Thanks for your comment. Your credibility seems to be derived from your experience and ability to communicate that to clients. More than that, I hear you saying that your background prepared you exceptionally well to hear and understand their problems. And they could tell that, I bet. That creates “marketing gravity” which pulls you to them.

– Tom

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with many of your comments and Ellen’s as well.

Another angle for looking at this question is one of demand and supply.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to spend the first half of my business career as a line manager who ran multibillion dollar global businesses. In these roles the pressures to make a continous series of profitable business decisions are intense. In the second half of my career, I built a world class staff function that advised line managers on their decisions. The former is much harder. I was very lucky to have walked a mile in my client’s shoes. If one truly understands the client’s perspective, the need for marketing is dramatically reduced. The client will demand focused intelligence support to continue to make successful decisions.

It is remarkable to me that the CI literature is so full of marketing strategies, the ongoing need for legitimacy, justifying existence, etc.

I think it’s pretty simple. An advisor must be viewed as an equal to his line manager client, be trusted, and understand the business consequences of each decision. Moreover, if the advisor has “skin in the game”, i.e., shares in the consequences of a good or bad decision, they will truly be valued as a mandatory discussion partner. Under these circustances, the demand for intelligence builds naturally until it exceeds supply. Staff building then occurs because it is demanded, not because it is supplied..

In my experience, long term sustained and respected world class functions share the single commonality that their services are demanded.

Best,

CKC

From reading your past articles and your current website, I think that our ideas and observations are quite similar. Thanks for your comment.

– Tom

Best,

Ellen Naylor

Thanks for your question. I think that market research is very important to help understand markets. It gives us a way to study markets, collect information and then characterize those markets (I’m sure that a market research specialist could give a fuller answer than mine!).

My position is that while there is a great deal of useful and important information necessary for competitive intelligence, nothing is more important than making the connection with the customer of competitive intelligence. In my opinion,the market statistics matter less than understanding well the problem that the customer faces and delivering a specific answer for that problem. Though it may not apply to you, I have observed others being insular in their thinking (confession: I have made this mistake too) so much so that the value delivered to the customer misses the mark. When I was guilty it was because I started with a mindset more focused on what I offered than what they needed. The reality is that I would have been far better served to have turned this around. That is a customer understanding mindset. Or, if you prefer, a marketing mindset more than a analytical one.

Of course, one also has to be competent in competitive intelligence subjects including tools, analysis technique and related disciples (such as market research). It is not enough to be empathetic when, after understanding, you can’t deliver the answer to the customer’s question. Still, answering the wrong question eloquently leads to what can be a fatal loss of trust in a relationship with senior management. They notice quickly that you did not listen (and this is unacceptable to them).

– Tom

I suppose that there is a little of each of things that you mention (in my experience). My sense is that we are selling but not marketing value. The difference is that we often find ourselves pushing CI rather than finding it pulled into a company. Why wouldn’t a company want valuable CI? Could be that they don’t understand CI, have tried it before without success or have never see if significantly affect an important decision.

IMHO, the thing that is most often missed is starting from the customer’s perspective and then working backwards to the specific CI information and techniques that are relevant. Usually CI consultants and companies seem to lead with tools and techniques (which may be wonderful) and then wonder why more senior managers show little interest. My thesis is that we have inadequately marketed our services because we are not directly relating what we offer to their important problems.

Your website actually gives a good example (from a product manager’s perspective) of your PRM tool. Although the tool is featured, it still talks in terms of solving an important customer problem.

Thanks for comment. I wonder if I have made my point any clearer for you? Let me know.

– Tom