What's our Plan B?

“I love this idea! what’s our Plan B?”

Anyone who has worked with me has heard me use this phrase. I say it often. It only takes a few meetings to learn that having a Plan B is necessary in order to get an idea green lit, funded and resourced.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no "Debbie Downer". It's just that no matter how confident we are in the success of a program at the start, there is always the chance of execution error, miscalculations or just run-of-the-mill, unexplainable, under-performance. And it’s better to be cognizant of this potential at the start.

Projects are about engaging with risk, not avoiding them

An Econsultancy blog around recognizing the risk in project management says this:

Projects are about engaging with risks, not avoiding them. We engage with risk in order to achieve commensurate rewards. If we can eliminate all risks, then the project is probably trivial, the rewards inconsequential. Most of us want to work on projects that make a difference. So we have to deal with risk.

It goes on to confirm that the best time to think about risk is at the outset of the project. And to ensure the team is aware of the signs so that issues can be dealt with as they occur, not when too many of the dominoes have fallen.

2 more benefits of establishing a Plan B

In my experience there are additional benefits to teams who clarify their Plan B up front.

1. Clarity and transparency around the metrics

I’ve written about the many benefits of getting everyone singing off the same metric song sheet and it applies here too. The program team needs to be on the same page around the metrics that will trigger the decision to move to the established Plan B.

2. Fosters a risk tolerant culture

I want team members to bring me their move-the-needle ideas. And I want them feeling good about what the business learns from every test. Establishing a Plan B as part of their original idea removes much of the destructive “blame game” dynamics that could potentially come into play. 

Because the Plan B is part of the team's original idea, if/when a Plan B needs to be implemented, the program itself isn't a failure. And the focus can be on gaining learnings that can later be rolled into the next idea.

Planning for Plan B

Business-moving ideas will always involve some risk. Proactively planning a Plan B helps mitigate that risk. There is less hesitancy in calling issues out and putting the already-agreed-upon alternative plan into action. And it keeps the focus on learnings for the business vs. an innovation-crushing blame game or witch hunt.  

Happily, I have been fortunate to work in online businesses where technologies like A/B testing, content management systems (CMS) and marketing automation tools allow programs to be easily monitored and quickly adjusted to Plan B when it’s been needed.  

Tell me what you have learned about managing risk while fostering a risk tolerant culture?

Achieving "Smarketing" is challenging

Have you heard of "smarketing"?  I don’t know who is credited with coming up with the term itself, but I think it's fantastic!  

It’s a term to describe the desired alignment between an Inside Sales team and a Marketing team: Sales + Marketing = Smarketing  

I always like 'branding' complex concepts and ideas with memorable names because it provides a shared vocabulary. And, unfortunately, aligning Insides Sales and Marketing teams tends to be complex and fraught with tension. It doesn’t have to be and it absolutely shouldn’t be. If there were any two teams who need to be actively collaborating and working hand-in-hand it is inside sales and marketing. 

So why does the relationship between Inside Sales and Marketing teams get tense and complex?

This Harvard Business Review blog summarizes the key drivers of the trend of companies to move more toward inside sales.  And in includes this quote that, for me, illustrates the crux of the marketing/insides sales dynamic:

Inside Sales is a transactional engagement and the focus is on opening opportunities. Outside teams are solution and relationship based...our Inside Sales...require persistence, research and back end work

This highlights two ideas that can fuel tension between marketing and inside sales teams:

a) that inside sales is transactional and

b) the work of inside sales requires persistence and research.

Here’s the thing: if Inside Sales work is transactional, then the leads delivered by Marketing must be highly, highly qualified and just moments away from a purchase decision.  And if Inside Sales requires persistence and research, then the sales rep is accountable for actively working leads delivered by Marketing; being persistent and creative about cultivation.

So Inside Sales wants Marketing to deliver them large volumes of highly transactional leads, and Marketing expects Sales to be persistent about cultivating and closing. Tension, anyone?

I’ve found true collaboration and "smarketing" can occur if the two teams align around the business metrics that need to be optimized. And by opening the kimono around the processes of each of the teams. Active dialog on both fronts helps smooth out rough edges and keeps the expectations of each team well managed.  

In an earlier post I wrote about the many benefits of getting everyone to sing off the same metrics song sheet, and a significantly more collaborative inside sales and marketing team relationship is a key benefit.

Inside Sales is a growing trend, and Marketing leaders must embrace it. Kick it off on the right foot and actively collaborate with your sales lead. Own the process to ensure both teams are aligned on priorities and have a common view of the metrics for business success.  This will help smooth out the rough patches on your way toward true “smarketing”.

I'd love to hear from you. What are you doing to achieve “smarketing” in your organization? Any tips to share?

What kind of marketer are you?

"What kind of marketer are you?"

It's a great question and, coincidentally, over the past few months, I was asked this question a lot by different start up executives at various events. I am happy to be hearing the question more regularly because it demonstrates an increased understanding about the breadth of the marketing discipline and differences among marketing professionals. 

We know that the most effective marketing teams require a wide range of talent to effectively address the revenue and growth needs of each of our unique businesses. And while every marketer needs to be data driven, you must not hyper-focus solely on optimization or you will lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Who do you need on the team?

This fun infographic summarizes some marketing roles (personas) that are on today's best marketing teams: a web designer/developer, a content creator, a technologist, an analyst and a campaign manager. In addition, every well-stocked marketing team also needs professionals focused on user insights, branding/positioning and as well as on pricing and packaging. And depending on your business, you may also need marketers focused on sales readiness and programs for upsell and activation.

Effective marketing leaders are able to align all of these different specialists around one integrated marketing strategy. Of course each marketing leader has his/her unique strengths, weaknesses, blind spots and areas of genius and these are informed by both her inherent DNA and his unique path to leadership. Some, like me, "come up" through quantitative acquisition marketing with its analytic rigor while others "come up" through branding or PR or creative tracks.

Regardless of how any one leader starts their marketing career, in order to be effective in today's marketing environment, they must understand and appreciate how each specialty works and how each complements the other. Without this understanding and appreciation, a leader runs the risk of crafting and executing a lopsided strategy.

And business priorities can and will change from year to year. Today's marketing teams must be flexible and, potentially, virtual. Marketing teams need to stay nimble and be constantly skating to where the puck is going to be (Wayne Gretzky). I prefer to lean on consultants and agencies for critical, specialized activities and hire marketing professionals who can strategize, manage and lead multiple activities and only those functions where we need to own that core marketing competency in the long term. But these kinds of decisions are specific to each business.

Leaders think beyond their specialty.

For those up and coming marketing-leaders-in-the-making, my advice is to find ways to extend your horizons beyond your current specialty. Talk with your current manager and find external mentors. Find opportunities to spend time with other marketing specialists on your team and learn from them. Lay the groundwork now because this insight and experience will be necessary when you're running the show one day!

Good Leaders Get Out of Their Own Heads

A recent Harvard Business Review blog about team members who derail meetings, reminded me of Whitman's famous quote, "Be curious, not judgmental." Over the past few months I have shared this quote quite a bit. 

My current role has me working closely with a team in Copenhagen. Since I live near San Francisco, that's not very "close". In fact, it's over 5,000 miles, an 11 hour plane ride and a nine hour time difference. So in a typical workweek there are only about 10 hours of overlap "working" time - and that's only because I start my days with meetings at 6:30 or 7 am.

Yes, we use video conferencing and of course we use social business collaboration tools for managing team workflows and communications. Technology is how we can make it work. But it's absolutely not easy.

This experience has brought home for me just how easy it is for people to be influenced by 'group think' and subtle biases. In psychology it's called ultimate attribution error and it can be summed up as "when members of our group make a mistake, its an accident or an anomaly, but when members of another group do so, it's typical of them." 

Ultimate attribution error is apparent among people who interact every day, and it gets exponentially amplified when distance limits personal interactions and communications are primarily written and asynchronous.

In my situation, the two groups in question could not be more different. One group is the acquired start-up: a less than 20-person team, mostly co-located in one office in Copenhagen. And the other group is the acquiring multi-billion dollar company with thousands of team members in a division spanning multiple locations in California and around the world.

Even for seasoned leaders like myself who have gone through required hours of "diversity training" and have earned some self-awareness through the school-of-hard-knocks -- in the moment, I can and do get frustrated. It is difficult to always assume positive intent and to be authentically curious about the other team member's actions and point of view all day long, every day.

So multiple times each week I remind myself - and my team members in both locations - to stay mindful of this reality. I find it is especially important to take a moment in those emotionally charged times when you perceive the other person as "derailing a meeting” or “going too slow” or “doing something stupid”.   The HBR blog post says it best: you must “suspend your assumption that you understand the situation and others don’t.”

It takes strong leaders in both “groups” to be mindful of the potentially dysfunctional tendencies and biases that exist between geographically dispersed teams. Leaders must actively self-regulate their own attitudes and behaviors while also proactively address developing these important ‘soft’ skills in all team members.

I think I will post that Walt Whitman quote on my monitor to help me keep out of my own head.  What will you do?

Process is Not a Dirty Word

I am unabashedly a Harvard Business Review (HBR) blog fan and a recent HBR blog post from Sarah Green called Making Process Planning Cool Again really struck a chord.

As Green mentions, just the simple utterance of the word 'process' tends to elicit shudders of horror from Millenials and paints the speaker as an out of touch, anal retentive school-marmish librarian -- ouch!

While Green's post focuses on the work of the Toyota Production System Support Center (TSSC) - a non-profit within the auto company, process isn't just beneficial for manufacturing.  It's also necessary for effective marketing.

As any marketing leader will tell you, it's the execution of that amazing, integrated marketing strategy that moves your business metrics! And that execution means keeping many different balls in the air - from brand management, to search keyword optimization, to banner and/or print creative development, to social media posts, to media planning, to event planning, to promotions, to website A/B testing, to metric dashboard development - and the list goes on and on.

Each ball with its own discipline, specializations, tools, strengths and weaknesses.  Each element needing to pull its weight driving cost effective awareness, adoption, trial, purchase and retention while also consistently reinforcing the brand and addressing customer needs and pain points. If this juggling act doesn't scream for process, I do not know what does.

Here's why I believe process is cool. It's because for my marketing teams, process doesn't constrain, it liberates.  Process allows the blocking and tackling of coordination and optimization to be part of the "routine" -- daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly -- thus allowing us the mental freedom to invest time/energy in exploring new ideas and new tests.  It is the fact that there is a process that allows us to be creative and out of the box while also not dropping any of the many balls in the air.

So, to 'borrow' a sentiment from A Few Good Men (let's say it together with your best Nicholson impression), "somewhere, deep down inside in a place you don't talk about at parties, you want a good process, you need a good process!"