Is it possible for a small business to have a brand? Personally I have my doubts. And I am convinced that for a service industry that works business to business it’s not only impossible – but dangerous – to think in this way.
Let me explain in simple terms.
People buy people. Yes it’s a cliché, but like every cliché it’s based in truth. When you are considering a financial advisor – what’s more important, their logo design or their expertise and personality? Would you work with someone who you didn’t get on with too well if their website looked gorgeous and had consistent design elements? Of course you wouldn’t.
When most people are looking for a personal and professional service like an IFA, solicitor, accountant, architect etc. they turn to their network first and ask ‘Who do you know who…?’ Their network is far more trusted for insight than Google. We trust our connections and network far more than what we see and read on websites and in brochures.
Google is either a last resort, an impulse purchase or for delving deeper into those recommendations. I don’t think it’s the place where decisions are made. It’s where confirmation is sought.
For small businesses if you swap the word ‘Brand’ for ‘Reputation’ it all makes far more sense to me. An individual (or a small group of them) need to develop their credibility, expertise and advocates. This will go much further in developing their reputation – and over time their business – than having a pretty logo.
So all you small businesses out there: forget ‘brand’ and think ‘reputation’ in order to grow.
Posted in marketing
I have this view of the world: marketing is focused on pixels and print and sales is focused on people. It’s a bit of a simplification but the point I am trying to make is sales is about people:people interaction and marketing is mainly people:non-people interaction.
So, when it comes to integrating social media into your business what strategy do you adopt? Over the last few years we’ve seen a significant increase in social media uptake by businesses – and for the most part they are failing. To me it seems that a lot of these businesses hand over social media to the marketing department, who then start to think in terms of ‘messages’ and ‘channels’ and see social media as just another channel to pump their messages down. But here’s the problem – most marketing departments aren’t used to the customer answering back – which is the whole point of social media. And they panic.
On the other hand sales folks are very happy to engage and converse with customers, prospect, well just about anyone in fact. So doesn’t it make more sense if the sales people are on Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ or whatever? But marketing get concerned about how this type of interaction may ‘dilute the brand’ or ‘not be consistent with our core values’. So in the end, the customer speaks and few are listening. And those that do listen are often worried about engaging.
Ideally get your sales team involved in social media – but not to push your product – but to grow your contacts, your influence and help people on-line with your knowledge. This will create far more of a buzz and help the business define its area of expertise and value to the market place.
Social media is best when it is used across the entire company to communicate. From stores, to dispatch, from finance to HR – social media is just another communication tool that can be used across the business.
Would you consider limiting the use of the phone, or email to just one department?
Then why limit the use of social media?
Long term readers of this blog will appreciate that I am fascinated by two things: one is about the process of how people make decisions, and the other is about how and why people are motivated to do things. This blog tends to look at those topics within the context of sales – but of course they are not limited to this.
My IFA (the excellent Andrew Stinchcomb of Integrity Financial) recently drew my attention to the book “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us” by Daniel H. Pink. And it really is a fascinating read.
Most organisations believe that it is a requirement to motivate sales people by commission. It’s pretty normal for our industry. Well research quoted in “Drive” would suggest that this is counter productive and counter intuitive.
Research undertaken by Deci (I won’t go into the details, you’ll have to read the book) comes to the following conclusion: “One who is interested in developing and enhancing intrinsic motivation in children, employees, students, etc, should not concentrate on external-control systems such as monetary rewards”
Now that’s quite a statement. Just think about it – commission, for the long term, doesn’t work. Rewarding the kids with money in return for doing those house-hold chores – doesn’t work. He goes on… “When money is used as an external reward for some activity, the subjects lose intrinsic interest for that activity” Rewards can deliver a short-term boost – just like a jolt of caffeine – but the effect wears off – and worse, can reduce long term motivation for a project.
Now here’s an interesting point. That research is over 40 years old and clearly hasn’t changed the way we behave – for the most part – in how sales people are managed in the work place.
The research also implies that if the commission is taken away, people will be demotivated to a level below that at which they started. So, by paying commission in the first place we need to keep paying it – as taking it away will be detrimental. But the effect of paying the commission in the first place only has a short term effect, at best. Over time – and it’s quite a short time – the effect of having a commission scheme wears off.
So, what does motivate people? I suggest you read this book (and also ‘Punished by Rewards mentioned in another posting) for the answers…
Posted in sales