Thursday, February 21, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Venture Forum
Out of the nine presentations, EngineKites was the most intriguing to me. Their presentation did an excellent job of covering a number of key points involved with beginning a startup. Their journey is well represented by their slideshow in that it defines how their idea became a real business opportunity. The team's research process gave them an in depth outlook of the kite-boarding industry that they were trying to become involved with. By exploring many different channels in which to market their idea they were able to find the correct niche of the industry which they would most profit from. I really enjoyed the video they showed in the presentation which made me want to try it out!
Another presentation which caught my eye was Micasa. There idea was a good one from the start but in the end they realized that their target audience was backwards. They first focused their attention with the landlords but in the end were mainly servicing the tenants. Their presentation shows the transformation of the customer segments and the lessons they learned along the way which I thought was a good thing to show to their potential customers. They also presented their value propositions as target goals which they believed they could be #1 in each of them above their competitors, very driven approach.
Finally I enjoyed the GameSpeed presentation. Although very short I liked their product. Targeting young athletes enables these kids to develop their skills at a younger age if they wanted to pursue a career in professional sports or if they just want to be health conscience. I thought interacting with 4,000 customers was an impressive feat considering the other presentations did not come close to this number. They also did a great job presenting a step by step analysis of their business model using important statistical data, especially connecting with their target market in order to find what feasible approach to take.
Lessons Learned
Out of the nine presentations, EngineKites was the most intriguing to me. Their presentation did an excellent job of covering a number of key points involved with beginning a startup. Their journey is well represented by their slideshow in that it defines how their idea became a real business opportunity. The team's research process gave them an in depth outlook of the kite-boarding industry that they were trying to become involved with. By exploring many different channels in which to market their idea they were able to find the correct niche of the industry which they would most profit from. I really enjoyed the video they showed in the presentation which made me want to try it out!
Another presentation which caught my eye was Micasa. There idea was a good one from the start but in the end they realized that their target audience was backwards. They first focused their attention with the landlords but in the end were mainly servicing the tenants. Their presentation shows the transformation of the customer segments and the lessons they learned along the way which I thought was a good thing to show to their potential customers. They also presented their value propositions as target goals which they believed they could be #1 in each of them above their competitors, very driven approach.
Finally I enjoyed the GameSpeed presentation. Although very short I liked their product. Targeting young athletes enables these kids to develop their skills at a younger age if they wanted to pursue a career in professional sports or if they just want to be health conscience. I thought interacting with 4,000 customers was an impressive feat considering the other presentations did not come close to this number. They also did a great job presenting a step by step analysis of their business model using important statistical data, especially connecting with their target market in order to find what feasible approach to take.
Lessons Learned
- Showing the progression of the business model can be an effective tool and it shows how much change can occur when trying to find an appropriate model.
- Clearly defining and presenting an example of your customer allows some to relate their own characteristics.
- It is OK to be wrong in early stages of development as long as you can formulate better solutions to fix these failures for the future. Most ideas don't work out perfectly.
- Presenting tests and results, even if they don not work out in your favor, is a great way to let your potential customers know that you have explored a number of options before reaching your final conclusion.
- DO NOT put a slide like the 16th slide of the Micasa presentation!!! This slide was absurdly confusing and just looks unprofessional.
- Research is the most important tool used by all of these presentations. None of these teams would have been able to make their conclusions without the research they conducted. Researching enabled these teams to more properly define their consumer base, value propositions and what channels to utilize for their startups.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Inside Intel Inside
Youngme Moon
The Intel brand has established itself as a distinguishable name in the computing market. Their focus was to make Intel's brand recognizable as being safe (reliable) and a leader of technology. Through the use of different marketing experiments and campaigns, Intel was successful in creating an umbrella brand that would span across many generations of products. In 2002, Pamela Pollace was faced with a dilemma regarding the Intel brand. As Intel's V.P. and director of worldwide marketing operations, Pamela was researching the potential expansion of Intel's brand into the mobile computing market segment. Her main focus was to continue to protect, preserve and build the brand equity. There were many risks involved with delving into the mobile market but also had the opportunity for Intel to continue to produce quality products with its brand label.
Key Issues with Suggested Solutions
Extending the "Intel Inside" brand. Intel has been the market leader in microprocessors but has yet to expand into different product categories. Pamela Pollace stressed the fact that "Intel Inside" success has been accredited to the technology to back it up. Intel's products match their brand assurance as the best in the biz. Exploring new product categories that Intel's technology teams haven't been associating with becomes a risky endeavor. Proper research of these new markets and potential new product technology will better assist the extension of the Intel Brand.
Possible dilution of Intel's brand. Intel's presence in the PC market is insurmountable. Will expansion to other markets really damage its brand equity in the PC market? It is a possibility because any new products that Intel uses its name with has the potential risk to damage if these products have defects or fail in the eyes of consumers. Intel must ensure that their brand for the PC market not be affected by expansion into these new market segments.
Best marketing strategy to use for potential expansion. Intel's expansion into new markets must be met with caution. So far, Intel is known for it's high quality and reliability so their new product extension has to make sure these attributes are being held up. As stated in the case, Intel was looking to partner with Microsoft to make advancements in the mobile computing market that they can create a standard template in which to work with. Familiarizing Intel's technology teams with the new cell phone technology from the start will allow them to feel positive about the products they are placing their name on.
Seller's Viewpoint
Intel currently only has a 1% market share of the mobile computing segment.We'll need to fight an uphill battle in order to make a name for ourselves in this market. Do we use, and risk damaging, the existing Intel Inside brand in an attempt to rally sales?
Buyer's viewpoint
Intel is the no doubt the leader in desktop computing. Their processors have maintained themselves as the industry leader since their inception. Intel has yet to expand into the mobile computing segment but I would definitely be intrigued to see what products they place their brand name on. I'm sure it will be a success for Intel.
Youngme Moon
The Intel brand has established itself as a distinguishable name in the computing market. Their focus was to make Intel's brand recognizable as being safe (reliable) and a leader of technology. Through the use of different marketing experiments and campaigns, Intel was successful in creating an umbrella brand that would span across many generations of products. In 2002, Pamela Pollace was faced with a dilemma regarding the Intel brand. As Intel's V.P. and director of worldwide marketing operations, Pamela was researching the potential expansion of Intel's brand into the mobile computing market segment. Her main focus was to continue to protect, preserve and build the brand equity. There were many risks involved with delving into the mobile market but also had the opportunity for Intel to continue to produce quality products with its brand label.
Key Issues with Suggested Solutions
Extending the "Intel Inside" brand. Intel has been the market leader in microprocessors but has yet to expand into different product categories. Pamela Pollace stressed the fact that "Intel Inside" success has been accredited to the technology to back it up. Intel's products match their brand assurance as the best in the biz. Exploring new product categories that Intel's technology teams haven't been associating with becomes a risky endeavor. Proper research of these new markets and potential new product technology will better assist the extension of the Intel Brand.
Possible dilution of Intel's brand. Intel's presence in the PC market is insurmountable. Will expansion to other markets really damage its brand equity in the PC market? It is a possibility because any new products that Intel uses its name with has the potential risk to damage if these products have defects or fail in the eyes of consumers. Intel must ensure that their brand for the PC market not be affected by expansion into these new market segments.
Best marketing strategy to use for potential expansion. Intel's expansion into new markets must be met with caution. So far, Intel is known for it's high quality and reliability so their new product extension has to make sure these attributes are being held up. As stated in the case, Intel was looking to partner with Microsoft to make advancements in the mobile computing market that they can create a standard template in which to work with. Familiarizing Intel's technology teams with the new cell phone technology from the start will allow them to feel positive about the products they are placing their name on.
Seller's Viewpoint
Intel currently only has a 1% market share of the mobile computing segment.We'll need to fight an uphill battle in order to make a name for ourselves in this market. Do we use, and risk damaging, the existing Intel Inside brand in an attempt to rally sales?
Buyer's viewpoint
Intel is the no doubt the leader in desktop computing. Their processors have maintained themselves as the industry leader since their inception. Intel has yet to expand into the mobile computing segment but I would definitely be intrigued to see what products they place their brand name on. I'm sure it will be a success for Intel.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Siebel Systems: Anatomy of a Sale, Part 1
John Deighton
Das Narayandas
Siebel Systems was founded by Tom Siebel and since its inception has stressed the importance of customer satisfaction. Over time Siebel was able to develop a system of fundamental core values in which employees could use to better understand what Sibel Systems stood for. Emphasizing customer satisfaction, professionalism, professional courtesy and bias for action, Siebel Core Values allowed the company to achieve significant CRM (customer relationship management) market leadership by focusing on products driven solely by customer needs. This case presents a dilemma within Siebel Systems where Gregg Carman has trouble following Siebel Core Values to try and sell a CRM system to Quick and Reilly, a discount stockbroker. When first introduced to the VP of client services, Cathy Ridley, and the VP of marketing from Quick and Reilly in a trade show in New York, Carman's unsteadiness is revealed. Carman's lack of knowledge of Quick and Reilly and their reps makes this a difficult sell.
Key Issues with Suggested Solutions
Carman's Approach to Selling. Carman describe his approach to selling as "subtle and professional". His subtle attitude certainly reigned supreme as while engaging with Quick and Reilly. When he didn't catch the reply regarding how many users the system will need he just let it go, unacceptable. This is important information that could potentially affect the sale, a part of the methodology Carman said was essential. He also admits that he didn't know much about Quick and Reilly to begin with! This is another aspect of the methodologies of Siebel's targeted account selling process that Carman neglects.
Carman's repsonse to the Oracle question. When asked about Oracle Carman simply says, 'they are worth looking at' then moves on. Carman has a report from a respected industry analyst firm, Gartner Research, which highlights how Siebel Systems as the only vendor with both a complete CRM solution and the ability to execute large-scale projects. The report also shows Oracle to have incomplete point solutions and limited execution skills in the CRM space. Why not show this to the Quick and Reilly reps? I thought it was a smart move by Carman to keep the report from the reps because as he stated he would rather know the client better. Carman could have blown the sale if the reps felt showing them the report was unprofessional.
Carman's Viewpoint The case does not reveal the outcome with the interaction between Carman and the reps from Quick and Reilly. It does give you a sense of where Carman believes he is at with the sale. His focus on breaking down the customer-to-vendor atmosphere makes him feel that the business is now his to lose. His mentality switches to three prime objectives to making this sale a reality:
1.) Prove to them that Siebel had a superior product.
2.) Convince them that Siebel would collaborate with them to make the system work.
3.) Meet the right set of executives at Quick & Reilly.
Quick and Reilly's Viewpoint During the entire presentation Carman doesn't try to badger the reps with question after question. Once he understood that we didn't really know what systems were out there to meet our needs, he showed us a demo that really caught our eye. Even when asked about a competitor he advised us to check it out probably to gain a better idea of the different options of CRM solutions available. His overall presentation and professionalism to help us better comprehend what system our company needs was exceptional.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Cross Selling or Cross Purposes?
by Ford Harding
The merger between TopTek and Rossberg Lee was suppose to be a great success for both parties. CEO John Vaunt has noted to his trusted VP for HR Anna Tucker that since the acquisition many problems have arose. Complaints from customers, his own sales staff and newly acquired consultants has him thinking that his company needs some restructuring. Vaunt employs Tucker to troubleshoot from the inside out o try and discover what changes need to be made to keep TopTek flourishing. What Anna finds through discussions between the different divisions is that the transition since the merger has been anything but easy and profitable. The sales force believes the consultants are unable to effectively sell to customers. The consultants feel that the sales force is not tech savvy enough to sell solutions after initial sale. The biggest issue was the compensation structure that rewarded the sales force who had won the account years ago and still gave the sales force commission for the consultants current sales.
Key Issues with Suggested Solutions
Although I can see the frustration among the consultant division, I must ask them who they would be selling these new solutions to if we hadn't closed the account? We are trying to bring in more and more accounts that the consultant division can continue to grow the account. Shouldn't they be grateful for our continued success of closing new clients rather than complaining about commission? Now that we've merged our structure should not change to appease their shortcomings.
CEO Viewpoint
After hearing from both sides, the best course of action would be to integrate the way both divisions work in order to highlight the best that both do. With the sales force becoming more knowledgeable of the customer's and the consultants realizing when and how to sell to a client we can be more productive without losing any key members from either staff. Potentially in the future we can discuss a restructuring of commissions but for now we will continue to use the current system.
by Ford Harding
The merger between TopTek and Rossberg Lee was suppose to be a great success for both parties. CEO John Vaunt has noted to his trusted VP for HR Anna Tucker that since the acquisition many problems have arose. Complaints from customers, his own sales staff and newly acquired consultants has him thinking that his company needs some restructuring. Vaunt employs Tucker to troubleshoot from the inside out o try and discover what changes need to be made to keep TopTek flourishing. What Anna finds through discussions between the different divisions is that the transition since the merger has been anything but easy and profitable. The sales force believes the consultants are unable to effectively sell to customers. The consultants feel that the sales force is not tech savvy enough to sell solutions after initial sale. The biggest issue was the compensation structure that rewarded the sales force who had won the account years ago and still gave the sales force commission for the consultants current sales.
Key Issues with Suggested Solutions
- Consultants feeling short changed because commissions are going to the sales force. TopTek's current commission structure could be modified to appease the complaints of the consultants. However, this may lead to appeals by the sales force who have worked with this structure and have found the most efficient way to meet their quotas.
- The sales force perception of the newly acquired consultant firm. Many of the sales force voiced their opinions regarding the consultants as not being able to trust them with their clients. This is a very crucial problem which needs to be fixed. Both sides of this merger appear to be unhappy so management needs to mend these relationships before it becomes detrimental to accounts. A company wide training or meet and greet could promote better bonds within divisions of the organization.
- Customer dissatisfaction after the recent merger. Trying to push sales to an established client will only lead them to feel overwhelmed and annoyed by your staff. Both companies should educate one another on current clients needs and the direction the account reps are currently taking to ensure a fruitful and continued business relationship.
- Better strategy with productive pairing. There was one case where both sides from the sales force and consultants worked great together. Each person had only the best to say of the other and together they were able to seal an large account for a good amount of business. Using this as an example TopTek should work to try and mold better pairings among the divisions so that there is a trust built between the individuals. This would create a better work environment for both sides that may lead to less concern about the commissions structure and focus on account handling.
Consultant's Viewpoint
The current commission structure is asinign and unfair. Why am I working so hard to sell solutions to these clients if the commission is going to someone I haven't even met yet here at TopTek? Sure they closed the account years ago but now I am the one adhereing to the customers needs and introducing new products to them, where is my cut? This structure needs to change in order to be more rewarding for my hard work and time.
Sales Force Viewpoint
Although I can see the frustration among the consultant division, I must ask them who they would be selling these new solutions to if we hadn't closed the account? We are trying to bring in more and more accounts that the consultant division can continue to grow the account. Shouldn't they be grateful for our continued success of closing new clients rather than complaining about commission? Now that we've merged our structure should not change to appease their shortcomings.
CEO Viewpoint
After hearing from both sides, the best course of action would be to integrate the way both divisions work in order to highlight the best that both do. With the sales force becoming more knowledgeable of the customer's and the consultants realizing when and how to sell to a client we can be more productive without losing any key members from either staff. Potentially in the future we can discuss a restructuring of commissions but for now we will continue to use the current system.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Sales Learning Curve
The initial motivation to increase sales force capacity to sell a new product is the wrong approach. Taking the time during the initial stages before the product's launch to learn about the customer, their needs and proper use with a new product, can save a company a lot of money and man hours. Without the proper research a product's potential can be compromised with an early launch, especially if the product has yet to be fully developed as seen with companies like Scalix and Veritas. The research can be demanding but it will ensure that a company's product will traverse the learning curve at an optimal level to reach a product's full value within the market.
Key Issues with Suggested Solutions
- Sales force capacity being increased too early. This causes a company to waste funds and end up failing to meet sales expectations. Using resources to make more accurate projections to know when the correct time to "ramp up" the sales force.
- Under-developed products being launched into the market. Communication between engineers and marketing teams is essential for a product's success. Keeping the engineers in the loop until the product matures in market can help marketing teams predict potential issues that may arise. With both side knowing what it takes to make the break-even point, a better strategy can be formed.
- Reaching the Break-Even Point and Profitability quicker. Tracking sales yield over time and making the right adjustments to the go-to market strategy enables a company to shrink the revenue gap and reach the break-even point. Once reached, the company can focus its attention on the customer base it has acquired and perfecting a sales strategy to become the standard model.
Seller's Viewpoint
Our product needs to get out into the market fast! What a ground-breaking new idea that everyone is going to love. Let's fast track a sales force for our product immediately to generate a customer base that we can profit from long term. Some minor tweaks will need to be made but with a product this good, we cannot wait to introduce it to the public!
Buyer's Viewpoint
This product could be amazing but I'm finding some issues that have no resolutions. How could they have released this product without making sure it works correctly? Clearly this company was out to make a quick buck and put quality to the way side. I will not be buying any future products from this name brand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)