The second mover advantage

There is a mythology out there that he who moves second has an advantage because you can see all of the mistakes of the first mover, and you get to position yourself where your competitor is not positioned.

Sound advice, great idea... unless you are competing with Apple...

When Apple moves the industry moves with it.They represent the classic example why the second mover advantage should only ever be a fall back position because you were not smart/quick/innovative enough to get there first.

I had a Blackberry. But this wasn't really the first smart phone was it. Looking back on it, it was more like a transitional device between what was (Nokia type stuff) and what was to come. (The iPhone)

Even when the iPhone came out, despite being a bit of a gadget freak, I hung in there with my trusty blackberry. But ultimately I switched. It was inevitable...

Today there are real smart phones every where. A dozen or so that look like the Google Android, a dozen or so that look like Windows 7 and a few other brands. (RIM is a finished force, they just haven't realized it yet)

But I love my iPhone. It does most everything I require, attaches me to the greatest mobile app store and enables me to listen to audio books, watch TV and listen to podcasts.

This is the problem with moving second. If you move second than you need two things in your favour. Dissatisfaction with the incumbent, and a very good reason for people to switch.

If you moved first all you need to do is continue to deliver outstanding products.

Microsoft moved first on the desktop and their product were good enough for the majority of the world to stick with them through several decades. Yahoo thought it was winning the directory game until Google appeared to teach them that they were actually in the Search business.

Think fast, find a niche, protect the heck out of it and drive it home with powerful marketing and services... beat playing catch up.

Apple saved my business

Part of the ultimate business model I have planned includes online software. The sort that doesn't yet exist and is very much needed in my industry. (As well as a few ideas for other industries)

But to kick that off you need funding, and to get funding you need... time. Something I don't have a lot of right now. 

So as a keen bootstrapper I have been looking at low cost (or free is better) ways to get this site built. 

My funding strategy has continued with both VC's and client companies being approached for funding. But in the meantime I need to start working on some of this stuff myself... unfortunately my programming skills became outdated in around 1992. (Apparently things have moved on since then... who knew?)

Then I stumbled across iTunes U, and immediately kicked myself for not being more curious during the past few months of using iTunes. 

To date I have powered through the programming methodology downloads from (wait for it) Stanford U!! Wow... Pushing into probabilistic modelling and web programming also right now.

Since starting this I have already started my web program project. I am still hunting for funding because the vast majority of companies fail due to a lack of adequate funding, but at least now I will soon have some form of prototype to show them what I am talking about. 

Exciting times... 

Just when you knew all the answers - Why Google won't dominate the future

2 - 3 years ago it was obvious. Google was a sprawling powerful empire whose tentacles could reach into everything we ever did. They were going to dominate the worlds progress and dictate terms...

Well, they are still the gorilla in the room, but the future isn't what it used to be.

As Apple continues to innovate, the world is held captive by the "coolness" of the iPhone. The worlds leading game console with more games than any other vendor in the space. The words leading pocket computer with an estimated 250,000 apps available, which have been downloaded over 6 billion times.

Wow... Apps from medical instrumentation, to engineering to science to games and time-wasters. An then there is the seamless integration between iPods, iPhones, Mac's, AppleTV and so on... the world got really cool and exciting all of a sudden.

So we are now all living, more than ever before, on mobile apps. And something strange happens on Mobile apps. We don't use search as much.....

We use apps. We search for apps, maybe search on maps. But we don't spend our lives attached to a search engine as we seem to do on laptops and desktop devices.

Amazing isn't it. You think you know where things are going and how they will pan out, and suddenly the future is vastly different than you could have ever imagined. Innovation is wonderful.

The allure of software

Four months into my new start up and I am resigning myself to the essential nature of software.

I know Alan Weiss says you can do this differently, but I am not Alan Weiss. My markets are a little more tense and competitive than his are, I am not going to be happy with $2 million a year, and I ultimately want to sell this company for a profit I can invest in additional companies.

Software to me has come to represent a few things.

a) if the business model is built right then it should mean less time for me on the road. This is a biggie right now as my kids are racing towards 10 years old far too quickly. (And I am missing it)

b) The ability to lock others out of the deal.

c) The ability to compete with others on large scale deals. Right now I often find myself on the outer because I do not have software.

So I am reviewing a few products to represent, working on a few small systems of my own, and also on the design of my online system I have been planning for a few years now.

Build / Buy or Represent?

This is the quandary. And I am not sure there is one answer for all issues or questions.

On one hand I do need to build some software for some areas I am working on.

But in general, I am going to represent others where I am able to . This is the benefit of working in Australia when most software developers in my space come from the USA.

I have lined up one potential ally in the states for an online system which I think will shake the foundations of the market here. I intend to offer no commissions on sales, but I get all the training and after sales service. This should go well within the borders of my country.

There are also two other discussions that are ongoing. The goal for all of this is to gain access to good, solid and well supported systems that I can use to provide services with.

I think this is going to be a pretty exciting period actually. One that I am going to really enjoy.

Free is not a business model, it's a competitive advantage !

Google is free. If you want to search, email, store files and pictures, analyze your web traffic, publish an RSS feed, write a blog or publish a website - Google is the free online option for you.

But somebody pays..and today it is through their mammoth advertising coup with Adsense. 

In fact, when the web history iof this epoch is written there will probably be some pretty large questions over how everyone thought that Adsense could just go on underwriting the entire Web 2.0 business models forever. 

LinkedIn is free for most, but if you want a little extra then it costs you. Fair enough, I pay extra for that. DimDim.com is also free if you are happy with the basics, but if you want something a little more polished and powerful then that will cost extra. Again, no problem with that - I pay that too.

Free is not a business model, and unless you are Wikipedia neither is a model built on donations. Low cost is a business model, if it is backed by volume. 

Exclusively expensive is a business model also, (The China White club in London for example) but thanks to places like Dubai it is a bit crowded in that space for anyone to make money these days.

It is a fascinating time to be working in the consulting arena. Knowledge and information is transforming from something that was once highly valued, to yet another commodity. Just check out what is happening to the news; once considered a scarce and valuable product. 

At the same time the skills and technologies to develop software programs, from on premise to online, has never been more abundant. 

So what is happening here? Can it all really be free?

No, not at all. Google is free for the end users but somebody pays for it. Namely the advertisers. In the process it locks Yahoo! and Bing out of the fierce competition to organize the worlds information. 

LinkedIn has spurred many income streams from jobs, to increased access, through to sponsored ads also. By doing so it remains the only really financially viable networking portal for B2B networking. (We business types like to put our trust in "financially viable")

Salesforce.com has turned the 30 day demo into a highly-likely-to-convert sales pipeline that others are keen to follow. In doing so it locked itself into the online CRM Industry as the natural leader. A model that others such as ProjectOffice.net or DimDim.com are very VERY keen to follow.

Free may not be a viable business model, but if it is backed by one then it is a very sharp competitive edge. 

If an organization like (say) LinkedIn can continue to offer something scarce and of value, like networking between the worlds B2B decision makers, then the free element of that will continue to create gravity for the funded part. The part that people like me and many recruiters will pay for.

How can you turn "free" into a competitive advantage for you and your company?

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

Great tools for work offline

With social media marketing I am now connected, often at a personal level, with more people in more places than my father could have ever dreamed of.

This sort of hyper connectedness of course, holds out great promise. promise that we spend a lot of time pursuing online...often at the expense of real possibilities offline.

Instead of relying totally on online order taking systems like Paypal, make sure you have a credit card machine handy in the office or on the road. Easy to forget that people actually have their credit cards with them when you talk to them. And they could probably pay for your course/ book / seminar (whatever) right then and there.

Instead of relying totally on Twitter and email type marketing, try using LinkedIn to make initial contacts, followed up with meetings shortly thereafter. (The higher the better.)

Instead of spending days and nights trying to build your Twitter following, try to build an offline following. It is more resilient, and it translates easily to your work on the web. And in case you missed it - those who enjoy real success on Twitter already have a very strong off-Twitter brand.

Cold calls, visits to clients, follow up meetings, public courses and seminars, speaking at conferences and tradeshows... you name it.

The world isn't all online... it just seems like that.

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

The rise of non traditional media

This has been an extraodrinary week for the rise of non traditional media.

We started off the week with the Daily Show's classic question of the New York Times, "Why do you think aged news is better than real news." Within days we saw Twitter, and other social media sites, absolutely wipe the floor with CNN, BBC and all the traditional media sources.

Throughout the week the social media space hummed with breaking news out of Iran, traditional news outlets seemed more and more to be narrating from the sidelines instead of bringing us bold new facts.

Then came the end of the week, and an event that really stood out for me. All the mainstream guys were confined to barracks in their hotels - but the news continued to stream out.


Videos, Facebook pages, blogs and of course, Twitter as an epicenter.

Every time we hear of one of the newspapers in trouble the standard refrain is that they are an "institution". They play an important role, they are essential to democracy and they shine a light on the darkest corners of business and society ensuring that true justice is done...

Ah... no they don't... (still stinging over their role in the Iraq debacle) and even if they did - do we still need to be passed our information by an institution?

We've been talking about it for years, and now it is finally starting to become a reality.

News is passing from the hands of the few to the hands of the many. A many-to-many world of communication where you cannot hide. Where everyone is Bob Woodward and you had better be playing it straight... or we'll find out.

A world where everyone is armed, via their telephone, with the means of getting the story, and the facts, direct to you within moments of it occurring.

The race is now on to provide the centers for these masses to send their stuff to. When CNN launched their I Report news service (Unfiltered, Unedited etc...) I really saw it as a "me too", type of initiative. Like your Dad trying to show your friends how cool he still is...

Now, it is starting to look like Iran is to their I Report service what Iraq was to them and cable news in general.

Fascinating time to be around...

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

Bloggers vs The Traditional media

Every now and then the traditional media lurches forth out of its death bed to slam bloggers. The titles drift from rumormonger, to peddlers of scuttlebutt, to derisive comments about amateurs and 40 year old men in their pajamas. 

This all misses the point, but highlights the reasons why traditional media is so much in decline. 

The role of traditional media, as protected by them for decades, is to inform. In days gone by this was a scarce function, and one that people would pay money for. (For papers they bought int he street no less)

Today, Google owns the web. Every breaking story almost immediately has 10 - 12 different versions in Google news, and we have a choice which we will read. 

It is no longer scarce, it is a commodity. And commodities can only compete on price, there is nothing else left. 

Bloggers, on the other hand, are not their to inform - mainly they exist to involve and often to teach. When Seth Godin, who writes the worlds leading marketing blog, posts about something it is rarely (if ever) breaking news. But it is a unique insight. 

When ProBlogger Darren Rowse posts on his blog his legion of readers tune in because he generally has something of value to impart to them.

They comment, link, forward it to others, and use the information to shape their own lives and careers. Why do they do this? Because it is often scarce and valuable information. Not only that, but they can get their voice into the ongoing narration of this story also. (And as a consultant...do not underestimate a persons drive for notoriety.)

But with the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or whatever...they just get more information. Information they can get from a myriad of sources. 

Does traditional journalism still have a role? Of course it does, they keep us all honest I hope. 

Is it a commercially viable role? Not yet...not until it becomes scarce and of value again. Until then, they are going to be struggling to even give it away.

There is a message here for those of us who consult. Informing is done by many, and while it is vital - it can be relatively easily found. 

Teaching, on the other hand, is scarce, particularly with coaches who have played before. Involvement and interaction is scarce - particularly the kind that places you at the center of a new knowledge ecosystem as the facilitator between many parties.

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

SAP finally bows to the inevitable

The race is now on in earnest... SAP EVP John Wookey has admitted that the future of SAP's market space is in on demand - not in the old "SAP"-style architecture. 


While I am extremely happy to see they have noted the elephant in the room, beyond their Business-by-Design experiment - but it may well be too late for that John....sorry.


The downturn in corporate activity has left SAP smarting while SaaS companies such as Salesforce.com are reporting quarter on quarter growth. And as SAP can attest - unseating the leader is an extremely difficult game to be in. 


The lure of the extraordinary revenues from the ERP boom days was far too great for them to move on this any sooner, much to their detriment. 


Now that they have chosen to become what they fear, surrendering to the inevitable tide of Y-Gen market entrants and rapidly advancing technology, they are faced with some almighty stumbling blocks unfortunately.


1) Commercial competition is not won on functionality as they can attest. 


Facebook is more functional than LinkedIn, yet the latter holds the core of the web-surfing business community firmly to its core. Why? Functionality doesn't sell, brand sells.!


This worked for them when the required brand was for a big, reliable colossus who could change the world in its stride. Their brand in on demand applications is, so far, near zero.


2) They are big. SAP BIG! On Demand doesn't hold the type of profit margins that they are going to require to keep the colossus rolling forward. Wait for layoffs in the SAP ERP camp within the next 12 - 18 months.


3) Some dirt poor programmer in Pakistan, the Mid West or Asia is currently working on the next wave of business delivery products and technologies... things that will make On Demand seem as antiquated as ERP style systems now are.


Change doesn't respect brands, and while they were busy resisting today, someone has already been thinking of tomorrow.


Sad to see but totally predictable, just like the death of software consulting was. 


If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

A quick look back on household names...

I was flicking through Alan Mather's blog the other day (Which I heartily recommend) and found his post on Bing.com, how it was and how it is today.


It inspired me to check out some of the other household names on the web to see how much they have changed, and to try to track how we have changed along with them. It made for an interesting little research project. 


The NY Times didn't really "get" the web in 1996... Notice the line at the bottom telling everyone to fit their browser to the page.

...but the Wall Street Journal did.. even back then. Notice the difference. One actively cultivating an online commercial model, while the other was just using a placeholder site. No wonder the WSJ is one of very few sites to capitalize on their scarce content commercially online. 

Google still looked like a students experiment in 1997, which it was...(cute eh?)

Meanwhile Yahoo was striding the Internet and dominating the "portal" and directory industry... totally oblivious to the fact that their visitors actually wanted a search engine..

Force.com hadn't yet become the platform for developing SaaS solutions...in fact it was hawking some sort of Palm pilot strap I think...

I think Marc Benioff has done a far better job with it personally...

And lastly a glimpse into the past of AOL.com. Notice that their first site, which was near their heyday, was all about "we got stuff for you"...

While the site today is all about "We got your stuff, AND NEWS!"

Amazing how the world has changed. And amazing how the way these sites started seems to have had a lot to do with where they have ended up at present. From arrogant to desperate (AOL.com), from complex to simple (The Google vs Yahoo experience) and the power of starting out with a consistent vision and sticking to it. (The WSJ)


More to come on this one I think...


If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

The quest for the remarkable

Nothing is so commonplace has the wish to be remarkable. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

This is what drives us away from each other into individual free agent silos instead of huddling together as the masses did during the industrial revolution.

The desire to be remarkable, the desire to stand out and to be truly worth remarking on. But beware...its a trap!

Remarkable can be simple, it doesn't have to be world beating. Amazon.com has truly remarkable customer service. Never let me down, even when I was in the furthest reaches of the world.

Facebook is busy trying to plot and map the worlds relationships... maybe a step too far I think. At least, I'm not too interested in it. Remarkable? Yes. Useful to the person on Main Street? (Where is that place anyway?)

LinkedIn is far less remarkable in terms of functionality, yet it holds the worlds business community to its core. Its remarkableness is in its simplicity, and the user privacy protections it offers.

Twitter is a functionally stripped down micro blogging tool. How many people have remarked to you about it?

Google was remarkable because it was simple, accurate and fast. Not the functionality clutter that Yahoo was thrusting into the marketplace.

Seth Godin is remarkable because he tells us things we already know, or suspect, and does so in a way that creates new imagery and inspiration in a generation of marketers.

In your search to be remarkable, and we are all on that journey whether we recognize it or not, don't get paralyzed with analysis, don't wait and procrastinate while waiting for that earth shattering idea.

Instead, look to what you can do simply that will make others want to remark about you to their colleagues and peers.

I hope that post was at least a bit remarkable ... sure a purple cow would blow my mind... but a really big bull is sometimes worth mentioning as well. ;-)

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

Marketing 2.0 - It's all about trust !!

Marketing 1.0 was advertising. TV slots, Billboards, Radio spots and magazine (print) ads. These still have their place, and they're a lot of fun, but the game has changed. Cynicism, the evaporation of trust and changes in our reading and entertainment habits has given rise to a whole new swag of marketing techniques and practices.

Marketing 2.0 is all about trust. Using trust based avenues to reach the unreachable, and to do so in a way that raises the chance of them buying something from you, at some stage. This is more than getting your name out, it is getting your name out attached to something, some form of value or benefit that people want to possess.

Here are the top three marketing avenues available to you today.

1. Sponsored blog posts. Drawing on the trust of leading bloggers to reach their audience. These are great because bloggers will not risk their readership, or their credibility, by referring somebody who is not worth it. So the reviews are honest and allow you to be introduced to a large group of people by a trusted source.

2. Interviews and guest posts. The world is swimming with blogs, news sources and failing publications. In the increasingly commoditized world of news - scarce and stand out content is something to be fought over. You can make yourself this content for your markets. Another form of introduction to a large audience by a trusted source.

3. Permission based marketing avenues such as your own personal blog, your own personal email newsletters and your own channels on YouTube, or even Twitter. I think the most important element here is that the traffic you have, or the followers in the case of Twitter, need to be authentic . Not just the result of some following technique.

4. Referrals, but not as you have ever known them. Referrals are a different creature than they were even two short years ago. Today a Twitter Re-Tweet, if done by the right people, can have far more effect than a month of display ads on Adwords. Your LinkedIn recommendations,  if collected from the right people, are a permanent and public trust based asset for you. A record of trust  by those others may trust.

The world is changing. You can push against it and continue to employ old world gimmicks like TV spots, SEO advertising  and spam-type marketing. Or you can start to really try to leverage the trust that exists out there.

Amway, as I have noted may times on this blog, is built on trust. A network of sales reps all over the world selling to their family, friends, and extended circles of friends.

Amway turned over 7 billion last year. Thats a lot of trust...

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

Click on the monkey and other traffic scams

Do you remember the "click on the monkey" banner ad?

Back in the pioneering days of the Internet advertisers fell for the same old traffic scam that they have been falling for since the very beginning of advertising. This is the notion that all traffic is good traffic.

The idea was that the monkey moved back and forth in an animated banner, with some title proclaiming that all you have to do is click on the monkey and you will instantly win $1,000,000. Once clicked of course the ad took you to some site that had nothing to do with winning a million dollars.

Somewhere along the line somebody thought that you would arrive, forget about the million you came to claim, and instead take out a high interest loan, or whatever other hair brained scam was being run.

In the old days it was a hot dog and a drink, and then you were supposed to suddenly realize that you really did want to buy a new car after all.

Today we see exactly the same thing but in different forms. The unending pursuit of traffic through increasingly innovative means. Here are some modern examples:

• Twitter auto - DM's  ("Hi great to see you, looking to develop a trust based relationship - Buy this from me!!")
  
• Misleading, outrageous too-good-to-be-true claims on banner ads
• Apparently interactive ads that take you to another site when you try to click the button or 
• Comment spam on blogs
• Link bombing on twitter (With outrageous statements normally)
• Discussion spam on LinkedIn
• Jiggling banner ads (Not misleading, just attention grabbing so they don't really belong here)
• Pop-after ads on spam websites
• "Accept all Invites " type posts on LinkedIn.
• "You have won a free..."

All aimed at driving traffic to a site, and hoping a percentage of it will convert.

Does this stuff work at all? Interruption advertising does have it's place, even if it has been demonized of late. Display ads also have their place.

But traffic scams that are inauthentic, (like Twitter follower count increases, Linking to everyone and anyone, or friending most of the web-surfing universe), just do not convert at the levels needed to be sustainable.

It is a BIG ratio game but yes, some people are foolish enough to fall for these scams. What's more - they are being tried out on an increasingly skeptical and jaded web-going audience.
But if the entire goal of your ad campaign is to drive traffic, any and all traffic, to your website with the hope of converting it to sales then you are fighting an increasingly uphill battle, and you are damaging your brand possibly beyond repair.

If ads are going to develop good traffic, the sort that is likely to convert at some stage, then there are some very simple rules to follow.

1. Realistic (read: believable) benefits, offers and claims. Preferably backed with provable testimonials at some stage for further credibility.
2. Relevance to the articles being read, the search that was performed or the site that you are surfing. Don't place affiliate ads for unrelated themes, they just don't work. (Period!)
3. Obvious locations (based on eye movement on a site) and repeat viewing. (The more times you see it the more likely you are to believe it is for real)
4. Readable and clear writing - written to catch their attention while remaining believable.

All display advertising has it's uses, and these are even more relevant with the advent of the Google-ization of the internet. But take them for what they are. A way to introduce yourself, a way to maintain or improve your brand, and a way to keep yourself at the tip of mind of your potential prospects.

Real traffic, focussed on relevant and real benefits or rewards, will always convert at a greater rate than scams. No quick fix and no sustainable easy path to riches.

In display advertising, as with everything else marketing, it is still more about "who" than "how many".

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

How to fix the dying industry of trade shows?

Trade shows are yet another victim of the splintering world created by the Internet and Google in particular. (Other similar victims include industry specific portals and directory listings - but that's a whole 'nuther post.)

The essence of a trade show is to meet with other like minded people, share experiences, learn about what is going on in terms of technology and innovation, and maybe even walk away with some leading practices to implement back at your plant.

At least, thats what they used to be about.

Consultants and vendors of all stripes flocked to them, they paid money for the right to spam the audience with unanticipated speeches during lunch breaks, and they worked the rooms like crazy looking for glimmers of the next big deal.

But thats all over now. Today trade shows are literally a dime a dozen. Some even dispense with membership costs just so they can still show high attendance figures to lure the poor and misguided vendors to pay for the entire event.

The big players don't go anymore. And if they do they are beset with hawkers, stickers and show bags. The speeches are rarely revolutionary, and the networking value has fallen away significantly.

I used to love these, but as a consultant the value of them to my business these days is exceptionally small and getting smaller. I don't go anymore. Every sector has one or two really high profile events each year - but even these are whithering on the vine.

Why? Aside from the uber-competitive nature of vendors or most of these sectors now, there is another factor. Most of the information that used to be showcased here can now be found online. And found extremely easily.

LinkedIn allows people to network 24/7 instead of once a year, and if someone wants to get a message out there are a range of industry specific groups, networking sites, and other means. So if it's networking you are after - there are many other forums both online and off that occur more than once a year.

And the information is out there. Take blogs for example - I have 8 different blogs that I regularly run through on engineering!! (And that is a pretty boring subject right!!)

Ever done a Google search for "marketing Blog"? Or "sales Blog"?  Do you really doubt that the information you seek is out there?

Why go through the drama of trying to work out which are truly the events to patronize, running the gauntlet of hawkers and vendors all over the place, only to come away with information that you could have found anyway?

Trade shows need a Steve Jobs moment. Something that will shake them up and revolutionize the whole concept for good. Here are some of my ideas on this issue...TedTalks  are already doing a lot of good things in this area - but there is much more that can be done I am sure of it.

First, holding an event once a year is nowhere near enough. Instead speeches and presentations need to be able to be presented to an interested audience regularly. Maybe even one or two times a week.


These can be canned presentations presented cold to a PC only. Or they could be webinars that were run on issues related to innovation or technology. Lastly, these should include presentations that are given to live audiences.

This goes to another concept. trade shows do not have to be a once a year event. In fact micro-shows could be run in each city with concepts and issues that relate to those cities. Turn it from a national / international event to a local one that is shared with an international audience.

Try to cap each session at (say) 200 - 1000 delegates, and make sure they see speakers who are innovators in the themes that they wish to talk about. For example, in engineering I would talk about Mining in Salt Lake city and manufacturing in Detroit.

Short one day sessions with high level speakers, or at least high level local personalities. The revenues would still be there and if you wanted to attract the right level of people then the speakers would have to be high.

Non-commercial speakers always have a high level of credibility. Local members of congress, or of state politics can lead the discussions on trends they see in (say) building up the IT innovation sector of this particular state.

Invite off topic speakers like economists from banks, famous (or infamous) marketers or other types.

More importantly - invite industry leaders, not just hawkers, to speak about whatever they are concerned about or something remarkable that they have achieved.

And make sure all videos are available online just like TED does.

Use this to develop the permission based asset. An asset where people trust you to regularly deliver high quality information and speakers on a range of subjects directly to their email or RSS feed.

Use these events and videos to publicize webinar style discussions and debates where some industry leading thinkers, along with community participants, can be involved in many-to-many discussions related to the issue at hand.

And use this permission asset of interested people to drive out survey style information related to best practices. (A la Aberdeen Group.)

There are many more ideas here that still need to be thought through. But there is no doubt that trade shows are dead or dying - the really fascinating part is what will rise to take their place (if anything) and who will do it?

I am willing to be that just like TED Talks it will be someone from outside of the industry rather than an established conference organizer.

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

News flash - there are more poor people than rich people!!

There are very few really wealthy people who got to be so from making stuff for the super rich.

The last boom was all about dispensable income and the rush to luxury - but in case you missed it, that is well and truly over.

Real wealth, and most wealthy people, comes from satisfying the masses. Think of Tesco, Wal-Mart, iPod, Nokia, Google or the vast majority of other brands out there. They are for us, the litle people - not for them - Donald trumps gang.

Sure a few have done well. Armani, Ferrari, Rolex, even Bentley for the upper middle class crowd. But it is a crowded field chasing a small and fickle market. ("The next Armani" is a phrase you never hear)

Here is another newsflash for you... There are far more small and medium businesses than there are large businesses.

In fact - the large business market is incredibly crowded, with each company working beyond their limites to try to carve out some form of competitive advantage.

Yet in many areas the small and medium guys are left unattended to... in areas where they would pay a small fee to be helped.

If you ran a gym why wouldn't you offer cut price rates to mid sized companies instead of chasing the corporate membership of the four or five really big firms on your city? The individuals can then be targeted with additional classes, merchandise and so forth.

If you ran a service s company why wouldn't you try to increase revenues by tying services up in a subscription model somehow? High volumes, lower yields per client, but more work for everyone and more revenues overall.

If you can target the rest of us, and opt out of the giants of industry and the super wealthy, then you have far more chance of really leaving your mark on this planet.

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

13 powerful reasons why LinkedIn is THE site for B2B marketing, job hunting and searching for resources

1. LinkedIn is like a 24/7 trade show  that every one came to. (41 million users)

2. Conventional networking hubs like trade shows are in decline  due to excess supply and low level attendees

3. You can search for references on potential employees, and customers.

4. No other social media platform will enable you to contact VP's Directors and presidents of large B2B style clients.

5. You can get introduced by mutual connections.

6. It is a trust based asset . You can get referred , publicly and permanently, by industry professionals who others will take as  a trusted source of information.

7. CV's that are held in public are unlikely to employ artistic license.

8. You can get advice from groups of like minded professionals.

9. You can announce your availability, and see jobs related to your field of expertise without having to subscribe to email alerts !! (One of the many reasons why LinkedIn is going to wipe out job boards )

10. You can purchase the right to contact people. (Even though their email stays hidden from everyone!)

11. The value of a recruiter is dependent upon his ability to build and create a network on LinkedIn that is both deep and broad. (Changing their role from gatekeepers and anonymous holders of your CV, to trusted connections.)

12. You can still maintain your privacy and avoid spam easily.

13. You can contact people who are not presently looking for work . meaning they have no chip on their shoulder and are often not coming from a position where they are disgruntled.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have yet to see the full impact of LinkedIn on the world of B2B marketing, job hunting and candidate search. I have also no doubt that the number of industries that this particular program will change is only now starting to reveal itself.

In fact... I am in two minds as to whether or not to start my own targeted recruitment agency based solely on LinkedIn!!

Good luck out there!! I hope that this gives you some food for thought in relation to your modern marketing and job hunting practices.

I also hope that there are those of you in the recruitment game that are wise enough to realize that your model needs to change quickly or you will go the way of stock brokers, travel agents and newspaper journalists...

Please add your own below...

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

The tragic demise of tradeshows...

Part of the problem of technological change is that it renders things that are a lot of fun useless.

For example - advertising, big ads in magazines, newspapers, on TV and radio - really is a lot of fun to do. Feeds the ego to I might add. Just not as effective as other mediums and nowhere near as cost effective.

So if your goal is to make the phone ring or the inbox ping then its out...

I always wanted to own a magazine, and I still do. A real print, check it out at news stands magazines. But alas and alack that industry is decaying rapidly and whats left is far too competitive for me I am afraid.

My latest casualty in the things I really enjoy but are no longer effective - are trade shows.

I started to frequent trade shows in the early 1990's and back then it was great. 

Lots of clients, few consultants, low levels of competition and easy opportunities to meet economic buyers. I went, spoke, held workshops and reaped the rewards.

Today... I don't go anymore. it is good fun, and a great social occasion, but my time is far better spent elsewhere doing other stuff.

Trade shows are like that really good restaurant that was great when nobody knew about it, but it's ruined now that the secret is out.

Few clients, being harassed by a throng of sellers, and all the competition there to try to scoop you. And there are many (MANY) trade shows these days. Everyone with a roladex and a telephone seems to be trying to organize one.

Most client who go these days may be influencers but they are rarely economic buyers; and the theory that your competitors will be there to take your business is only true if you brand and competitive advantage does not speak volumes about your work.

There are one or two really good ones every year in industries related to mine. Diggers and Dealers is one of those, (cool name isn't it?) and there are a few others.

But mostly I go for fun rather than for marketing or sales these days. Far better ways to make money than hawking at these types of events. Tragedy really...

This is an industry that needs a Steve Jobs moment. Maybe you can think of a better way to "do" trade shows?

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.

Strategy springs from fear...

Just a few years ago Oracle and SAP were giving backhanded compliments to Salesforce.com and the whole SaaS movement. They saw it as a non-issue. They believed their client base would hold together and that this upstart technology could not threaten their strangle hold on the worlds Enterprise resource markets.

Today both of them have a toe in the water via NetSuite and Business by Design.

At some point the threat of SaaS started to keep the leaders of these companies awake at night. The threat of decaying revenue streams, reducing profitability, and a shrinking market to try to get it back from.

So they joined the fray, and they were the first of the big players on teh field. The goal? if it is going to be, then try to control what it looks like. Try to influence the market to make sure that profitability and revenue is sustained at least.

Sudden death has always been a threat. Telegraph versus morse code. telephone versus telegraph, and email versus land mail.

Even today we see it in HD versus Bluray, VHS versus Betamax, Atari versus Nintendo.

What are you scared of? SaaS eating your industry footprint? Hotel chains giving away more stuff like movies, internet access and breakfast while maintaining quality? Competitors outsourcing their back office functions to drive down billing costs? Being commoditized as the recession forces out of work professionals into your field at reduced costs?

The list is endless...

If these things frighten you, if they are keeping you up at night and seem to be near inevitable - then do it first.

Start your own market before somebody else does it to you. Beef up the value chain of services you offer to separate yourself from the pack, get rid of (outsource) everything that takes up time and look to maximize your use of the free and cheap technologies that abound these days.

If you don't then somebody else will...

You CAN shrink your way to greatness

GE knew that if it was to be one of the truly great and historic companies, beyond the twentieth century, then it could not throw good money after bad. If it could not be either the first or second in its chosen industry sectors then it wasn't interested in playing the game.

ATARI on the other hand had a different story to tell. After starting the Game mania, they decided to go into making computers as an additional business stream. Ever heard of the ATARI computer?

Ebay is currently trying to work out what to do with Skype after discovering that it really wasn't into the VoIP business after all. (It apparently wasn't in the social media business with StumbleUpon either) Microsoft has failed with great Plains ERP system (Never heard of it right...)

Roberto Goizueta is often credited with making the Coca Cola the brand that it is today during his tenure as CEO. Goizueta didn't expand into other related markets, he didn't distract the attention of the organization on less profitable ventures. Instead, at a time when Pepsi was buying fast food chains and chip producers, he cut everything back to the core business. Selling syrup.

When you try to launch into unrelated or barely unrelated fields you face a number of difficulties. One is competence, as there are almost always competent players in that field already. And the other is bandwidth and attention. Instead of focusing on what is bringing in the cash today, you get sidetracked into often less profitable ventures based on what might work tomorrow.

If you CV is everything to everyone then no-one will ever be able to wade through it. Likewise if your company if everything to everyone then every pitch is too broad and nowhere near deep enough.

You can shrink your way to greatness, in fact - if you want to achieve greatness you need to be able to do everything within a narrow band exceptionally well.

The Great Traffic Scam

Ever since medieval shopkeepers have hung signs on nearby trees advertisers and marketers alike have been fascinated with the prospect of generating traffic. Traffic building was a fine art designed to drive people through your store.

And they came. traffic builders were great for producing exactly what they were named for - Traffic! But not sales. Free drinks, air conditioning, Hot Dogs, whatever are not likely to entice people to buy real estate, or perfume, or tobacco or whatever it is that you actually sell.

By the same token driving traffic to your web site via shotgun style Adwords messages, or SEO marketing on a range of vaguely representative words, contextual links or even buying traffic through blog sponsorship will not produce ales unless it stands for something.

Tricking people to enter a store just annoys them, it doesn't mean they will suddenly decide to buy whatever it is you are selling.

Getting your name out means very little. Getting your brand out means the entire world. People need to know what it is that you represent. What your personal or professional brand actually means to them in terms of value or experiences.

Don't try to be where they are, instead try to be what they are looking for. (And be extraordinary when they find you)

If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to this feed, or you can subscribe to Consulting Pulse by email.