment that this blog is horribly out of date. Its pretty much undeniable.

I thought I'd give a brief explanation, I no longer work in the Learning industry.

Ok, so that's a poor excuse no to blog, so, in the next few weeks I'll be re-inventing my blog around my new roles in the world of marketing, sales and customer service!

Stay tuned and thanks!

- Matt

P.S A preview of my next blog: "Meet them where they are! Marketing & selling to a 21st century audience. "

Talent Managment vs Talent Development: Human Capital or Human Cattle?

Full disclosure: I used to LOVE the idea of talent management. In fact, I've designed systems that do just that. The question is, do we want to treat employees as cattle by growing them in a controlled environment, making all the decisions for them and never truly encourging them to reach for more or is there a different way?

The basic idea of Talent Management(TM) is to quantify and automate the talent pool in an organization. By and large, TM is meant to inventory your "Human Capital"(HC) and improve the rate of return by "investing" in learning, goal planning and training. This is the first in a multi-part series designed to showcase the value of a Talent Development approach vs. a Talent Management approach to people.

To set a baseline, traditional TM for a typical organization might look like this.

1. Assign competencies to people describing their desired skill sets and behaviors


2. Evaluate each person against their assigned skills and behaviors (read, performance review)


3. Identify Gaps where improvement can be made


4. Assign some behavior or skill modifying remedy. (i.e, training)
   
   
5. Rinse and Repeat as necessary. (Usually annually)

This practice often also involves goal setting and goal management as well, following much the same process, though, often times individuals will both be assigned and self-design their goals.

Over time, an organization can use the information gathered here to fire, hire and promote individuals, plan successions and career paths and determine a model for compensation, or at least that's the thought. The truth is many implementations fail, for reasons such as; time to implement, cost, and most often, poor adoption.

Over all though, the idea and core premise is sound but where are the people in this process? Is this really the best approach for identifying and improving talent?
Perhaps we need to reevaluate our process? Consider the difference between management and development. Perhaps best defined as a contrast between control and growth. Ironically, the goal of good management is growth, however, often times, our desire for control hampers change, thereby impeding growth.

Giving up some control however, can yield unexpected results and tremendous growth.

Consider these scenarios:

You're a director: Annually, one of your managers reviews Tom, you don't know Tom, aside from what he looks like, but you hear he's a solid performer. Year after year, you approve his review of "meets expectations", sign off on his raise and life goes on. Tom continues on doing whatever it is he does.

Enter, crowdsourcing.

Rather than a review, you beginning observing trends in your workplace community. Your employees are constantly interacting with one another online leaving a data trail for you to follow. To your surprise, Tom, that average employee you knew little about, is actually an internal super-connector. His peers rank his suggestions, comments and content as superior and invaluable. On top of that, apparently, he serves as an unofficial conduit, between your department and marketing, fielding most questions about your product! That's a far cry from the Tom you knew as "meets expectations". Shouldn't his manager have known and identified him as a top-performer?

That is one example of a startling discovery you could find by crowd sourcing your Talent Management. Here are some of the hard benefits:

• Uncover hidden talent, rising stars, and filter out poor performers


• Assess and catalog talent pools by using a job-folksonomoy. (More on that later)


• Discover blocking factors (like Tom's manager who likely knew but felt threatened by Tom.)


• Save time and money by removing or supplementing a heavy TM process.


• Provide Just In Time learning by giving employees access to content and experts as needed.

As I mentioned, I'll continue building a case for Talent Development > Talent Management in the near future. Check back soon!