Magnus Marketing Blog

Today's lecture is about real market research and why it is so critical to do this early. It amazes me as to why companies enter the market with a product or service and have no clue as to what is really going on from an adoption rate or from a market standpoint. Take the following examples:

Company A: Went to market with a solution expecting that the market was HOT, hot, hot and there would be a ton of opportunity. As with most technologies, however, maturity hit pretty quick with vulture like competitors descending. In less than six hours of competitive analysis, it was determined that the market was in fact - quite saturated. The company must go back to the drawing board and change their solution, first enhancing it with features that are competitive, and then second creating differentiation. Luckily they had some good C-level feedback and strong research to guide them to a quick change. No surveying was involved by the way, these were real conversations with real people.

Company B: Went to market expecting quick adoption because of existing brand equity and perceived demand for services. In reality, a few things are happening: a) internal users are pulling these services in-house for cost savings, b) the company has no major differentiating factors, c) the company is offering same-as-everyone else services - the market is very competitive. It doesn't help that the company can't hire strong people, can't seem to deliver when they do get opportunities, and has not done a thing to market themselves to gain at least some brand awareness.

Hanging a shingle is not going to work in today's environment. Blaming the sales reps for not being able to sell or meet goals is not the answer either. Even blaming marketing isn't the answer. But this illustrates the need to do the proper due diligence prior to entering into any market - make sure that your assumptions are validated. Remember, opinions are one thing, facts are another. Listening to those on the front lines also can literally make or break a company in terms of success.

A few years ago, a group of associates at Kohl's lambasted the company because the clothing was so out of touch with the style needs of Northeast women. All you saw, especially with the launch of Chaps, was plaid flannel and denim. Nice in Wisconsin, but not cool in the Northeast. That was remedied later with the introduction of Daisy Fuentes which, to this day, still has the classiest clothes. I love and own about 10 pairs of Daisy pants.

The number of people who have asked for dresses for winter and for the holiday was proportionately increased. These people were turned away to Daffy's, Macy's, JcPenny, and Dress Barn. If Kohls had launched a dress department or dress aisle that had appropriate dresses for career and holiday, they would have made an outright mint. Also, my goodness, the clothing this year was so blah - many said that there was nothing so outstanding to run for.

And Vera Wang! Now she has shirts that turn you into a gauzy ghost and a Greek goddess. Some of her latest stuff is at least wearable in public to a degree, let us pass however on the funeral dress and the green leafy dress that makes you resemble a tree. Please Kohl's - make her design prom dresses and holiday wear to increase sales! And, some of her shirts are close to Stamp 10 and Apt. 9, I would rather shop those brands! Hello - cannibalization!

Kohls NEEDS to listen to the salespeople and customers. Launch a feedback on clothes, monitor blogs, do something to help.

Let that be a lesson in a few areas:
1. Listen to those who are closest to the customer.
2. Don't design what you think or buy what you think will sell.
3. Pay attention to opportunities. Dresses were in demand this year and Kohl's didn't do enough to meet the demand, instead relying on staple items like zippy sweaters and tired denim jeans. Lets try a little more pizazz in the merchandise mix for next year.

Bring back Ronnie Nicole for the holiday also - what is up with that? Notations didn't cut it.

Clearance bargains for everyone in January!

Happy shopping at Kohls!

My friend from the JS Group has a lot of opinions, many of which are off base. I am sure she would say the same about me and I don't care. I don't want to post on her blog because I am "old school" and the association would not be within my brand equity.

In a post I won't document - you can find it if you are so interested, she refers to salespeople and some statistics saying that over 50% are distracted, a small proportion have no separate space, and have non-business phone systems. Mind you, her stats were a poll of 200 salespeople - 200 out of thousands of salespeople! She recommends visiting the home office, investing in home office support, evaluating work performance of telecommuters and internal workers.

Well, I happen to be a partial home worker right now. Much of what is written is true, my office is in a converted attic, my phone system was bought from Sears, and my desk was from IKEA. I have no support other than a neighbor and one of my clients.

My performance however is exemplary and my clients are continuing to work with me. They don't care about any of that because:
1. I don't produce results, they don't work with me.
2. I don't meet their goals, they don't work with me.

Let's talk about employee and work situations. Employers who don't provide proper support - one tech guy trying to handle 30 people for example. The noise and distraction of colleagues that are chatting about personal crap or talking loudly on phones. The friend who bitches to you about her boss or the work. Obligatory parties, meetings, and lunches. Stressing because the boss is walking by or watching you. Office politics.

In my converted attic, I focus intently on my work - free of politics, bs, and eagle eyes, free of chatty, sick, and moody coworkers, free of stress...and my work performance has increased!

The only way a salesguy isn't productive is if he doesn't bring in business. If targets exist and a home worker can't achieve it - then he goes. My bet is that even if the salesperson was in the office, he wouldn't be producing.

Maybe she should validate her statistics in the real world and try for a larger sample of people. Oh also, if you really want to know about talent and leadership, talk to me - I interface with many recruiting leaders and have first-hand knowledge about what is going on in recruiting and human resources.

Salesguys are dead, virtual workers need extra management, and talent is an expert area. Best piece of advice: writers write about things they know about.