In a recent posting, I described how we are creatures of habit, and how hard it is to break or change our own routines (let alone anyone else’s). Similarly, businesses — both our own and our business-to-business clients, also operate within rules, procedures and standard expectations. We may have these rules tightly codified into policy manuals, or (especially in the case of smaller businesses), simply have sometimes quirky processes, often defined by the business founders’ personalities.
Many of us also adhere to marketing practice conventions based on our habits or (because of lack of experience in the space) our perception of what is “normal”. For example, in Ottawa, a major construction association purchases one big half-page ad each year to announce its new executive and board of directors. Everyone is lined up for a standard group picture. Does it help the association’s image or marketing objectives? I don’t know. I’m sure however the newspaper and professional photographer are happy to send in their invoices for their standard annual services.
I’m not going to fault the row of people holding golden shovels at ground-breakings or (perhaps less public and maybe a whole lot more fun for the participants) the building top-off parties that happen on many construction sites. Milestones measured with traditional activities meet human needs and certainly don’t do any harm. It is hard to fail when you follow the exact procedure every time.
Then where should flexibility and change come into the picture? I suppose one example is our business’s own hiring practices and rules. We do things a little “differently” but have evolved our own processes, hopefully built on best practices. Resumes are only scanned quickly for basic qualifications at first; what really counts is the initial questionnaire. (Don’t answer it, you don’t get the job!) Then we use a combination of testing techniques, the most important being on-the-job performance.
In the first draft of this blog entry, I set out to describe how the rules can be adjusted, verified, and modified in this hiring process, resulting in an incredibly intricate and detailed paragraph — which might get too close to issues of personnel confidentiality (another rule of the game). Suffice to say, even when we start bending the rules, we have rules on how and when to bend them.
I sense the most successful businesses are able to bend the rules and even change the game through wonderfully dramatic market disruption practices. However, while we can see these exciting successes (such as Google and Apple), we don’t see the many businesses who failed to observe the standard rules and died quickly and painfully, perhaps because they lacked staying power, relied on a single or small client, or tried to sell something quirky and eccentric in a market where habits and standardization are the rules rather than the exception.
I think the key here is the paradox of marketing. Differentiation. It is one of the rules of success (so is standard practice). We need to have a unique selling proposition (USP) — or some quality (ies) which stand out from the crowd. How, however, do we decide on that USP. The easiest and safest is to copy a successful USP from another market, community or niche. We bend the rules by playing by them.