Marketing

How to Create a Flyer

Posted by 8 October, 2009 Comments Off on How to Create a Flyer

Flyers are pretty simple and easy to make while at the same time being cost effective, if you need to catch the attention of the customers. To create a flyer you need to decide on the color the flyer will have, design on the number of flyers to print ensuring you put into consideration the amount you are budgeting to use on the flyer.  The second step is to create an eye catching headline, think carefully of what you will write as your headline since this is what will make potential customers want to read what the flyer is all about.

flyer

If there are discounts you will be offering, show them distinctively.Do not add many graphics unless it is very necessary.

Categories : Marketing Tags :

 

What is CPM Advertising?

Posted by 26 August, 2009 Comments Off on What is CPM Advertising?

The link provides the reasons why most large websites prefer to use the Cost Per Thousand or CPM adverting as their mode of marketing themselves. The method is quite cheap and promises that at least the advert will be seen by the customers. Regardless of whether the viewer clicks on the ad or not, the advertiser can rest assured that the ad caught the visitor’s eye.

CPM Report

The idea behind it is that the impression made on the buyer is enough to market the product. Although the method has been around for a long time, it’s only effective for large websites because they have the capability to provide a huge number of impressions thus the buyer will prefer to search there for convenience purposes.

The “M” in CPM comes from the French word “Mille”, which means “thousand”.  The French term is used even in English-speaking countries.

Related Articles On CPM Advertising

Categories : Internet,Marketing Tags : ,

 

Freshen Up with Al-Hilal Fresher Juices

Posted by 24 April, 2009 (20) Comment

Al-hilal fresher juiceJuices are always liked by every one no matter how old they are. With the advent of summer obviously the intake of juices will be very high. One can find many juices in market, like juices from Nestle, Haleeb, Shezan etc. I have tasted almost every juice that is there in the market, but if you want to have a juice that is real fruity in taste then you must try Fresher. Fresher juices are a product of Al-Hilal industries. It’s a Pakistani company who has launched its juices some time back. Read the rest of this entry

Categories : Marketing Tags : ,

 

Price Cut Down in Dawlance Appliances

Posted by 27 February, 2009 (3) Comment

Dawlance, one of the the leading home appliances manufacturers, established in 1980 is positioned as a reliable brand across the country. Because of the price hike, many of the companies lost some portion of their market share lately. Dawlance has recently taken an initiative of reducing the prices of its home appliances including Refrigerators, Microwave Oven, Split AC and Washing Machine. This step is being appreciated by over 1800 authorized dealers all over Pakistan. According to survey, a significant increase in market share and sales of Dawlance Appliances has been seen because of this strategy.

Read the rest of this entry

Categories : Marketing Tags : ,

 

Celebrity Endorsement in Pakistan

Posted by 15 January, 2009 (4) Comment

ts5_7large

While working on a project on ‘Impact of Celebrity Endorsement of Consumer Behavior and Overall Brand Value’, I came to know that in Pakistan, very little number of peoples’ behavior is influenced because of the factor that a particular brand’s advertisement has a celebrity in it.

But when a sample is asked about the last recall advertisement 8 out 10 were of celebrity endorsed advertisements. Recall rate is high when someone sees a celebrity in an advertisement whether its a Print Ad or Television Commercial.

Please follow the link below to find out the results of our project. Hope that helps. Suggestions, comments are appreciated on the Topic ‘Celebrity Endorsement in Pakistan’

Download Link: Celebrity Endorsement in Pakistan

Categories : Marketing Tags : , ,

 

Online Shopping Stores in Pakistan – Failure Dilemma

Posted by 6 December, 2008 (7) Comment

Most of you must have visited the Pakistani Online Stores and to be honest, in my opinion they are not what they meant to be. This is because;

  • The product range is not sufficient,
  • the prices are way to much,
  • stores websites are not well maintained/up-dated,
  • limited payment option,
  • slow order processing.

To some extent the owners of these stores are right in saying that they have more expenses which they have to incurr to get a process completed but I believe that if proper procedure is adopted, there is no reason an online store could go down. We have some big examples with us like amazon.com.

Some of the owners of Pakistani stores do not have there own off-line stores so, they have to bring the product from somewhere else and provide it to customer. If Online business is taken seriously, it could generate a lot of profit.  Advent of new technolgoy always bring challenge for organizations but those who adopt the changes at the right time with right methodolog succeed

Categories : Marketing Tags : ,

 

Finding the Right Strategy for Your Business

Posted by 23 September, 2008 Comments Off on Finding the Right Strategy for Your Business

FINDING THE RIGHT STRATEGY FOR YOUR BUSINESS 

In the beginning of this lesson we mentioned Henry Mintzberg’s important book, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. He reaches an interesting conclusion on page 397 of it, one we want to reproduce here in case you don’t make it to the end of his book any time soon: “Organizations differ, just as do animals; it makes no more sense to prescribe one kind of planning for all organizations than it does to describe one kind of housing for all animals.” Dozens of planning methods and approaches have flashed before your eyes as you read this lesson. And believe us, there are many, many more should you care to pursue the planning literature in greater depth! Which, if any, are appropriate to your ways of thinking and the needs of your orga­nization? Possibly, none. At most, one or two in any given situation. It is a terrible (though common) mistake to think that one can “do” planning just by force-fitting a handful of famous methodologies to one’s business. Sure, it helps to know what they are and how they work. But in the end, it is up to you and your fellow planners and marketers to sniff the wind and chose your own path. Perhaps-as is more often the case than we so-called experts like to believe-that path will be largely of your own design, not ours.
In our client work, we’ve noticed that many of the best strategies arise when people trust their instincts and create their own planning processes. Formal situation analysis and planning can provide helpful inputs to this more natural, organic ap­proach to planning-but they are not substitutes for it. Mintzberg seems to be de­scribing the same phenomenon when he writes (of the case studies conducted from McGill) that:

We found strategy making to be a complex, interactive, and evolutionary process, best descrihed as one of adaptive learning…. The process was often significantly emer­gent. . . . Indeed, strategies appeared in all kinds of strange ways in the organizations studied. Many of the most important seemed to grow up from the “grass roots” (much as weeds that might appear in a garden are later found to bear useful fruit), rather than all having to be imposed from the top down, in “hothouse” style.
Strategies as weeds. What an interesting metaphor! And how many of us, espe­cially in the context of established business organizations, are willing and able to give weeds room to grow? All too few, which is one reason why many of the best new strategies in any industry are executed by entrepreneurs, working outside the bound­aries of the established market leaders. Listen to another expert on strategy, Dineh Mohajer, founder of Hard Candy-although she might laugh at our describing her as a strategy expert. But actions speak louder than words (or laughs), and this successful executive founded a nail polish company in her teens and grew it from zero to $10 million is sales in just two years by providing new, fun colors that were not available in the product lines of the giants of her industry. Here is how she and her young part­ners develop their home-run marketing strategies:

We do whatever we like. We don’t do marketing research or anything like that. I’m not even sure what that is-that’s how much we don’t do it. We just go with our gut be­cause that’s what brought us here.
Had she taken her ideas to a market leader, they would probably have been treated like weeds. But now the market leaders are scrambling to imitate this successful strategy.
The question is, can you recognize the next big idea in your market and nurture its growth? We opened the lesson with the search for the new king of strategy and the unsettling news that no heir apparent is in sight. We close on the same thought, with the added insight that it is perhaps best this way. Rather than propose our own candidate, we urge you to find your own. If it is different from everybody else’s, so much the better. Maybe your strategy will be unique, too.
The king is dead. Thank goodness! Now maybe we can create a democratic model of strategic planning.

Categories : Marketing Tags :

 

The Learning Organization and the Learning Manager

Posted by 23 September, 2008 Comments Off on The Learning Organization and the Learning Manager

 

THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION and THE LEARNING MANAGER

In the days when strategsc planning meant plotting a bunch of growth-share matrices, it was widely assumed that organizational learning occurred in lockstep with the number of units produced. As more units were produced by a firm, it became more proficient at producing them and costs dropped correspondingly. This was one reason why BCG plotted relative market share on its matrix. The firm that held the largest share had presumably produced more units, and therefore had learned how to lower costs the farthest. Now that the Japanese have demonstrated both that a low-share competitor can learn faster and that learning can improve quality as well as reduce cost, U.S. managers are forced to rethink their whole notion of learning. In the emerging view, the kind of changes made by both GE and Xerox are successful be­cause they greatly increase the rate of organizational learning.
Ray Stata of Analog Devises has argued that an organization’s rate of learning is the key to its competitiveness. Specifically, he argues that “At Analog Devises, and many other U.S. companies, product and process innovation are not the primary bot­tleneck to progress. The bottleneck is management innovation.” After deciding to tackle the issue of management innovation at Analog Devises, Stata discovered that organizational learning drove management innovation, “I see organizational learning as the principal process by which management innovation occurs. In fact, I would argue that the rate at which individuals and organizations learn may become the only sustainable competitive advantage.” This conclusion focused his attention on how to use the strategic planning process and a total quality program to increase the rate of learning in his company. Incidentally, how he arrived at his conclusions is an example of the new approaches managers are beginning to take in their quest for organiza­tional learning. Stata joined a group of managers working with two MIT professors to develop and exchange ideas in this field. For example, Stata’s recognition of the key role played by organizational learning can be traced to the influence of fellow group member Arie deGeus, director of group planning at Shell International.
A learning organization is an adaptive organization. It is able to rethink its structure and function and redefine itself in response to market challenges and cus­tomer needs. The need for faster and smarter change is obvious: Many managers be­lieve adaptability is the key to success, and are making it the cornerstone of their strategy. This requires pushing both authority and initiative down into the organiza­tion, encouraging people to think harder and learn quicker-and giving them the freedom to do so. But as Stata also observes, “Organizations can learn only as fast as the slowest link learns,” and, in many cases, the slowest link is management.

THE LEARNING MANAGER

In 1983, around the time Xerox began its total quality drive, Professor Elliot Carlisle of University of Massachusetts at Amherst wrote a story-a parable actually-about a harried manager who bumps into a successful mentor-like manager on an airplane and learns from him a new way of thinking about management. Here is what the men­tor had to say about thinking:

“You know,” he mused, “when you get right down to it, it’s almost impossible to get any real thinking done at work. Not just because of interruptions, but almost more impor­tantly, the whole psychological and physical environment in which managers work tends to discourage contemplation and encourage activity. The higher the level in an organization, the more critical is the role of reflection and the less important that of activity, but so often we’ve become conditioned on the way up through the ranks. How many bosses would give a word of encouragement to a subordinate if they were to come upon him sitting at his desk, chair tipped back, foot resting on an open drawer, and staring into space with an abstract expression on bis face? They’d be far more likely to ask him what the hell he’s doing, and if the unfortunate replied, ‘Thinking,’ he’d prob­ably be advised to stop thinking and get back to work.”
Although there is now widespread recognition of the need to think harder- and, on the other side of the coin, to learn and adapt more quickly-managers still suffer from that conditioning referred to in the quote. In fact, this conditioning is stronger the higher up you go in the organization. According to Harvard Business School professor Chris Argyris:

Any company that aspires to succeed in the tougher business environment of the 1990s must first resolve a basic dilemma: success in the marketplace increasingly depends on learning, yet most people don’t know how to learn. What’s more, those members of the organization that many assume to be the best at learning are, in fact, not very good at it. I am talking about the well-educated, high-powered, high-commitment profession­als who occupy key leadership positions in the modern corporation.
In this view, it is senior management that stands in the way of organizational learning and adaptability, and thus in the way of success in the marketplace. The problem, according to Argyris, is that people habitually reason defensively, uncon­sciously protecting themselves, maintaining their control, and suppressing conflict and negative views. Their behavior blinds them and their organizations to challenges and opportunities that truly open-minded, productive reasoning and learning would reveal. Thus effective, lasting change in any organization must start at the top with self-examination and behavioral change by the leaders.
The effects of the new strategic planning and the market challenges that drive it put this issue front and center. As Rosaheth Moss Kanter, another Harvard Business School professor, sees it, “Competitive pressures are forcing corporations to adopt new flexible strategies and structures.” And this is forcing changes in the nature of man­agement’s work:

The old bases of managerial authority are eroding, and new tools of leadership are tak­ing their place. Managers whose power derived from hierarchy and who were accus­tomed to a limited area of personal control are learning to shift their perspectives and widen their horizons. The new managerial work consists of looking outside a defined area of responsibility to sense opportunities and of forming project teams drawn from any relevant sphere to address them. It involves communication and collaboration across functions, across divisions, and across companies. .. . Thus rank, title, or official charter will be less important factors in success at the managerial work than having the knowl­edge, skills, and sensitivity to mobilize people and motivate them to do their best.

An example of this concept in action is provided by Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of medical equipment maker Becton-Dickinson, “We’re creating a hierarchy of ideas. You say, ‘This is the right thing to do here,’ not ‘We’re going to do this be­cause I’m boss.”‘ This means the vision still comes from the top, but strategies well up from Becton-Dickinson’s 15 divisions, and Gilmartin must be content to sit back and let this more informal approach to strategy work.
When GE pushed down planning to the line managers, this was not simply the outcome of a struggle for authority between corporate staff and operating divisions (as many saw it at the time). It was the beginning of the transformation of managerial work that Kanter speaks of. And when, in words that proved prophetic, Michael Naylor of GE declared in 1984 that line managers had to be catalysts of change through their planning, he was anticipating the new strategic role of the manager. This role requires flexibility and rapid learning, and it requires that managers teach these traits to oth­ers, for these are the traits that a company needs today to identify and implement suc­cessful strategies.
Xerox’s benchmarking is an example of adaptable, accelerated learning, in that it casts a broad net in the effort to learn how to do something better. The fact is that Xerox can learn from L.L. Bean, and vice versa-insight can and must come from all available sources. The truly interesting thing about the new strategies is the way they are pushing (in some cases, dragging) management along this path. As the new strate­gic planning unfolds in the 1990s, two things are bound to become clear. First, it is management (starting at the top) that is the greatest obstacle to change, and that can become the greatest catalyst. (Stata’s quest led Analog Devises to superior perfor­mance, logging an incredible 50 percent improvement in product failure rates every three to six months, for example.) Second, the entire thrust of the many new strategic directions and organizational changes is toward the marketing concept. Managerial companies are struggling to learn and adapt in order to serve customers better-bet­ter than they did before, better than their customers expect, and better than their competitors do.
This implies a never-ending process, and never-ending change. It is a frightening thought-this notion of chasing a moving finish line-and it takes strategy well be­yond the bounds of yesterday’s comfortable matrices. Yesterday’s solutions become today’s problems. Take Xerox’s benchmarking against L.L. Bean to speed up delivery of products. It was an exciting innovation in the copier business last year, but this year Xerox is already looking beyond it. Although Xerox learned to deliver products faster than its competitors, studies showed that customer satisfaction was still suhoptimal- only 70 percent. The problem was that customers wanted to know exactly when their copiers would arrive. Speed was fine, but uncertainty remained a problem. A new team was convened, with people from distribution, accounting, sales, and so forth, and a new solution developed. Xerox now tracks the progress of every copier through the distribution process so that salespeople can tell customers exactly when they will re­ceive their products, thus providing speed and predictability. Now customer satisfac­tion with product delivery measures at 90 percent instead of 70 percent.
But satisfaction still is short of 100 percent, and if it ever reaches 100 percent, competitors may innovate and push it down-satisfaction is, after all, a relative con­cept. So Xerox cannot stop now-it must search for and explore the next frontier. This is the nature of the new strategic planning. As PepsiCo’s CEO, Wayne Cal­loway, explains.,” The worst rule of management is ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.In today’s economy, if it ain’t broke, you might as well break it yourself, because it soon will be.”

Categories : Marketing Tags :

 

Planning to Be the Best

Posted by 22 September, 2008 Comments Off on Planning to Be the Best

PLANNING TO BE THE BEST

In the old strategic planning, goals often reflected desired financial returns or con­ventional wisdom about what was reasonable in the circumstances. But the Japanese competitors did not play by the same rules. They saw nothing wrong with tilting at en­trenched leaders in photocopiers or autos, for example, even though entering the U.S. markets for these products meant violating the prescriptions of the BCG and GE portfolio models. And GE’s circuit breaker business went way beyond conventional ex­pectations, making such radical improvements that it was able to grow profits, quality, and share despite a no-growth market. Where do goals such as these come from, and how can they be implemented when the more modest goals of the old strategic plan­ning were so often missed? The case of Xerox will help answer these critical questions.
In 1983, when Xerox CEO David Kearns decided to stem the flood of competi­tion, he announced the beginning of a total quality campaign. To the uninitiated, total quality sounds like tougher quality control, more inspections. It is not. Total quality programs eliminate quality inspection and focus on doing it right the first time. (“It” may be fitness to standard, fitness to need, or fitness to latent need, as discussed in lesson 1.) This means every person must do his or her job right, or stop the process if he or she does something wrong. Total quality involves suppliers and distributors as well. (MeAlpin Industries, a Xerox supplier, now sends its managers to a Xerox quality course, designs its parts with a Xerox team, and endures Xerox auditors on its factory floor.) Total quality touches every process in the company, from manufacturing processes to sales and customer service processes. To accomplish total quality, Xerox puts in charge those people who know each process best: the front-line workers.
This type of program involves a big change for most companies-a change in corporate culture. Employee initiative must be encouraged, and employees can no longer be punished for mistakes. They will not report them otherwise. Employees must be trained in the statistical methods needed to monitor and improve the quality of their own work. And they must learn to work together in teams to solve problems or think of ways to work better.
The first move Kearns made to kick off Xerox’s quality program was an appeal to the company’s 100,000 workers-the task of championing customer needs would fall to them.39 And they have proven more than able to meet such challenges. For ex­ample, in 1990, a team of people from sales, distribution, and accounting determined how to save Xerox $200 million in inventory costs.
Perhaps the hardest part of changing the corporate culture is admitting openly what is wrong with the old one. Whatever is wrong, however, is at the root of any problems and must be grubbed out. The old culture becomes a conservative force, preventing employees and managers from focusing on customer needs and limiting the rate of organizational learning and change. At Fuji Xerox, the company’s total quality program began by admitting that there were some rather serious problems, and that they were systemic rather than the fault of any one manager or group. Hideki Kaihatsu, one of Fuji Xerox’s directors, explains:

The first step was to understand the problems facing the company and why these prob­lems occurred. This soul-searching analysis revealed many surprising facts:

T Our leadership had become fragmented and inconsistent.

T Our managers had become complacent, arrogant, and
had lost their sense of urgency.

T We did not pay close enough attention to
customer requirements.

T We found our product development process
particularly sloppy and not acceptable.

T  We depended too much upon U.S. design capability.

T  The product development process was slow and
there was little cross-functional co­operation.

T We did not recognize the value of maintaining strong
bonds with our suppliers.
In the days of the old strategic planning, a manager’s career could have been ruined for coming forward with even one of these criticisms. In fact, that’s one rea­son consulting firms flourished: When one knew the messenger would be killed, one was eager to hire someone else to deliver the message, regardless of price! But Xerox’s disastrous performance forced its managers to put these games behind them and take an honest look at their company. The result was an almost incredible list of major problems.
Solving them was not as simple, however, as setting the solutions as strategic goals. How could change be accomplished, and how much change was a reasonable goal? How could the goals be broken down into smaller, more attainable tasks? The answers could not be found within Xerox; the needed changes were too radical. But surely they could be found somewhere; there were undoubtedly companies that could provide role models, companies that were the best at each of the individual processes Xerox had to rebuild. With this realization in mind, Xerox created one of the most im­portant of the new planning techniques: benchmarking.
Case Study: Benchmarking at Xerox

 

Benchmarking began at Xerox in 1979 as a way to analyze compet­ing products. According to Robert Camp of U.S. Marketing for Xerox’s Business Services, “Selected product comparisons were made; operating capabilities and features of competing copying ma­chines were compared; mechanical components were taken apart and scrutinized. “42 This reverse engineering of competing products was a natural response to the inroads made by Japanese competi­tors. But with Xerox’s quality program. benchmarking was extended beyond product comparisons, to include process comparisons and companies from other industries.
For example, Xerox used L.L. Bean for benchmarking. Camp tells the story:

When Iwel first informed our management that we were going to assess ourselves against L.L. Bean. There was disbelief. But we had much to learn from them. The L.L. Bean statistics that dealt with their warehouse order picking . . . showed that they were able to do it almost three times faster than Xerox.

This meant that L.L. Bean could fill customer orders faster than Xerox. When Xerox adopted a computerized system like L.L. Bean used, one that “made a conscious effort to sort the orders and minimize the picker’s travel distance” according to Camp, Xerox also was able to fill orders faster. This is an example of what Xerox now calls “func­tional benchmarking.” The following are the definitions of the four benchmarking methods Xerox uses:

1.       Internal benchmarking compares a company’s operations with an internal exemplar, for example, a plant that has innovated suc­cessfully in certain areas.

2.   Competitive benchmarking makes comparisons with individual competitors; reverse engineering of a competing product is one example.

3.    Functional benchmarking is when “we compare function against function across wide sections of different industry types,” as in the L.L. Bean comparison.

4.    Generic benchmarking looks at fundamental business processes that tend to be the same in every industry, such as taking orders. servicing customers, and developing strategies. For these generic practices, Xerox “looks at a wide cross-section” from different in­dustries “to make sure that we have in fact identified those in­dustry best practices,” again according to Camp.
The benchmarking process in its various forms gives Xerox a practical way to set radical goals-the company simply finds some other company that is the best in a certain (often narrow) area, and studies how the company became best. CEO Kearns of Xerox defines it succinctly as “the continuous process of measuring products, ser­vices and practices against the toughest competitors or those com­panies recognized as industry leaders. ” It must be a continuous process, according to Kearns, because “we realize we are in a race without a finish line. As we improve, so does our competition.” Xerox cannot afford to become complacent, and the new planning tools give the company the ability to compete effectively in the cur­rent environment. Kearns adds that “Five years ago, we would have found this disheartening. Today we find it invigorating.”

Categories : Marketing Tags :

 

Strategic Planning and Process Redesign

Posted by 22 September, 2008 Comments Off on Strategic Planning and Process Redesign

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PROCESS REDESIGN

So what does GE do now? Its circuit breaker business provides a good example. This stagnant SBU in a mature industry would have flunked all the screening tests, but with a billion in yearly revenues, it hardly seemed appropriate to divest it and leave the market to competitors Seimens and Westinghouse. Besides, if any lesson had come out of the old planning models, it was that profits did not necessarily come from high-share, high-growth SBUs. (As Stephen Hardis, Eaton Corpora­tion’s vice president of planning, put it, “It’s great to say, ‘Why don’t we all go into growth businesses?’ But those are not all highly profitable. If there’s a hell for plan­ners, over the portal will be carved the term cash cow.”)33 Instead of divesting, GE consolidated operations-from six circuit breaker plants to only one (in Salisbury, North Carolina).34 Solving this problem in just one location seemed like enough of a challenge.
Then management assessed the problem, but not in the conventional way, by asking planning staff and consultants for a report. Instead they formed an interdisci­plinary team with specialists from manufacturing, marketing, and design, and asked them to figure out how to make the manufacturing process profitable. The group de­cided to compete on the basis of speed, and adopted the goal of reducing manufac­turing time from three weeks to three days.
This radical change could not be accomplished given the existing process, in which GE engineers designed a unique box for each customer using a selection from GE’s 28,000 parts, then factory workers assembled the boxes by hand. So the team re­designed the product line, paring parts to 1,275 while still allowing customers the ability to customize their boxes. Next the team developed an expert computer system that could automatically convert customer requirements into instructions for the fac­tory machines. This eliminated the engineers and the delay needed for custom design­ing. The team also added more machines, increasing the automation of the production process.
Finally, the team tackled personnel problems on the factory floor. The key issue was delays associated with decision making. According to a Fortune reporter:

The solution was to get rid of all line supervisors and quality inspectors, reducing the organizational layers between worker and plant manager from three to one. Everything those middle managers used to handle-vacation scheduling, quality, work rules-be­came the responsibility of the 129 workers on the floor, who are divided into teams of 15 to 20. And what do you know: The more responsibility GE gave its workers, the faster problems got solved and decisions made.
Because of these changes at GE, costs dropped, quality improved, and cus­tomers believed they had more features from which to choose. Delivery was made in three days, as hoped; the backlog shrunk from two months to two days; employee morale was up; and market share was growing despite the flat market. The 1989 sta­tistics, for example, were quite amazing: Productivity was up 20 percent, and ROI was above 20 percent. But it was not easy to turn this dog into a star; the project began in 1985, four eventful years before the stunning results we report. Everything had to change, from product line through production process to corporate structure and cul­ture. Not every line manager is capable of leading such a transformation, but it defi­nitely takes a line manager to do it. No central planning staff would undertake such goals, or succeed if it did. Still, the new planning approaches are tougher on manage­ment. Managers must champion change; they must be willing to push authority down into the organization; and they must learn to use, and work in, teams. As GE’s Roger Schipke puts it, “Now it’s a question of ‘Can they develop a strategy for their busi­ness?’ Some will make that cut, some won’t.” When he took over the major appliance group, only one of the four top managers reporting to him made that cut. The others were fired.
Success with the new planning approach also requires reducing the barriers be­tween company and customer-touching customers and listening in the proactive sense described in lesson 1. For example, GE now promotes an answer center in TV ads and on product packaging. Staffed 24 hours a day, the center may be reached via a toll-free call. Several million calls are logged annually. Frank Sonenberg of Ernst & Young’s Consulting Group says that, “By making information easily available to con­sumers f General Electric] builds brand loyalty in a tough competitive field.”

Categories : Marketing Tags :