Member Since: 30th Apr 2003
CRM Optimisation Consultant The Wisdom Network Ltd
4th Oct 2006
It woud be good to see an SAP response to some of these assertions.
I'm surprised at the charge of poor industry knowledge laid at SAP's door. They have been going vertical for over a decade.
6th Sep 2006
Matt I thought the same at first. What this means in the case of this 200% examples, is that if all other customers simply broke even the real profits would be double. However many customers are 'profit takers' therefore they chip away at the profit contribution of profit makers until what is left is a lot less.
Let's say you have 2 customers and your total profit is £10. 1 customer delivers £20 of profit (200%) and the other delivers a loss -£10. This brings you back to your £10.
1st Sep 2006
Lanny great story. For some reason judgement goes out of the window when it involves IT.
Have a good holiday!
31st Aug 2006
Graham, I agree with you - this is merely a start to identify some of those value creators that firms might like to think about. All I'm suggesting is that some are relatively easy to copy whereas others, require considerable cross organisational effort, visionary leadership and the right people and culture to implement. That makes them tough to do but also tough to copy. This is one reason I liked Lyell Strambi's approach at Virgin Atlantic.
Also with the fixation on CRM systems, many of these behind the scenes aspects are forgotten, but arguably give any CRM systems implementation real teeth. Conversely without them CRM is toothless.
There is still some merit in the old. It is easy to grab at the latest fad in CRM , but life is more complicated than that. What I hoped to suggest was that there is a lot more depth of thought behind the scenes that is necessary.
I also hesitate to promote a single framework (the consultant's stock in trade) as each company will be good at some things and weak in other areas. The degree of importance attached to each value creator will need to be assessed by each company on its own merits and based on their context and more importantly informed by their customers.
If you would like to posit a framework, I'd be very interested to see it, as I suspect would many of our fellow members.
all the best
16th Aug 2006
Greg, I like your strip-mining analogy.
One thing that has become very clear to me, in my recent interviews - especially the one with Lyell Strambi of Virgin Atlantic this week and Peter Simpson ex First Direct in June, is that the attitudes to customers makes the biggest difference, and that is led and encouraged from the top. If the 'top' has a strip-mining mentality, than even modern technology won't be of much use, other than to annoy customers more efficiently than before.
9th Aug 2006
David thanks for your observations.
This area is a touchy one, as quiite often firms find it difficult to think in terms of customer profitability at the individual level, because it can be such a challenge to build up a reasonable picture.
What I think John Murphy is proposing, based on work I know has been carried out with Jan Kitshoff and Robin Gleaves (both of whom I've worked with), is a pragmatic approach.
The book is worth reading.
Will ask our technical folk to pick up your suggestion
1st Aug 2006
Interesting comments Graham. What I found during the days when IBM was evolving to a 'solutions' company from a 'box shifter', was that from the customer side the more complex and uncertain the solution e.g. some aspect of CRM, then the more store the customer placed on trust.
In other words, there is some correlation between the importance of trust and the complexity/uncertainty of the purchase and desried result..
This is one reason why box shifting salesmen fail miserably in the CRM arena unless its a simple contact management or SFA offering.
What do you think?
1st Aug 2006
Graham I'm sorry I should have made that point clearer, but you make a great point, the customer will increasingly become a co-creationist where it has a vested interest in a successful outcome and where there is sufficient trust. Thr trust element is the key. This means that to succeed in this world where power is firmly shifting to the customer, (except in the case of commodities perhaps), firms will have to demonstrate their trustworthiness.
Those which take a purely transactional view, will be quite rightly distrusted.
This is nothing like the sterile environment where the customer is the passive victim of an all seeing company - quite the opposite.
20th Jul 2006
Hi John that is an interesting perspective. Are you telling me that the same applies in sport?
I think it makes perfect sense in the context you describe. My only issue with benchmarking is the lack of vision in merely copying, or benchmarking the wrong thing such as competitor product comparisons without the customer's perspective.
If you have any examples of where this is working in Australia, I'm sure our members would be interested. If you like yoiu can contact me on: jeremy.[***]@mycustomer.com
Thanks for the interesting comment
17th Jul 2006
And I agree with your icy water view. Fortunately I think there is a sea-change afoot.
I also think that as firms work out what it really means to be customer centric, marketing will get a big kick up the backside to play its rightful role. You can already sense this change at M&S - a shift from product merchandisers to a greater customer orientation, including a deeper understanding of the technological reins that can be held to support a better customer experience and to make sure the right products are delivered at the right time and place. The promise of quick response triggered by a deeper understanding of what customers really want.
Let me know if you come across any heroes!
all the best