SPEAKER_00 0:15

Ah, Mini MBA. How are you? It's good to see you again. Welcome to session four. This is famously the session where we get the least questions every year because everyone's dipped in the middle of the program, which is fine. So we only have a half an hour on today, and then everyone picks up again when we get towards the end of the program. Yeah? Good to see you. Hope you're well. We've had product and price. I don't think there's anything more important in the whole mini MBA than product and price. We don't control it, but I'd like us to be back uh around that table again because we can add so much. As I hope I convinced you in our in our modules uh seven and eight. All right, let's go on with the questions and we'll do a little chat on the way, I'm sure. Uh Andy Tompkins, hey Andy. Uh, can one round of qual and one quant survey realistically span the whole strategic journey? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it can. I'm just gonna make your question bigger because it's so good, Andy. Uh um, yeah, it can, but anyway, carry on. Um, as the course has progressed, it's become clear that every module, segmentation, targeting, positioning, objectives, product, jobs to be done, traces its foundations back to modules one and two, the research that drives market orientation. Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. I understand the principle. Qual identifies the variables, quant measures them, but I'd like to push on whether that two-step model is sufficient in practice. If a brand commissions one round of qual, followed by a single quant survey, can that combination realistically generate the insight needed to inform segmentation, targeting, positioning, funnel, jobs to be done? Or does each strategic question demand its own instrument? No, no, no. If the answer is that a single survey can do it, what does a survey designed to carry that full load look like? How many questions? What mix? Could you share a killer example? Yeah. All right. So uh, first of all, yeah, you you don't have to do it in one, but you should because it's cheaper and it's more efficient, and you can intersect and correlate the variables if you've got them all in one data set. So if you build your segmentation from the same data as your pricing, your van Vestendorp, then you've got the ability to go and what would that segment pay versus that segment? It's a big advantage. So my hope for some of you, the really good ones, is you finish the course and it's like a giant process of backwards market research, yeah. In the sense that you you really do look at it and go, right, I'm I'm gonna, I know exactly what I need for the whole, you know, the whole thing. And so what I'm gonna do is I'm I'm I'm basically gonna build a macro survey that will do it all. Yeah. And I think that's entirely doable. You don't have to do it that way, but you could, is the first point. What does that look like? I I've always been very loath to produce some Mickey Mouse template because it the qual dictates so much, yeah. But but next year, and probably the end of this year, we'll launch a synthetic data uh what's the right word, uh planning tool, which basically builds your plan for you using synthetic data. The whole thing you're describing there. We will pilot it in September, and as by then an alumnus, you will have access to it for, don't quote me yet, about a thousand quid, which is our cost. You can run it for your 2027 marketing plans, and it will be better than anything you could do in a thousand years. We're already pretty sure of that. So stay tuned. It isn't just like a survey, it's the answers and the model all speaking to itself. Exciting, huh? So we're getting close. We're getting close. It's coming, it's coming, Andy. Kim Yang consumer journey funnel is very useful as a diagnostic tool. However, using it as a tactic could also potentially work. But one of the key things we need to be mindful of so as not to fall into a pure planning exercise. We try to map all the touch points that are uh that are following the funnel to identify where we can meet our consumers and make an impact. Is that a good potential use case? It's a perfect use case, Kim. That's what you should be doing. The danger is you shouldn't come up with them. Yeah, the consumer can tell you what they are, and we talked about that. And then it's a great place to remove bad things, to make the good things better, and then the non-generic bit, as we said, really insert the brand into the process so that the real touch points aren't advertising, they're the places where you and the consumer brush up against each other. It's a perfect place to use it. Militia, I've been reflecting on the 12 traits of great marketers. The one I tend to have a challenge with in my organization is comfort within precision. Hmm, I can do the good enough version of modeling a scenario, but tend to get challenged by finance. How do you propose we bridge that gap between finance wanting absolutes and marketing having good enough? Great question, Militia. I totally agree. Uh, the answer is a sensitivity analysis. Um, you learn this as you get older and deal with more finance people. So there's a tendency for marketers to go, oh, I'm just going to do a good enough analysis and leave it at that. If you do a good enough analysis and do a best uh expected worst, I think you're in a much better place with the finance guys. Yeah? That's the way to play it. That's the way to play it. You'll find the minute you do that and you lay out your numbers that way, they get much more comfortable. And it's really just about framing how you present your work. Try it. I promise you, it works like a treat. Finance people are like golden retrievers. There are certain tricks. Once you've got them, it works. Jenny Armstrong. A belated module four question. I was really struck by the notion that A-B testing is hampered by divergent delivery. Yeah, it's a big finding, right? It makes me feel that all those tests and learns around content might have been a waste of time. Oh, look, that's a bit strong, but they're certainly not, you know, they're not as uh projectably accurate as we thought. And we should have done market research on content. Is there any argument in email specifically for the audience being already segmented as interested in our product that helps validate the validity of A-B testing? Oh, that's a nice point, but but but it isn't a nice point. So yeah, you're right. So what you're saying, oh here we go. Uh, if you I'm gonna break out my PhD now. What you're saying is it's already endogenous, and so therefore we can include it in our numbers. That's true, but that's not what the A-B test is is is being sold on. The end endogeneity is not, is absolutely true, but that's not what the A B test is claiming. Yeah. So I love what you're thinking, Jenny, but the short answer is if you follow my big long words and stupidity, um, no, it doesn't excuse it, and it is a bit ropey. It's still, I mean, it's still valid, it's just not as valid as we thought, like any other research method. Anna. Hi Mark. I'm really enjoying the course. Just a quick question. In which cases would you suggest using a sequentially based funnel? I I would I hang on. Do you mean you mean one where the the numbers aren't taken from the top? Or do you because all funnels should be sequential, right? You mean one where the numbers are are not from a hundred on the top, but they go on. You okay, gotcha. I I wouldn't. I think that's just another alternative. It's not how I I think you're always better starting with the target market is a hundred, and the funnel runs from that hundred all the way down and doesn't increase again. There are people that will go, right, each stage of the funnel is is derived from the previous, so 67% in the middle doesn't mean 67 of the 100, it means 67 of the previous step, which is 100. I think that's what you mean. I wouldn't do that. People do do it, so be aware of it. There's no reason you would do it that way. Philip Stempel. One topic that always comes up with our product portfolio is what is the best way to market a full portfolio from affordable solutions to pro to pro suma, but also up to specialized products for professionals. We always think that the topics that are interesting for the pros are too much for the beginners, and vice versa. How should a brand handle that, especially considering when we zoom out and think about what we want the brand to be known for? Any general suggestions? Yeah, it's um it's a brand architecture question, Phil. So the ideal place is first of all, they can all have the same thing because it's cheaper and more efficient, and that's the way we should that that's the optimum. If though there is genuine differences in what they can handle between the segments, don't create new brands. Create brands which are positioned differently. That's option one, that's the best. Option two is create brand architectures. So, for example, sub brands or endorsed brands where there's a slightly different offer, but still within the same brand, ideally. And it's only in really rare cases you want to be creating different brands. It's such an expensive, dilutional way of doing it. So brand architecture, Maria. Hi Maria, I'm coming in late. Okay, and no worries if you can't reply. I can. But something still isn't fully clear. Why should a brand adopt a social cultural purpose if it won't generate a business benefit? Or is the idea that there actually is a long-term benefit for the brand and therefore for the business as well? What would be the right reason for choosing a brand purpose if we're not an NGO? Well, that's a very good question, Maria. And there isn't so there so there's a few answers to your question. I think over the last 10 years, many marketers just assumed that a brand purpose would deliver a business benefit, and it turns out that wasn't necessarily true. It's sometimes true, it's often not true. Why would you do it anyway? Because you basically believe there's more to capitalism than just making money, and we should have a longer-term responsibility to do good things, which I think is an entirely legitimate perspective. Yeah. So there's three extremes here. We're doing it to make money, we're doing it because there's more to life than money, and we're doing it as we can do, we can do good things and make money. And all of them can be true, but sometimes they're not true. Does that make sense? Sometimes having a brand purpose does make you money. Uh, Ben and Jerry's is a good example. It's it makes it a profitable approach for them. But sometimes you you're doing it Patagonia style because you money is not the prime directive. Saving the planet is. And in the middle, there's that sort of, there are some examples where you know we we just want to make money and that's and that's also fine. So, yeah, it just depends. It was a lot more complex and mixed than the simplistic bullshit of marketing presented it to be. Anna, I have a couple, and that period I think is generally over now. I have a couple of questions about module seven. First of all, I really enjoyed your article on the Swatch P Gay collaboration and co-branding. Good, it's a new one, yeah. It was very relevant, meanwhile, processing the materials of this module. Good, we we just stuck it in in time. I was just true, I was just truly curious. What do you think about the collaboration between Nike and Skims? As a Nike consumer and brand lover, I found it disappointing that they partner with a brand, which for me doesn't seem to bring much value beyond celebrity-driven hype and has nothing to do with sport. And what okay, let's do that one. Yeah, but the point is it's not you can as an you you you were given as a perfect example, Anna, of co-branding. You don't like skims, you're like, I'm a Nike consumer, I don't want skims. It doesn't hurt your perspective on Nike at all. If anything, it's solidifying it, and that's the joy of co-branding, right? It's not like Nike are doing skims, they're partnering with someone else. Keep going. What do you think about Ferrari's recent product development? Uh I have posted on that. Um, on LinkedIn. What I basically said was I called it the Ferrari Rorschash. Am I saying that right? In the sense that when I was reading LinkedIn last week, your reaction to the Ferrari uh uh raws ash is entirely based on where you work. Nobody likes it, but if you work in leadership, it was a lack of vision, was the problem. If you work in brand management, it was a lack of DBAs. If you work for Erenberg Bass, it was something else, I forget. But I did a big long post about it. It was quite good, it was quite good. Um, you know, your hatred of the product is based on where you work yourself. Um yeah, it's it's my take on it, and I work in brand management, is that when you do something new, you really need to utilize your your brand codes, your distinctive brand assets. And I used the example of Hermes. When Hermes started ready to wear, Hermes is a you know, it's a leather goods brand, but when it started doing clothing and ready to wear many years ago, they brought in horses and saddles and everyone onto the runway, and they really overdid it. And that's how you do it. When you go into a new line or brand extension, in this case, it's sort of in between for Ferrari, it's a fully electric vehicle. What you don't do is present it in blue without the prancing horse with five seats. What you do is you make a brilliant red sports car that's more Ferrari than Ferrari, but which happens to be electric, and that's how you bridge into a new subcategory. What you don't do is make a blue Renault style people carrier because you're a bit worried about it. That that for me was the problem. Uh what else are you asking me here? Oh, you try to understand thinking behind it. It's mostly emissions. Um, Ferrari have to lighten up their gigantic fuel-loaded issues. Um, I I own a Ferrari, a really old one. Don't worry, it's not one of the muscly ones. It's a really old Super America. And I drive, I was just talking about this. I drive it once a year. So a long time ago, I bought an apartment in London with my stuff. And um I um showing me round, it's a beautiful little apartment overlooking the Thames, near where I met my wife. And um uh it's it's just a dual little apartment, and um it's got a parking spot. And the and the real estate agent looked at my face and I was like, oh, you don't like the parking spot? And I said, No, no, it's gonna cost me a fortune, I'm gonna have to buy a car. So that's my accountant, and I bought a throughout Super America and I parked it there, and it has made a shit shit ton of money. I mean, it's a it is a it's a it's a tax, it's a tax scheme, basically, an investment. But once a year I drive it and I drive it, I'm being honest with you, I drive it to Cannes. So we do the Cannes. So me and Tim, my CEO, once a year, we get the dust cover off and we get it MOT'd in service so it doesn't break down. And then we basically on a Friday night drive it through the channel to northern France and get on a massive uh Bordeaux drinking frenzy, me and Tim. And the next day we get up with hangers and drive it to Avignon and then do get on a massive south of France drinking frenzy, and then we got a can for the week. And we have all these strategy meetings in the car, like, whoa, what do you think? I don't because you've got that roof down, you know. And we have a bloody good time once a year, anyway. So I'm I'm I'm I was very uh I was I was very entertained by the uh by the electric version of the Ferrari, and I have I have you know I have very distinct views about it, being a sort of once a year Ferrari driver. Um so yeah, I wouldn't be driving that. Um uh but uh what was your last question? I assume it's real it will be relatively successful, but I'm curious to understand the thinking behind it. The thinking behind it is they've got loads of emissions to balance out, and they they want they've mistakenly, I think, gone into a new subcategory of electric vehicles, which I think is a brilliant place for Ferrari to operate. They've gone into, I mean, I normally drive an electric mini, that's my normal car, and it's a super sporty little thing. They could make a brilliant sports car if they put their mind to it. Anyway, Dominic, from a co-branding perspective, how would you rate Swatch's three collaborations with Amiga? Speedmaster, Blancpain, and Odomar P Odomar Pigay Royal Oak. I like all of them because they all do something great for Swatch and something great for Amiga, Blanc Pont. I can't blank Blanc Pon isn't one of mine, I don't know. And Odomar Pigay. The difference is Odomar's is not uh it's not part of the Swatch group. So that's a really special one, right? What's going on? Well, what's going on is Swatch are just getting loads of traffic, notoriety, premiumness. What does someone like Odomar Pigay Royal Oak get from this? It gets new consumers 25 years from now. And yes, they should think that way. So there's a real danger with brands like Royal Oak or even Speedmaster, some degree, they become iconic and classic and worn by 55-year-old boring guys like me, but they're not alive for the next generation. And I think what's brilliant about these co-brands is they're generating tons of publicity, tons of notoriety. I think if you like the Royal Oak, you look at this, you know, uh Amiga version and you put your nose up, but that's brilliant because you let your eye on the real thing. You know, look at these pathetic guys, right? But if you're a 23-year-old kid standing outside waiting for one of these, whether you get it or not, you remember for the rest of your life, fuck Royal Oak, if I could ever own a real one, right? So I love it. I think it's great brand management, and I'm um convinced it's it's the right play. Russian. Thank you for the course. It's really shaping up well and building confidence. Good. I'd like to ask a question. That's a good way to talk about it too. I would like to ask a question relating to module seven. As part of the EPI, existing product development. I think you mean existing product improvement. Yeah. I made all that shit up, but I like the idea, right? And ways we can improve. One approach is to measure touch points, which can be included in the overall research questionnaire. How would we apply this to market research and how would we build it in? Would it be implemented at the start and added towards the end during the market research process? Or is it something we can use as we go along on the journey and ask separately? Yeah, look, uh, we talked about this before. Um, I would really like some of you to be able to do this as one giant questionnaire. Um, it might be too much for the consumer, but I I wouldn't want to put you off. There's some big advantages, as we said, to doing it simultaneously. If you have to break some of these off and do them separately, though, they also work. And the question on pricing, I like Van Vestendorp for pricing research and the example you shared. How and when is it best to implement this in the pricing research? And the questionnaires, same thing, same thing, Russian. You could theoretically put those four questions in as part of your overall survey. It's only four questions, yeah. Just be cautious that conjoint is sometimes a better, more drawn-out technique, particularly for consumer goods. But yeah, you could put Van Bestendorp in there. And again, you know, the advantage is you can slice that data by segment if you're doing the segmentation questions at the same time as the pricing questions. So you don't have to do it all in one go, but you could. And I don't want to put you off the idea. All right, two more. Sarah, I'm in the fortunate position of helping drive the NPD global strategy for the business in an industry that is NPD obsessed. Over many years in the industry, I've seen time and time again, and I love questions like this, because they're not really questions, it's just Sarah going, right, I'm fucking put my wine down and tell you. Uh, over many years in the industry, I've seen time and time again an enormous amount of NPD launches with an even more exorbitant allocation of time, money, and resource. Unsurprisingly, most of these products don't last. What would you recommend as a good balance to stay relevant and keep up with competitors, plus keep retailers happy, whilst not losing focus on the core business and portfolio? And how do you get the business off the MPD drug? I'm a big believer of fewer, bigger, better. We've gone through an enormous SKU rationalization, which has allowed us to refine our portfolio with a clearer, with clearer consumer needs, product navigation. I fear we're going to undo that work and waste limited resources to chase the next shiny thing. I would rather invest time and money in true innovation, but this takes time and focus. Yeah, yes, I get it. I'll tell you my answer. So, one of my favorite bosses was uh Jean-Andre Rougio, who was the boss of Benefit globally and then became the North American boss of Sephora. Just a brilliant Frenchman who lived in America and was smart and brilliant, and one of my favorite leaders. And one of the things Jean-Andre did, because he had this super creative team, yeah, at Benefit, and we'd always make in Mascara, and you know, they're all they're always making new shit. And they'd come to his office in San Francisco all excited and they'd be like, Look, John Andre, we've got six new eyebrow pencils, you know, and he'd be like, fantastic, fantastic. When do you want to launch them? Next April. Okay, great, great, great. Just give me the list of the six products we're gonna kill, uh, and off we go. And he kept it, and I forget the magic number now, but at Benefit, it was something like 342 SKUs. That was the number, and you could never exceed it. And so, whenever you created, you had to kill Sarah. So I think that's the answer. If you can, if you can be that smart, you can only kill, you only create if you're also killing at the same time. And when you're in mature business, I think that. That's makes perfect sense. All right, let's fin finish with Gemma. I really enjoyed the pricing module. See, straight away, Gemma, I like you. Um the the goal I had, I really am passionate about pricing. And I know you know when people say I'm passionate about, you know, behavioral economics, and you're like, oh come, give me a break. You're not really passionate about it. I really am passionate about pricing because it's so unloved by marketers, so feared by marketers, and yet it is so in our DNA to do, and it has such a huge impact on the business. So you make me happy, Gemma. Don't screw it up now. Uh, the discussion on the risks of discounting was a bit of an eye-opener. Good. Does the same logic apply to services and experience? Yes, such as conferences, yes. For example, early bird tickets and promotional offers viewed differently from traditional discounting, or the calors carry similar risks. No, they all carry the same risks, they're all stupid. Now, can you avoid them completely? No, you can't, Jen. But um, you know, in in the business of online training, right? All these guys go, well, I've got a new online mini MBA in, you know, in customer marketing, or what was the other guy in Australia this week? Custom customerizing or something? Like, come on, just give us a break. You've got no PhD, you've no MBA, you've never been trained in marketing, and you you want to teach other people your nonsensical approach to marketing. And then they kick off their course and they're like, you know, there's someone did a they did a mini MBA I this year. Mini MBA I in AI marketing, right? Got like three people and a dog on it, right? So they're all like, oh, I'm gonna do the, you know, they've all done the course and ripped off my course, and now they're gonna do it with AI, right? Just stupid stuff. And um, and they um that they started out with like an early bird discount, and you're like, look, you've already just proven you know nothing about marketing. You've started your launch with discounting. That's how good you are at marketing, that's how much you have to offer, yeah. And I always say to people who email me, oh, you know, I really want to do them in the NBA, but it's a little expensive. Can I do you do any discounts? And I go, no, we don't do any discounts. And you can you if you do the course in in module seven, you'll find out why. You know what I mean? It's true, right? So, yeah, it's equally stupid, it's equally damaging, Gemma. I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying that everything we talked about in that module applies to to your category. Yeah. And it's confronting, but it doesn't stop it being true. All right, get on to the next piece. Let's do the promotional pee, the one that you all love, and then let's do place, and then let's talk about the exam. And I'll speak to you on Friday afternoon, just before I get in my car to drive to Cannes, and I'll give you a full update on how it's looking at that point and how much my MOT was to get it roadworthy. Every year it becomes a titanic amount of money to get that car on the road. But nonetheless, we're gonna do it and we're gonna drive it. I'll speak to you in two weeks.