Digital business needs to be effective more than efficient

One response to a changing economy, whether global or digital, is to pursue efficiency. Cut costs, overheads, staff and anything else you can to make your company as efficient as possible.

I’m quite obviously not Umair Haque, but I’ve been in companies or known friends and associates who have all been part of this drive at various times. And I’ve got a theory that even if it worked in the past, it’s not going to work for companies in the global digital world.

Rather than becoming ruthlessly efficient, companies now need to be incredibly effective. For starters, efficiency only gives you an advantage if you’re either going to use the excess cash somewhere else, or your main rivals are going to go bust first. And anyone that does invest is going to grab a big advantage – in a global digital world, there’s going to be someone somewhere that has a bit of cash available.

Instead, the focus needs to be on effectiveness – for consumers as well as your business. It’s efficient to deal with everyone in 20 seconds and move on. It’s effective to take the time to ensure good service and a repeat customer for life.

For example – somewhere like the retailer Argos would be seen as efficient. Give consumers a catalogue, and distribute from big warehouses without investing in floor space to display everything or salespeople to demonstrate it.

Meanwhile I’d say Zappos has always been incredibly effective – there’s a huge level of interest in the UK even though they don’t sell here. Offering new starters money to quit, or spending time on Twitter and Facebook providing great customer service probably isn’t the most efficient thing to do. But it’s damn effective.

  • Combining digital and offline teams is definitely efficient. But only in some circumstances is it effective.
  • Cutting back on digital to focus on traditional revenue generators is efficient. But it’s not going to be effective over time in what are declining markets for everyone.
  • Using a social network to broadcast out your messages to everyone is efficient. But if people see it and don’t act on it to generate any revenue, it’s not effective.
  • Running everything from a centralised template is efficient – but when people see it as a lack of effort, or get bored, it’s not efficient.
  • Running the least amounts of resource is efficient. But it isn’t effective if people leave/get ill/rivals staff up to provide better service etc.
  • Providing free drinks to staff or other benefits isn’t efficient. But if can be very effective.

I’m not saying you should, or shouldn’t do any of the examples above. I totally believe that utilising the digital world, particularly innovation, social networking and customer/vendor relationships etc will give you a huge advantage over rivals which either don’t use them, or use them badly.

But whether you’re using digital or offline, internal changes or external, or trying to improve social media marketing, the essential thing for 2010 is to look for the most effective route to a return, not the most efficient.

Two adverts that irritate the s*** out of me

It’s the perfect time for ranting as I’m still feeling a bit poorly, so I thought I’d highlight two television adverts currently irritating the hell out of me.

First up, is the PG Tips homage to a Morecombe and Wise sketch, mainly because it’s so completely irrelevant to me, but seems to be on constant repeat at the moment on the channels I tend to watch. Especially Film 4, completely distracting me from whichever movie I’m watching.

  • I’m in my (very early) 30s, and Morecombe and Wise had pretty much peaked before my time
  • Even then, the PG Tips ad isn’t as good as I remember the original sketch being.
  • But most of all, I don’t drink tea, and neither does my partner.

I realise the last point marks me as being outside of the target demographic of the tea industry, and so they won’t count me as being a huge loss or influential. There are currently two packets of tea in the house, both of which have probably been here since we moved in – one posh packet which my parents probably brought with them out of desperation, and one cheap packet for any guests who didn’t fancy the posh stuff.

But the fact I’m not a tea-makers target is exactly my point. I’ll never buy it. I’ll never talk to anyone about buying it. And I don’t have the necessary technology to avoid it. So why inflict it on me?

But that’s just a case of traditional irrelevance – there’s a far worse offender out there:

Oh Sweet Lord.

It comes from Norwich Union, soon to be renamed as Aviva, as it’s part of the Aviva group and known under that name internationally. So changing the name might make sense from an efficiency point of view, particularly when job cuts are being repeatedly announced.

But what I don’t get, and I’m trying not to use the word ‘brand’ to join Mark Earls, is the way it has been done. For starters, they’ve had to pay Bruce Willis, Elle MacPherson, Alice Cooper and Ringo Star to talk about how they wouldn’t have had fame and fortune without changing their name.

That’s right. Forget starring in Die Hard, or being part of the Beatles. Or any inference their stardom is down to talent, luck and making the right career choices. After all, if only Molly Ringwald had changed her name, rather than turning down the lead roles in Pretty Woman and Ghost, for example. I won’t even mention Engelbert Humperdinck.

Or the fact that most actors in the UK change their names due to Equity rules stating there can’t be two performers with the same name.

We get a voiceover telling us how changing our name can allow us to become who we want to be, and that Norwich Union is becoming Aviva after over 200 years of the same name. (My first thought was the confusion with the bus company, Arriva, that served my hometown)

But what it doesn’t tell us is what NU/Aviva wants to be.

There’s no reasoning, no belief, and nothing to make anyone think this is more than an attempt to save money on headed stationary.

Why couldn’t they use the name change to publish a clear belief which might benefit consumers, and could be easily said and repeated? ‘We’re changing the name, and making sure you never wait longer than 30 seconds in a phone queue’ for example, or ‘We’re changing the name be more efficient, so we can lower our prices by 5% when you renew’. Or even just some honesty ‘We’re changing the name to save some money and stay in business in tough times – so you don’t lose your insurance cover when you might need it’.

Has no-one else ever watched Crazy People?