Posts
Apropos my previous post, secrecy is not all its cracked up to be in business.
I once knew an inventor who created an innovative and potentially powerful new product with international appeal.
Having come up with a new product and process to produce it he was hell-bent on protecting it at all costs. Unfortunately this translated into him trying to contain all the IP himself - in other words not sharing it with anyone.
Now if he was a superman who could not only conceive the product and process but could also build the factory, create the brand, sell the product, build the team and turn it into an international success, that would be fine.
He was not that superman. But it was a corker of a concept so he rapidly began to think of himself as a superman. He didn't understand his limits.
As the cracks in the proposition started to emerge he clung tighter to the IP and tried to find fixes with his own resources -to the extent that he refused to admit he didn't have all the answers; he failed to call in external experts when he needed them most and this jeopardised the entire project.
Most importantly by clinging tight to the idea, the process and the ownership, in a situation where his limits were significantly less than he perceived them to be, he was preventing the idea being carried forward.
If he was open and expansive and prepared to let go he could have created a global empire. Instead he clung tight and became small and increasingly miserable.
The moral of the (true) story is to know your own limits; to accept your faults; to be open and inclusive in bringing people along; to create a coalition of interest around a concept rather than to try and dominate it.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
There is no currency in ideas
I am frequently approached by people looking for assistance who open up the dialogue with something akin to "I have a great idea".
This is often followed up with puzzlement about how on earth they are going to share the idea with me because they fear that by 'exposing' the idea they risk having it stolen (presumably by me!!??).
Their fears are generally groundless because the only things worth stealing are those that have value and an idea alone very rarely has value.
Some, thinking themselves more savvy, rapidly come to the conclusion that they need a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) executed before the big reveal.
It may be that deep down I harbour a degree of affront at these sorts of approaches. Essentially they are coming to me to ask for help. They need something. They believe I have something of value (knowledge; contacts; experience; a point of view; money) that they want. By taking this path they are essentially devaluing my expected contribution and overvaluing theirs and they are also basically saying they don't trust me. Not a great way to start any sort of relationship - commercial or otherwise.
But this is not the real issue here.
In my experience cloaking an idea in a shroud of secrecy is a sure-fire way to kill it.
I have rather provocatively said ideas alone have little value. Let me elaborate. I am not saying ideas are unimportant. I love ideas. I am inspired by many of them; I rapidly become enthusiastic about new ideas - some would say I do so too rapidly; they are an essential part of the process of innovation and invention.
So, I love ideas. But I live in a commercial world and my creativity is channelled into building businesses. There are myriad examples of fabulous ideas which are never turned into a commercial success and equally there are great businesses built from pretty mediocre ideas.
Too many ideas are orphans. At ?What If! Innovation they had an innovation equation - Insight + Ideas + Impact = Innovation. The 'parents' of ideas are 'insight' and 'impact'. Insight means customer insight. Ideas need to be well founded on the back of some insight about customer behaviour - often this is an unmet need. But, in my view, the power lifter in this family is 'impact'. I read 'impact' as 'execution'. Powerful businesses spring from effective execution - making things happen; getting things right; focusing on the detail.
If the world's best idea fell at my feet I would be pretty ho-hum about it. If the idea fell at my feet with a fully-worked business plan, a ton of customer insight work, and a cheque for the seed capital, I would start thinking something valuable had arrived. If the package came with proven, cracker-jack team who had worked together in the past and delivered success all my Christmases have come at once.
An idea is a starting point - it is what you do with it that creates value.
In “Innovate 2008: Is the Tide Turning?”, a recent report on innovation released by Boston Consulting Group, they noted:
“It is worth pointing out that only 20 percent of companies considered a shortage of great ideas to be the problem… Most companies, in fact, have an abundance of good, even great ideas. But having ideas and turning those ideas into cash are two entirely different things. Innovation is often equated with the former, when in reality it’s all about the latter.”
There is also a misconception that an idea has to be novel to be valuable for businesses. A new invention must obviously be based on a novel idea. But a successful new business (or the revamp of an existing one) doesn't need a new idea. It just needs an idea which is well executed.
The nudie product concept wasn't new. Nor were some of the elements of the brand. Many others had come before in the US and the UK - the likes of Fresh Samantha, Hansens, Odwalla, Pete & Johnnies and Innocent, to name but a few. The fact is that I took that idea and triumphed in the execution to create a $20m a year business.
My view is that value is created when you breathe life into an idea which is grounded in solid insight. People too frequently come to me with an idea believing it already has value and that leads to the secret squirrel stuff.
I can't count the number of times I have seen a potential idea choked to death when it is held too tight by its creator.
I have ideas all of the time. Occasionally they are pretty good ones. I am also an extremely open person. I love to share my ideas with as many people as I can because by doing so they either are exposed for the frauds they are, or are amplified into something really special by the input from others. In all the years of I have been openly sharing ideas none (to my knowledge) has ever been 'stolen'. It doesn't surprise me. I am not without guile and I openly share my ideas knowing the vast majority of people I talk to can't, or couldn't be bothered, bringing them to life through effective execution.
I can.
So by sharing my ideas I get input which builds and develops them - ?What If! would call it "greenhousing" - and then I can decide whether I am going to go down the path of implementing them.
NDA's are fabulous (perhaps) for protecting corporate information which is not in the public domain. They are not designed as some sort of intellectual property protection for an idea. If you are an individual or would-be-entrepreneur thinking about a start-up, my advice, unless you have novel intellectual property, is generally speaking don't bother with them. It will only slow you down.
This is mirrored by a widespread fear that small businesses or sole traders have in dealings with 'big business' along the lines of - 'they will steal my idea'. Believe me, 9 times out of 10, the big business will have seen the idea half a dozen times before. They still can't make it happen or they would have before you reach them.
The power of small business, and particularly entrepreneurial start-ups, is in making things happen. There is no need to be precious about ideas or waste time with meaningless NDA's.
This is often followed up with puzzlement about how on earth they are going to share the idea with me because they fear that by 'exposing' the idea they risk having it stolen (presumably by me!!??).
Their fears are generally groundless because the only things worth stealing are those that have value and an idea alone very rarely has value.
Some, thinking themselves more savvy, rapidly come to the conclusion that they need a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) executed before the big reveal.
It may be that deep down I harbour a degree of affront at these sorts of approaches. Essentially they are coming to me to ask for help. They need something. They believe I have something of value (knowledge; contacts; experience; a point of view; money) that they want. By taking this path they are essentially devaluing my expected contribution and overvaluing theirs and they are also basically saying they don't trust me. Not a great way to start any sort of relationship - commercial or otherwise.
But this is not the real issue here.
In my experience cloaking an idea in a shroud of secrecy is a sure-fire way to kill it.
I have rather provocatively said ideas alone have little value. Let me elaborate. I am not saying ideas are unimportant. I love ideas. I am inspired by many of them; I rapidly become enthusiastic about new ideas - some would say I do so too rapidly; they are an essential part of the process of innovation and invention.
So, I love ideas. But I live in a commercial world and my creativity is channelled into building businesses. There are myriad examples of fabulous ideas which are never turned into a commercial success and equally there are great businesses built from pretty mediocre ideas.
Too many ideas are orphans. At ?What If! Innovation they had an innovation equation - Insight + Ideas + Impact = Innovation. The 'parents' of ideas are 'insight' and 'impact'. Insight means customer insight. Ideas need to be well founded on the back of some insight about customer behaviour - often this is an unmet need. But, in my view, the power lifter in this family is 'impact'. I read 'impact' as 'execution'. Powerful businesses spring from effective execution - making things happen; getting things right; focusing on the detail.
If the world's best idea fell at my feet I would be pretty ho-hum about it. If the idea fell at my feet with a fully-worked business plan, a ton of customer insight work, and a cheque for the seed capital, I would start thinking something valuable had arrived. If the package came with proven, cracker-jack team who had worked together in the past and delivered success all my Christmases have come at once.
An idea is a starting point - it is what you do with it that creates value.
In “Innovate 2008: Is the Tide Turning?”, a recent report on innovation released by Boston Consulting Group, they noted:
“It is worth pointing out that only 20 percent of companies considered a shortage of great ideas to be the problem… Most companies, in fact, have an abundance of good, even great ideas. But having ideas and turning those ideas into cash are two entirely different things. Innovation is often equated with the former, when in reality it’s all about the latter.”
There is also a misconception that an idea has to be novel to be valuable for businesses. A new invention must obviously be based on a novel idea. But a successful new business (or the revamp of an existing one) doesn't need a new idea. It just needs an idea which is well executed.
The nudie product concept wasn't new. Nor were some of the elements of the brand. Many others had come before in the US and the UK - the likes of Fresh Samantha, Hansens, Odwalla, Pete & Johnnies and Innocent, to name but a few. The fact is that I took that idea and triumphed in the execution to create a $20m a year business.
My view is that value is created when you breathe life into an idea which is grounded in solid insight. People too frequently come to me with an idea believing it already has value and that leads to the secret squirrel stuff.
I can't count the number of times I have seen a potential idea choked to death when it is held too tight by its creator.
I have ideas all of the time. Occasionally they are pretty good ones. I am also an extremely open person. I love to share my ideas with as many people as I can because by doing so they either are exposed for the frauds they are, or are amplified into something really special by the input from others. In all the years of I have been openly sharing ideas none (to my knowledge) has ever been 'stolen'. It doesn't surprise me. I am not without guile and I openly share my ideas knowing the vast majority of people I talk to can't, or couldn't be bothered, bringing them to life through effective execution.
I can.
So by sharing my ideas I get input which builds and develops them - ?What If! would call it "greenhousing" - and then I can decide whether I am going to go down the path of implementing them.
NDA's are fabulous (perhaps) for protecting corporate information which is not in the public domain. They are not designed as some sort of intellectual property protection for an idea. If you are an individual or would-be-entrepreneur thinking about a start-up, my advice, unless you have novel intellectual property, is generally speaking don't bother with them. It will only slow you down.
This is mirrored by a widespread fear that small businesses or sole traders have in dealings with 'big business' along the lines of - 'they will steal my idea'. Believe me, 9 times out of 10, the big business will have seen the idea half a dozen times before. They still can't make it happen or they would have before you reach them.
The power of small business, and particularly entrepreneurial start-ups, is in making things happen. There is no need to be precious about ideas or waste time with meaningless NDA's.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Un - der done!
How many have seen the "Un" campaign? Unfortunately that is exactly what it is - a campaign. I was expecting more and it could have been great.
It started last weekend with teaser ads in both leading Sunday papers. I was hooked enough to start hunting for "Un" references on the web. Largely what I got was the United Nations.
This made me realise that someone had created a (brand or advertising) proposition which they couldn't 'own'.
The tease continued during the week as the massive billboard sitting atop the grain silos west of the Anzac Bridge (Sydney) was filled with 'un' words.
Finally today the big reveal - Un is "unworry" and is an NRMA (IAG) insurance campaign. For those who haven't yet seen "The Power of Un." ads here is a snippet to get you in the frame:
"'But what is Un?' Un is amazing. It's all around us. Without Un you can't undress and where does that leave you? In te same clothes forever. But with Un you can unstress. And uncomplicate. And unbother about it. Most of all, you can undo what you did. Like UN-SEND that all-staff email that was meant for your boyfriend. Or UNCRASH Uncle Percy's car. And unsmash the pergola that Uncle Percy's car drove into. Now, thanks to Un, Uncle Percy isn't cranky, he's uncranky. So you can both relax and be friends again. 'And that is the power of Un," I say."
Well its creative and different, its got attitude, they are developing a tone-of-voice which could work, and it has amazing potential.
But I think they have blown it.
If you go to unworry.com.au you get a website which gives you a bit more info on 'Un" and has a cute blue plasticine character not dissimilar to one I had developed for my (yet-to-be-released) 'wink' brand a couple of years ago.
The website even has some games. But when you get down to the pointy business of buying (or getting a quote for) car insurance all it does is pass you straight to the bog standard NRMA online quote engine.
In other words it is a pretty unusual and interesting front end to the existing business engine.
It could have been so much more.
I happen to know that IAG is (or at least was) developing a new online insurance start-up to tackle 'Bingle'. I sort of had a hunch when I first saw it last weekend that "Un" might be IAG's launch of his new initiative. So I was expecting lots and got a little.
Imagine an entirely new insurance brand, delivered online, around an "Un" proposition. The first incarnation of this is what they hint at in a tongue-in-cheek way - undoing what had been done by accident or act-of-God. But it could go much further - how about being unlike any other insurance company; being unwavering in their commitment to pay (quickly) legitimate claims; being unafraid to be different - well, you get the picture.
A brand is created around a promise, a personality and a proposition. I know a lot of people think of brands as being the brand identity - logo and name - but powerful brands are far more. NRMA had a chance to create a whole new proposition and a powerful new brand. Clearly there are some smart minds at work there. Instead they came up with a clever advertising campaign which is not even executed as effectively as it could be.
So what are some of the things wrong with it?
Instead we have mutton dressed up as lamb.
Powerful brands are not created by clever copywriters. They are delivered through the actions of the business - consistently and with integrity. If you are going to tout "Un" the business has to be "Un". Not just a creative front end to the same old stuff.
It started last weekend with teaser ads in both leading Sunday papers. I was hooked enough to start hunting for "Un" references on the web. Largely what I got was the United Nations.
This made me realise that someone had created a (brand or advertising) proposition which they couldn't 'own'.
The tease continued during the week as the massive billboard sitting atop the grain silos west of the Anzac Bridge (Sydney) was filled with 'un' words.
Finally today the big reveal - Un is "unworry" and is an NRMA (IAG) insurance campaign. For those who haven't yet seen "The Power of Un." ads here is a snippet to get you in the frame:
"'But what is Un?' Un is amazing. It's all around us. Without Un you can't undress and where does that leave you? In te same clothes forever. But with Un you can unstress. And uncomplicate. And unbother about it. Most of all, you can undo what you did. Like UN-SEND that all-staff email that was meant for your boyfriend. Or UNCRASH Uncle Percy's car. And unsmash the pergola that Uncle Percy's car drove into. Now, thanks to Un, Uncle Percy isn't cranky, he's uncranky. So you can both relax and be friends again. 'And that is the power of Un," I say."
Well its creative and different, its got attitude, they are developing a tone-of-voice which could work, and it has amazing potential.
But I think they have blown it.
If you go to unworry.com.au you get a website which gives you a bit more info on 'Un" and has a cute blue plasticine character not dissimilar to one I had developed for my (yet-to-be-released) 'wink' brand a couple of years ago.
The website even has some games. But when you get down to the pointy business of buying (or getting a quote for) car insurance all it does is pass you straight to the bog standard NRMA online quote engine.
In other words it is a pretty unusual and interesting front end to the existing business engine.
It could have been so much more.
I happen to know that IAG is (or at least was) developing a new online insurance start-up to tackle 'Bingle'. I sort of had a hunch when I first saw it last weekend that "Un" might be IAG's launch of his new initiative. So I was expecting lots and got a little.
Imagine an entirely new insurance brand, delivered online, around an "Un" proposition. The first incarnation of this is what they hint at in a tongue-in-cheek way - undoing what had been done by accident or act-of-God. But it could go much further - how about being unlike any other insurance company; being unwavering in their commitment to pay (quickly) legitimate claims; being unafraid to be different - well, you get the picture.
A brand is created around a promise, a personality and a proposition. I know a lot of people think of brands as being the brand identity - logo and name - but powerful brands are far more. NRMA had a chance to create a whole new proposition and a powerful new brand. Clearly there are some smart minds at work there. Instead they came up with a clever advertising campaign which is not even executed as effectively as it could be.
So what are some of the things wrong with it?
- It is just a new wrap to an old product and service offering
- They don't do enough to develop the character - the blue plasticine character could be "Un" and they could build him into something substantial; instead he is an incidental traffic light.
- They promise things they can never deliver - can they really help 'un-send' the all-staff email? Of course they can't. They would have been better off being upfront and saying unfortunately there are some things we want to "Un" but can't yet
- They could have created a brave new virtual un-world.
- Most importantly they could have uninvented all the conventional wisdom rules of the existing general insurance business and given us something refreshingly new and different.
Instead we have mutton dressed up as lamb.
Powerful brands are not created by clever copywriters. They are delivered through the actions of the business - consistently and with integrity. If you are going to tout "Un" the business has to be "Un". Not just a creative front end to the same old stuff.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Put the customer in control
I believe so much customer dissatisfaction results from the fact that we (as customers) frequently have low power in relationships with the businesses which supply us.
Rather than them responding to our needs and wants they tell us what to do and let us know (generally in a peremptory fashion) what they will deign to provide us.
Since we know this characterises our relationship it forms the way we approach our product and service providers - we already have the s***s with them before we pick up the phone or visit their establishments. No wonder call centre staff are often so stressed!
I had yet another example today. I found a reference in another publication to a newly launched magazine which included a cover shot of the new magazine's September 08 edition. One of the cover articles looked really interesting so I set out to find a copy of the magazine.
After visiting, in vain, 4 or 5 newsagents I began to realise it was incredibly naive of me to believe that I could find a September edition magazine in early September (after all we already have the October, and in some cases November, issues on the newsstands!!!!).
What does one do in such a situation - visit the web of course! Once again naively I expected I could either find the article online or, worst case, find a way to order a back issue (sorry to labour the point but why is a September issues already a back-issue in September?) over the web.
In Australia in 2008 neither was possible. I could find on the publisher's web site a 1300 number to call but I couldn't find a way to track down the article or order a back issue.
I don't want to call a 1300 number. I never do - who knows, I might end up speaking to an 'offshore' call centre. I want to be able to use the power of the web to deliver information to my desk top when I want it. I dug around and eventually found an email address - hallelujah!
I belted off a quick email expressing my desire to obtain a September back issue of the magazine. To the credit of the publishers I received a cheery email the following morning from the publisher's assistant letting me know that they were grateful for my interest and they had passed on my query to their 'subscription service' who would be able to arrange a back issue for the bargain price of $8 (not significantly more than the newsstand price).
An hour or so later my inbox pinged with an email from the subscription service business informing me that if I wanted a back issue all I needed to do was call the 1300 number.
24 hours after my attempt had begun I was right back where I started. Their very strong message - 'it's our way or the highway!!'.
I wanted the issue badly enough to capitulate and do it their way and so I dialled the 1300 number and organised the magazine.
But I had a feeling of antipathy about the whole process and everyone involved in it. OK, so they aren't sophisticated enough to have a web ordering facility (or an online version of the article), but surely they could have been sensible enough to respond to an email from me with a return email along the lines of 'we'll get a magazine in the post to you if you just fax/email your credit card details to....". Or what about better yet, 'sign up on email for a 12 month subscription today and we'll send you copy of the September issue gratis'?
Instead they dis empowered me. They made me do it their way, rather than seeking to do it my way. Most businesses do this today, often unwittingly.
The businesses which are in tune with their customers needs and wants are the one which will win. It doesn't take much.
Rather than them responding to our needs and wants they tell us what to do and let us know (generally in a peremptory fashion) what they will deign to provide us.
Since we know this characterises our relationship it forms the way we approach our product and service providers - we already have the s***s with them before we pick up the phone or visit their establishments. No wonder call centre staff are often so stressed!
I had yet another example today. I found a reference in another publication to a newly launched magazine which included a cover shot of the new magazine's September 08 edition. One of the cover articles looked really interesting so I set out to find a copy of the magazine.
After visiting, in vain, 4 or 5 newsagents I began to realise it was incredibly naive of me to believe that I could find a September edition magazine in early September (after all we already have the October, and in some cases November, issues on the newsstands!!!!).
What does one do in such a situation - visit the web of course! Once again naively I expected I could either find the article online or, worst case, find a way to order a back issue (sorry to labour the point but why is a September issues already a back-issue in September?) over the web.
In Australia in 2008 neither was possible. I could find on the publisher's web site a 1300 number to call but I couldn't find a way to track down the article or order a back issue.
I don't want to call a 1300 number. I never do - who knows, I might end up speaking to an 'offshore' call centre. I want to be able to use the power of the web to deliver information to my desk top when I want it. I dug around and eventually found an email address - hallelujah!
I belted off a quick email expressing my desire to obtain a September back issue of the magazine. To the credit of the publishers I received a cheery email the following morning from the publisher's assistant letting me know that they were grateful for my interest and they had passed on my query to their 'subscription service' who would be able to arrange a back issue for the bargain price of $8 (not significantly more than the newsstand price).
An hour or so later my inbox pinged with an email from the subscription service business informing me that if I wanted a back issue all I needed to do was call the 1300 number.
24 hours after my attempt had begun I was right back where I started. Their very strong message - 'it's our way or the highway!!'.
I wanted the issue badly enough to capitulate and do it their way and so I dialled the 1300 number and organised the magazine.
But I had a feeling of antipathy about the whole process and everyone involved in it. OK, so they aren't sophisticated enough to have a web ordering facility (or an online version of the article), but surely they could have been sensible enough to respond to an email from me with a return email along the lines of 'we'll get a magazine in the post to you if you just fax/email your credit card details to....". Or what about better yet, 'sign up on email for a 12 month subscription today and we'll send you copy of the September issue gratis'?
Instead they dis empowered me. They made me do it their way, rather than seeking to do it my way. Most businesses do this today, often unwittingly.
The businesses which are in tune with their customers needs and wants are the one which will win. It doesn't take much.
Out of Touch - Lacking Customer Insight
Scarcity creates value; rarity even more so. A truism which seems to be ignored by many of the developers at work in my locale.
I live on a peninsula which is literally within spitting distance of the city. It started life as a working class suburb and many of the properties on the peninsula are tiny Victorian era 1 or 2 bedroom worker's cottages.
Of course the whole suburb has been gentrified in the last couple of decades and it is amazing what some people with vision, imagination and money can do to a worker's cottage. But the fact remains that even gentrified cottages are small and sit on tiny plots of land.
We have seemingly experienced a baby boom on the peninsula over the last few years and mothers pushing their ubiquitous Bugaboo prams are everywhere. What is craved and treasured by residents are large family homes with a decent sized garden and off-street parking. Castles to house the burgeoning families of the increasingly wealthy bourgeois. Yet almost none exist, so expanding families (or simply those singles or couples with a thirst for space) inevitably admit defeat and move off the peninsula.
This morning, on the way back from dropping the kids at school, I walked past the latest, newly completed development, on one of the last remaining large-scale development blocks we have on the peninsula. A block created by tearing down a dozen or so worker's cottages.
And what has the developer erected? A dozen or so 2 bedroom townhouses with pocket handkerchief back yards. The 1890s worker's cottage gives way to the 2008 worker's cottage.
It is mind-boggling really. Rather than thinking constructively, based on some sort of customer insight, the developer has done the usual and stuck to a supposed "winning formula".
Imagine if instead of 12 boringly 'same' tiny townhouses the developer had erected 3 substantial 5 bedroom dwellings with expansive backyards. In other words they created the unobtainable.
Even in today's market, the unobtainable property carries a price premium. It is unobtainable because everyone wants it (demand) and no one has it (supply).
Fundamental economics at play again. When demand outstrips supply an upwards price adjustment balances the market and super-profits are to be made.
We have become a society of non-thinking formulaic business people who ignore customer insight and therefore miss significant economic opportunity.
I live on a peninsula which is literally within spitting distance of the city. It started life as a working class suburb and many of the properties on the peninsula are tiny Victorian era 1 or 2 bedroom worker's cottages.
Of course the whole suburb has been gentrified in the last couple of decades and it is amazing what some people with vision, imagination and money can do to a worker's cottage. But the fact remains that even gentrified cottages are small and sit on tiny plots of land.
We have seemingly experienced a baby boom on the peninsula over the last few years and mothers pushing their ubiquitous Bugaboo prams are everywhere. What is craved and treasured by residents are large family homes with a decent sized garden and off-street parking. Castles to house the burgeoning families of the increasingly wealthy bourgeois. Yet almost none exist, so expanding families (or simply those singles or couples with a thirst for space) inevitably admit defeat and move off the peninsula.
This morning, on the way back from dropping the kids at school, I walked past the latest, newly completed development, on one of the last remaining large-scale development blocks we have on the peninsula. A block created by tearing down a dozen or so worker's cottages.
And what has the developer erected? A dozen or so 2 bedroom townhouses with pocket handkerchief back yards. The 1890s worker's cottage gives way to the 2008 worker's cottage.
It is mind-boggling really. Rather than thinking constructively, based on some sort of customer insight, the developer has done the usual and stuck to a supposed "winning formula".
Imagine if instead of 12 boringly 'same' tiny townhouses the developer had erected 3 substantial 5 bedroom dwellings with expansive backyards. In other words they created the unobtainable.
Even in today's market, the unobtainable property carries a price premium. It is unobtainable because everyone wants it (demand) and no one has it (supply).
Fundamental economics at play again. When demand outstrips supply an upwards price adjustment balances the market and super-profits are to be made.
We have become a society of non-thinking formulaic business people who ignore customer insight and therefore miss significant economic opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)