by Gary Mintchell | Dec 8, 2015 | Automation, Marketing
One of my new favorite tech news sites is The Information. It’s a subscription email newsletter/Website founded by Jessica Lessin. (Interestingly my other favorite is Pando, also founded by a woman–Sarah Lacy.)
Jessica’s husband, Sam, wrote a post with a provocative thought this week, The Good Enough Stuff Revolution.
He asks, “Are Harry’s or Dollar Shave Club razors better than Gillette? What about Honest Co. soap versus Dial soap? I have no idea, and I don’t have any interest in figuring it out. They are good enough and generally easier to buy, and so they win.
“There is, in my mind, a major revolution underway in most consumer hard and soft goods which I call the Good Enough Stuff revolution. As a result, most traditional brands sold through traditional retail avenues are going to struggle to find a foothold in this new world.”
This leads to the provocative idea, “The thing to understand is that Good Enough products aren’t purely commodities racing to the bottom. They are a class of products where the end-to-end experience of selection, purchasing and customer service is more important than the product itself.”
Good enough Industrial Products?
What do you buy? Of course there are many classes of industrial products. Large assets, smaller assets, control components, MRO.
Which of these do you buy because of the end-to-end customer experience rather than diligently searching out best-in-class or merely price?
There are lots of PLCs available, for instance. You could get a smaller one and buy on price. You could go to AutomationDirect and buy direct over the Web (not unlike Amazon). You could buy where there is a strong distributor relationship. You could go with the “new kid on the block”–Bedrock Automation–and go for the added feature of built-in security.
Have you changed buying habits over the past 10 years or so? Do you think you could change buying habits? Where would you draw the line on size of equipment??
More important, perhaps, would be the question–should I be considering how I purchase and re-evaluate the entire process.
Thoughts welcome.
by Gary Mintchell | Dec 1, 2015 | Marketing, News, Productivity
My new boss was chatting with me in his office. He turned to a shelf with notebooks and pulled one off the shelf. Opening it to a tab, he removed a section and told me to copy it and start my own notebook.
The contents were articles clipped and copied from trade press, B2B, magazines. He had given me a new position as program manager in product development. These were articles on project management and program management. This was my introduction to the trade press.
I subscribed and read a variety of publications over the course of the next 20 years collecting useful articles. Some of the magazines were quick reads. Articles were by people whose titles were “marketing manager” with the contents reflecting that point of view. Some were written by engineers or other practitioners with useful information.
When I became a trade press editor at Control Engineering in 1998, the media landscape was unchanged. It consisted of magazines delivered by the US Postal Service on a more or less regular basis.
Wow, but do we have so many ways of getting information these days. There remains the inevitable tension within the trade press of writing what advertisers want to see in print versus focusing on useful information for readers. Information availability moved rapidly from print to Web to email to Twitter to LInkedIn and Facebook.
Advantages and deficiencies
Web–I always had trouble “bookmarking” Websites to return to and read. Or to develop a regular system to go to my Websites to read what was new. It was usually impossible to see what was new, anyway. On the other hand, the Web is a great place to store large amounts of information whether for media companies or for technology suppliers. What I have always desired is a push notification telling me not only that something changed, but also directing me to what changed.
Pop-up ads and enticements, pop-overs, cluttered pages, proliferation of ads all serve to destroy my motivation to go to media Websites to read articles. The race to create as much ad revenue as possible has reached the point for me that I hate to visit to try to read an article.
You also have to beware the “listicle” article. Many devices are designed to get you to click–top 10, view three ways, here are 6 things you didn’t know about. Sometimes they even make you click each one individually. Know why? The publisher needs to improve page views and therefore ad impressions. I have mostly quit getting suckered in.
What I will do is go to an “advertiser” site for a good technical or business white paper or other such information. Today you are more likely to get the kind of information there that I used to copy into my notebook. Oh, and today, my notebook is Evernote.
Twitter–Initially a great conversation tool, now there is so much noise that I seldom look at the stream. The tools I used to sort through the flood often were killed by Twitter. This killed much of my enthusiasm. I still Tweet. Some people actually find them.
Email–Believe it or not, emails remain the best way of notifying people with reasons to visit a Website or otherwise send information. Maybe someday there will be a ubiquitous chat app (Messenger or Snapchat or Slack?) that would take the place of email–but wouldn’t it just be another form of email? In the meantime, it’s not email but the misuse of email that is annoying.
General media–I’m seeing many more articles in Forbes, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other such general media publications that once would be seen only in trade press. Coverage of the Internet of Things, for instance, may be stronger there, as well as coverage of safety and security.
The Future
For the curious, check out the recent Notifications Summit put on by a couple of technology luminaries John Borthwick of Betaworks and Steve Gillmor who is a long-time reporter and analyst of technology. Many hours of video were recorded. They were great presentations and conversations about the developing technologies and uses of notifications.
Start with John Borthwick.
Or go to TechCrunch and search for Steve Gillmor.
by Gary Mintchell | Nov 24, 2015 | Marketing
Rebecca Geier was the first marketing person I met at National Instruments in my first year after leaving manufacturing for media. She has remained a friend whom I respect.
A few years ago she left NI and founded TREW Marketing–an agency specializing in helping clients develop and execute marketing projects to an engineering customer.
She has written a book Smart Marketing for Engineers: An Inbound Guide to Reaching Technical Audiences which launches in mid-December on Amazon. She explains the book in a recent blog post.
She sent an early copy of the book to read and review. This is a comprehensive guide to the latest thinking of inbound marketing. It will help you understand the marketing landscape and also understand the unique ways to engage engineers.
Marketing To Technically Minded Audiences
Geier states on her blog, “I have seen firsthand that marketing to technically minded audiences does in fact work, but it has to be as smart as the people it targets. For small engineering and scientific businesses with limited resources or business and sales leaders wearing multiple hats, it’s difficult to even know where to start. And you’re skeptical that the new inbound approach to marketing will even work with your technical audiences.”
Here are three keys to understand the challenge.
“I wrote this book for you. Three points led me to decide to write this book:
- Engineers are smart, so our marketing needs to be equally smart, and trustworthy
- Buyers are in control…they decide when, where and what they will search on and do it mostly on Google
- Marketers now have the challenge and opportunity to get found when our target engineering audiences are searching”
If you are a company CEO or marketing director, do yourself a favor and not only buy the book, but digest its message.
by Gary Mintchell | Oct 9, 2015 | Marketing
If I haven’t seemed my usual prolific self, business has gotten in the way. Next week I’ll be at Emerson Exchange and life will start getting back to normal.
We constructed this Website to support advertising, but I decided not to directly sell advertising. That despite the fact that page views and click throughs are not bad relative to other sites.
All of a sudden, I got swamped.
Part of my work (hint) is individual research and analysis of pieces of the market. People seem to like my analytical capabilities. I have a couple of contracts that have kept me busy.
My long-time part-time job is assigning soccer referees to high school contests. This year has seen more changes and problems than ever before. I’ve always dealt with sportsmanship issues, but this past week has just about seen a record.
I also work with companies on various aspects of marketing–social media, inbound ideas, messaging, focus points (another hint). Some of that picked up.
Finally, I began to do a little angel investing. One of my investments needed marketing help–so, there I am learning the consumer side of Facebook for marketing. Check out High Grounds Cafe on Facebook.
Looking forward to some good industry news from Denver next week. Maybe I can try stirring up something that I didn’t from Sacramento a couple of weeks ago. I also have a pile of stuff to digest, analyze and report on. Coming soon!
Have a great fall weekend (or spring for my Brazilian friends).
by Gary Mintchell | Jun 9, 2015 | Automation, Marketing, News
What Does It Mean When An Industry Consolidates?
For companies in the control and automation space, as well as manufacturing in general, acquisitions power growth.
Rockwell Automation became a factor in process automation through a number of strategic acquisitions. Siemens fulfills its digital manufacturing vision through acquisitions. ABB, until recently, pursued a growth by acquisition strategy. Schneider Electric, keeping pace with European rivals swallowed Invensys—and much to my surprise seems intent on not only keeping but even building its software presence.
What is the result of acquisitions in an industry? Consolidation. And the result of consolidation? Less competition.
Writing in Industry Week Michael Collins, president of MPC Consulting, asks, Is Manufacturing Industry Consolidation Stifling Competition and Innovation?
That is a fair question. I have been surveying the industry in the two years after leaving Automation World (and Maintenance Technology, where I stayed briefly) looking for what’s new and interesting. The latest cool startup was ThingWorx, which sold to PTC. There are companies doing instrumentation, control and automation well, but not much really new or innovative.
Collins tries out a definition, “Capitalism is a free market system that is supposed to promote competition. In capitalist theory, competition leads to innovation and more affordable prices for consumers. Without competition, a monopoly, oligopoly or cartel may develop.”
This statement contains an amount of belief, but it does describe a market economy in keeping with the 18th Century “liberals” who valued “liberty” over government. The economic theory superseded mercantilism where the government picked winners and losers.
Wishing for more government regulation, Collins reviews history, “This formation of monopolies and oligopolies also occurred in the Gilded Age, when the robber barons controlled entire industries, including oil, railroads, steel and the telegraph. The consolidation did not stop until President Theodore Roosevelt broke up the monopolies using antitrust legislation.”
Today’s monopolies/oligopolies
Collins then surveys today’s consolidations:
- Airlines
- Banks–“In 1995, the six biggest U.S. banks had assets equal to 18% of GDP. Today, they hold assets of about 63% of GDP.
- Search Engines–The search engine business is dominated by Google, which, according to Forbes, owns 90% of the market in non-mobile search worldwide.
- Media Companies–In 1983, 50 companies controlled the vast majority of news media including newspaper, magazines, radio and TV stations, books, movies, videos, and wire services. Consolidation reduced the original number to 24 companies by 1992 and to six companies by 2000. Today, five corporations—Time Warner, Disney, News Corp., Bertelsmann (of Germany) and Viacom control the majority of the U.S. media industry.
- Hospitals
Manufacturing industries also have consolidated:
- Meat Packers–In 1982, the five largest meatpackers controlled 16% of the meat industry. Today four firms control 85% of the beef market, an oligopoly that includes National Beef, Cargill, Tyson, and JBS (which purchased Swift).
- Microsoft
- Intel
- Beer–At that time (1970s), there were 43 firms making beer, and the largest had 25% of the market. Today two firms—Anheuser Busch and Miller/Coors—own 90% of the non-craft beer market.
- Autos–The auto industry is now a global industry where five multinational companies have 50% of the world market. The top 10 auto manufacturers control 70% of the world market. [Note: and now the Chrysler CEO is drumming up support for a merger with GM.]
- Oil and Gas–Exxon merged with Mobil Oil and Conoco merged with Phillips. Along with Chevron and Occidental Petroleum, these four giants have 70% of all oil produced in the U.S. (1,919 barrels).
Collins concludes:
I think it is in the DNA of capitalism to create oligopolies and monopolies, and they can only be restricted by government regulation.
Gary Responds
Often consolidation is a reflection of a mature industry. Not much is happening. It’s an industry ripe for disruption.
A number of entrepreneurs are trying innovative airline models. Who knows when one will “take off”, so to speak?
Doctors are forming small companies, removing outpatient surgery and other services out of the hospitals.
Brewery consolidation means companies run by finance people rather than product people. While many will buy according to price even if the taste is not there, the interesting end of the market is now wide open among small craft brewers. When I travel, I always ask for the local beer.
Microsoft is being pressured by Linux in the enterprise and smartphone and tablet products in the low end. Google docs are a viable alternative to Office.
Intel is pressured on many sides with new competition.
Software as a Service models are pressuring the major automation software companies. And open source hardware and software threaten disruption of those markets.
Innovation often comes from outside the dominant market leader group. It is difficult to predict. But there is no doubt disruption is occurring. What’s that famous phrase? “The future is here, just not evenly distributed.” Yep.
by Gary Mintchell | May 11, 2015 | Automation, Marketing, Safety, Technology
One more note from my visit with Fluke last week. The first day of meetings was devoted to a conversation/focus group with a number of customers, partners and “bloggers” (me).
Voice of Customer
We were introduced to the product development process for its latest vibration-sensing tool. Their process is iterative—discovering problems customers have, watching how people actually do things now, coming up with ideas for solutions, returning to the customers for feedback, then iterating again until the final product is released.
This “Voice of the Customer” is sacred within the company.
Fluke uses a technique called shadowing where Fluke team members follow a customer technician around and record how he/she uses the tool. They notice things like awkward angles or how they play with control buttons with their thumbs.
I’ve talked with another company in the past that sends all members of the executive team out annually to shadow a customer. It helps them see customer successes and feel customer’s pain. That was a great idea.
I’d suggest that Fluke take its shadowing methodology and expand it from development of a specific tool into a routine for senior managers as a way to get ideas and get a feel for the customers.
Otherwise, speaking as a guy with some product development experience, I like what I see.
Not every company is as sensitive to customers as Fluke.
Coffee Blunder
I’m a coffee fanatic. I buy Fair Trade beans and have invested in a coffee shop that will source beans directly from farmers that our buyer has met. In a past life, I was a volunteer coordinator for an organization called Bread for the World. I studied the impact of corporate farms in developing nations.
I say that to explain my passion for a good cup of coffee. Keurig cup-at-a-time coffee makers have swept the nation in popularity. The company also invented and patented K-cups—the single use coffee container. But, I buy my own beans. I’d rather do that than be captive to whatever companies pay Keurig for the opportunity to sell through its distribution. So, I use the reusable metal mesh filter cup.
The K-cups are wasteful, add another layer of distribution waste and expense, driving down the revenue to the farmer.
They are also more expensive to the customer. Whenever technology and marketing come together, it seems that customer lock-in is the result.
Keurig decided to add a sensor, just like the ink jet printer people, that senses the presence of “official” K cups in its latest Keurig 2 machines. This is, of course, to force people to buy coffee only from them.
Sales dropped. The CEO last week said that evidently customers didn’t like that idea. “They like to buy their own beans.” Duh! A little bit of sensitivity to customers would have told them that.
Takeaway
Take a lesson from this tale of two companies. Be more like Fluke (and in the spirit of competition improve on its system). Don’t be the other “Rob Lowe”.
And if you are asked to participate, please do. Your experience will help the entire industry improve.
