Tag Archive for: marketing

Awapatent blir AWA

10 Jul
10 juli, 2018

Som ledande konsultbyrå inom immaterialrätt (intellectual property – IP) vet Awapatent att kunderna har ett allt större och bredare behov att skapa finansiellt värde och business av sina intellektuella tillgångar. Det handlar alltså inte bara om att skydda sina nuvarande tillgångar, utan också om att skapa kommande. Branschen – och framför allt Awapatent som aktör – rör sig från att prata huvudsakligen om intellectual rights och intellectual property (trademarks, patent, o.s.v.) till att prata om intellectual assets. Hur hjälper man kunderna att skapa värde i stället för att skydda rättigheter?

För att supportera det nya förhållningssättet och tydliggöra det mervärde Awapatent erbjuder marknaden, genomförde man – i samarbete med Graal Brand Agency – under våren ett ompositioneringsarbete i samband med att man bytte namn från Awapatent till AWA. Namnet blev mindre, men kostymen större.

”I samband med varumärkesarbetet insåg vi också att vi hade vuxit ur vår varumärkespersonlighet, hjälten som skyddar kundernas rättigheter. Vi är i dag en tydlig creator som skapar möjligheter för våra kunder att utvecklas och som leder vägen framåt.” säger Birgitta von Friesendorff, Head of Communications på AWA. ”Det ledde till att vi satsade på att ta fram ett helt nytt kommunikationskoncept för att spegla vårt vässade erbjudande på marknaden”, säger hon.

”Tidigt i processen var det tydligt att AWA hade för avsikt att göra arbetet rätt, även om det innebar att överge sin bekvämlighetszon och bryta ny mark. Det har funnits en kompromisslöst hög ambitionsnivå från deras sida genom hela arbetet, man har inte ryggat för att ta sig an dagens disruptiva affärslandskap heads on. Det har varit oerhört spännande att jobba med en så förändringsvillig och modig kund.”, säger Emma Nilsson, varumärkesstrateg och byråchef på Graal Brand Agency.

Arbetet har innefattat framtagande av ny positionering och varumärkeslöfte, ny logotyp och reviderad grafisk profil, samt nytt kommunikationskoncept.

Arbetsgruppen består av:
Anders Adolvsson, Creative Director, Graal Brand Agency
Ann-Christin Lindstedt, Brand Developer, Graal Brand Agency
Emma Nilsson, Brand Strategist, Graal Brand Agency

AWA är ett ledande företag inom immaterialrätt med verksamhet i främst Europa och Asien. Kunderna är innovationsintensiva företag – från startups till ägarna av världens mest kända varumärken och patentportföljer. AWA hjälper dem att skapa affärer av sina idéer och innovationer.

AWAs 180 patentkonsulter, jurister och andra immaterialrättsexperter har djup kompetens inom såväl immaterialrättsstrategi och juridiska tjänster som patent, varumärke, design och upphovsrätt.

AWA grundades 1897 och har i dag 300 medarbetare på 15 kontor i Sverige, Danmark, Kina och Hongkong samt representationskontor i Tyskland och USA. Omsättningen 2017 var 659,5 miljoner kronor.

www.awa.com

Kompetensplatsen: Gratis seminarier som ger dig koll på dagens heta ämnen

29 Jun
29 juni, 2018

Digitala kanaler har förändrat köpbeteendet helt och hållet, även inom business-to-business. Det gör det svårare, men också enklare om du utnyttjar teknikerna på rätt sätt.

Pyramid håller tillsammans med Petra och Graal regelbundet seminarier runt marknadsföring, kommunikation och digitala strategier. Tillsammans med några av Sveriges ledande exportföretag har vi bl a genomfört seminarier runt hur du bäst utnyttar:

  • Content marketing
  • Digital marknadsföring
  • e-commerce inom B2B
  • Marketing automation
  • Virtual reality för att skapa nya affärer

På Kompetensplatsen får du kostnadsfritt tillgång till ett stort antal seminarier där några av Sveriges ledande experter delar med sig av sin kunskap.

Gå till Kompetensplatsen

Branding goes disruptive

26 Jun
26 juni, 2018

or
Beliefs are the new black

The speed of change has never been faster, and the safest route towards going out of business is to stick to the route you’ve always taken.

Are you also dead tired of hearing this? Tired of hearing that, statistically, it’s more likely you’ll be out of business in 10 years than in it? That more new companies were founded while you were eating breakfast than you have brain cells, and that their sole purpose is to run you out of town? That competition over skilled employees will become so fierce it’ll feel like a corporate bloodbath?

I am. Tired of it. Maybe that’s because I’ve never much cared for communication by fear. Experience tells us it’s not an effective way to drive behaviour. It’s certainly not elegant, and I’m less inclined to respect those who do it. If you have to put a figurative gun to my head to get my attention, you probably need to rethink your communication.

So how could we illustrate today’s business climate in a less terrifying way? Well, how about as a deep pool, flooded with possibilities, refreshingly cool, with nice, positive people diving in to co-create with you? Sounds like a dream? It’s not. And it’s open to all, established or emerging.

Photo by Wells Baum on Unsplash

For a brand strategist, it’s a wonderful swim. Brand positioning is in a pleasantly
disruptive state, full of new possibilities. In mature markets, the traditional category positions have been occupied since way back – lowest price, premium/luxury, technology leader, customer leader, etc. But today, companies have the opportunity to shift brand positioning – creating new categories or skipping category altogether and position themselves on competence or attitude instead.

In disruptive branding, beliefs are the new black. In the future, I predict we’ll see many more brands positioned on who they are and what they stand for, rather than on what they sell or do. Why? Because we’re seeing a widening pool of customers choosing who they buy from almost solely based on what companies stand for. As products and services become generic, people buy beliefs instead.

“Sell me identity and I’ll buy your products.”

So, in this disruptive business climate, branding irrigates new growth, as do all disciplines dealing with intellectual values. When physical and rational aspects become transient, emotional and intellectual properties spring forth.

Now is the time to dive into your brand’s beliefs. The water’s perfect.

 

Har du koll på din Dirichlet-modell?

12 Jun
12 juni, 2018

Många företag satsar stora resurser på att öka sina kunders lojalitet, eller åtminstone få dem att köpa oftare. Men få har troligen koll på den statistiska analys som ligger bakom hur lojaliteten och köpfrekvensen i en kategori ser ut. 

Formlerna som beräknar detta går under namnet Dirichlet-ekvationer. Namnet kommer från den tyske matematikern Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet som var verksam under första halvan av 1800-talet. Ekvationerna används för att beräkna sannolikheten för olika utfall när det finns ett antal kontinuerliga multivariata sannolikhetsfördelningar.  

Målet med den här texten är dock inte att hålla en föreläsning om statistik. Däremot kan det vara värt att komma ihåg att köpfrekvens och lojalitet är ett område där Dirichlet-beräkningar, eller än mer specifikt, NBD-Dirichlet-modeller, där NBD står för negativ bi-nominal distribution, används med stor träffsäkerhet för att förstå marknadens, d.v.s. kundernas, beteende. 

Enkelt uttryckt visar statistiken att nästan alla marknader beter sig på liknande sätt, och därmed kan beräknas enlig samma underliggande modell. För att kunna beräkna vilken grad av lojalitet och köpfrekvens ett varumärke ska räkna med är utgångspunkten ett begränsat antal nyckelvärden, där den genomsnittliga köpfrekvens i kategorin, varumärkets marknadsandel och varumärkets penetration (d.v.s. hur stor andel av marknaden som köper eller har möjlighet att köpa varumärket) normalt är de viktigaste. 

Byron Sharp, författare till ”How Brands Grow”, har använt Dirichlet-modeller för mycket av sina slutsatser. Han brukar dela in produktkategorier i tre olika typer: 

1) Kategorimarknader, där varje köp genomförs oberoende av tidigare köp. Bilar, datorer och flygresor är några exempel på sådana kategorier. 

Dessutom finns det två typer av prenumerationsmarknader: 

2) Singulärt val, d.v.s. kunden kan bara ha en leverantör åt gången. Revisionsbyrå, el-leverantör och fastighetsförsäkring är några exempel på sådana marknader. 

3) Fria val, d.v.s. kunden kan ha flera leverantörer samtidigt. Medieprenumerationer, retainer-baserade konsulttjänster och många SaaS-tjänster (Software-as-a-Service) är exempel på den här typen av marknadsstrukturer. 

Sharp visar att Dirichlet-modellen är tillämpbar i alla tre marknadstyperna, men i prenumerationsmarknader behöver man ta med några ytterligare variabler, främst konverteringsgrad och churn, d.v.s. hur länge en kundrelation/prenumeration varar. En av hans mest intressanta slutsatser är att det finns en ”double jeopardy”-struktur, som innebär att stora och starka varumärken har dubbla fördelar. Dels har de fler kunder än övriga, men de åtnjuter också en något högre lojalitet än mindre varumärken.  

Men lojaliteten kommer i första hand från att de har en högre marknadsandel bland sällanköpare. Eftersom dessa handlar mer sällan i kategorin har de mindre kunskap om olika leverantörer, och väljer därmed i något högre grad marknadsledaren. Dels därför att sannolikheten att dessa kunder ska känna till det ledande varumärket är större än för övriga alternativ, och dels därför sannolikheten att man har möjlighet att få kontakt med det varumärket är större, både mentalt (kännedom) och fysiskt (distribution). 

En annan viktig slutsats är att visst går det att öka köpfrekvensen bland sina kunder. Men då handlar det framför allt om att hela tiden erbjuda sina produkter till rabatterade priser, vilket sällan är hållbart i längden om man samtidigt har krav på att bibehålla lönsamheten. Ett annat, och mer lönsamt, sätt är att försöka öka penetrationen utan att enbart göra detta via rabatter och specialerbjudanden. Kan varumärket öka sin marknadsnärvaro och sin penetration kommer detta också, med ekonomernas favorituttryck ceteris paribus (allt annat lika), även att ge utslag på köpfrekvens och lönsamhet. 

Länkar: 

Dirichlet distribution
Andrew S. C. Ehrenberg


Valda artiklar från Byron Sharp, bl.a: 

The Dirichlet’s Buyer Behaviour Assumptions Really Do Matter
There are two types of repeat purchase markets
Marketing Science
An Investigation of Multi-Product Loyalty in Financial Services 

 

Let us win your dream customers

01 Feb
1 februari, 2018

Account Based Marketing is a strategy to win key customers. You know them, and you probably have a dialogue with them but the challenge is two-folded:

A: Your potential customer probably already has a number of suppliers. Why should he take the risk to start working with your company?

B: You probably meet a handful of customers, while the decision group not seldom is 20-30 people of whom you will never get access to some.

The solution is quite simple, it just needs some focus and patience

  1. Map your potential stakeholders and their function/interest
  2. Serve them the information they look for through adapted content.
  3. Digital channels is of course a great tool since you basically can target each person

Why not make a try?

Internet of Things förändrar världen

23 Oct
23 oktober, 2017

Internet of Things, eller sakernas internet på vårt eget fattiga språk, öppnar nya möjligheter till att utveckla nya produkter och fantastiska användarupplevelser.

Enligt analysföretaget Gartner beräknas antalet uppkopplade enheter vara 20,8 miljarder år 2020. Gartner konstaterar att fler än hälften av alla nya affärsprocesser och system kommer innehålla någon form av IoT år 2020.

Redan idag kan många produkter i hemmet kommunicera med varandra och göra livet enklare för dig. Du blir påmind, får rekommendationer och har allmän koll. Och ibland är det bara för att skapa en upplevelse. Husqvarnas automatiska gräsklippare kan t ex styras via en app i telefonen. Varför det kan man fråga. Tämligen onödigt, men samtidigt kul när gänget sitter och tar en öl på terassen.

Men den värdemässigt stora revolutionen kommer inom B2B där IoT ofta går under samlingsbegreppet ”connectivity”. Många produkter kommer att vara uppkopplade så användning och service kan effektiviseras. Utnyttjandet kan optimeras, du kan ladda ner extra kraft när du behöver det och felsökning och service kan ske på distans.

Möjligheterna är oändliga, och om du inte redan nu gör det, kan det vara en god idé att redan nu fundera över hur ditt företag kan dra nytta av utvecklingen.

Övertyga kunderna med VR

09 Oct
9 oktober, 2017

VR-applikationer är ett område som utvecklas starkt, främst tack vare att de enheter som ska användas idag är lika kraftfulla som en liten dator. Idag växer antalet applikationer snabbt inom Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality (MR) och Augmented Reality (AR).

Var ska man då använda de olika VR-teknikerna? Snart överallt är den enkla sanningen. Idag finns de flesta applikationer på mässor eller i butiker för att skapa en upplevelse runt varumärket.

En enkel, men imponerande, applikation är att ta kunder på besök dit de inte kan eller får komma. Ibland är det viktigt att kunna visa upp t ex sin produktion – och det löser du enkelt genom en VR/360 film. Ett exempel finner du här.

Digital Metal leder utvecklingen inom additiv tillverkning. Många konkurrenter befinner sig fortfarande i prototypstadiet medan Digital Metal har tillverkat över 200.000 komponenter.

En VR/360-presentation visar runt besökaren precis som under ett vanligt fabriksbesök. Smart och imponerande – och relativt enkelt att ta fram.

What is your customer willing to pay?

12 May
12 maj, 2010

One of the core issues for B2B marketing is often: ”What is the customer willing to pay?”

The answer is simple (at least in theory): the price the buyer can accept (P) is the product’s perceived value (V) divided by the perceived risk of buying from you (R).

Right Price formula in b2b

The perceived value (V) is the actual, rational value that your product or service can be expected to create for the buyer in the short- or long term. This value is almost always about your product’s or service’s ability to in some way contribute to higher revenues, lower costs or improved cash flow. And it is this value the buyer is interested in, as a B2B transaction almost always originates from a rational, defined need – to streamline a process, improve a product, etc. It is more the rule than the exception that the purchaser identifies the need and contacts those suppliers he or she believes have the ability to satisfy it.

The perceived risk (R) is the perceived value’s inverse. Just as rational as the value of your offer can be assessed, just as irrational is the buyer’s risk evaluation about buying from you. And just as easily as perceived value can be described, just as complex are the factors affecting perceived risk.

Let me generalize.

There are two kinds of risk variables in a B2B transaction: the degree of uncertainty concerning the transaction’s outcome, and the degree of negative consequence if a wrong decision is made.

The first variable, the risk of unwanted outcome, is very much a question of credibility – that is the buyer’s confidence in you as a seller. ”Can they really deliver what they promise? Are we really going to save 20% in material costs?”

The second variable, the risk of making the wrong decisions, is about dealing with the consequences for both the company and the individual. ”What is the result for the company if we make the wrong decision? How much does this risk expose me as a professional buyer?”

Examples of the perceived risk can be read about in Hawes & Barnhouse’s Study from 1987, in which they asked B2B buyers to rank the risks they perceived as most serious. ”That I feel professionally incompetent” came in first, followed by, for example, ”that the relationship with the company’s customers will be strained”, ”that this reduces my chances of promotion” and ”that my status among colleagues will be diminished”.

Risk assessment is substantially emotion-based. Fear of making a bad choice – a choice the buyer may subsequently regret. And, many times, the fear of making a bad choice is stronger than the desire to do good. ”What has worked so far has, despite everything, worked. And the companies I know I do, after all, know.”

According to the IMP Group, B2B-transactions are characterized by buyers being reluctant to sever existing business relationships, and their concern about all the technical and logistical problems that may arise in connection with a possible change of supplier. But also by B2B buyers being reluctant to spend too much time making detailed evaluations and comparisons of competing brands.

In addition, the perceived risk in a B2B business is seldom linked to a single individual. In the vast majority of B2B purchases, the choice of appropriate supplier/brand is made by a group, explicitly or implicitly. In the end, this means it becomes a compromise – the lowest common denominator of the group’s perceived risk. The choice becomes the option that everyone in the group can accept (or believes to be acceptable), rather than the option that one or a few in the group prefer.

Put simply, it is more convenient for B2B companies to choose a supplier that everyone knows and has sufficiently high regard for than a brand that is unknown to most, but which has the (rationally) better offer. Paradoxically, that makes it easier to later defend the purchasing decision, both for oneself and one’s colleagues.

The bottom line is that the B2B buyer is prepared to pay more as the perceived value of a good or service increases, but only so long as the risk is deemed acceptable.

And as more and more brands in more and more industries become more and more similar in their offerings, it can often be more profitable – especially in terms of ‘closing the deal’ – to try to reduce the buyer’s perceived risk than to try to increase the perceived value.

This post was originally published in Swedish on the blog The Brand-Man. There, you can also read about the price formula for comsumer markets (also in Swedish).

It’s time to bury the four P’s.

14 Dec
14 december, 2009

In 1960 E Jerome McCarthy published Basic Marketing. In it, he suggested that a company or product’s strategic position in the market could be described by four P’s: Product, Price, Place and Promotion.

According to McCarthy, the 4 P’s are the tactical tools at companies’ disposal to streamline their marketing, and they collectively became known as the marketing mix.

A few years later, Philip Kotler built further on McCarthy’s P’s. Kotler’s books were much more popular than McCarthy’s, which probably explains why most marketers now give Kotler credit for the 4 P’s.

Kotler, however, soon realized that the four P’ s were insufficient, and tried in the 1980s to introduce two more: Public opinion and Political Power. Other marketing thinkers have come up with more suggestions that further complement – including Packaging, People, Process and Physical Evidence.

Despite their obvious shortcomings, McCarthy’s soon-to-be 50 year-old 4 P’s remain one of the elemental laws of nature in the marketing universe.

But the world in which the four Ps first prevailed held completely different marketing conditions than today’s.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Western world was in the midst of unprecedented social change and growth. After World War II, there was a strong need for practically everything, and the rapidly growing consumer machine had to be fed with more and more products. If anything, in any way, benefited the standard of living, it essentially sold itself.

The media world also looked different. The consumer obediently adapted him or herself to the relatively few media channels through which news, information and advertising were trumpeted out – with neither opportunity nor expectation of being able to influence when, where or how he or she would consume the messages, or contribute to public thinking or opinion on the subject.

Those who made and sold products quite simply held both the baton and the megaphone.

And it was thus, in this from-the-inside-out world, that the four P’s were born – as well as a number of other fundamental marketing theories.

Common to these post-war theories is that they assume that the seller has the power to define how the buyer should interpret the offer – and thus the value, usefulness or experience of the product, service or idea.

That power no longer exists.

Firstly, globalization and ever increasing competition have marginalized the importance of product features and functionality, as competing products in almost all categories now offer essentially the same basic functionality. In addition, prices have become almost completely transparent, and geographical distance now very rarely has any real significance. Last but not least: customers no longer want to listen.

The typical ‘stupid’ consumer, who previously had neither voice nor influence, has now – thanks to the Internet and social media – been replaced by ever more knowledgeable and critical participants – each with a growing influence on how brands are perceived and experienced.

In short: the buyer has grabbed the baton and seldom even hears the megaphone.

Yet many marketers continue desperately to try to make the 4 P’s work. Maybe the P’s time has passed. Maybe it’s time to bury them once and for all.

That’s the opinion of marketing professor Robert Lauterborn, author of books like The New Marketing Paradigm: Integrated Marketing Communications. He proposes an alternative approach based on the customer rather than product, which helps us see the business from the buyer’s point of view, not the seller’s. Lauterborn’s 4 C’s are  Consumer, Cost, Convenience, Communication.

The starting point is a Consumer (or customer, if you wish). Forget about the product. There is simply no longer any reason to develop something just because it is possible to do so, and expect that it will automatically sell. Focus instead on really understanding the customer’s needs and wishes. People, after all, no longer buy products. We want what the product results in: a value, a utility or an experience. What do customers expect of your business or product?

As a strategic positioning and tactical variable, the product’s actual price is also irrelevant. Price is just one part of the buyer’s total cost to experience the usefulness or value of the product. Think instead in terms of Cost to Satisfy. Most companies do not compete, after all, with a few percent price difference here or there, but with the sum of the customer’s perceived costs – both monetary and emotional. In addition to the price tag, for example, a tin of snuff costs the time it takes to go to the kiosk, the guilt of being nicotine-dependent and even the remorse that the money is not being used for something more valuable – maybe a summer vacation with the family. ”The most snuff for the money” is not the main value measure – not even ”the best nicotine kick for the least money”.  The value, benefits and experience are determined instead in a multitude of complex relationships, each of which differs slightly from customer to customer.

‘Place’ is, if possible, even more irrelevant. People no longer need to go anywhere to buy just about anything they want – unless they want to. Everything is available on a computer screen or in a catalog right in front of them – around the clock. Think, then, in terms of ‘Convenience to buy’. That does not mean that the distribution channels are unimportant – only that their role has changed. Think about how your customers would like to buy, and how the buying process itself can make your customers’ lives easier and less time consuming. Think about whether there is anything related to your product that the customer wants to experience, something that will give you her undivided attention. If you can manage that, you can actually get customers to travel great distances and still experience it as an easy, convenient, timesaving way to buy.

And, lest we forget, promotion is an obsolete way to look at the role of marketing communications. Mass marketing is history. Customers expect, rightly, a two-way communication with the brand. Think Communication (or conversation, if you wish). To communicate is to exchange thoughts, knowledge, feelings and ideas – to both listen and speak. In brief, it’s collaboration between buyer and seller in order to create a desired value and a desired benefit or experience on both sides.

Lauterborn’s four C’s reflect a thoroughly customer-oriented marketing philosophy. One which, in my opinion, much more accurately describes a brand’s strategic positioning and tactical opportunities than McCarthy’s four P’s.

Whether it is wise to limit ourselves to the number 4 and the letter C, is open to discussion.

So let’s do it. Discuss, that is.

Originally posted in Swedish on The Brand-Man, here.

How important is price?

21 Sep
21 september, 2009

If you ask your customers what their most important criteria are for choosing a supplier, most will say: “Number one is ‘price’. Number two is ‘quality’.”

They’re lying.

But it’s not a deliberate lie. We humans answer the question asked, and this is simply the wrong question to ask. The only time it has any relevance, and the only time it will be answered truthfully, is if everything else is identical between all competing alternatives.

Which, of course, never happens.

But, if you ask which brand on the market customers prefer, and then identify what customers believe makes that brand better than the competition, you will come much closer to the truth. Their key differentiating criteria will revolve around factors like ‘confidence’, ‘relationship’ and ‘service’. Price will be ranked further down the list.

When your sales force or customers start insisting that you must lower prices, it is therefore not necessarily your price that is wrong. The problem is more likely to be that customers do not feel they are getting sufficient value for the price you charge for your product.

What each buyer is really interested in is value. And the value of anything is the sum of the benefit divided by the price: Value=benefit/price.

You can choose either to reduce your price, and thereby increase relative value (”I may not be getting much, but I’m not paying much either”). Or, you can enhance the perceived benefit (”I am really getting value for the money I pay”).

The thing is that customers always strive to pay as little as possible. And a good salesman always does everything possible to justify the highest price he can possibly get.

This does not necessarily mean that all customers want to pay as little as possible, and all salesmen want to be paid as much as possible. The price range – which both seller and buyer are already mentally equipped with – is based not only on which business category your brand is associated with, but also its perceived market position within that category.

In short: You get the customers you deserve.

By that I mean that, if your customers are only interested in your price, it’s because you haven’t given them something else to be interested in. Your customers feel that your main competitive advantage is your price tag, and that your company is more or less offering a commodity.

But, if your business for instance is recognized as more competent in its field than any other company – i.e. the competence leader (implying high credibility and a good reputation) – you can be much better paid for delivering an identical product or service. The customer, quite simply, perceives a greater business value.

Your job as a salesperson, and that of any marketing communication, is therefore to convince customers that your brand offers more value; and that that value differs in a relevant way from any other competitor’s offering. But you must also get the customer to really believe that the promised value will be realized. Last, but not least, you must get the customer to like your brand.
If you manage this entire chain, any price discussion will be marginalized.

Finally: Remember that, the moment a client asks for the price of the product, you have a very strong buying signal.

And that you’re actually selling value.