Shouninjutsu

I don’t usually blog about this sort of thing. The folks at Grokdotcom (especially Melissa) do a great job of critiquing specific online and customer service “experiences” (disasters), but I just tend to shrug them off and move on.

But recently I’ve had a string of really bad experiences with live chat. Often enough and bad enough that I wanted to comment and point out some common threads I’ve noticed in the poor application of chat technology. Ok, and also just to vent. Here’s a session I had last night on the Apple website, as I was preparing to purchase a MacBook Pro and decided to check out the financing option:

*************************************

You are chatting with Alan, an Apple Expert

Hi, my name is Alan. Welcome to Apple!

Alan: Hi, How are you?

You: Hi. I am looking to do this just to finance a MacBook Pro to replace one I need to return to work. How likely is it that I will be approved?

Alan: I don’t really know. The Juniper Visa Card is associated with Barclays Bank.

You: Are there other financing options?

Alan: You can use a Bank Debit card.

You: A debit card is not financing. That’s cash. Do you know if the card is any easier to qualify for because it is sponsored by Apple?

Alan: Just another minute…

[Almost 5 minutes later]

Alan: The Juniper Visa Card with iTunes Rewards is a credit card issued by Juniper, a division of Barclays Bank Delaware.

Alan: There are two ways to apply. From the main page of the Store, apply before you shop by clicking on the ‘Juniper Visa Card with iTunes Rewards’ tile - OR - apply from the ‘Select a Payment Method’ page during the Checkout process.

Alan: I would recommend filling out the application as they are very good at getting back to you as to weather you are approved.

You: Again, my question is: do you know if this is any easier to qualify for because it is sponsored by Apple?

You: And do you know which credit bureau they check for your credit scores? Can you find out for me?

Alan: I can’t find out for you because it is not sponsored by Apple. It is a completely separate company.

Alan: In Chat I do not have access to personal information.

You: Do you know of any companies that do leasing for Apple equipment?

Alan: I really don’t.

You: Can I get a transcript of this conversation?

Alan: Yes, but only by copy and paste on your end.

You: Ok. signing off. I’m disappointed that this chat was totally non-helpful and didn’t even answer my direct questions. Thanks anyway.

Alan: Thank you for visiting the Apple Store. We appreciate your business.

Thank you for contacting the Apple Store. If you require further assistance, please call 1-800-MY-APPLE.

*************************************

“We appreciate your BUSINESS?!” I walked away and they (at least for the moment) LOST my business solely because of this crappy experience. If you are not going to support a feature/function (like financing) any better than this, DON’T BOTHER DOING IT.

And by the way, how about that fabulous personalization (How did they know my name is “You?”).

Yes, I realize that “live chat,” like pretty much all CRM application, is not at fault in and of itself– a technology can only be as good as the people using it. But I think chat has the following problems:

High expectations relative to the actual benefits- when we “chat” with an online sales rep, we expect to be able to converse with him or her as we would an actual salesperson in a store. But on the internet, “chat” technology and culture is really oriented towards and has really evolved from idle, abbreviated messaging among friends. more like idle chatter. Build a professional sales tool on that foundation? IMO DATS DUM 4 SHUR

Difficult implementation- I’m not talking about how hard it is to get working technically, I mean that it’s hard to train, monitor and balance the necessary quality of service cost effectively. I know– I ran and consulted for some of the earliest, largest multi-touchpoint (phone, email, chat, automated self-service FAQ) contact centers in the early dotcom days. A typical chat rep will be multi-tasking up to 4 chats at a time, while also doing email customer service. Can YOU have 4-6 conversations at a time? So of course, the obvious solution is to outsource your chat to a call center in India. Yeah, let me know how that goes.

The moral of the story is– how many times do we have to say it?– any tool or technology is only as good as the people and the plan behind it. Chat is just one of those “touches” that once you get over the “gotta have it” impulse, is particularly hard to execute well. And because of its immediacy and real-time “voice” can be more damaging to customer relations than most.

Was it Mark Twain who said it?

“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Read a great post on Simplenomics entitled, “Here’s a Little Used But Highly Profitable, B2B Sales Tip.”

http://www.simplenomics.com/heres-a-little-used-but-highly-profitable-b2b-sales-tip/

I couldn’t agree more with what I considered the main theme of the article. Listen to the “Little People” if you want to know what’s REALLY going on at a company.

At one point in my consulting career, I was hired several times as a “turnaround specialist,” and this was the VERY FIRST (and sometimes ONLY) thing I did:

1) Survey EVERYONE in the company– top to bottom. Ask basically four questions:

1. What works?
2. What doesn’t?
3. If you could get rid of one thing, what would it be?
4. If you could do MORE of one thing, what would it be?

2) Throw out all the responses from senior management. For the most part, they’re the bozos that caused the problems in the first place.

3) Correlate and summarize the results, coming up with 3 specific recommendations– almost exclusively the result of the surveys (though not necessarily telling sr. management that’s where the ideas came from– they sometimes tend to discount the “little people.”)

4) 9 times out of 10, they’d tell me I was “brilliant,” and want to hire me to implement the recommendations. If the payoff was big enough and I felt they would REALLY follow through, I might consider it.

The moral of the story: Often, there is WISDOM in the rank and file. The solutions to most companies problems are already obvious to most folks who have to deal with it themselves day in and day out.

Smash the upper management BS-o-matic, haul that “dead moose” carcass (you know, the one nobody wants to talk about) off the conference room table, and harness the knowledge already buried in the organization.

————

Best part of the story? As you pointed out, just by listening the the “worker bees,” I made friends for life with whom I had great credibility as I worked within their own organization for change and even as we all went on to different “lives” in our careers.

Vilfredo Pareto was a French-Italian sociologist, economist and philosopher born in 1848 in Paris. In 1906, as a lecturer in economics at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, he first articulated what has become known as the “Pareto Principle” or the 80-20 rule when he observed that 20 percent of the population owned 80 percent of the property in Italy. It was immediately obvious that there must be some sort of underlying organic principle supporting this observation as the same 80-20 ratio seemed to apply to any number of situations.

In 1941, J.M. Juran discovered Pareto’s work and the “Pareto Chart” became part of the foundation of the quality and efficiency movements that have molded and shaped the economics and business models of post-war industrial society.

And your point is?…

9 times out of 10 (or perhaps it’s closer to 8 out of 10 to be more precise<g>), we all go through an internal Pareto Analysis for virtually every decision we make. Simply stated,

“What is the most effective thing I can do in this situation with the greatest likelihood of producing the most favorable outcome?”

But ironically, in today’s information society where data, theories and “expert opinions” seem to know no bounds, it’s harder than ever to filter the truly critical factors out from the surrounding “noise level.” You need simple, direct, factual summaries and directions you can trust so you can get on with your busy life. Thus the popularity of “Idiot’s Guide to…” books. But you’re not an idiot– you just don’t want to (or have time to) sort through all the “fat and fur” to find the “meat” you’re looking for. The fact is,

…most of what you need to know can be summarized in 3-5 (max) simple steps or bullet points that will solve the vast majority of issues you face….

Not done talking about this yet.

NEXT– The Pareto Proclamation in Practice

One thing about Ninjas— and Ninja Marketers— they don’t have time for a lot of superfluous crap.

Ask 10 people about the biggest frustrations they encounter in their working lives. 10 of them will put the “decision-making process” Go ahead. Ask.

Told you so.

Let me share a short, sweet 3-step (what would you expect from “Shuriken Kurt”?) approach to simplifying the process in almost any group decision-making environment.

It’s called RID. It’s a matrix management approach that allows multiple people to serve multiple functions on multiple “task forces.” And it’s an attempt to clarify the exact role each individual plays on those task forces. Used with a little bit of discipline, it can help avoid the “mob mentality” of trying to do everything by committee.

R (Responsible)- Only ONE person can be Responsible for a task. That person defines it, plans it and fulfills its requirements. He/she can draw on additional resources, but ultimately, he/she does it and defines how it is done.

I (Impacted)- Any number of people can be “impacted” parties. They may have information and perspective to contribute. They may have a vested interest— relative to THEIR primary responsibilities— in the results. “I” acknowledges that are “Impacted” and need to be “Informed” about the task and it’s progression, but they are not active participants.

D (Decisionmaker)- This is the single entity tasked with making the final decision regarding the task. Evaluating the quality of it’s completion or making decisions based on the conclusion of the task. 9 out of 10 times there should only be ONE PERSON with a “D,” though there may be some (though fewer than you’d expect) cases where a small group makes the final decision.

———————————

As an example of how this system would work:

TASK: Establish budgets for various departments in an organization.

R- CFO/Controller. Clearly, the head finance person needs to be allowed to take lead on this sort of project. He/she should have the right to draw on all dept. heads for input, but it’s his/her baby.)

I- Department Heads. VPs, and department heads will need to provide input. They also need to know and understand the outcome in order to fulfill their obligations

D- CEO/President. Ultimately, the top dog needs to have the final say. The Buck stops SOMEWHERE.

Another example:

TASK: Solidify a pricing model

R- Sales VP. Sales has to “sell it,” and are probably in the best position to define what the market demands in order to be competitive. NOTE: Illustrates that there is more than one way to approach the “RID GRID.” Another company may decide to make someone if finance or marketing have the “R” on this sort of task.

I- CFO, VPs of Operations, Marketing. All groups that need to contribute to the discussion and whose function will be affected by the outcome.

D- CEO/President. Again, a “biggie” like this needs sign-off at the highest level.

But the “D” doesn’t always have to be the President. Let the office manager have the “D” on office supplies. A regional salesperson can “D” their own sales call scheduling.

——————————–

This paradigm clarifies that “I”s are not responsible, nor are “R”s and “I”s ultimate going to make the decisions. Nor does an “R” get to assume that just because they are responsible, they have final say.

It also creates a common vocabulary that is useful in avoiding miscommunication, duplication of effort, “dropped balls,” and a lot of frustration.

• Who has the “R” on that task?
• If I’m an “I,” what do you need from me?
• I don’t need to be the “R” on this, but I still want to be the “D”…
• etc.

And sometimes you need to use a RID-X system, where the “X” means “you specifically DON’T need to be involved! Stop hanging around the water cooler and get back to work!”<g>

More lessons from Naruto Uzumaki that every Ninja Marketer MUST master.

Last post we introduced Naruto Uzumaki, currently the world’s most popular anime ninja. His flexibility and ability to use a wide variety of different techniques and approaches is a defining part of his appeal and integral to his success as a ninja.

Let’s look specifically at three of Naruto’s favorite techniques or “jutsu”:

影分身術 (Kagebunshin) – Shadow Clone Technique

Using this technique, Naruto creates multiple replicas of himself to both attack from multiple angles and to confuse his enemies at the same time. When a marketer leverages resources, channels, alliances and technologies to appear to be in “more than one place at a time,” he or she keeps opponents on the defensive and off-guard, not knowing from which direction the next attack will come.

変り身術 (Kawarimi) — Substitution Technique

In the middle of a battle, Naruto will sometimes completely replaces himself with another object, leaving his enemy befuddled as their well timed and executed attack is utterly ineffective as gives them a ninja “head fake” and totally slips them. Few things are more satisfying for a marketing ninja than to know that an opponent’s best laid plans are going to fall flat because he or she has “changed the rules,” and has taken the battle into totally new arena where that opponent is at a distinct disadvantage.

変化術 (Henge) — Transformation Technique

When Naruto uses this jutsu (technique), he usually not only “substitutes” himself with another person or object, but actually transforms himself to appear as an ally to lull him into a false sense of security, and then attack when that enemy least expects it.

As Sun Tzu said, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” Sometimes the best way for a ninja marketer to attack a more powerful opponent is to find a way to align with them in the short term, realizing that the time and opportunity will present itself to blow by and dominate the situation.

——————————————————————

Sneaky? Yes. Unfair? You know what they say about “love and war…”

Surprising, isn’t it, how much you can learn from a Japanese children’s cartoon show?<g>

FIVE SECRETS OF THE WORLD’S MOST EFFECTIVE NINJA

Probably anyone in North America (probably the world) with preadolescent boys at home (or at least hard-core fans of the Cartoon Network) has heard about Naruto. The premier Japanese cartoon (“anime”) in production today, Naruto is the #1 brand/franchise of it’s kind in the world—surpassing the once mighty Pokemon.

Long story short, Naruto is a young “ninja in training” with aspirations to become the next “hokage”—Master Ninja of his clan. Naruto is not the strongest, smartest or even most talented of his compatriots, but he IS, in a word, INDEFATIGUABLE.

When he undertakes a task, there is absolutely nothing that can get in the way of the triumphant completion of said task. Time and again, he pushes just 10% harder, digs 10% deeper than opponents and even partners. He never hesitates. He constantly and consistently keeps moving, switching techniques and trying new attacks. There is no question in the minds of the show’s fans that ultimately, he will achieve his goal.

So what can you learn from Naruto? Here are 5 quick lessons:

Lesson #1– Don’t Quit.

Winston Churchill might not have had the appearance of a ninja, but nevertheless understood and articulated this principle well when he said,

“Never give up. Never, never, never, never, never give up.”

Lesson #2– Dig Deep.

Deeper than your own known limits—or at the very least, the limits of your competitors. 90% of what anyone and everyone brings to a particular challenge is identical, exactly the same. The difference between success and failure is usually only found after the typical and common answers have all been explored (and found wanting), and the extraordinary, unique and highly personalized skills and characteristics of the “ninja” in question are brought to bear. If you stop where everyone else does, you’ll end up where everyone else is. Push beyond, and you will soar beyond.

Lesson #3– Do it hard, fast and NOW.

Ninja battles are won in the vast expanses between microseconds. Modern marketing history is replete with examples of those who missed the boat simply because the failed to grab the brass ring when it came their way. IBM vs. Univac (mainframe computers) Microsoft vs. Digital Research (microcomputer operating systems). Cable TV vs. the “big three” networks (television programming).

George W. Cecil said, “On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless thousands, who at the dawn of victory sat down to rest, and waiting died.”

In that situation, in that very moment—could the stakes be any higher?

Lesson #4—Be consistent.

Jim Rohn said that the primary challenge of marketing is to have something good to say, say it well, and say it often.” In marketing, life, and ninja battle, victory is seldom achieve via a one-shot knockout punch. After 30 years and six films, Rocky is still the champ in the minds of millions.

Lesson #5—Mix it up.

You’ve heard the old saw, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Well, sort of. With a slight but significant variation:

“If at first you don’t succeed, try (SOMETHING DIFFERENT), try (SOMETHING NEW) again.”

It’s reported that Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting different results. Who can argue with logic like that? Especially when it’s coming from Albert Einstein.

A true marketing ninja not only keeps trying different attacks, techniques and approaches, but is also always thinking ahead instinctively, anticipating complete sequences of future moves based on the ever-changing realities of the here and now.

Next time we’ll look specifically at three of Naruto’s favorite ninja techniques for ideas of how a flexible ninja addresses changing battle realities.

Been thinking about my previous comments about the various of “waves” through which civilization has progressed.

And while I still believe it is absolutely true that we have in general “core dumped” ourselves beyond not only the “industrial wave” but the “information wave” as well (see previous Pareto Proclamation post), I’ve been recently reminded that each successive wave carries ripple effects that reverberate and “feedback” (riptide?) back into previous waves as well.

The proliferation of corporate farms, genetic hybrid crops and global commodity trading systems over the last 20-30 years have overhauled the agricultural landscape to the point of being virtually unrecognizable when compared to earlier food production methods. And in the last week I’ve become even more aware of another revolution that stands a very good chance of revolutionizing manufacturing processes in a way that could lead to an entirely new kind of “industrial wave.”

Without going into too much detail, a number of confluences are converging to create a “perfect storm” capable of changing the way we look at global manufacturing industries. Check out what’s happening at Tangible Express, an innovative company focusing on democratizing access to rapid prototyping technologies to create whole new market opportunities through a concept they call “fractional manufacturing.” What electronic typesetting and later, desktop publishing did for the printing/publishing industry, this new approach may well bring to manufacturing methodology and practice.

And given that the founder/Chairman of Tangible Express is David McInnis of PRWeb fame, you’d think he knows a thing or two about crushing existing paradigms by blowing open the opportunity for creative folks to “do it themselves.”<g>

Will Tangible Express (and the competitors who are sure to jump on the bandwagon soon) turn traditional production processes– not to mention potentially even global economic politics– on their heads? Time will tell, but at the very least it’s a reminder to me that no wave is ever truly “over,” and at the end of the day, the world is still filled with more “atoms” than “bits”…<g>

Another moment of inspiration spurred by some discussion at Grokdotcom.com as a result of a couple of recent articles,

 Google an Yahoo Starting Social Networks

FaceBook Follies and LinkedIn Lure

 I don’t knw if I should be paying the guys at FutureNow, or they should be paying me, :)but I find the discussions there stimulate some of my most salient (at least I think so;)) thoughts.

————————————–

So how many “friends” do YOU have on MySpace?  LinkedIn contacts? Phonebook entries on your Treo?  Email addresses in Outlook?

How much data do you have indexed?  Technorati tags?  Diggs?  Bloglines RSS feeds?  Podcast subscriptions?  Twits?

Do we really need more “social networks?”  Do we really need even more information thrown at us?  WAVES of information that we can’t conceivably completely assimilate let alone make any real use of?

————————————–

It seems to me that there is more than enough data and information out there.  More than 25 years ago, Alvin Toffler wrote a book called “The Third Wave.”  He observed that economic society to that point had gone through 2 previous waves– the Agricultural Wave and the Industrial Wave– and that we had now reached the cusp of what he called the “Information Wave.”  But is there any doubt that in the last 25 years we have moved way beyond the swell of an information wave?

• How many websites are indexed by Google?  (7,490,000,000 indexed for the letter “a” alone)
• How many books can I buy at the click of a mouse at Amazon?  (9,611,286)
• How many movies are available at my local Blockbuster store (2,500) let alone online (over 80,000)?
• How many channels are running right now on my DirectTV digital satellite– ALL of which I can TiVo for later viewing so that I can watch back-to-back Law and Order day and night, 24/7 for the next 3 months if I so choose?

I did a quick calculation and if I were to spend 8 hours a day to listen to every CD, watch every DVD, read every book, watch every family video and look at every snapshot (figure 15 seconds each) in my house, it would take me over 67 YEARS!  Thank heaven I don’t have satellite TV and internet…oh wait.  I guess I do.

————————————–

Practically speaking, we don’t need any more information.  We need a better ways to filter, select, consume and use it in a meaningful manner.

So let me suggest the title for Toffler’s next book (or maybe I should write it.  Actually, maybe you’re reading part of it right now

The FOURTH Wave– BRAIN Waves

Start using our Brains!  In computer terms, you brain is more than an input device connected to mass storage– there’s PROCESSING power in there!  The intelligent organization, classification and indexing (”intelligent filtering) of what’s already out there is far more important to you and me than just tons and tons or raw information.

So, what are some of the organizing principles we can use to make sense of information overload?  And what IS the “Pareto Proclamation?”

More to come, eventually.

Well, the boys and girls at Grokdotcom (in this case, Jeffrey Eisenberg, in particular) have done it again. They’ve spurred a debate that has inspired me to not only comment on a recent post over there, but to repeat my comments over here on the Shouninjutsu, Ninja Marketing blog.

As time goes by, I hope to be able to spell out more of the Ninja Marketing Philosophy that informs these particular views, but didn’t want to miss the opportunity to “memorialize” these thoughts in the meantime…

NINJA MEETING PRINCIPLES and TACTICS

FOR CONSIDERATION: Having taught countless classes/seminars all over the world on time management and effective leadership skills, here are a few of my personal rules of thumb regarding meetings:

————————-
Never have more than one meeting a day. COROLLARY: Never spend more time in internal meetings on any given day than you are willing to spend the next day doing nothing but talking to real CUSTOMERS (not just “users”– but that’s a DIFFERENT comment<g>).
————————-
Schedule no more than 45 minutes for ANY meeting. Allow (and expect) people to excuse themselves as they see fit after that time.
————————-
Remove chairs from the conference room. Don’t let people get too comfortable, and for Pete’s sake don’t encourage them by bringing DOUGHNUTS!<g>
————————-
Recognize that there are 3 different types of meetings: a) Informational, b)Celebratory and c) Decision-Making. Confuse this context and ensure confusion and frustration.
————————-
Have a very SPECIFIC objective for each and every meeting and never have more than 3 things on the agenda for any specific meeting. Never give anyone more than 3 action items coming out of a single meeting.
————————-
If you need a PowerPoint to get your point across, just send the PowerPoint. Most of us can read.<g>

If an issue is too complex for just a PowerPoint, write it up as a document. Better for one person to spend twice the time to develop a well-articulated proposal (remember what your English teacher said? “If you can’t write it down clearly, then you’re not THINKING clearly”..), than to waste the time of everyone else involved.
————————-
If it’s 2-3 people, it’s a “discussion”– have plenty of those. Organizational theory teaches that any group of over 5 is almost unmanageable because of the multiple permutations and combinations of the vested interests of all involved.
————————-
Understand RID roles for every attendee:

R=RESPONSIBLE- party “responsible” for the specific activity tied to the objective/outcome of the meeting.

I=INVOLVED- not just “INTERESTED,” but those who are directly affected and/or need to provide specific input.

D=DECISION-MAKING- those who will ultimately have to make a specific decision based on the meeting.

Everyone who does not play one of these roles can “stay home”…
————————-
Don’t insist or expect EVERYONE in attendance to actively participate. Don’t create a culture where people feel that they MUST comment continually just to prove they are “smart,” or “engaged” or “part of the team.”

****************************

Those of us who thrive in decentralized work environments (26 locations in virtually every time zone) have learned that most seemingly “necessary” meetings truly are NOT. Use technology to monitor and collaborate, foster trust and individual accountability and focus on smaller, manageable discrete tasks to cut down on time wasted in meetings.

Why is it so many of “my” best ideas seem to come from others? <g>

Robert Gorell has another great article at Grokdotcom entitled “Rubel’s Twitter List Trumps Godin’s Bestsellers.”  Rather than try to recap it, I encourage you to go read it for yourself.

 I WILL however revise and repost here a couple of my personal comments on the article:

EXCELLENT article, Robert. DEAD ON.  And LOVE Jeffrey (Eisenberg)’s statements about marketing’s “occupational hazard” of overestimating our own importance to our audience. Now THAT is a book idea (though I’m not sure who would want to read it– further evidence of the uncomfortable truth in the statement…).

Also excellent points by Jim (Novo).  As a founding team member of MyFamily.com/ Ancestry.com, one of the web’s early HIGH TRAFFIC (fastest growing site of 1999) and yet supposedly STICKIEST sites (top five in terms of frequency, length of stay and other such metrics), I can attest that advertising and engagement are almost universally inversely-related.

And even more sobering is that while “engagement” may consist of multiple “micro conversions,” that doesn’t in any way guarantee the “final” conversion, where people take out their wallets and choose to buy your product/service rather than bread and milk. Whether you fumble mid-field or 1 yard from your opponent’s goal line, you still lose the ball and don’t put up any points.

Again, having been on the roster of “Team CMGI” during those bubble years, saw it first hand and have INCREDIBLE war stories…hey, maybe I should write a book! Any of you marketers out there want to read it?