We are entering the Age of Innovation
By Saeed Khan
If I gave you an assignment to hire someone to build a device to get cameras (still and video) into the upper atmosphere (at least 80,000 feet), take pictures and video, have the cameras return to Earth and then recover those cameras and images, who would you hire?
And what budget would you need?
If you said a $500 budget was sufficient, and you’d hire a couple of high school students to do it, you wouldn’t be crazy. You’d be absolutely right. I’ll explain more in a minute, but let me change one thing and see how that affects the answer.
What a difference 20 years makes
If this was 1992 as opposed to 2012, and I gave you the same task, would your answer be the same? Absolutely not. But if you gave the same answer in 1992, I would definitely have thought you were crazy! Back then it would have required some Ph.Ds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to do what what was asked. It’s amazing what a difference a couple of decades can make.
So what am I talking about? Read this article about how two Toronto high school students, Matthew Ho and Asad Muhammad, did exactly what I described. They bought second hand cameras, cell phones (for the GPS) and other parts from online sites, used the Web to help them plan their project and the flight path of the craft, so they could retrieve it later.
While this is only one small (but amazing) example, it is illustrative of the environment we live in. We have access to amazing technology and data that either didn’t exist or was limited to large corporations and research labs only 20 years ago. And the pace of technological improvement is not slowing. It’s not simply about Moore’s Law (exponential increases in computing power), but about improvements in material science, very low cost manufacturing, and broad accessibility FOR THE PUBLIC to technology, products, services and knowledge to help bring ideas to fruition.
Culture needs to catch up with technology
But to really take advantage of all this, we need to change our thinking to be more like the two high school students. No one told them they had to do what they did. It wasn’t a high school assignment or a 3rd party contest. They did it because they thought it was possible.
While we definitely have access to 21st century technology, when it comes to truly innovative thinking, large parts of our culture and institutions (e.g. schools) are still mired with very old 20th century structures and cultures.
We need to change that so that we can encourage all the other “Matthews and Asads” (as well as the “Marthas and Ayeshas”) to truly think outside the (institutional) boxes they are in. Innovation can better every part of our society, but we have to change how we think if we want to truly benefit in the Age of Innovation.
Saeed
Tweet this: We are entering the Age of Innovation http://wp.me/pXBON-37i #prodmgmt #innovation #legoman
What’s the deal with Product Marketing?
It’s been quite a while since I wrote a What’s the Deal piece. The last one was called “What’s the Deal with Software Product Management?“. So it’s kind of fitting, that I’m following it up (albeit almost 4 years later) with one on Product Marketing.
Recently, there have been a few posts on other blogs related to the Product
Marketing role and the viewpoints caught my eye.
- What’s the difference between Product Marketing and Product Management?
- The End of Product Marketing
- The Rise of the Product Marketer
The “What’s the difference” article attempts to delineate the functions of Product Management and Product Marketing. You should read the whole article, but here are a couple of snippets of the definitions of the two:
Product management usually “listens” to the market and then works with the internal team to develop products to meet the needs that are articulated. They do not usually to interact much with the market on a day-to-day basis in a direct way, but rather listen to feedback obtained by sales and marketing.
…
So if that’s product management in a nutshell, where does product marketing differ? Well, product marketing is a more externally focused role. The product marketers “talk” to the market more. They evangelize what the company’s product offers the world, and help the company focus their messaging to the market.
We need to get away from these “complementary opposite” definitions of the roles. i.e. one listens, the other other talks. One is inbound, the other outbound. One focuses on putting products on the shelf, the other focuses on getting products off the shelf etc.
The roles are are definitely complimentary, but are definitely not opposites. These kinds of definitions, while short and easy to remember are incorrect and only help to further confuse those who aren’t clear on their relationship.
Now, in The End of Product Marketing, Dave Wolpert (guest posting on A Random Jog) describes a death spiral he sees happening to Product Marketers. Caught between Product Managers, Marketing and Sales, Product Marketers are losing responsibility for any strategic activities and are becoming tactical, siloed content creators.
At many companies, product management has already replaced the inbound function I described earlier. At others, product marketers have evolved into field marketers by focusing mainly on sales tools that are only used internally; development of externally-facing content marketing tools, like technical white papers, are sourced to others.
In what seems to be a bit of a rebuttal of Dave Wolpert’s piece, Josh Duncan (the main blogger on A Random Jog), states the following in the Rise of the Product Marketer.
In most businesses, there is a gap between marketing and product that must be filled. Without an audience, a great product has nowhere to go. Likewise, a great marketing strategy can’t save you from a woeful product. I believe that business success can be found when you match a great product with a great marketing plan and this is where Product Marketing can have the most impact.
So with that preamble, here’s my take on the situation.
1. Product Marketing is not dead, but it’s also not on the rise.
I currently work with some really good product marketing folks. I’m not saying that just to be nice or polite. I’m saying that because it’s true. But it’s not like that in many companies.
Part of the problem is that many companies don’t understand what Product Marketing is. So they define the role incorrectly, or hire the wrong people, or both. And what happens then? You have ineffective Product Marketing and little need to expand on it.
A lot of companies look at the role like this – product MARKETING. i.e. they focus on the second word and thus create conditions like those described by Dave Wolpert. i.e. Product Marketing becomes a tactically focused sales support role.
2. Product Marketing is usually ridiculously understaffed.
I’ve been in Product Management for a LONG time. And while most companies I’ve worked in have small Product Management teams, they have tiny, and sometimes non-existent Product Marketing teams. Ratios of 5:1 (Product Managers to Product Marketers) are not uncommon. Why? Because companies don’t understand the role so don’t hire properly. Or they feel that the work can simply be done the “the Product Manager”. Yes, it can be done, with the right people in place, but at what cost? Having individuals splitting time between all the different tasks of both Product Management and Product Marketing is simply a recipe for mediocrity at best, failure at worst.
3. “Marketing” is viewed very differently than it was 20+ years ago
The word “Marketing”, if you look at the business school definition of it, is very different than how it is understood in most technology companies today.
Marketing used to be viewed as a strategic business function. Remember the 4 Ps (Product, Price, Promotion, Place)? Notice that “marketing” included “product”. Today of course, the term “Marketing” is mostly understood to cover only “Promotion” – i.e. advertising, PR, events, campaigns, awareness, lead generation etc. It has become specialized and focused heavily on demand creation.
Product Management has taken over “Product” and “Price”. “Place” — i.e. sales/distribution channels — has been taken over by Sales and to a lesser extent Product Management. Thus the “Marketing” part of “Product Marketing” is viewed in this context. Not as a strategic business function, but an outwardly focused partner to Sales.
Perhaps we need a new name for Product Marketing to better align with the changes that have happened in Marketing over the last 20 or so years.
So, what does that mean for “Product Marketing”?
In short, I see the clear need for what I would call “strategic marketing”.
This covers the basics like positioning and messaging, but also other areas where market, customer and product knowledge are required. This could include (but not be limited to) the following:
- evangelism
- analyst relations
- sales funnel analysis and optimization
- working on product, market or competitive strategy
- high value content creation
So where does Product Marketing fit within a company? This role does NOT belong in Marketing and definitely not in Sales. Product Marketing should be part of the overall Product Management organization.
OK, Product Marketers, hear me out before you think I’m out to assimilate the role into that of Product Manager. I’m not. In fact, I’m advocating the opposite.
I’ve written and presented on the topic of How to Structure a Product Management Organization as well as The Need for Differentiated Roles in Product Management.
The fact is that both the roles of “Product Manager” and “Product Marketer” are poorly understood and implemented in the industry. e.g. There’s too much focus on what a “Product Manager” does vs. what “Product Management” does.
Far too many companies have Product Management organizations that are populated solely with people with titles of “Product Manager” at varying levels of seniority. e.g. Technical Product Manager, Product Manager, Sr. Product Manager, Product Management Director, VP Product Management etc. Is there any other department that looks like that? No.
All departments have a spread of roles that have particular complimentary (there’s that word again) focuses (foci?) and that work together to achieve common goals. Why should Product Management be different?
There’s little disagreement that Product Managers and Product Marketers should work closely together, yet for some reason, there is pushback (mostly from Product Marketers in my experience) to be functionally within the Product Management organization.
Take a look at the following presentation. I delivered it last year at ProductCamp Boston. In it I present my case for the various roles, the place of Product Marketing within overall Product Management, and the problems this structure solves.
Please take a look and let me know what you think.
Saeed
Tweet this: What’s the deal with Product Marketing? http://wp.me/pXBON-371 #prodmgmt #prodmktg
Not Everyone Wants to Play Games
All over the web and in all the product management communities, there are articles and discussions about gamification. If you’ve been offline for a while, gamification is about applying design and development efforts to software in a way to make it more engaging, more “fun.”
Not only have whole applications been born under the premise (i.e. Foursquare), but gamification has also had great impact in some of the more traditional business software, (ie. Salesforce.com) allowing for more interaction and amusement when performing daily tasks.
I’m all about having more fun in my interactions with technology, and can truly appreciate making the more mundane less so; but, I believe sometimes we have taken the concept of gamification too far.
Not every piece of software or every interaction within should be designed around fun. Stanford professor Elizabeth Corcoran, in her book on the subject, “The ‘Gamification’ Of Education”, suggests that the gamification of businesses and virtual worlds is creating an expectation among people that real-life interactions follow simple mechanics and some disillusionment when they do not. Are we making our software more of a toy than a productive tool?
I recently heard of a software company’s UI meeting, held to introduce the upcoming planned release to the internal audience, where the discussion quickly went from what the planned for now to the planned for later. In the “planned for later” talks, the designers were sharing their vision for the upcoming UI changes, which were focused on including more opportunities for social interactions. The problem? No one had talked with more than 1 or 2 current customers to find out if this is what is truly needed or wanted.
Conversations need to start with the market, not just customers. Does your market want to play a game when they are in your software? Will it help them do their job better? More effectively?
Luke Hohmann, with his company Innovation Games, does great work in promoting playing collaborative games with your customers to build engagement. He states that engaging customers in a well-designed Innovation Game frees them up from the constraints of typical focus-group sessions and delivers deeper, more accurate information than is available through online surveys or other tools.
There are some very successful elements that need to be copied. Gaming elements do and should belong in SOME software. Luke’s reasons and use make sense. In consumer-facing sites, I support using gaming elements to make the site more engagement, building more loyalty, etc. In business programs, I can no longer remember the “old” training programs where you didn’t even see your status on the module much less your achievement. Gaming made training more fun. But, once you start entering the enterprise software realm, gamification is an area that needs to be evaluated carefully.
Gamification elements that are added in by designers because they are the latest and greatest, will quickly get subjected to the sideline and prove to be a waste of your time and effort. In the competitive software market, time and effort need to be focused on those areas which deliver the differentiation. And, it might not be about the game.
(Please share this on Twitter, LinkedIn and even Google+: “Not Everyone Wants to Play Games” by@jidoctor: http://wp.me/pXBON-36h #prodmgmt #gamification”)
Why SOPA and PIPA will greatly harm Innovation
While we try to stay very apolitical on this blog — with a few exceptions — I’ve decided to join the online protests against certain legislation that is currently being considered by the US Government.
So, in support of the protest, like many other sites, we’ve gone black for a day.
These two bills — Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) — are bad policy, bad for the open Internet and bad for innovation.
I support protections such as copyright and respect the needs of content creators to be paid for their works. But these bills currently being considered by the US government are both heavy-handed and unnecessary. There are lots of laws and means for large media corporations — the primary business supporters behind these bills — such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to protect their content.
Now I can’t go into all the details of why this legislation is bad, and believe me, there are many reasons. But WRT innovation, this article from Mashable explains it fairly well.
Any site that allows users to post content is “primarily designed for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables copyright violation.” The site doesn’t have to be clearly designed for the purpose of copyright violation; it only has to provide functionality that can be used to enable copyright violation.
This means that YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Gmail, Dropbox and millions of other sites would be “Internet sites…dedicated to theft of U.S. property,” under SOPA’s definition. Simply providing a feature that would make it possible for someone to commit copyright infringement or circumvention (see: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0) is enough to get your entire site branded as an infringing site.
So every media sharing site, social network, collaborative content site, or data exchange site that currently exists, or any new applications or sites that leverages media and information sharing could be targeted with this law. And it’s not just the big guys with deep pockets that can be targeted. Keep in mind that the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) sued a Minneapolis woman for $220,000 for downloading 24 songs. Yes, $8000 per song! And they won.
Think about the implications for startups who have content sharing, or user-generated content functionality on their sites. The proposed laws put the onus on the owner of the site to, in effect, police them for potentially illegal content, and the punishments — e.g. blocking of site domain names from DNS registries — can be done without due process. Good for innovation? Absolutely not.
Even if you don’t live in the United States, you should be concerned. As you know, the US Government has a way of extending it’s reach into other countries, and other countries with sympathetic governments (cough, cough, like Canada’s current government cough, cough) will be emboldened to pass equally regressive laws or simply fall in line with the US.
So what can you do?
If you live in the United States, click here and contact your Congress person.
Not in the US, sign an online petition here, or use your online presence to spread the word.
We live in an ever increasingly interconnected world. Let’s work together to foster innovation and stop (possibly well intentioned) but clearly very poorly written legislation that could impact us all.
Thanks
Saeed
A value-based approach to Customer Satisfaction and Product Metrics
NOTE: The following is a guest post by Veronica Figgarella. If you want to submit your own guest post, click here for more information.
In a recent post entitled Open Question: Product Management Challenges at a Startup, Saeed asked for community input to three questions posed by a startup founder. Looking to scale his company, the founder asked for input on the following three questions.
- What metrics should be instrumented into the product to see if implemented features are effective in solving customer/user problems?
- What are the right collateral pieces for the sales people? What is/are the right pricing models?
- How to have marketing work with Product Management to create compelling stories to identify and target new customer segments?
I want to address question #1 and share a few thoughts about developing the right metrics for measuring product success. I hope to address the topic in a broader sense, and not limit my answer to the B2B software industry.
Measurement is necessary to monitor progress in all areas of the business. We measure sales to track progress towards quota; measure bug counts and bugs fixed as a quality indicator. Product Management needs measurements to identify value creation and product improvement. And especially in a startup company, Product Managers are most worried about measuring how much cash flow their product generates thus working hard to solve customers’ problems.
Measure Cashflow
If you want to learn how your products are helping your customers solve their problems, your first metric should be how much cash flow your product is generating? If your product is not producing the expected earnings it is most likely not generating value for the customer either.
Proper metrics need to be:
- precise and sensitive to change,
- reliable,
- relevant
- and cost/effective to implement.
The amount of cash flow your product generates depends on multiple factors (i.e. channel supply, vendor supply, sales effectiveness, etc) which can be tracked through market performance metrics. Although metrics vary from one industry to the other, market performance needs to be linked to cash flow especially for a startup where initial revenue is vital for company survival.
Some of the most relevant market performance metrics are:
- Sales effectiveness (acquisition):
- # of trials vs. purchase,
- # of referrals vs. actual adoption
- Wallet share: How much of the customer spend is in my product?
- Price Premium: Are my customers willing to pay a premium for my product?
As money comes in, you can start thinking about your second biggest worry:
How do you generate future cash flow?
Your metrics need to be linked to your strategy, mission and vision statements so you can monitor how your products contribute to your corporate strategy. They will also help you deliver continuous value to both customers and shareholders.
Some helpful long-term value delivery metrics are:
- Return on product and marketing investment: a simple way of calculating it is (return – investment)/(return), the tricky part is defining what return means for your product. Return can be total revenue or, gross profit or net profit.
- Customer satisfaction: it is a measure of the value your product gives to customers, so define satisfaction in a way that is simple yet relevant to them.
- Market share in targeted segments and
- Loyalty (are my customers willing to buy from me again?) Satisfied customers are more likely to repeat a purchase therefore loyalty impacts long term business profitability. Identifying which components of your product/services drive loyalty and monitoring them, is key in generating future cash flows.
Several academic studies show that future cash flow is related to customer satisfaction. This is because a satisfied customer is more likely to repeat a purchase and a loyal customer is cheaper to maintain than acquiring a new one. Let’s dive a litter deeper into measuring Customer Satisfaction. After all, if your products are solving customer problems, it is very likely they are satisfied customers.
So… How to measure customer satisfaction?
There is no right or wrong metric to measure customer satisfaction, but the following considerations are pretty much what many experts and best practice reports agree on:
1. Identify what service/product dimensions are relevant to your customers
For example, If you are in B2B arena and each sale is different, then you need to be able to identify a common driver for purchase among your customers: i.e. how fast your RFI was answered, or the inclusion of a clause that allows discounts when the product fails, or if a specific option is included with no additional charge. It works pretty much the same for B2C; you still have to investigate what does your customer value from your product/service? Identifying these relevant dimensions will help you define the important metrics to monitor.
According to Leonard Berry in his book Competing Through Quality, there are 5 areas customers’ weigh as important in order to achieve satisfaction (and this is mostly for services):
- Reliability
- Responsiveness
- Assurance (related to how the company and its employees convey trust and confidence),
- Empathy (to customers’ problems)
- Tangibles elements of the service are primordial in providing satisfaction because they are the evidence of the service, for example: appearance of physical facilities, of service personnel, tools or equipment used, etc.
Customers will be satisfied if they believe the received what they expected in these areas.
2. Encourage complaints to understand dissatisfaction
Sometimes customers are not clear about what satisfies them before they try a product, but when they return it or call to complain they are pretty clear about what’s not working for them. In Berry’s book, he explains some of the gaps where managers need to look to find sources of dissatisfaction:
- Misunderstanding of customer requirements
- Poor specification of standards;
- management may not have instructed staff properly on how to implement desired standards
- Capability gaps
- staff might not be properly trained
- Creating over-expectations
- advertising and sales people can promise too much leading customers to have inflated expectations
The importance of these dimensions needs to be clear especially to sales representatives, front line staff and marketing people as they promote your products/services and interact directly with the customer.
3. Not all communication channels are equal
Be careful about the channels you use to encourage complaints and be true about embracing customer dissatisfaction. According to a recent study by Maritz Research most customers expect the company to read their Twitter complaints but only a third received a response. Jay Baer comments on this topic on his blog Convince and Convert.
Social media doesn’t create negativity, it puts a magnifying glass to it.
So companies need to be aware of this and respond. Secondly he points out the following:
…social media doesn’t close at 5pm, and in fact many customers use social media during the night and on weekends, when it may be inconvenient for you to monitor and reply. But your corporate convenience is not the prism through which you should be gazing upon social business.
So in short, not only is responding to these public complaints important, but the responses should be done in a timeframe that is convenient for the customer.
social media will put a magnifying glass on dissatisfaction and you will need to expand your “complaining hours” after 5 pm.
4. Customer satisfaction needs to be linked to financial reports to be taken seriously
Unfortunately, financial reports and product line incomes often dominate the thinking of a business that lacks of customer orientation. However market-based assets such as: size of customer base, quality of supplier relationships and customer satisfaction needs to be tracked and linked to earnings in order to make it everybody’s business (finance, customer support, engineering, etc).
5. Keep customer feedback mechanisms simple
When collecting information from customers, make the questions simple to answer. This has additional benefits as short surveys tend to reduce user fatigue and return more reliable information.
Here is an example of a good satisfaction survey Amazon sent me recently. I was really happy with how they handled my problem; especially because it was my fault that the item I bought had not arrived on time (I entered a wrong address ooops!)
_____________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your recent inquiry. Did I solve your problem? If yes, please click here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/survey?p=A1CSAT0DV4C6JL&k=hy If no, please click here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/survey?p=A1CSAT0DV4C6JL&k=hn
When I pressed the YES link I was directed to here:
It was really simple, all I had to do was rate each questions with stars, it did not take a minute and the answer was very true to my feelings.
________________________________________________________________________
If you want to read more about the links between market orientation, customer satisfaction and profitability I recommend reading: Chapter 1 (it’s a free pdf) from the book Market-Based Management byRobert J Best.
6. Understand how to manage your data.
If data collected is not managed properly and acted upon timely, measuring customer satisfaction will be a wasted effort. This links back to defining the quality of what is being measured and stabilising a relevant score card to assure company’s commitment to customer satisfaction.
So next time you decide to measure satisfaction, think backward and establish what data will help you make decisions so you can create the questions that will accurately yield the information needed.
References
Why Customer Satisfaction Matters – article on cvent.com
Marketing Management by Gregory Whitwell
Tweet this: A value-based approach to Customer Satisfaction and Product Metrics http://wp.me/pXBON-35B #prodmgmt




