Scott D. Nelson
Managing VP
12 years at Gartner
18 years IT industry
by Scott Nelson | September 19, 2011 | 2 Comments
We are in the middle of planning our agenda for 2012. We have lots of exciting things that we are planning to look at, but I feel that it is important to get our clients perspective. What sort of challenges would you like to see some research on? What emerging technologies have you perplexed? We would be interested to hear from you. Give us your feedback so we can incorporate it into our planning.
Looking forward to an exciting 2012.
Category: CRM Strategy Tags:
by Scott Nelson | August 11, 2011 | 3 Comments
I recent study said that 64% of all small business did not see any value to using social media. But 50% said that they could live without word of mouth. (Here’s a link to an article on the study http://mashable.com/2011/08/09/small-businesses-social-media/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SocialCRM+%28Social+CRM%29).
My first reaction, to be honest, was “Wow!”. I found the results interesting, if not a bit hard to believe. I certainly understand the last part, about the role of word of mouth. But that social media was of no value to them really puzzled me. The reason is simply…social media is word of mouth, in a manner of speaking. And it is a form of advertising that is actually an advantage for small firms. Most small businesses are in effect a small community, build around their customers. This is tailor made for social media. Larger firms are tied up with politics, and inflexibility, and all the other problems that plague larger firms. But smaller firms can form a tight linkage to their customers, and social media facilitates that.
So by all means use word of mouth. But don’t discount social media. In fact, if may be the best way to leverage that word of mouth. And actually give you a leg up on your larger competition.
Category: CRM Strategy Social Media Strategy Tags:
by Scott Nelson | August 10, 2011 | 4 Comments
Managing any group of bright people has it’s challenges. Years ago, I became concerned that some of the people I managed would 1). suffer from burn out, and 2). need to find fresh input to continue to have good ideas. As such, I developed a concept for them that I called Intellectual Moments.
The rules for Intellectual Moments were simple. They happen once a month. On that day, people in my team were to sign themselves as out. No email. No calls. No meetings. In place of the normal daily activities, they were to take time to expose their mind to something NON WORK related. This was very important. It was not a day to catch up on reading work related things. It had to be a day to feed the mind with new content. Some examples of appropriate activities for the day:
1. Attend a lecture by someone in another field
2. Read a book on something like anthropology (none of my team are anthropologists)
3. View a documentary
4. Listen to TED talks,
Etc.
The idea was to expose the mind to new stimuli, and allow it to form new insights and connections. I then ask each team member to report back to me on what they did, and what they learned.
The result? As you can imagine, it is a battle. Normal comments include “I am too behind to take a day,” “let me just catch up on some email first,” “I don’t see how this is going to help me answer client questions,” or my favorite “does your boss approve of us doing this?” It is a long, consistent process of encouraging and engaging the team on this. But I do believe it is of value. The time taken from work is more then repaid by fresh insights and connections.
I am interested if people have seen other techniques to accomplish the same thing. I am always looking for good ideas.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
by Scott Nelson | August 9, 2011 | 2 Comments
I recently took one of those customer service surveys that businesses give you sometimes. This one was from a casual dining restaurant. It asked all the normal questions, such as “how was the food?”, “was the wait staff courteous?”, “how long did you have to wait?” They also had a few odd ones, such as “were the dishes clean?” (I would hope so), and “Did the food look appealing?” (again, I hope so).
But the last question caught my eye. It asked, simply, “Are you happy with this experience?” I stopped and thought about that. Was I happy? Yes, I guess I was. But they didn’t ask the important question…could I have been happier?
In my case, yes I could have been. The music from overhead was unusually loud (no, I am not getting old…). The waitress was good, but could have been better. Parking was a major problem. There were a few other things. Nothing was terrible. But, if they want to know about happy, they aren’t going to improve by asking only if I was happy with the experience. That covers the basics like washing the dishes and having the food taste good. They need to go to the next level and ask what they could do to make me happier.
This is probably true in much of life. In personal relationships, we would do well to ask “what can I do to make you happier”, rather then ask “are you happy.” Or at work. At review time, asking our bosses what we can do to make them happier with our performance (hint to people whom I review…). But when it comes to customer service and CRM, this could really be big.
What can our firms start doing to make our customers happier?
Category: CRM Strategy Customer Service Tags:
by Scott Nelson | August 4, 2011 | 4 Comments
The science of simulation has come a long way in recent years. Complex areas such as weather forecasting and market simulations are becoming better and better, in spite of the fact that it seems they can never forecast the weather accurately the one day you need it. And while it still is not the stuff of a Star Trek episode, it does make one wonder when the capability will become part of CRM. Off hand, a few obvious applications come to mind:
1. Campaign management: Simulating the effect of various offers on demographic and psychographic groups
2. Pricing: More then just a financial spreadsheet, really looking at demand impact
3. Channel optimization: looking at the impact on channels of various strategies
4. Workforce optimization: Impact on the personnel side of the business
5. Demand planning: seeing how all the variables come together on your ability to provide a good or service
The list could go on and on. The key is right now, CRM is more about transactions, and maybe some planning. When is planning going to become the key attribute, and simulation become the engine that drives it?
Category: CRM Strategy Tags:
by Scott Nelson | August 3, 2011 | Comments Off
Yesterday I wrote about what I learned when I was a vendor. I looked at it from the point of view of what vendors wished their clients new. To be fair, today I talk about what I learned that vendors don’t want you to know. You could call these dirty little secrets.
Just imagine what it would be like if user organizations and vendors were completely open and honest — no lies, no miscommunications, and no failed implementations due to a sales process that over-promised and under-delivered. However, that is not going to happen, and there are a few secrets that enterprises need to be aware of as they evaluate the products offered in the market. Vendors are not likely to tell you these secrets, but that doesn’t mean you can’t use them to your advantage.
Secret No. 3:“Featuritis” is not driven by a plan or by clients, but by the competition.
Software is plagued by a tendency to squeeze ever-more features into a product that doesn’t really need them. In many cases, clients cannot, and will not, ever use all of this functionality, but they will still have to pay for it. Hence, the vendor’s sales tactic is to show how responsive the vendor is to the client. The reality is that most of these features were put in not as part of a strategic product plan, or even as the result of user requests, but in response to something in a rival’s product.
Since this featuritis is a reactionary effort made in response to the market, it is often poorly thought out, and in many cases, destabilizing for the application itself. This is a reality that is not likely to change, so enterprises should try to remain active in working with vendors on their future product plans and try to influence vendors to do meaningful updates, rather than mere market reactions to the competition. In addition, clients should try to negotiate deals that only require them to pay for features they really need and use.
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
by Scott Nelson | August 2, 2011 | Comments Off
Years ago, I left Gartner for a short while to be a vendor. It didn’t work out for me, but I often refer to it as my “period of deep vendor research”. Why it didn’t work is only marginally interesting. More interesting to me is what I learned about being a vendor. I had been an end user all my career, and then had learned how to be an analyst, but I didn’t know the world of vendors from personal experience until that tour of duty.
When I returned to Gartner, I wrote two notes. One was entitled “What Vendors Wish Their Users Knew”. The second was “What Vendors are Glad Their Users Don’t Know.” I was rereading the notes, and thought there was some value to reprinting a bit of what I wrote about back then. This is an except from the first note. Tomorrow I will have some of what I learned from the second note.
“Truth No. 1: Vendors do not have all of the resources they need to do what you want.
Vendors in many markets tend to be small. As such, they are stretched to the limit in such areas as research and development, staffing and support. In many cases, they would do more if they could; however, they are usually at capacity in most areas and tend to be engaged in a balancing act to meet all of their conflicting needs. Unfortunately, all users do not always receive the highest priority, which can be a major problem. However this tends to be inevitable in this market, and complaining is not the best way to have the problem rectified. Instead, working with the vendor to set a realistic time frame that meets the needs of all concerned is the superior approach.
Truth No. 2: Bad references are often (although not always) explainable.
Vendors are absolutely terrified of bad references. Where the vendor made a mistake or simply failed to live up to sales promises, it should be. However, in many cases, the reference itself can be to blame for the failure. An enterprise’s failure to allocate resources, its political infighting and its unrealistic expectations can all doom a project, but to the outside world, the vendor may look like it deserves the blame. User enterprises should do their best to look for the real reasons behind failed implementations and be careful not to blame the vendor when the client was actually at fault.
Truth No. 3: Vendors really do try to do all that they can to make their clients happy.
Clients can be very demanding, and they have every right to be. After all, they are footing the bills, and failure can be very visible, as well as expensive. As a result, most vendors try to move heaven and earth to help their clients. In many cases, this goes on in the background, without clients seeing their efforts. Nonetheless, clients should work with their vendors on their requests, setting demanding, but fair requirements, and recognize when the vendor has made a strong effort to comply. In many cases, the customer’s demands are so great that no vendor could hope to achieve what has been asked of it.
Truth No. 4: If a vendor hasn’t done something, it’s usually because it hasn’t thought of it.
Clients often overanalyze the direction of a vendor’s product; i.e., they see something missing and then jump to the conclusion that the vendor has no desire to support it. In fact, in many cases, it simply means the vendor hasn’t gotten to it, hasn’t been asked for it by a client or simply hasn’t thought of it. Therefore, before users come to the erroneous conclusion that a particular vendor is no longer planning to meet their needs, they should stop and ask the vendor about it. In many cases, users will find that they were the first to pose the question. Going back to Truth No. 1, the vendor still may not be able to support it, but that is qualitatively different from thinking that it has simply chosen to ignore a market demand.
Truth No. 5: No software works as promised at all times, in all situations.
No one is shocked to discover that a vendor has “over promised” during the selling process — that is, unfortunately, part of the game. However, clients tend to become unreasonable about what software can and cannot do as delivered. Many kinds of software are complex, enterprisewide solutions, and in many cases, and may still be relatively immature in its level of stability. As a result, some things will not work as promised. Vendors should have the opportunity to deal with those issues. Users have a right to receive software that works and meets their needs; however, vendors have the right and should be given the opportunity to adjust to the needs of their customers. The failure to give vendors such as opportunity represents a missed opportunity”
Is this an exhaustive list? Hardly. But I think it is a point to start some meaningful discussion between users and vendors
Comments Off
Category: Uncategorized Vendor Contracts Tags:
by Scott Nelson | July 29, 2011 | 3 Comments
As a manager of analysts, I get involved in a lot of issues between vendors and team members. Most are some variant of one side feeling that the other is not treating them right. And to be honest, the tech advisory business has a history of being adversarial. While that has changed to some degree, there still is the very real issue that for an analyst to do their job, they have to help end users by taking strong stands that many vendors won’t like. And that is a problem when vendors, deep down inside, think of analyst firms as PR vehicles, not strategic consultants that can help them interpret the future direction of the market.
So what are vendors and analysts to do? Agree to fight with each other like the family cat and dog? Probably. But I think that both sides could do more. I believe that if each side made a commitment to make some small changes, the whole process of strategic advisory services would work much better. A sort of Vendor/Analyst Bill of Rights, as it were. While you could make a long list, I would suggest that if each side agreed to work on four things, the whole industry would benefit.
Analysts
1. Commit to being even handed: All analysts have their biases. We are human after all (well, most are). But if analysts would stop and check themselves to ensure that they were being even handed with all vendors, it would go a long way. This is just a matter of basic respect.
2. Explain yourself: Analysts love to keep the recipe to the “secret sauce” to themselves. They believe that the less they tell vendors about why they think what they think, the more valuable they are. That’s rubbish. I have found that vendors value more the analysts that explain what they are thinking, and why. They may not agree, but at least it gives each side a place to start communication from.
3. Communicate: Analysts tend to be terrible at communicating, even among themselves. This has to change. Communicate time lines. Communicate feedback. Communicate research plans. Communication is key.
4. Be honest: If you don’t like something, say so. But if you do like something, say so as well. I am appalled at some of the lack of honesty that I hear from analysts. When I ask why they said one think to the vendor, then published something else, the response is often that they didn’t want to hurt their feelings. Not acceptable. A vendor can’t work on shortcomings if they don’t know you view them as such.
Vendors
1. Respect our time: Analysts are extremely busy. Yet some vendors act like all we have to do is meet with them. Repeated requests for briefings, visits, conference sessions, etc. All valid, but let’s prioritize and try to use the time as efficiently as possible.
2. Provide what is asked for: I can’t tell you the number of times I have requested a briefing on something specific, only to get a long briefing on something else…often something we already had talked about. If an analyst asks about something specific, it is because that is what they need. Help us out and provide what we requested. It really helps.
3. Work with us: We are serving as an information nexus. We have lots of information to share, and we will be happy to share it with you, but we need to gain more information as well. Failing to give us references does not help. Failing to five us a product road map does not help. Yet vendors that don’t want to provide us with needed info act hurt when we don’t reveal to them the secret plans of a competitor (which we would never do anyway). Interesting double standard.
4. Ask questions: You must have some. What would you like to know? To point #3, above, we have a lot we can tell you, but we aren’t going to do a memory dump of everything we know. Ask some questions. Ask the analyst what they are thinking? Where their concerns are.? How they would compare the product to the future direction of the market? What were they expecting? What’s missing? Etc. And when they answer, take notes…don’t defend yourselves.
Will following these rules solve all the issues between vendors and analysts? Hardly. But they sure won’t hurt.
Category: Applications Vendor Contracts Tags:
by Scott Nelson | July 28, 2011 | 3 Comments
Everyday my inbox is filled with PR firms sending me press releases. They normally have the same format, which goes as follows;
“Company X, the leading vendor of Y, is pleased to announce that they are now a preferred partner of Company Z. The combined product offering will make them the leading solution in the CRM space.”
6 months later, nothing has happened as a result of the “partnership”. No new business, no new traction, no new products, and soon a new press release comes out that announced that Company X is now partnered with Company A’, and that this partnership is really big news, and things will happen, and blah blah blah.
I wonder if PR firms realize that analysts, and smart end users, remember these announcements. In some cases (such as mine), even track them to see what happens 3 months out, 6 months, one year. Since in better then 90% of the time, nothing happens, it makes us just a bit jaded when we see these releases.
A word of advice. Stop over selling. Stop trumpeting every paper partnership as the Next Big Thing. Start just informing us of events, and then…and I know this will be a change a pace…actually tell us when something substantial happens.
You can get back to your day.
Category: CRM Strategy Tags:
by Scott Nelson | July 27, 2011 | 3 Comments
I have been a practitioner in the ranks of CRM for a long time, in fact, since before it had that name. 16 years at Gartner. 8 as an end user before that. And in that whole time, the “M” in CRM, “management”, has always bothered me.
I never liked that word. I don’t believe customers want to be “managed” (I know I don’t). And I have read many pundits who have made that point. But the issue always has been, what would be the correct term? I have heard all kinds of recommendations. “Partnership”, “Relationship”, “Experience”. All have their merits, but none ever seemed right. I think the problem is that there is no one word that works. The reason is that it is two.
I think the correct words are “insight” and “information”. That is really what it is all about. What we think of as CRM is about acquiring information and gaining insight to know what the customer is telling us, and what we should be doing going forward. That is the real key to what we are trying to accomplish in CRM. And e commerce and social media just exacerbates this. It is all about information and insight.
Now I am not recommending that we change the moniker from CRM to CRII. Clearly that doesn’t work. But maybe it is time we thought less about management, and more about insight.
Category: CRM Strategy Tags:
