Whoever Gets Their Positioning Right Wins a Prize: Survival (And Even Profit)
November 30, 2010
I recently invited Karen Jones from BioEngagement to write a guest post for us about how best to position new technologies. Over to you, Karen!
Let’s say you have a new technology platform to sell. Should you describe it as “new and never been done before”, or “just like those other guys, but better”?
Positioning: Create a New Market or Segment an Existing One?
Positioning your new technology can make the difference between success and failure, case in point: Research in Motion (RIM) and TiVo, as described in this excellent post by Steve Blank.
In 1997, RIM decided to describe their new handheld communication device as an “interactive pager”, even though it was actually the first wireless email device, because pagers were something that people could understand at the time and therefore it needed very little explanation. There was a ready market there for the taking and RIM succeeded. The device is known as the Blackberry. RIM sales were $15 billion in 2010. In the last ten years they’ve made over $9 billion in profit.
TiVo, on the other hand, hated the idea of describing their technology as just a better VCR and instead carved out an entirely new market of digital video recorders, which took ten years of marketing slog and a loss of $400 million to achieve $240 million in sales in 2010.
So, “new and unprecedented” is not always better.
Technology Innovations: Are They ALWAYS For a New Market?
I mention this because in my field of life science, heralding a new technology as “unique and unprecedented” appears to be the default. Perhaps if the inventors and their shareholders took the guts to swallow their pride and describe their offerings in terms more familiar to their customer base, we would see some improvement in terms of time to adoption and profitability.
Take 23andme, for instance. This cleverly branded startup gained $22M in Series C funding in September this year (a feat in itself) and aims to help people understand what their genes mean by indexing them and highlighting significant findings. Naturally, it didn’t hurt that they got a leg up from Google, but my point here is that instead of harping on about their ground-breaking genome-scanning technology, their home page distills their direct-to-consumer offering as a simple saliva test. Something that everyone can understand.
Pay-As-You-Go Chemistry?
Newly launched Molplex follows a similar approach, on a fraction of the budget. Under the hood it contains unique virtual chemistry screening technology that allows researchers to identify potential new pharmaceutical compounds or compound fragments that bind to new therapeutic targets and to assess their pharmacokinetic and other critical properties without ever having to leave the desk. On its website it simply calls it “discovery on demand” and lets the researcher walk through its product offerings as if he or she was about to order a new chemical compound from a catalog. We’ll see if this works, but I’m pleased that their complex semantic web-based technology isn’t the first thing you read about when you land on their site.
A Better Antibody Generation Technology
Highly interesting biotech start-up Kymab enters the market with its next generation antibody technology which involves transferring a huge chunk of human genome sequence into a mouse in order to fully replicate the complete diversity of the human immune response. If they get it right, they will be able to tackle the most intractable of human immune diseases and attract technology licensing deals with pharmaceutical giants as well as develop their own antibody therapies. It’s an extension of existing technology which they are calling the “7th generation antibody technology” – i.e. same as the other guys but better. I hope they succeed.
A New Market Requires Education Before Adoption: Is There Time?
There are many life science companies that gone down the route of developing a new market before selling their wares. I worked in the genomics industry before the “biotech bust” and saw huge promise squandered, as it took too long to educate the market and encourage early adoption by the pharmaceutical industry that isn’t known for taking technological risks. Huge databases of human genetic variants known as SNPs, created before anyone had a chance to understand what they might be used for; gene microchips that could be used to identify the differences between disease and normal tissue, yet the market couldn’t recognise a common application. Failures of positioning.
So the next time that you see a new technology that puts its cleverness ahead of a simple and recognizable application, remember the Blackberry and the TiVo and reconsider whether it really is that clever.
Thanks Karen!
Dr Karen Jones is the founder of BioEngagement Ltd, helping lifescience companies to commercialise their innovations through smart business development, marketing and communication strategies. She holds a PhD from UCL, post-doctorate education at Harvard Medical School and over 12 years’ experience in sales and marketing of global life science companies. Contact karen@bioengagement.com, follow @bioengagement or visit http://www.bioengagement.com.
Big Shift in Holiday Brand Advertising Spending
November 30, 2010
Holiday marketing and advertising budgets for retailers are staying relatively flat this year, but that money won’t be spent the same way it has been in prior years. 2010 holiday advertising budgets will be spread in new ways to match the changing behaviors of consumers.
According to the BDO Retail Compass Survey, fewer companies are cutting holiday advertising budgets in 2010 (just 20% will cut holiday advertising budgets) than in 2009 (26% cut holiday advertising budgets) and in 2008 (32% cut holiday advertising budgets).
In 2010, more companies are prioritizing television over print and social media is gaining a larger piece of the ad spending budget. 25% of chief marketing officers who responded to the BDO survey reported that the majority of their holiday advertising budgets will be spent on television this year (up from 13% in 2009), and 42% stated that the bulk of their holiday advertising spending will occur in the print space (down from 64% in 2009). In the online space, 27% of respondents reported that most of their holiday advertising budgets will go toward online ads and social media initiatives (up from 18% in 2009).
In fact, a full 75% of respondents stated they would be investing in social media marketing during the holiday season in 2010, which is a significant jump from the 51% who invested in social media in 2009. Facebook is dominant in terms of brand advertising spending this holiday season. 92% of respondents reported that they would be investing in some form of marketing and advertising via Facebook, followed by 60% investing in Twitter, 20% investing on YouTube, and 8% investing on MySpace.
While companies are realizing that consumers are spending time on the social Web and brands need to be there, too, particularly during the holiday season, there is still no recipe for marketing success via social media. It’s not surprising that 62% of respondents to the BDO survey are investing less than 10% of their 2010 holiday season advertising budgets on social media. On the flip side, just over 1% of respondents are investing 70-79% of their holiday season advertising budgets on social media.
It will be interesting to see who wins — big social media spenders or small social media spenders. One thing is certain — the 2010 holiday season will provide a lot of data for analysis as companies review brand performance and advertising effectiveness in 2011. However, with the global economy still struggling, it’s difficult to know what behaviors will transcend the economic downturn. It’s probably safe to assume that the 2011 holiday season will be filled with just as much testing and trial and error as the 2010 season.
Image: stock.xchng
United Nations Principles on Business and Human Rights | An Introduction
November 29, 2010
An example page, showing discussion and agreement at the bottom. Click to enlarge.
Last week, the United Nations Special Representative on Human Rights, John Ruggie, released the draft “Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework” for consultation.
Businesses and stakeholders have the opportunity to comment on them up until the end of January 2011, after when they will be prepared for formal presentation to the UN Human Rights Council later in the year.
The framework contains 29 principles which rest on three foundations:
- the state’s duty to protect human rights
- business’ responsibility to respect human rights
- free access to meaningful remedy where breaches occur
The full document can be read in PDF format here, or viewed online here. The online representation doubles up as a forum, with registered users able post comments after each principle which other users able to rate as relevant and show their agreement (or disagreement).
This is a rather neat and straightforward way of collating opinion and I hope other consultations take note! Real respect to the University of Western Ontario, whose fourth year design students are apparently responsible for it.
For your convenience, here’s a potted summary of some of the most important statements:
Principle 5: governments should encourage and where necessary require businesses to respect and report upon their human rights activities; they should not presume that businesses prefer or benefit from state inaction
Principle 10: governments should be prepared to withdraw public support from businesses involved in gross human rights abuses if they fail to address the situation
Principle 11: multilateral institutions (eg. the IMF) should not constrain governments’ ability to act on human rights and should use these guidelines to foster mutual understanding between their members
Principle 12/13: businesses should have in place appropriate policies and process based (as a minimum) on the International Convention on Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation’s core conventions
Principle 14: businesses’ commitment should include approval from the most senior level of the organisation, be communication to all staff, partners and stakeholders and make clear the company’s expectations of staff and partners alike
Principle 15/16/17: businesses should have a due diligence process ongoing which will identify human rights risks and impacts and feed these into standard decision making processes
Principle 18/19: businesses should track their human rights performance and be prepared to discuss their record publicly with relevant stakeholders
Principle 23/24/25: governments have to ensure that human rights abuses in their territories are met with effective and enforceable judicial and non judicial remedies and mechanisms
Principle 27/28: businesses should establish grievance mechanisms for communities who may be adversely impacted by their operations and participate in cross industry and multi-stakeholder initiatives
All in all there’s nothing too shocking in these guidelines although there are a few places where the information provided needs to be finessed. Generally speaking, it can be assumed these Guidelines will go forwards as presented.
This also presents a golden opportunity for businesses to steal a march on their competitors and build new functionality into their websites. Not just to report their human rights record, but also to collate information and participate in collaborative schemes.
Corporate Eye Summary November 27, 2010
November 27, 2010
- Willpower and Corporate Communications Success
I invited Graham W Price, a chartered psychologist and coach, to write a guest post for us, discussing ways to help us each reach our business goals.
How to boost your willpower to make your corporate communications succeedThe best laid plans of mice and men… we all know the saying and the chances are we’ve uttered [...]
- 10 Big Buzz Brands of 2010 for American Consumers
Which brands generated a big buzz online and offline this year and how did they do it? I compiled a list of 10 of the biggest buzz brands in the United States during 2010 to get an idea of what got people talking and sharing this year. These brands are in no particular order — [...]
- Google Previews Your Corporate Site
Have you noticed Google’s “instant preview” feature?
If you run a Google search for your company, you should see at least one result; ideally, you’ll see several pages from your site. Each will have a small magnifying glass to the right hand side… if you click that, you’ll see a thumbnail snapshot of the page.
Does [...]
- Brand Buzz Influences Perception as Holiday Shopping Begins
The biggest shopping days of the holiday season are coming, and retail brands are fighting for attention, wallets, and buzz. YouGov has been tracking brand perceptions among an audience of 1.5 million consumers of which the organization surveys 5,000 people daily. A recent study was designed to learn how women with children under the age [...]
- Sustainability, Brittany and Corporate Greed
Once upon a time there were three little piggies, and their names were Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail and Peter. And they lived with their crotchety old grandmother underneath the mushroom at the bottom of your neighbour’s garden.
Well, as the start to a fairy tale it has some merit, even if it lacks a certain originality. Still, [...]
Social Media Goals for U.S. Companies Defined
November 26, 2010
The 2010 Benchmarking Study by Ketchum and FedEx researched 62 businesses from a number of different industries to learn how those businesses’ social media goals compare to their engagement levels on the social web.
Interestingly, the goals of most businesses, regardless of industry, are similar. Leading social media goals of U.S. companies were identified in the study as:
- Increase awareness and interaction with our brand: 94.1%
- Create a community for our customers and fans: 76.1%
- Increase traffic to our website: 55.1%
- Identify and react to customer needs: 50.3%
- Identify new business opportunities or leads: 49.0%
While companies are very much at different stages of social media adoption (only 10% claim to be in leadership positions in the social media space compared to 75% who are in the participation stage and 15% who are still only in the observation stage), there is a growing understanding that social media is essential to an integrated marketing communications strategy.
In other words, the days of ignoring social media or labeling it as a short-term fad are long gone. Businesses that aren’t at least participating in the social media conversation are very much in the minority today, meaning other companies are reaping the rewards that social media participation can deliver to businesses and brands.
Clearly, as the study results mentioned above demonstrate, companies understand the importance of leveraging social media to increase brand awareness and interaction. Nearly all companies included in the study stated that a key objective of social media participation is to raise brand awareness and interaction.
Even a small amount of social media participation can help raise brand awareness, so it’s not surprising that branding is a social media goal for most companies. Brand managers understand that, and it’s good to see more executives buying into the importance of social media for brand-building. After all, strong brands can help build a company and sustain it through challenging times. Would a company like Playboy still be around today given the ups and downs it has faced throughout its lifecycle if the Playboy brand weren’t one of the most recognized brands in the world? It’s doubtful. Therefore, having access to social media for brand-building and business-building is an opportunity that companies can no longer ignore or claim they can do without. Instead, social media marketing is a business imperative.
What do you think?
Image: stock.xchng
Get our updates
 |