Tuesday, July 30, 2013

¿Explotación del recurso Sexual en tu Curriculum? Burlas. Fama. Trabajo. ¿Éxito?


Introduciendo a el Sr. Zulberti…

Mi padre fue abogado. Viví y crecí en ese mundo de demandantes y demandados. Los abogados se caracterizan por  ser personas elegantes y claro está, Hollywood se ha encargado de darles una “manita de gato” al presentarlos inclusive como rockstars en series y películas.

¿Sabes quién es Brian Zulberti?

En un momento lo sabrás en el artículo que se encuentra a continuación en un escrito publicado en USA Today el pasado 30 de julio. Brian, cansado de tocar puertas, ser rechazado constantemente y de no conseguir trabajo, decidió ponerle un poco de “sazón” a su curriculum para llamar la atención adecuada y ¡vaya que lo logró! A pesar de estar dentro de un entorno negativo y crítico, logró algo muy importante: destacarse de entre los demás.

Imagina la vestimenta de un músico de rap, algún jugador de futbol o inclusive un joven del mundo tecnológico (techie, cómo son mejor conocidos). Lo último que muestran al vestirse día con día, es mostrar un traje oscuro Armani. La manera de vestir puede representar a todo un grupo de profesionistas.

En muchos lugares tales como universidades prestigiadas y corporativos famosos, están pasando por re-inventos, desde la cultura empresarial incluyendo la clara instrucción por parte de los nuevos directivos de encaminar a sus empleados hacia una cultura de vestimenta business casual, mientras que ellos conservan sus trajes oscuros y corbatas conservadoras aun y cuando la temperatura exterior sea de 40 grados. 

Siguiendo con esta historia, muchos abogados norteamericanos resultaron sumamente molestos ante la osadía de Zulberti al integrar en su curriculum una foto de él en camiseta, mostrando sus musculosos brazos. ¡Las reacciones han sido impresionantes!

Lo que pienso…
 
Este caso, será uno de re-invento en el manejo de la imagen personal entre profesionistas.  Te invito a que leas el siguiente artículo y llegues a tus propias conclusiones. Sigamos de cerca el caso para ver el desenlace de este cambio de paradigmas.

Rubén

---------------


WILMINGTON, Del. — A lawyer desperate to get a job has made an impression on the legal community here, but not necessarily in a good way.

2009 Villanova Law School grad Brian Zulberti said he was about two Red Bulls into a late-night push to e-mail every lawyer he could find in the legal directory when he decided to add a photo.


Not a typical head-and-shoulders, suit-and-tie mug photo, it was a picture of Zulberti, 30, in a T-shirt with the sleeves rolled up, showing off his sculpted arms. Within a day of sending out his second round of e-mails, he became an Internet sensation.
"I was desperate to an extent," said Zulberti, adding he thought throwing in a little sex appeal might improve his chances.
This attracted the attention of the Above the Law Blog — apparently tipped off by an unimpressed lawyer that received it — which posted an item about Zulberti's letter and photo under the search term "Bad ideas."

"Seriously? Has this man no shame?" wrote Staci Zaretsky on the blog. "Who needs a résumé when you can send a selfie instead?"

The blog then went one step further and chastised Zulberti for pictures on his unsecured Facebook page, including one racy naked torso shot of Zulberti, his underwear dangerously low, holding a sign over his face that cried out for better grammar: "HIRE ME!!! no … as a Lawyer, … NOT A ESCORT… wait is it something I'm wearing."



"A picture is worth a thousand words, and here, all of those words seem to be: NO NO NO NO NO NO," Zaretsky wrote in the blog.

That started the explosion.

The blog post went viral on social media and Zulberti said he suddenly started getting a flood of friend requests on Facebook, less than 12 hours after he sent out his last batch of job-seeking e-mails. His voice mail and e-mail were soon swamped with messages.
Some were supportive, telling him not to give up hope. More called him a disgrace to Delaware, where he had just joined the bar. A number of friends told him to turn on his Facebook privacy settings.

That also was the advice of Delaware attorney and employment law expert Molly DiBianca.
"This is just wrong on so many levels," she said. Law firms want someone who is serious, professional and can show discretion. The images Zulberti posted of himself show "just the opposite."
"I'm sort of stunned by this picture. I can't stop looking at it," DiBianca said, noting that on top of everything there is a grammatical error in his "Hire Me" sign, which she said "looks like a 4-year-old wrote it."
Zulberti said soon after the blog mocked him, he started getting calls from media organizations and friends started sending him links to stories that had been posted about him from as far away as Croatia.
Among his Web hits:

• Gawker, "Lawyer Asks Hiring Firms to Google Him. Puts nude selfie on Facebook"
• MSN, "Law school grad bemoans job search, flaunts toned arms in cover letter"
• And even The Mail Online, the website of London's Daily Mail tabloid, "That's one way to bulk up your résumé!"

Some are getting the story wrong or at least misunderstanding it, Zulberti said.
"I never sent any pictures in my underwear to employers," he said. "I sent a picture in a muscle shirt. I will allow others to debate whether or not that was appropriate."



He said he already has talked to one Philadelphia radio show and has been invited to appear on The Steve Harvey Show.
The American Bar Association Journal website pointed to Zulberti's story as a cautionary tale both about the desperate job market, particularly for would-be lawyers, and the dangers of over-sharing on social media. Tuition and fees at Villanova Law School for the 2012-13 school year was $38,910, according to the Pennsylvania university's website.
But Zulberti said as far as he is concerned he sees no moral to the story.
Zulberti said he didn't intend to set off a social media firestorm. But now that it has arrived he is going to milk it, and enjoy it, for all it's worth.
"I went from being a guy with no job to a guy with no job on TV," he said with a laugh, sitting in his father's home where he lives.
In a YouTube response to Above the Law, Zulberti said while he initially felt the blog item was "rather insulting" and mean, the author also called him "a young stud."
"So it balances out," he said in the video, which has received nearly 10,000 views.



And through all the craziness, Zulberti has defiantly kept his Facebook page public and has continued to post provocative pictures of himself. Zulberti said to turn on privacy filters at this point would be to change who he is.
"I am the guy who takes pictures of himself in his underwear," he said, adding he thinks the images are funny and lawyers should be allowed a sense of humor.
"There is something to be said for being true to one's self in a job search," DiBianca said, but she added that people looking for a job have to be concerned about being a cultural fit with their employer. Reputation is an important part of being an lawyer. "And this does not come off professionally, to say the least.
"You have to keep client matters confidential," she said. "And he doesn't seem to understand the boundaries or lines of confidentiality very well."
Despite the largely negative online and media attention he's received, Zulberti said the job search is going well. He has received several invitations to submit his résumé, and one interview he had Friday went so well that he is hopeful it will lead to a job offer.
Zulberti said he recognizes that "the social media death hammer" ultimately may crush his legal dreams but hopes people judge him on his legal abilities and not Facebook pics of his pecs.
"All I need is one job," Zulberti said, even if 9,999 out of 10,000 potential employers don't like him. If he gets that job, he said he will have the last laugh.
"I feel I could be a very good attorney some day," he said.


O'Sullivan,  S. (2013, Julio 30). "Sexy résumé lands law grad fleeting fame if not job." USA Today.  Recuperado de: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/30/desperate-lawyer-job-seeker/2598791/

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Brand Value: a new definition

In the new Millennial-inspired Participation Economy, the old definition of brand value — the one that worked for decades — is dead.

As marketers, we knew that the sum of our core functional and emotional benefits divided by price would give us a proxy for brand value.  Stronger brands had more price elasticity.  However, the old definition no longer holds if you want to engage Millennials or older generations that are adopting a “Millennial Mindset.”
brand-value
(Copyright© 2013 by Barkley. All rights reserved.)

THE NEW DEFINITION OF BRAND VALUE
Millennials don’t just want to buy your brand, they want to be a part of it. They’re looking for ways to participate.  And they want to understand why you do what you do not just what you want to sell.  As a result, the brand value equation has morphed to include participative benefits. This is key for tapping into Millennial passion — and therefore, Millennials’ dollars.
In The Participation Economy, (emotional benefits + function benefits + participative benefits)/price = brand value. We’ll explore this more in a bit. First, let’s review who makes up this generation — and how they influence your other consumers, too.

MILLENNIALS & THEIR INFLUENCE
Millennials, also known as Gen Y, make up 80+ million consumers in the United States alone. They were born between 1977 and 2000 (give or take a few years, depending on your definition.) In addition to these 80 million consumers, Millennials influence a significant number of people outside their generation.  They are “tastemakers” when it comes to influencing new technology adoption and major cultural trends.
Barkley joined forces on a research project with Boston Consulting Group and SMG aimed at learning more about this demographic. The result was a research study, “American Millennials: Deciphering the Enigma Generation.“ We learned some really interesting things about this generation.  You can learn more by watching this video.



HOW TO WIN IN THE PARTICIPATION ECONOMY
Millennials want to be active participants, not passive consumers. To win with this cohort, brands must incorporate participative benefits into their models. Take a look at the chart below. If the language on the left better describes how you discuss your marketing strategy, you’re likely to lose Millennial and Millennial-minded participants.
participation-economy
(Copyright© 2013 by Barkley. All rights reserved.)
Does your brand tap into Millennials’ penchant for sharing and does it allow them to co-create?  The next big idea is likely in the upper right quadrant of the matrix below.
brand-matrix
(Copyright© 2013 by Barkley. All rights reserved.)

DECONSTRUCTING PARTICIPATION
Driven by advancements in digital and mobile technology, Millennials are practically demanding to be a part of the process. The type of participation Millennials want to engage in breaks into three types. Millennials want to cocreate the products and services that you sell. Millennials want to co-create the customer journey or the customer experience. And Millennials want to cocreate the marketing — which goes beyond social media.
One way brands can do this is by crowdsourcing ideas. That’s what Sam Adams Boston Brewery did at South by Southwest with its CrowdCraft Project. The app allowed consumers to help determine a new brew’s color, hops, malt, body, etc. This is a perfect example of allowing consumers to be with you along the way.

DECONSTRUCTING SHAREWORTHY
Shareworthiness is rooted in Millennials’ strong desire for peer affirmation. According to Barkley research, 70 percent of Millennials say they are more excited about decisions they’ve made when their friends agree with them.
Common roads to shareworthiness include purpose and disruption. Is your idea causing people to stop what they’re doing, pay attention and engage in your brand? Or does your marketing and brand help Millennials feel better about themselves at the end of the day?

Can you spot the next BILLION DOLLAR idea?
Brands can’t ignore Millennial consumers any longer. Marketing is about relationships, and brands that want to be successful in the future need to spend serious time engaging this generation. These marketing efforts can no longer be a one-off scheme akin to a one-night stand. They need to develop into lifelong relationships.
Millennials will impact companies’ bottom lines unlike any generation before. Already, Millennials are estimated to have $1.3 trillion in spending power, which is 21 percent of the current consumer discretionary spending. This number will only increase as the cohort matures and fully enters the workforce.
Millennials want to be a part of your brand. They demand to know why you do what you do. They demand authenticity and transparency. When you make Millennial consumers feel good about themselves, they want to participate and share that excitement with their social networks — both online and offline.
So, the question is whether you can spot the next billion dollar idea?
Jeff Fromm is Executive Vice President of BARKLEY & Co-Author of Marketing To Millennials

SOURCE:
From, J. (2013). "Why the old definition of Brand Value has died." TIME. Retrieved from: http://www.psfk.com/2013/06/brand-value-new-definition.html 

Friday, April 26, 2013

How P&G, Ford and Wendy's Are Redefining Value...?

Querido lector:

Recibe un afectuoso saludo. 


Te anexo un artículo que ilustra cómo se están redefiniendo las propuestas de valor en varias categorías…tema muy interesante ante la falta de credibilidad que se ha dado en muchos mercados en donde varios jugadores basan sus propuestas de valor/promesas en base a los precios más bajos. Un reciente estudio determinó (en USA) que un 18% de compradores B2B y B2C buscan siempre el precio más bajo. Son totalmente infieles, descritos como tacaños, muy exigentes y en restaurantes dejan propinas muy bajas, y no muy amables con el personal. La recomendación es enfocarse en el otro mercado: 82% que busca una ecuación de valor que basada en 5 motivadores:

1.Un 52% lo hace por el rol e influencia de representantes y empleados de las empresas donde compran, incluyendo portavoz y /o celebridades.
 ..que ahora son considerados embajadores de marca, a quienes hay que dejarles muy claro cómo comportarse en público apoyando la marca y evitando la competencia. Los clientes buscan integridad, capacidad de juicio y respuesta y simpatía y trato.Si sienten que los toman como un número o indiferentemente hasta un 70% migrará y no estarán dispuestos a participar en estudios de mercado que revelen sus razones.
2. Imagen de la organización (15%)
Aspectos de orden, limpieza, buen señalamiento y organización. Adicionalmente les motivan aquellas marcas o instituciones involucradas en el apoyo a la comunidad.
3. Percepción de calidad/beneficios a la medida (13%): Qué voy a obtener particularmente YO.
4. Conveniencia (12%)
Ante las presiones por hacer más con menos tiempo disponible buscan facilidad de acceso a la marca, tanto en sus páginas web como en el lugar y/o forma donde la comprarán. El servicio post venta viene acompañando ésta variable.
5.) Precio (8%).
Dentro de éste grupo (el 82% del total del mercado USA) el precio es muy importante después de haber recibido alguno de los otros motivadores citados.

Veamos ahora el artículo que acaba de publicarse en la portada de Advertising Age de Abril 27.


Breve resumen y comentarios:

Sin duda algo parecido sucede en México, un mercado con mucha sensibilidad al precio pero que aprecia altamente los servicios, la calidad,trato; temas que muchas marcas están pasando por alto. La presión que se ha tenido en productos de consumo masivo, autoservicios, restaurantes les tiene encajonado en un discurso que no ha cambiado desde que tenemos crisis.  En USA los grandes marcas están haciendo una transición de  percepción de valor asociada con precios muy bajos hacia una de mayor orientada a beneficios, re-diseños e inclusive implementaciones tecnológicas que se reflejen en una mejora en la calidad de vida de sus clientes…dejando como un elemento fijo o valor entendido un precio altamente competitivo. Gran reto para efectos de competitividad , rapidez y eficiencia en la comunicación para que el mercado  se entere pronto.

Aprendizaje:
Hay una nueva tendencia en las propuestas de valor donde se están enfatizando mejoras en calidad, empaque o ventajas diferenciales relevantes mñas que los precios más bajos…que todos tienen.

Marcas líderes como Tide cambiaron el concepto de empaque para que el consumidor ya no pasara por la incomodidad de tener que hacer medidas y se generara algo de ¨batidero¨. Lo interesante es que en una anuncio una pareja explica cómo había adoptado la marca propia de una cadena de súpers…y volvió a Tide por su nueva propuesta. (Tide-Pods). 

Greek yogurt mejoró su calidad y el mercado lo percibió de mayor valor al ¨mejorar sus vidas¨

Otros clientes  prefieren tomar un café en casa, percibido como marca de lujo refleja una mayor percepción de valor y sentido de conveniencia que comprar o asistir e Starubucks.

Ford hace una transición de su propuesta de valor basada en precio ahora integrando tecnología, igual que las marcas premium.

Las franquicias de comida rápida han intentado asociar sus propuestas de valor con paquetes mucho muy baratos y han afectado seriamente sus utilidades..y las de sus franquiciatarios. Wendy´s ahora proclama: Queremos que te guste lo que gastas y disfrutes lo que comes…no necesariamente al mejor precio. Hace sentido.

Hace sentido. Será un reflejo de una recuperación económica o una mercado menos dependiente en precios?


Best,
Rubén

...And If You Want to Grow, You Should, Too


Ever since McDonald's started serving up 59¢ hamburgers and supermarkets launched private-label lines, value has come to mean one thing -- cheap. But a new realization is sinking in among marketers: It can't stay that way if brands are going to survive the dodgiest economic-recovery narrative this side of Lindsay Lohan.
The Value Brands: Wendy's, Tide Pods, Chobani, Keurig's K-Cups
The Value Brands: Wendy's, Tide Pods, Chobani, Keurig's K-Cups
America's top marketers, from Procter & Gamble to McDonald's and Ford Motor Co., are trying -- with varying degrees of success -- to shift consumers' perception of value from a product that's bargain-priced to one that's convenient, efficacious or high-quality enough to command a premium price.

Brands can no longer bide their time, fending off store-brand options while waiting and hoping for consumers' wallets to fatten. About 40% of the U.S. population is still downtrodden, concerned or otherwise worried about their financial futures, according to IRI research.

In addition to convincing consumers, brands may need to perform an even tougher trick: redefining their own definition of value to one that's additive. When not reduced to the question of price, value speaks directly to what benefits a product or service adds to a customer's life. Some smart brands get this and are using packaging, design, sourcing strategies and technologies to entice consumers to get them to open their wallet a bit more, even in these tough times.

"Marketers have clearly contributed to how consumers perceive value," said Kevin Keller, professor of marketing at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business. He noted that as consumers fall back on price equaling value, marketers may need to reframe the conversation to center on cost benefits.
What's sure to be the classic example of a recessionary innovation that gets consumers to pay more, not less, is P&G's Tide Pods. The repackaging of its detergent into one-pack-per-load pellets is a clear boon to the consumer because it eliminates messy measuring. For P&G, it's been a breakout hit that rocketed to $500 million in U.S. sales in only about a year, according IRI figures. The bundle of individual laundry detergent packages comes at a significant premium to liquid Tide -- $18.99 for a 66-load container of Pods on Walgreens.com.

Moreover, Tide Pods is consistent with the Tide brand's overall premium positioning. Consider a recent commercial for Tide, a brand that retails about 35% higher on Walmart.com than cheaper offerings such as Arm & Hammer. The spot, from Saatchi & Saatchi, shows parents of triplets folding laundry. Says the mom: "We switched to the bargain brand. But I found myself using three times more than you're supposed to and still the clothes weren't as clean." Her husband adds, "So we're back to Tide." The voice-over then says, "Just one dose of Tide Original Liquid helps remove food stains better than an entire 40-load bottle of the leading liquid bargain brand."
You're probably thinking that that's all well and good for ad copy, but in reality recessionary consumers are too price-sensitive for this sort of marketing approach. You'd be right -- and wrong.
An article in the February issue of the Journal of Marketing Research looked at 24 quarters of pricing data for 19 grocery categories and found that on average, price sensitivity is countercyclical to the economy, which is to say that it increases as the GDP declines. No surprise there. What is interesting is that countercyclicality isn't true across grocery categories. The degree of sensitivity, the authors found, varies significantly and depends on whether you're talking about peanut butter, spaghetti sauce or toilet tissue.

What explains this variance? The researchers conclude that share of wallet is one of the likely determining factors. "Prices should fall primarily in those categories that are an important component of consumer budgets," they wrote. "In contrast, in other categories, raising prices may even be optimal."

While providing some research-based air cover for price increases, the authors don't delve into how brands might ask for more while not losing consumers. Tide, with its Pods product, has done it through convenience and packaging acumen.

Then there's quality. Greek yogurt is on average about 40¢ more than standard yogurt, yet it's the only growth driver in the category, according to Nielsen. Despite the higher cost, consumers flocked to it because they appreciated the texture and higher levels of protein. In this case, "value didn't mean cheap, consumers felt it made their lives better," said Larry Levin, exec VP-consumer insights at IRI.
Mr. Levin said that for these consumers, "perceptual luxury" is key. Products like Keurig's K-Cups aren't as cheap as a pound of coffee, but they're not as expensive as a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Consumers see them as a trade-up and a convenience, but still a better deal than coffee from a coffeehouse. "It's not about something being cheap -- it's about better experiences at home," said Mr. Levin.

Ford Motor Co. is taking a different tack: technology. In 2011, Ford found that adding Sync, its hands-free communications system that lets drivers control music, make calls and perform other voice-enabled activities, was contributing to average price-per-transaction increases of more than $4,000. Ford has said more recently that over 50% of customers cite the tech system as a reason for purchase. The lesson: in tough times, consumers are willing to pay for added value.
In no category is the word "value" more bandied about than in fast food, in which more often than not it's become synonymous with rock-bottom prices. A survey of McDonald's franchisees by Janney analyst Mark Kalinowski in advance of the company's first-quarter earnings last week (global same-store sales fell 1%) found several riled by the company pushing discounting, which is eating away profits for franchisees. Specifically, some were frustrated that the chain urged them to introduce McWrap -- intended to be premium priced -- for $1. The problem is that it costs $1.70 just for ingredients, a person familiar with the company told Ad Age. (McDonald's said the figure is proprietary and declined to comment further.)

"It's one or the other, the Dollar Menu or other discounting. We can't continue to do both," said a franchisee in the survey. "Every marketing plan focuses on discounting and giveaways," commented another.

Contrast that with the approach Wendy's is taking with its Right Price, Right Size menu. "Everyone has a value menu these days. But at Wendy's, value is more than a low price," reads a recent Wendy's magazine ad. "That's why our Right Price, Right Size lineup is loaded with over a dozen choices all made with the same quality ingredients as the rest of our menu. Because we want you to like what you spend and love what you eat."

Wendy's new menu marketing promotes low prices that range from 99¢ to $1.99.
"The fact that you have choice is a greater value than just price," said Wendy's spokesman Denny Lynch.

Retrieved from AdvertisingAge.com
http://adage.com/article/news/p-g-ford-wendy-s-redefining/241006/ 

Monday, February 25, 2013

In the Oscar mood: Dissecting the $1.6 Million Commercials

How Marketers Used TV's Second-Most-Expensive Ad Vehicle


The Oscars are the second most-expensive TV advertising opportunity with the price of a 30-second spot going for between $1.6 million to $1.8 million. Here, we take a look at what some major marketers did with their time during the broadcast.
We detailed on Friday how a couple major marketers, JC Penney and Samsung, are placing big bets on the Oscars. JC Penney used the show to kick off an ambitious ad campaign called "Yours Truly" with an anthem, "Dear Dreamers."
Interestingly, it was done by an agency called The Bureau, which used to work with Apple and is now exclusively working for JC Penney. (The retailer also works with Peterson Milla Hooks, Brand Advisors and Mother).
Samsung aired a series of ads that built on one another, including one that starred Tim Burton.
Hyundai aired a raft of ads -- seven spots in total -- including a few ads repurposed from the Super Bowl. Hyundai has been the exclusive auto sponsor of the Oscars for five years.* Luckily, spokesman Jeff Bridges was not nominated for an award this year like he was in 2010 for "Crazy Heart," which forced the automaker to scramble for new voice-over artists to comply with the show's commercial rules.
McDonald's aired "Lucky Penny," a charming spot starring a little boy whose very bad day turns very good when his mom gets a flat tire, right outside a McDonalds. The fast feeder has appeared in every Oscars since 1992, according to Kantar Media.
Diet Coke's first Oscars ad, "Credits," was part of its continuing "Stay Extraordinary" campaign. The ad featured a storyline meant to be a tribute to the "extraordinary" people who keep us entertained, both on and off screen. The spot was set to the tune of Robert Miller's "Hooray for Hollywood" and was handled by Wieden & Kennedy.
A second Oscar spot from the brand was imported from the U.K. "Gardener" is a nod to the memorable hunk spot, which aired in the mid-1990s. The spot originally aired in the U.K. and features model Andrew Cooper. It was created by BETC London.
Grey Poupon also harkened back, revisiting the classic ads it once aired.
Apple debuted new iPad spots, including one highlighting the device's filming, video-editing and movie watching capabilities.
Chanel reprised the Brad Pitt oddity that made waves earlier this summer. It was notable not only because it was strange, but it also inspired a raft of parodies, which fueled it to viral success.
Royal Caribbean aired several ads during and around the broadcast to promote Kristen Chenoweth as the "godmother" of its Quantum of the Seas cruise ship. The beginning of the ad could unnerve anyone with rival Carnival Cruise's recent "cruise from hell" crisis. The voice-over begins: "What started as another day in paradise…" leading viewers to wonder where the heck it was going.
Coca-Cola, meanwhile, aired one of its ads (one that originally aired during an "American Idol" broadcast) that addresses obesity to to the big show, a strategy that has elicited mixed opinion.
Chobani was a first-time Oscar advertiser with "Real is Original."
Coldwell Banker follows its Grammys buy with an Oscars ad, part of a big push by real-estate advertisers as the housing market shows signs of coming back.
What did you think of the night's advertising performance?

Source:
AdAge.com

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

So you want to improve work relationships?... How to improve the relationship between departments

Playing Well With Others

How to improve the relationship between the marketing and R&D departments—and increase the chance of coming up with successful new products


Why can’t marketing and research and development play nice?
Both functions are essential to developing successful new products. But the two departments don’t get along nearly as well as senior management thinks.

The Journal Report

See the complete Business Insight report.
How big is the gap? Huge. According to a survey we conducted, some 69% of senior managers described relations between marketing and R&D as collegial, but only 34% of mid-level managers saw the relationship that way.
When we asked staff in each department what they thought about the staff in the other, the comments were even more revealing. R&D employees complained that marketers give them poor data, that the marketing department is too insistent about certain product features or benefits, and that marketers are mainly useful in developing launch plans rather than in actually coming up with new products.
Marketing, meanwhile, had its own beefs: R&D doesn’t include marketers early enough in the product-development process; R&D doesn’t understand marketing, or what it brings to the process; R&D takes the credit when a product succeeds, and blames marketing if a product doesn’t sell.
Such complaints are hallmarks of a dysfunctional product-development process. Both marketing and R&D have indispensable roles to play, but neither can reach its full potential without the other. Companies where such divides exist are more likely to miss out on the kinds of breakthrough products and market-research discoveries that can drive growth and profits for years.
In what follows, we share our strategies for getting both sides to engage more productively from the earliest stages of a product’s development.
Ross MacDonald
1. Make sure everybody recognizes the value that each department brings to the process—and how one side complements the other.
While R&D tends to focus on technical issues and hard data, marketing zeroes in on what customers want and how much they will pay. In essence, R&D staff should be masters of the art of the possible, while marketers should master the art of the valuable, or knowing what people want and will pay for.
Marketers are seldom equipped to solve technical problems. Similarly, R&D often can’t see the difference between what a product can do and what its potential customers actually want it to do. Even in cases where developers engage directly with customers, the ability to ask the right questions and generate reliable, robust market insights is a complex skill honed over years.
One can discover many things that are technically possible, yet may have little or no value. On the other hand, a company may identify a valuable customer need but lack the technical know-how to satisfy it.
The point is not that R&D can’t learn to think a bit like marketers. They should be encouraged to do so. But don’t expect either side to perform the other’s tasks exceptionally well.
To boost mutual awareness, a number of companies we interviewed require their R&D professionals to articulate and, if possible, quantify the value of their work in terms of what it means to the customer. This often brings R&D and marketers together early in a project. Some companies also encourage or even require marketers to be technically proficient enough to be partners with R&D.

Culture Clash

  • The Situation: Different priorities and ways of thinking often create gaps in understanding between marketing and research-anddevelopment staff.
  • The Problem: Such gaps often mean that one side dominates the development of new products, giving short shrift to the other. When marketing dominates, R&D can be under too much pressure to hit on breakthrough ideas. When R&D dominates, new products can lack marketable strengths.
  • The Solution: Companies should help both sides learn to appreciate each other’s strengths, and encourage them to work closely together at the earliest stages of product development.
2. If one department or the other is dominating a company’s process for developing new products, bring the two more into balance.
It’s surprising how often one side is in the driver’s seat. At technology-based companies, R&D tends to hold the upper hand. At consumer-goods makers, it’s marketing. Each situation has its disadvantages.
When marketing has too much control, it stifles the creativity of engineers, who often feel they don’t have the time or backing to think of things beyond what the marketers want. At one consumer-goods company, both marketing and R&D professionals agreed that because of an incessant drive to follow predetermined launch dates—dates that were typically dictated by marketing—product advances were only incremental. R&D had to forgo technical opportunities because it was so often under deadline pressure.
Conversely, where R&D is king, marketing often is called in only at the end of the product-development process, when it’s time to develop a launch plan. At one company we’re familiar with, a company planned a major product launch after nine of its competitors were already selling a very similar product. The company conceded that its product had no advantage over the others. This company clearly should have gotten marketing involved in the development process much earlier.

Getting different departments within one company to work well together is essential in a competitive market. Rob Wolcott from the Kellogg School of Management explains how a company can foster intra-department decision-making.
One of the best ways to bring marketing and R&D more into balance is to create cross-functional teams to discover unmet needs of current or potential customers. A collaborative approach helps both sides experience each other’s contributions, and ensures both are at the table from the beginning.
3. Have the two sides speak a common language.
This is crucial for the departments to work together. They need to be able to communicate with each other, especially when it comes to understanding how a potential product relates to a customer need.
At a major oil company where the marketing staff was often put off by highly technical reports from R&D, senior management began requiring R&D to base its reports for marketing and sales on how the proposed new technologies would specifically help customers. A cover sheet for all technical briefings was created that required the speaker to describe all of the critical points in layman’s terms. A lot of researchers at the company said they found this challenging at first, but over time it improved their ability to collaborate with colleagues in other functions, not just marketing. The approach helped others across the company better understand the company’s underlying technologies.
4. Get out of your silos—up to a point.
The natural inclination for either department may be to stay inside one’s silo. But that is counterproductive. For instance, when R&D teams are excited about new technological opportunities, they should reach out to other business units and let them know what they’re working on. They should be advocates for the direction they think a product or technology should take.

For Further Reading

See these related articles from MIT Sloan Management Review
  • Memo to Marketing
    Peter Lorange (Winter 2005)
    Marketing research must become a model for innovation rather than support the mere incremental administration of brands.
    http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/46205
  • Managing Technology as a Business Strategy
    Tamara J. Erickson, John F. Magee, Philip A. Roussel and Kamal N. Saad (Spring 1990)
    By managing technology effectively, executives can ensure that their company’s R&D program focuses on developing technologies that support its product and marketing strategy.
    http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/3138
  • Hurdle the Cross-Functional Barriers to Strategic Change
    Michael D. Hutt, Beth A. Walker and Gary L. Frankwick (Spring 1995)
    The authors track a strategic decision in a Fortune 500 corporation, identify political obstacles that overshadowed the process, and highlight turning points in the strategy’s direction.
    http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/3632
  • A Plan to Invent the Marketing­ We Need Today
    Yoram (Jerry) Wind (Summer 2008)
    The discipline of marketing hasn’t kept up with the rapid changes facing 21st-century businesses. Here are seven strategies that can make marketing both relevant and rigorous in today’s world.
    http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/49411
  • What People Want (and How to Predict It)
    Thomas H. Davenport and Jeanne G. Harris (Winter 2009)
    Companies now have unprecedented access to data and sophisticated technology that can inform decisions as never before. How successful are they at helping forecast what customers want to watch, listen to and buy?
    http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/50207
However, they shouldn’t become solely focused on fulfilling the wishes of the different business units, which are generally focused on what they can sell today and in the relatively near future. Because of the focus on quarterly results, it is difficult for most business units to devote substantial resources to opportunities that might not blossom for three or more years. The challenge thus is building a portfolio that supports the incremental needs of current businesses, as well as long-term growth opportunities.
5. Focus on the consumer.
When both sides are encouraged to think in terms of what customers want, it helps clarify thinking about product designs and how resources should be allocated. When engagement and thinking in terms of customer needs become routine, everyone has a common vision for what is being developed and why.
Focusing on the customer sounds obvious, but doing it well is a challenge. Simply listening to customers is not enough. The ability to ask questions, observe and engage with customers to generate reliable, robust marketing insights is a trained skill learned through experience.
Still, direct interaction with current and potential customers is important for marketing folks and R&D alike.
So, let engineers spend time in the field with the customers. If the company sells gasoline, let them work at a filling station. There are likely to be ways of applying technologies or products to problems that only occur to people steeped in the technical capabilities of your company.
To develop its Classmate PC, a low-cost laptop for schoolchildren in developing countries, Intel Corp., of Santa Clara, Calif., has sent engineers and other staff to schools in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Classroom observations have helped shape design features: The laptops are sturdy, with nonslip surfaces, and allow students to write on an electronic tablet. Studying and being responsive to local cultures and support systems for the schools also helps the company market the product.
Deeper involvement with customers can help marketing in many areas. At Baxter International Inc. Inc., the Deerfield, Ill., medical-supply company, marketing staff performed an in-depth study of kidney-dialysis care in the field, with patients, doctors, nurses and technicians, examining all aspects of the process. Over the course of the study, marketers identified some 30 possible new product and service opportunities. In collaboration with R&D, some of those ideas have been brought to market already. Other ideas generated by the project are still in development, including pilot projects in various markets around the world.
When marketing and R&D together are truly focused on understanding and acting on customer needs, it makes both of their jobs easier and their results more productive.
A few years ago, General Electric Co. of Fairfield, Conn., started a line of kitchen appliances called the Café Series, for people who love to cook and entertain. Marketing helped develop the concept of kitchen as café; industrial designers and other technical staff gave the appliances—refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers and ovens—a look and features that incorporated the café concept. Both R&D and marketing spent time with consumers cooking in their kitchens and taking notes.
Companies most capable of bringing R&D and marketing together around what really matters to customers will build a powerful competitive weapon. It’s not easy. But if it were, there’d be no money in it.

Source: Wall Street Journal Online.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204830304574133242651502088.html

Friday, January 25, 2013

So you want to keep on studying...? Online Courses Look for a Business Model

Free Classes, Open to the Masses, Seek to Generate Revenue From Content Licensing, Exams or Job-Referral Services


Professor Jeremy Adelman has taught a world-history class at Princeton University for several years, but as he led about 60 students through 700 years of history on the ivy-covered campus this past fall, one thing was different: Another 89,000 students tuned into his lectures free of charge via Coursera, an online platform.
Those kinds of numbers, and their potential for remaking higher education, have generated plenty of excitement about massive open online courses—dubbed MOOCs. They've also lured venture investors and universities, who have put millions of dollars into companies like Udacity, Coursera and edX, which partner with schools or instructors to offer these courses.
Annie Tritt for The Wall Street Journal
Udacity employees work on programing the site at the company's Palo Alto, Calif., office last April.
The most popular of these classes enroll hundreds of thousands of students globally, and while they're taught by star instructors from top universities, they generally don't carry credit that can be applied to a college degree.
While backers say the short, digestible lessons are nothing short of revolutionary, MOOC providers are still figuring out how to keep basic course access free while generating revenue.
Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford University professor and co-founder of Udacity, which launched in 2012 with a $21.5 million bankroll from such prominent backers as Andreessen Horowitz, says his fledgling industry is in "a state of experimentation."

Some of the Partner Schools

Coursera: Princeton University, Duke University, Stanford University, University of Pennsylvania, Emory University, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
edX: Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Texas system, University of California, Berkeley, Georgetown University
Udacity and others are trying out different business models, such as matching students with employers, licensing content to schools and charging for proctored exams, yet it's unclear what might stick—or, more importantly, can actually earn money.
"Nobody has any idea how it's going to work," says Dave Cormier, manager of Web communications and innovation at the University of Prince Edward Island, who was involved in earlier iterations of MOOCs a few years ago and has been credited with coining the term in 2008. "People have ideas of how to monetize it, but simply don't have any evidence."
Coursera, another firm with Stanford founders and $22 million in funding from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and others, recently began notifying students that they can opt in to a job-placement service, where recruiters can access details of their class performance. But the company matched only a handful of students in its months-long pilot and is still determining the fee structure.
While he declines to provide dollar figures, co-founder Andrew Ng acknowledges "it's still a business model that we're fleshing out."
MOOCs are "an innovation looking for a business model," says Kevin Kinser, an associate professor of higher education policy at the State University of New York at Albany. Online courses may be valuable supplements to regular classes, but Mr. Kinser, whose research focuses on nontraditional higher education models, says it's hard to see how they can be more than altruistic endeavors.
Venture investors seem undaunted. New Enterprise Associates Inc. put $8 million into Coursera just weeks after NEA general partner Scott Sandell learned that the company's founders were still debating whether to proceed as a nonprofit or for-profit venture.
"The business model was fairly unclear, but there were some plausible ideas about how Coursera could turn into a sizable company," Mr. Sandell says.
About 350 companies have signed up to access Udacity's job portal in recent months, though it has placed just about 20 students so far. Recruiters pay for successful matches, and Mr. Thrun says Udacity charges "significantly" less than Silicon Valley headhunters, whose cut he says can be two to three months of a candidate's starting salary.
Udacity earns additional money from courses created by talent-hungry technology companies including Google Inc. and Autodesk Inc. Mr. Thrun says that with money from job referrals and sponsored classes, "we will be able to survive quite well," though the company, like other course providers, declines to provide financial projections.
EdX, a nonprofit founded with $30 million each from Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is also letting companies use its platform to offer their own training courses.
With thousands of students in any one class, the varied quality of student work is a barrier to widespread acceptance of MOOCs. But proctored exams, which could help ensure academic rigor, may also offer a revenue opportunity.
Udacity and edX have both joined with Pearson PLC's Pearson VUE to offer fee-based proctored exams at the company's 450 test centers world-wide. Udacity charges $89, while edX's president, Anant Agarwal, expects his to be under $100 when the first exam is announced soon. Coursera is considering similar plans.
With completion rates for most MOOCs usually falling below 10%, the earning potential is limited. If 10,000 people take a course, and 1,000 finish, early trials suggest just a fraction of those students are likely to pay for verified exams. At $89 a head, a successful course might net just a few thousand dollars in proctor fees.
Content licensing is showing some promise, with schools signing on to use MOOCs for large survey courses, which they'll complement with in-person discussion groups and supplemental assignments. Antioch University, which enrolls about 5,000 students over five U.S. campuses, announced in October that it would allow students to take some Coursera classes for credit.
Neither side disclosed the terms of the deal, though Mr. Ng says Coursera received a "modest" fee and is in similar talks with other schools.
Several school administrators admit they're teaming up with course providers mainly because they fear missing out on something big. So far none of the elite schools that provide content for companies like Coursera and edX offer credit for those classes, though attitudes may be shifting.
The American Council on Education, an influential association of university presidents, is considering for-credit status for some Coursera courses. And some schools are designing their own for-credit offerings, creating potential competition for Coursera and its peers. In November 10 colleges, including Duke University, joined forces with another company to launch a series of credit-bearing courses for students at those schools.
Venture funders are optimistic the math will work out eventually. Andreessen Horowitz partner Peter Levine, a Udacity board member, acknowledges that revenue plans are hazy right now, but says he expects "some real direction" on business plans within the year.
At least some providers of MOOCs may decide that nonprofit status is the way to go, taking cues from Carnegie Mellon University's decade-old Open Learning Initiative, which has nearly 45,000 students enrolled across its free and fee-based classes. While it relies mainly on grant funding and offers classes free to independent learners, it has begun charging $15 to $25 per student for the academic versions of some courses—used at schools such as University of California, Berkeley—to ensure the initiative could sustain itself.
Candace Thille, the project's director, says the new course providers have a lot to learn, especially because they'll have to answer to investors. "You can't just cross your fingers and hope money flows in at some point."

More on MOOCs


Company
Number of unique
users
*
Number of course enrollments Number of courses offered Course completion rate Sample courses
Coursera2.09 million 7 million2109%**Think Again: How to Reason and Argue; Introduction to Finance
edX525,000+***462,000+214.6%**Circuits and Electronics; Foundations of Computer Graphics
Udacity460,000975,000195%-14%HTML5 Game Development; Artificial Intelligence for Robotics
Udemy500,000800,0006,00018%An Entrepreneur's Checklist; Advanced Excel Training
*Numbers as of Dec. 18 for Coursera, edX and Udemy. Numbers as of Dec. 19 for Udacity.
**At Coursera, 30% of students who attempt the first assignment ultimately complete the course. EdX figure is based on spring 2012 Circuits course only. Twenty-four percent of students who completed the first problem set actually passed that edX course.
***Not all edX users who have created usernames have registered for a course.
Source: the companies

Coursera's Popular Courses

Course Title Number of Students Enrolled Instructor Affiliation Course Description
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue150,158Duke University and University of North Carolina, Chapel HillLearn how to identify, analyze and evaluate arguments by other people, including politicians and salespeople, and how to construct good arguments of your own.
Introduction to Finance126,523University of MichiganLearn and apply the concepts of time value of money and risk, using both theory and real-world examples, to understand the major determinants of value creation.
Model Thinking100,824University of MichiganLearn how to think with models, such as tipping points and the wisdom of crowds, and use them to make sense of the complex world around us. Algebra is required. Course includes lectures, quizzes and a final exam.

Udacity's Popular Courses

Course Title Number of Students Enrolled Instructor Affiliation Course Description
Introduction to Computer Science230,000+University of VirginiaLearn key concepts in computer science and learn how to write computer programs in the context of building a web crawler.
Introduction to Statistics~70,000Stanford UniversityThe course covers visualization, probability, regression and other topics.
How to Build a Startup~70,000Steve Blank, entrepreneurLearn the key tools to build a successful startup, or at least reduce the risk of failure. Learn the steps of Blank's "Customer Development" process.
Web Development~70,000Steve Huffman, cofounder of reddit.comThe class teaches how to build your own blog application and scale it to support large numbers of users.

Udemy's Popular Courses

Course Title Number of Students Enrolled Instructor Affiliation Course Description
Excel Training for Beginners*19,800InfiniteSkills.com, a Canadian e-Learning companyAn introduction to Microsoft Excel 2010, with topics including data entry, formatting and running calculations.
Build. Measure. Learn. Lean Startup SXSW 201217,700Eric Ries, author and creator of Lean Startup methodologyRecorded at SXSW Interactive 2012, the course covers agile development, business case studies customer development best practices.
Karl Taylor's Free Photography Course17,600Karl Taylor, professional photographerLearn SLR photography, including lighting, portraiture and shutter speed settings.
*Excel course costs $99.

edX's Popular Courses

Course Title Number of Students Enrolled Instructor Affiliation Course Description
Circuits and Electronics155,000Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyIntroduction to engineering in the context of the lumped circuits abstraction.
Introduction to Computer Science135,000Harvard UniversityBased on Harvard's introductory computer science course, it teaches the art of programming for majors and non-majors alike.
Introduction to Computer Science and Programming100,000Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyAn introduction to using computation to solve real problems, aimed at students with little or no prior programming experience.
Write to Melissa Korn at melissa.korn@wsj.com and Jennifer Levitz at jennifer.levitz@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared January 2, 2013, on page B8 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Online Courses Look for a Business Model.

Source: WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324339204578173421673664106.html