Any work is good work, right?

One of my Partners told me that we lost a few engagements based on price recently. In one instance, we were competing with a two-man shop and in another instance, the chosen consultant agreed to do the work for one-third of our quoted rate – yikes! I asked him this, “Doesn’t that imply that those were the “wrong” jobs?” He agreed, but there are folks in my firm that probably wouldn’t… let’s break this down a bit.

What’s (not) in it for us?
In my organization there are a couple of things that make a job desirable; profitability and complexity. (There are others, like industry expertise, location, etc. but let’s concentrate on these two.)

• If we had dropped our price to beat our less expensive competitors, the job ceases to be profitable. And, unless we’ve changed our business model, I think we’re still in this to make money, right?
• Neither one of the jobs was overly complex, so the opportunity to train our staff and expand their skills sets was nonexistent.

Unprofitable and no learning opportunity… I’m glad we didn’t win! This is a great example of how we chose not to adhere to the features and characteristics we’ve defined for attractive engagements.

What is it about winning any work that drives us to pitch the “wrong” jobs?

1. Let’s be honest – compensation. We are a billable resource industry and our consultants are compensated on billing hours – not the “right” hours, just hours.
2. Let’s be honest again – ego. Who doesn’t feel great when they land a job? And we should! We earn respect in our organizations if we can make it rain – not the “right” rain, just rain.
3. Human nature and impatience – I think we can all agree that being patient and waiting for the “right” opportunity is extremely difficult and often contrary to our desire to be busy. Many of us feel much more productive if we’re chasing work – not the “right” work, just work.

So how do we get it “right?”

Ask yourself and the leaders in your organization the following questions:

1. What types of jobs/clients do you want? What makes them desirable?
2. What is your firm’s greatest skill set(s)? What do you do really well? (FYI – you don’t do EVERYTHING really well.)
3. Do your answers to the above two questions match? Do your most desirable clients need your greatest skills? Do your skills meet the needs of your most desirable clients? If you answered no, you may have a bigger problem, but one more question…
4. Have you communicated to your staff/sales force the criteria for a desirable client/job? When you encourage your team to go out into the marketplace and source work, are they clear on the types of prospects they should target?

Ask the above questions and communicate the answers throughout your organization so everyone is on the same page. Be disciplined and encourage your team to adhere to the attributes of the “right” clients and jobs, as you’ve defined them. It’s difficult and as outlined above, slightly counter-intuitive, but it will maximize the utility of your business development resources and create much more rewarding experiences for your staff and clients.

Was the MBA worth it?

I had lunch with a former colleague the other day and she asked if I thought my MBA was worth it. Easy answer – yes – but probably not for the reasons she anticipated, or you’re thinking. I use very little of my “classroom” MBA experience on a daily basis, but I use the “soft skills” I developed every day, and that’s what makes me valuable in my organization.

An MBA is a huge investment, both in time and money, and you shouldn’t pursue a graduate degree in any field without first assessing the future and viability of the career path as well as having a very honest conversation with yourself about your motivation. For me, it was a necessary step in order to advance my career. I readily admit that without the skills and maturity I gained in my MBA program, I couldn’t have landed my current job.

So, what did the MBA program give me that makes it “worth it?”

1. A holistic view of the business. As a result of my MBA experience, I have the ability to look at my company as a whole and see the interaction points between functions. I believe that marketing touches every aspect of the organization, from hiring to operations, and will not be successful without information, support and collaboration from those in other departments.
2. Confidence. I am a much more confident business person now than I was three years ago. I had never worked for a large company or premium brand, and was insecure about my ability to build a career in marketing. But the MBA program helped me realize that my past experience gave me unique skills and knowledge, and I’ve been able to leverage those things to create results for my organization – that’s a real confidence builder.
3. Perspective. As with other positions, marketers have to balance short-term projects and deadlines with longer-term objectives aimed at achieving the company’s vision. Going through the MBA program helped me realize that without clear strategic goals, and an agreed upon direction to achieve them, the tactical steps I take to get there are wasted time and money. Many non-marketers believe that successful marketing is action-oriented, and sometimes it is, but action without clear direction is ill-advised when trying to present a cohesive message to the marketplace. I’m much more comfortable prioritizing the “important stuff” at the expense of tactical execution.

So, those are three areas where I feel the MBA added value for me. I would be interested to hear how others feel their graduate experience helped them, or didn’t?

On a side note, my former colleague has decided that an MBA program isn’t for her, but feels she needs a challenge. She’s a talented account manager at a small agency and likes her job – any suggestions for her? Thank you!

Can marketing save the world?

I recently attended the BMA Chicago’s Marketing Innovator’s Luncheon on Thurs. Nov. 4^th at the Standard Club, featuring Dr. Phillip Kotler, author of the new book Marketing 3.0 and distinguished marketing professor from Northwestern Kellogg School of Management. Kotler warned attendees that it is no longer sufficient to make great products efficiently and profitably; they must adopt the ideas behind Marketing 3.0 in order to survive – be a brand driven company that makes decisions based on values, and aligns those values with their customers.

To begin the fireside chat, (there was a digital fire, I loved it!) Kotler defined the following:

Marketing 1.0 – make a good product efficiently and profitably to address a need in the marketplace. He used the example of toothpaste – everyone needs toothpaste!

Marketing 2.0 – companies that appeal to the heart and mind of the buyer; those that recognize the power of emotions in the buying decision.

Marketing 3.0 – be values driven, not value driven; care about the state of the world and attempt to address problems like poverty and environmental challenges. He used GE and IBM’s Smarter Planet campaign as examples.

A Marketing 3.0 company serves it’s constituencies in the following order:

1. Customers
2. Employees
3. Community
4. Investors

Kotler went on to say that corporate America is in denial of the problems our society faces (melting of the polar ice caps for example) and to date, has not stepped up to take their rightful position of responsibility. Are businesses responsible for creating a better life for people? Kotler says definitively, yes.

Dr. Kotler takes a very macro view of marketing and its impact on the world – he said that Marketing’s role is to increase spending, thus creating jobs, thus increasing purchasing power. Wow, when you look at it that way, us marketers are pretty darn important! How would your CEO react if your response to his budget cut was, “Okay, but you’re negatively impacting the entire economy here!”

Speaking of CEOs, Kotler warned that implementing Marketing 3.0 in an organization will be a huge challenge because most CEOs don’t understand marketing and lose patience when they can’t see tangible results in a short amount of time. Marketing 3.0 isn’t about next quarter, or even next year, it’s about looking farther into the future to determine how the company can positively impact the four groups listed above in a profitable way. Can you say “long-term strategic planning team?” Kotler recommends a Marketing 3.0 company have two marketing departments, a traditional one that focuses on quarterly sales and a second to ask questions like “What will a kitchen look like in five years?” This second department is the growth engine for the organization and must be led and staffed by big picture thinkers.

As we moved to the Q&A portion of the afternoon, Kotler shared with us his definition of marketing: CCDVTP – Create, Communicate and Deliver Value to your Target market at a Profit. (A joke was made that Twitter probably exploded at this point!) I’ve always told people who ask me what I do that I Communicate for a living – but I’m now realizing that that’s an incredibly narrow view of my role in light of Kotler’s remarks.

He ended the session by asking, “Can marketing save the world?” What do you think?

Thanks to the Chicago BMA for a great event.

Do Animals Create Value?

I had dinner with a couple friends last night and we got to talking about charities; what charities we’re involved in, why we chose them, etc. It turned into an interesting conversation that sparked some questions about value creation and if our charitable activities, or the charities themselves, created value. My friends wanted to know why, given a finite amount of resources, I chose to give time and money to a charity that helps animals instead of one that helps people, and thus creates societal and perhaps economic value. They couldn’t understand why, when I’m able to dedicate resources to any charity I want, I would choose a non-people one!  

Background: I’m incredibly passionate about animals, so I’m involved with PAWS Chicago, an organization that strives to eliminate the destruction of homeless pets in Chicago. They run a spay/neuter clinic to reduce the number of homeless pets in the city and pull thousands of homeless animals from Chicago Animal Care & Control (where, after a period of time, they will be euthanized) and bring them to their Adoption Center in hopes of finding them “forever homes.” They take in all breeds of dogs and cats and provide them with food, water, love and shelter when they’re literally, on their last legs.

I can understand my friends’ position and I think the following example illustrates their point well: let’s say I have X minutes of time in my life to dedicate to charitable activities and I choose to use that time to mentor a disadvantaged child. That child becomes a good student, graduates from high school, goes to college, gets a job and becomes a “contributing” member of society. Have I created economic value by donating time to that child? My friends think so.

Now let’s say I donate that same time to an animal related charity that helps find homes for homeless pets. If a homeless animal is nursed back to health and placed in a happy, loving home, have I created economic value? I don’t know?

Dogs and cats will never hold jobs, or pursue research that benefits society, so I guess this becomes a larger question, what value do animals bring to people’s lives that justifies large, not-for-profit organizations be built up around their care and survival?  

I love animals, I can’t help it. And the above conversation with my friends hasn’t deterred me from continuing to donate time and money to PAWS, but it did make me think, and um, write this blog post! I’d love to hear how you feel about it. Please comment below.

Learn more about PAWS at pawschicago.org.