“Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.” – American Marketing Association definition of Marketing
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?
A friend of mine just emailed me one of your articles from a while back. I read that one a few more. Really enjoy your blog. Thanks
I am a little confused – are you stating that CI providers do not study and deliver knowledge that really represent competitive value? Is it about a failure to market a valuable thing or failure to deliver real value?
Gregory,
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
What role role do you see market research playing in your scenario?
Ian,
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 wholeheartedly agree that competitive intelligence is not marketed well by most people. I think the profession attracts people that are good at collecting competitive information and putting together great competitive intelligence deliverables. Many are introverted and project oriented, rather than good communicators. That’s how I came up with the term cooperative intelligence. I think a cooperative attitude with good leadership, connection and communication skills will transform most CI professionals into good communicators. More on cooperative intelligence in the context of CI through this link: http://www.thecisource.com/pdfs/CooperativeIntelligence2006.pdf
Best,
Ellen Naylor
Ellen,
From reading your past articles and your current website, I think that our ideas and observations are quite similar. Thanks for your comment.
— Tom
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
Cliff,
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