Search Results

Consumer dissatisfaction can be far more potent than satisfaction.

Has enterprise software become too complex to be effective?

Consumer preference is determined by how their options are presented.

Responding to the growing threat of identity theft.

While most managers would think long and hard before bringing to market a product that lacked patent protection and could be easily imitated, many invest in sales promotions -- sweepstakes, coupons, time-limited price discounts, free gifts or samples, special events, displays, membership rewards, consumer- directed promotions and so on -- that are easier to imitate than the simplest new product. Others sign off on plans so generic that they seem unrelated to the brand or company offering them, despite the fact that sales promotions may absorb a significant portion of a company's promotional dollars -- currently a reported 31% of marketing budgets. By contrast, a strategic focus -- considering how customers and competitors will react to any promotional effort, as well as the message delivered and the stature in the marketplace of the brand delivering it -- leads to promotions that defy or delay imitation and yield disproportionate benefit for companies that have already developed a strong competitive position. The authors suggest that when all these strategic factors are aligned, the result is a successful promotion, and they illustrate that with successful promotions conducted by General Motors, Home Depot and Procter & Gamble, among others. However, the authors caution, such promotional strategies require inventiveness, originality and swift action -- qualities neither present nor encouraged in many corporate cultures in which familiarity and predictability are prized. Managers in such organizations, then, not only must tailor a promotion successfully to its intended market, they must also skillfully shepherd it through internal barriers. Knowing why, how and for whom sales promotions will most likely be profitable surely will help in that regard.

Avoiding the pitfalls in leveraging customer data.

How innovators identify the critical things they don’t even know that they don’t know.

The image of one omnipotent and charismatic CEO, alone at the top of the company, is closely held both in business theory and practice. But the authors argue that under the right conditions, co-chiefs -- two or even three individuals sharing the top job -- can benefit the organization because different leadership styles and competencies are simultaneously available to most effectively deal with differing situations. Notable examples past and present include Google, IMAX, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs. From their study of over 100 companies that adopted power-sharing -- sometimes productively, sometimes not -- the authors conclude that it is most likely to work when the relationship between the co-CEOs evinces complementarity, compatibility and commitment. Further, careful design of the leaders' shared and separate responsibilities -- especially regarding communication mechanisms (for external constituents, inside the organization and between each other) -- is required. Lastly, it is essential that there be co-evolution, in which each of the co-leaders show willingness to change over time and allow their relationship to further develop. In that spirit, the authors offer seven practical "rules of engagement" for forming power-sharing structures with good potential for success, for ensuring smooth day-to-day functioning and for adjusting these relationships as conditions change.

The differences between veterans, boomers, Xers, Ys.

Research shows that the most important factor for driving innovation is company culture.