First, the bane …

In the Lord of the Rings story, the fellowship travels great distances and through many adventures trying to accomplish their mission. One of my favorite parts of the story is when they must travel through Moria, an underground dwarve colony and site of their great mines. Led by Durin, the dwarves settled “under the mountain” and began to build, explore and mine the riches that they found there. What they did not know (until it was too late) was the danger that dwelt in the depths. A Balrog. Durin’s Bane. The unspeakable terror that threatened them all. And it was coming for them.

A little dramatic, I suppose, but it is worth recognizing similar banes that befall the competitive intelligence community. That is, the “terrors” that hold the potential to derail all that we know to be true and worthwhile and to make our mission difficult, if not impossible. It is not hard to identify these things. It is only hard for us, collectively, to overcome them.

Here are the five banes that I think are most troublesome.

1. Missing the deep connection with senior management. I regularly run surveys of competitive intelligence professionals. (Take my latest survey here.) In most of the surveys I ask a variant of the question, “how well do you work with or get support from senior management?” This question usually gets the most negative responses (i.e., this is a big problem). Anecdotally, I hear all the time that making connections (e.g., relationships, meaningful dialogs, clear commissions) with sponsors is extraordinarily difficult for many. Is it any wonder that competitive intelligence projects often fail when these connections are missing?
2. Missing competency measures for professionals. Quick question – “Who is the best competitive intelligence professional that you know (excepting yourself, of course)?” Did a name come to mind? Here is a meta-question. How would know who is the best? We do not hand out merit badges, hold competitions or certify outcomes. So, how do you or I know who is the best, how we relate to that standard and if we are improving? The bottom line is that it is hard for us to know any of those things using objective measures. As a result, we all live in the mushy world of marketing perceptions. Why is that trouble? See my first point.
3. Missing meaningful measures of success. After the missing link with senior management, the next most problematic area for many competitive intelligence professionals is the ineffective representation of value for competitive intelligence. While the nirvana might be to be able to truthfully say something like, “as a result of our CI work, revenues and profits increased by x% and costs decreased by y%,” sadly many CI projects end with little linkage between effort and outcomes. This, of course, is a long-term prescription for extinction of the function. A short-term ROI perspective, cleanly and convincingly expressed, drives senior management. When we muddle through, or worse, avoid a CI value description, it signals to management that CI is an optional function. When cost reductions are important, they eliminate optional functions.
4. Missing shared problem-solving vehicles. Notwithstanding some of the fine CI communities that exist, there seems to be little shared problem-solving within the community. Ascribe that to busyness, diverging agendas, confidentiality requirements or disinterest – the net effect is that that many practitioners exist on virtual islands. That means that each person is left to his or her own problem-solving patterns and solutions. This is great for self-reliance development but not so good for advancing a discipline.  The cumulative impact is that we grow much slower as a community, develop fewer iconic figures recognizable outside the narrow CI population and poorly link research to practical application. (My modest attempt to help with this problem is my new website for Competitive Intelligence Case studies at www.cicases.com.)
5. Missing clear definition of CI from others. This recurring problem has significant ramifications. The problem is not so much that two CI professionals differ over the nuances in a competitive intelligence definition. No, the problem is how others outside of CI define competitive intelligence. The bottom line is that they do not do a good job and we, inside the industry, suffer because of that. The definitions range from those that are plainly wrong (“it’s corporate espionage”), subtly misleading (“it’s no different from market research”) to unhelpfully narrow (“it’s all about competitors” ). Notice how much time we spend responding to or correcting such misguided opinions and then imagine if we could spent similar energy advancing our skills or collaboration instead. The lack of an externally recognized definition saps our time and energy from more productive pursuits.

There are problems to be sure. But, what about competitive intelligence boons?

Here are three positive truths to remember.

1. Competitive intelligence has always been important and always will be. From time immemorial, whenever business competition occurred, it has been helpful to know more about competitors, the environment and the ways to win. People intuitively know this to be true and examples abound where such knowledge resulted in advantages.
2. With clearly expressed value, it is not difficult to “sell” competitive intelligence. Here we can admit that many CI professionals do not sell well. We lead with techniques, software tools and search gimmicks that seem valuable (to us) but are not valuable to senior management. However, with practice and some translation skills, we can adjust our presentation to the management (i.e., customer) perspective. That works.
3. Collaboration opportunities are increasing. This is a function of two large things. First, the tools and mechanisms available through the Internet make it easy to connect to professionals around the world. Second, there is (IMHO) an increasing sense that we need each other to represent better our specialty and to advance a common agenda of increased value. There is nothing like a recession to spur people to action.

The Balrog doomed Durin. It was his bane. Later, if you know the story, Gandalf overcame the Balrog after a great struggle. The good triumphed over the evil.

We can certainly rectify personally and collectively the banes of competitive intelligence. In part, we do this by remembering all that is right about the profession and its aims.

What do you think?

“What exactly do you do?”

I have tried many answers to this question. Sometimes I have given them a definition of competitive intelligence. Maybe I say something like, “Well, I work on analyzing all of the factors of the competitive environment to discern patterns which help people make decisions.” Usually they just stare at me. If they are friends, they manage a wan smile and I imagine them silently wishing me luck. Potential clients are often lost after my accurate but ineffective definition.

Another tack is giving them technical information about competitive intelligence. “I help companies employ models, information searches and other techniques to leverage primary and secondary research findings for competitive advantage,” I proudly announce. (Even my friends don’t smile at this one.)

Some kind people have given me advice to shorten (even more) the description of competitive intelligence. “Just say that you help them,” one succinct friend offered. “How about saying that you ‘make success possible’?” proffered another (this seemed a little grandiose to me).

Frankly, nothing seemed to work if you define “work” as consistently making an emotional and factual connection with a prospective client. That is, nothing worked until an experienced, older consultant gave me the magic words that he had received some years before. His advice was simply to start each definition or explanation this way.

“You know what it is like when …”

For instance, when speaking to a product manager I might say,

“You know what it is like when you are championing a new product before management and they want to know what the competition is doing? I can help you assemble a complete map of the competitor products to show how your proposed product will succeed in the market.”

When speaking to a strategic marketing person I might say,

“You know what it is like when you have to convince others to implement the new strategy that you are advocating? I can help you clearly identify and explain the market forces which make the strategic decision critical to the company’s success.”

When speaking to a general manager or CEO I might say,

“You know what is like when you have market share and revenue goals that are difficult to meet? I can help you understand and explain the likely scenarios which will affect your profitability over the next 3-5 years.”

The dynamic changes when the first words out of my mouth are about them or their issues. Usually they snap to attention because they immediately seek to validate whether or not my statement applies. When I am careful, it always does apply because the challenges that people face are quite common to the function they perform.

The purpose of the next sentence is to explain the relevance of competitive intelligence to their problem. Avoiding anything that is academic or canned, I can give them an example of value which is important. This connects me to them.

Seven simple words help me get started better with people. They make competitive intelligence “click” because I have finally found an effective way to personalize the definition.

What works for you? Is there a common way that you respond to questions about competitive intelligence?

If you are an Apple fan, do you really care about their product development processes, the processors in their iPhone, the Unix roots of the Mac OS or the contractual arrangements between Apple and music industry players? Are things like their software testing techniques, documentation standards or even their clever advertising campaigns important? I doubt it.

If you are like me then you are more enamored with elegant products that bring you pleasure or utility in ways that are simple to grasp and use.

The benefits of using Apple products are always front and center. For instance, I can easily answer why using the AppStore for iPhone applications works for me. It solves a problem (avoiding complexity) while delivering value (thousands of free or inexpensive applications). Meanwhile the iPhone itself delivers on the promise of the mobile internet. Shockingly since so many other companies were trying to do the same thing for years, Apple got it right first. Well, maybe it is not so shocking. After all, Apple makes a habit of entering a market late but, and this is a big “but”, with superior understanding of the product and service characteristics which are prized by consumers.

For most of its history, Apple has mastered understanding consumers, translating their needs into hardware/software/service requirements and delivering a whole, satisfying experience. This is a marketing rather than a technology mindset.

This is exactly where (with exceptions, of course) that the Competitive Intelligence community fails to deliver.

There is a lack of intellectual and emotional understanding of the customers and what is important to them. If that understanding existed then there would be less talk solely among CI professionals and more between practitioners and the people that use CI information. There would be greater agreement about what constituted value so that success measures would be clear. There would also be more “pull” happening. That is, CI customers would be requesting more and better CI information regularly versus having to “be sold” on the value. When customer understanding is missing, hardly anything else matters. It’s like building a house without a foundation. It won’t last. And it is a fundamental “marketing sin” that has not been avoided.

The second criticism is that customer understanding is not effectively translated into concrete requirements. How does one translate a CEO’s anxiousness about company strategies, analyst grillings and their own job into CI deliverables? What about the Product Development VP’s concerns about falling behind competitors in the rate of new product introductions? How does one help with the General Manager justify new strategies based on the competitive trends in the market? These are real questions with answers that have real value within a company. However, enamored with extensive data collection, academic analysis techniques and general tools, CI professionals far too often push generic or broad answers to senior management. No wonder there is trouble marketing CI services. They simply are not tailored to answer what is important. Senior management doesn’t want to learn CI to get the value.

Finally, no one cares about CI just because it is supposed to be valuable. You can list twenty similar functions (e.g., quality, process improvement, marketing communications, business development, etc.) that are also important. Strident assertions are sometimes made about the special important of competitive intelligence but CI professionals should not be surprised if these exhortations are ignored. It is bad marketing to imply that the customer “doesn’t get it” when your product or service fails. A better approach would be paint a picture of a complete, end-to-end service tied to the success of the company. For sure, this is hard to do but it is the only enduring marketing strategy. The alternative is to be whipped to and fro by miscellaneous requests or whims. This strategy subjects CI to cancellation or worse (just being ignored).

Apple understands marketing.

Generally, the people in Competitive Intelligence don’t.

What do you say about this? Are you the exception that successfully markets CI? Do you think that successful marketing matters?

From “Everything You Know is Wrong” by The Firesign Theatre (1974) – Comedy Group

Twenty five years ago I worked on a top secret military project for my company. It had been going on for some time when I started and, as far as I know, it is still going on. It was a fascinating application of technology that I would have loved to talk about with my family and friends. I was proud of what we were trying to do, my small role in the project and, of course, the ultimate application. Unsurprisingly, I am bound by employment agreement and federal law to not discuss what I did or the product that we were building.

Competitive intelligence is similarly difficult to talk about.

Just imagine that you have completed a CI project for your company or for a client. Because of your superior methods, uncommon insight and excellent timing, you uncover something that results in a significant competitive advantage for the company. Who are you going to tell? What are you allowed to say? And, what is the impact on your future work of these answers?

Therein lies the problem. It is hard to talk about CI successes.

Yes, you can discuss the success with your management sponsor. Maybe you can share your successes with colleagues at the same company. Perhaps you can abstract some lessons for more general audiences. Nevertheless, a detailed discussion of what you did is commonly antithetical to your role.

That is, a company or client is unlikely to want others to know explicitly how or when they gained a competitive advantage.

Why? Because the competitors may adjust their own strategies in response, the duration of the advantage may be lessened, the original analysis techniques may be copied or the exposure will give competitors insight into the company’s own strategic thought processes. Even when these reasons are not articulated, they are powerfully felt disincentives to talking in detail about competitive intelligence successes.

While being quiet makes sense for a company, it impedes the development of CI professionals.

Just think about the example of a great artist. Suppose that their paintings are magnificent expressing emotion and imagination that is compelling and distinctive. The artist’s technique is a textbook example of all that is good in painting. The national museum has an exhibition ongoing for the artist. However, because of competition with other museums that are trying to draw the same crowds, the national museum allows no pictures of the paintings, no discussion of the artist’s techniques and no advertising about the exhibit. If the artist is solely dependent on the good graces of the national museum, then their public career may well be stunted. At the end of the day, would that really benefit the national museum?

Competitive intelligence professionals need exposure to prosper and develop.

Here are five things that are needed to advance the general art of competitive intelligence.

1. We need our myths. These are the established (usually older) stories that tell dramatic success stories. In military intelligence, there are many such stories from major conflicts. From WWII, there were the code breakers in England, the capture of the Ultra device in Poland from the Germans and the ambush of Yamamoto in the south Pacific.
2. We need professional associations. There, likeminded people can gather to exchange encouragement, advice and credentials. Obviously the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP) exists for this purpose. This is not enough. We need to be linked to professional associations frequented by our customers (i.e., American Management Association, Association for Strategic Planning). We shouldn’t miss that our generic (not just our captive management) customers can help us understand the critical competitive issues of our industry and appreciate the skills needed to decipher this picture.
3. We need a marketing campaign. CI people are often analytic, introspective people as well they need to be. Faced by a mountain of facts and a hazy view of the future, those personality traits equip CI professionals to make sense of it all for others. The only problem is that CI people seem to like to talk to other CI people the most. But the success of Competitive Intelligence is dependent on customer understanding. We need to know what our customers value and expect. Then, from this knowledge, we need to think like marketers rather than analysts. Marketing people are adept at telling stories that hook their audiences because the stories make emotional, value oriented connections.
4. We need iconic figures. Lee Iacocca became the symbol for a resurgent Chrysler in the 1980’s (where are you now, Lee?). Michael Jordan was the featured representative of excellence for basketball in the 1990’s. There are many such people that come to embody an industry or a profession. Though others don’t reach the level of these icons, the very fact that they exist is a shorthand definition of success and a voice to speak about the profession to others.
5. We need to relax. Part of the problem is the ferocious clamoring for attention that permeates everyone’s personal and business lives. Sell, sell, sell is the common advice for individuals and companies. If you are creating a new market segment or brand, this makes especially good sense. The fact is that (lowercase) competitive intelligence is not new and it is not going away as long as there is competition. People seem to have an innate comparison facility that is honed to observe others. It is this impulse that competitive intelligence take to a more methodical and actionable level for companies. Simply, competitive intelligence will always be relevant and the adaptable professional will succeed whatever their title.

The summary is that (lowercase) competitive intelligence will always be important. It will be done better when (uppercase) Competitive Intelligence is developed and promoted the right ways.

Do you agree with these thoughts? What else needs to happen?