Emerging markets are the saving grace for consumer packaged goods companies.

Consumer packaged goods stocks have always featured prominently on investors’ portfolios. The big attraction is their defensive nature. Add to this, the “moats” that CPG companies build around their business franchises, in the form of strong brand equity with strong magnetic fields on both new and repeat consumers, then you have a winner, at least, from a steady share price appreciation and steady dividend pay-out point of view.

Of late though, the operating logic that seem to have powered consumer packaged goods companies, at least on main street, seem to be facing some headwinds, both in fact and appearance. For starters, most CPG companies seem to be struggling to increase their revenue base organically. As a result, most have relied on increasing prices to compensate for the lack of required levels of sales volume growth.

Pricing up is good in the short term, but in the long term, it is not. It puts the business between the proverbial rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if you price up without increasing the underlying value of the brand, sooner or later, you end up with a bubble. If on the other hand, you keep increasing prices and at the same time, you attempt to increase the underlying value, either through packaging, ingredients changes etc., you then run the risk of what Clayton Christensen calls “over-shooting” your consumers. In other words, you give them more than they want or willing to pay for. Either way, somehow, you leave your door open for insurgent brands.

Asset disposals that my first employer, Procter & Gamble and others undertook in the past few years, are good levers to free up capital and managerial band-with. Equally, M&A, especially for the deep pocketed and private equity outfits who can unlock value by driving out agency costs and through other long term value creation initiatives, is also good. All of these cannot be in lieu of ultimately, diving into spaces where $10 bills are lying on the sidewalks, emerging markets.

Apart from everything that has been written about emerging markets; scale and size of markets, young populations, industrialisation and the burgeoning consuming class, according MSCI – https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/c0db0a48-01f2-4ba9-ad01-226fd567811, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index outperformed the MSCI World for at least 9 times in the past 14 years to year ended 2017. Surely, this is a place where CPG companies want to be. To be successful though, CPG firms to go to the bottom of the pyramid, where in most cases, the biggest competitor is non consumption.

 

Notes About the Author: Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Seasoned strategy & market facing professional with strong business acumen, operating experience and entrepreneurial flair. Former founder board member of the Marketing Association of South Africa, former founder marketing director of Brand South Africa, executive lead of customer strategy at Deloitte Digital, Advisor to the Board Chair of Eskom, head of strategy, innovation and marketing at FNB (a division of First Rand Bank), marketing manager at Nedbank, brand manager at African Bank and Procter & Gamble.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kheepe-moremi-337a03/
http://whoswho.co.za/kheepe-moremi-829354
https://www.marketingawards.co.za/council/

https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Advertising-and-marketing/Brand-SA-focus-shifts-20050920
https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brand-sa-worth-r380bn-says-marketing-council-754643
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/4092-fnb-launches-cellphone-business-banking.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/201308270985.html
http://www.the-esa.org/news/articles/-/south-africa-saves-energy-with-49m-campaign
https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/6807/masa-announces-new-board-of-directors
Academic Profile

Beta Gamma Sigma Lifetime member,
Executive MBA From Brown & IE Business School
Strategy & Innovation from Oxford

 

Advertisements

Memo to the CEO: Crises are business, not PR problems

There is a tendency amongst CEO’s to treat crises as PR problems as opposed to business problems. As a result, they assemble the best PR talent they can get, to advise them how to write press releases, Q&A cheat sheets, how to handle radio, print and TV interviews, social media etc., Often times, executives also receive media training, coaching etc., and go through dress rehearsals to ensure they stick to the script and answer questions correctly. At times, the object, at least from some PR quarters, is to limit the shelf life of “the story” emanating from the crisis.

This approach has its merits, but it is misplaced and misses one vital point. The point is, it is not about coverage, number of mentions, the S-Curve, nor the amount of time that the story takes to move from one point in the S-Curve to another. It is also not about coming across weak or strong as a leader, apportioning blame nor about admission of guilt or culpability. It is about the business.

The point is, end users have placed trust in your business or brand and truly believe that they will derive value by possessing, consuming or using your product or service. This is demonstrated by their willingness to part with their hard earned cash, time, effort and associated opportunity costs. Equally, the public who bear negative externalities emanating from your production or distribution processes give your business or brand, the social license to trade, believing that the social value that they will derive will far outstrip the social costs they have to bear that your business or brand does not pay for.

Equally, governments and regulators, give your business or brand, the legal license to trade believing that your business or brand will complement their efforts to deliver social benefits, whether in terms of providing work, healthcare etc., that you will comply with the basic standards and have have risk management plans as well crisis management protocols to manage business failures and their impact, should they occur. Most importantly, everybody believes that your businesses or brand’s reason for being is to do good and not harm. Do not give them any reason to doubt.

Channel partners as well, help you take the product or service to end users, with the belief that your product or service, delivers end user and/or social surplus worth paying for in whatever way, and that by carrying your product or service, channel partners will also derive value for themselves and their shareholders. The same applies to providers of funds for your business.

Net, when a crisis breaks out or a business failure occurs, the first starting point is to protect the very same people who placed trust in you and who part with their cash to obtain your product or service. The second priority, is to ensure that those that are affected or are at risk of being affected are attended to quickly, especially if the business failure impacts on people’s health or mental well being. The third priority is to contain and stabilise the spread of the impact, not the story. The fourth priority is to recover from the crisis, both operationally and commercially.

Apart from this being the right thing to do from a purely “good corporate citizenship” point of view, this also makes good business sense. Firstly, you need your customers to be healthy so they can work, do business to earn wages or profits. Secondly, you do want them on a sick bed. This takes out of the market for however many purchase cycles. Thirdly, you do not want them to lose trust in your brand or even the category. Otherwise, business recovery will be a hard and steep curve.

The media, like many other social partners, should be viewed as partners to help you to protect, stabilise/contain and to help with the recovery process. Understand that the recovery process will also hinge on the psychological and behavioural recovery of end users and those around them.

 

Notes About the Author: Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Seasoned strategy & market facing professional with strong business acumen, operating experience and entrepreneurial flair. Former founder board member of the Marketing Association of South Africa, former founder marketing director of Brand South Africa, executive lead of customer strategy at Deloitte Digital, Advisor to the Board Chair of Eskom, head of strategy, innovation and marketing at FNB (a division of First Rand Bank), marketing manager at Nedbank, brand manager at African Bank and Procter & Gamble.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kheepe-moremi-337a03/
http://whoswho.co.za/kheepe-moremi-829354

Council

https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Advertising-and-marketing/Brand-SA-focus-shifts-20050920
https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brand-sa-worth-r380bn-says-marketing-council-754643
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/4092-fnb-launches-cellphone-business-banking.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/201308270985.html
http://www.the-esa.org/news/articles/-/south-africa-saves-energy-with-49m-campaign
https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/6807/masa-announces-new-board-of-directors
Academic Profile

Beta Gamma Sigma Lifetime member,
Executive MBA From Brown & IE Business School
Strategy & Innovation from Oxford

Will the “Twitter Bird” Ever Fly?

Twitter is one of the great information distribution assets in the modern era. With 330 million monthly active users, if it were a country, Twitter would roughly be same size as the USA. If it were to close its doors, like many other loved platform brands, millions will be left stranded. Without a readily available alternative to do what Twitter does or the way it does it, people and institutions, including, but not limited to; Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Mr. Barack Obama, Mr Donald Trump and not to mention CNN of course and all their followers will be left stranded.

In business strategy speak or more precisely, Michael Porter speak, the above phenomenon is called competitive advantage. In English, this means that a firm has found a way to solve a “high value” customer problem and/or to provide something that matters, that is also rare or not widely available, either in form, function or the way it is positioned. By all accounts, Twitter seems to be flying on this score.

Its 330 million MAU base means that during its 11 year history, Twitter has been adding MAU’s onto its installed base that is equivalent to the population of Ghana or Malaysia every year. This is no small feat. Granted, other behemoths such as FaceBook etc., have unmatched MAU bases. Whilst we recognise the competitive advantage as indicated above, we also recognise that delivering value is one part of the equation. The other part of the equation is ability to capture that value for the firm and for stockholders as well. On this front, the Twitter Bird does not seem to be flying.

The big question though is why is the “Twitter Bird” not flying as high commercially. Do not get us wrong, Twitter has shown a marked improvement in Q3 of 2017, posting a $21 million loss compared to $116 million loss in the previous quarter. Equally, its 5 yr trend line shows an almost 10 fold increase in its gross income and revenue base. Not withstanding the fact that Twitter seems to have been on an acquisition and investment spree as reflected in R&D, depreciation and amortisation expenses on its income statement, it still does not seem as though Twitter is flying high enough on this score, to spread its SG&A expenses over and leave some of its spread for profit.

What are the constraints that seem to be holding the “Twitter Bird” back. Firstly, at roughly 60% of net sales, Twitter’s gross margins seem to be in good shape, albeit lower than LinkedIn at roughly 85% of sales. Twitter’s operational efficiency however, needs to be looked at with a magnifying glass. As at FY ending 2016, almost 50 cents of every dollar of sales was used up supporting the core business.

In addition to operational efficiencies, Twitter needs to grow its top-line. The options in this regards are; 1) Sweat International MAU base. Currently, Twitter generates 89 US cents per MAU compared to $4.82 in the USA. 2) Twitter must investigate the possibility of charging a nominal subscription fee, $1 per annum adds $330 million onto the top-line. At a fundamental level though, Twitter must clearly define the game it is playing or its strategic narrative, the play-ground it is playing in as well as the playbook it should follow to win in the chosen playground (s). At present, Twitter seems to be straddling its focus on the following; 1) personal expression and conversation in real time; 2) content discovery, creation and distribution; 3) Periscope and; 4) data services.

Notes & References

  1. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/twtr/financials
  2. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
  3. https://amigobulls.com/stocks/TWTR/income-statement/annual?f=pg
  4. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR/profile?p=TWTR

Notes About the Author: Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Seasoned strategy & market facing professional with strong business acumen, operating experience and entrepreneurial flair. Former founder board member of the Marketing Association of South Africa, former founder marketing director of Brand South Africa, executive lead of customer strategy at Deloitte Digital, Advisor to the Board Chair of Eskom, head of strategy, innovation and marketing at FNB (a division of First Rand Bank), marketing manager at Nedbank, brand manager at African Bank and Procter & Gamble.

  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/kheepe-moremi-337a03/
  • http://whoswho.co.za/kheepe-moremi-829354
  • https://www.marketingawards.co.za/council/
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGd3ZdgA1yY
  • https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Advertising-and-marketing/Brand-SA-focus-shifts-20050920
  • https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brand-sa-worth-r380bn-says-marketing-council-754643
  • https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/4092-fnb-launches-cellphone-business-banking.html
  • http://allafrica.com/stories/201308270985.html
  • http://www.the-esa.org/news/articles/-/south-africa-saves-energy-with-49m-campaign
  • https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/6807/masa-announces-new-board-of-directors

Academic Profile

  • Beta Gamma Sigma Lifetime member,
  • Executive MBA From Brown & IE Business School
  • Strategy & Innovation from Oxford

 

 

 

Is Your Value Creation PlayBook Running Out of Steam?

There are three things that determine success or failure in business. These are; the Game© the business plays; the PlayGround© on which it plays and the PlayBook© it uses to win within its chosen playground. By a way of illustration, Walmart plays the retail game and sells the “right to own¹, use and dispose,” goods made by others. Originally, Walmart played in “little one horse towns which everybody else was ignoring²,” and offered everyday low prices on a wide assortment of goods.

Like every good story, every Game©, PlayGround© and PlayBook© runs out of steam at some point. As an example, “harvested ice” ran out of steam in the 1900’s³, and eventually faced distinction, purely because whilst the “cooling” game remained relevant and desirable, the playground shifted and with this, the playbook changed. Compact discs and DVD’s are almost distinct today not because the need for music and motion picture entertainment declined in significance, but because the playground and the accompanying playbook shifted.

In the “VUCA” world, where change is the only constant, the value generation capability of your firm’s playground and playbook is bound to be impaired at some point. As customers’ priorities, interests and motives change, as they become more aware and knowledgeable, as the service you offer become more widely available and as new regulations get passed and new knowledge and technologies are employed, value is bound to shift from where you are, to some other playground or playbook. In these conditions, it makes good business sense to constantly search for, anticipate “sources of change,” build pictures of how the future might unfold and determine the implications for your business. More importantly though, it is absolutely critical to build a value creation PlayBook© for all seasons. What do we mean by this?

In our view, based on more than 10 years of observing and following what we call “assets of significance,” we found that “assets of significance” set themselves apart by making every dollar or rand of invested capital more valuable over time. Specifically, they generate cash flows that exceed the cost of capital over and over again. This is made possible by three distinguishing features. Firstly, they build dynamism into their DNA’s that enable them to leverage and use headwinds, to lift themselves onto a higher plane, the same way that eagles do. Secondly, they have an unsurpassable ability to create new economic assets and to endow existing economic assets with new “wealth producing potential.” Lastly, they deploy capital, managerial bandwidth, effort and time on profitable endeavours. How do they do this?

Firstly, watch the Game© with a hawk’s eye. Every industry or business solves an underlying problem or helps a sizeable number of customers to address a job to be done. It is the problem or job to be done that customers have, that “birth” industries and firms. The continued existence of the need to solve the problem or get the job to be done, as well as its continued importance and centrality in customers’ lives, is what drives and sustains industries and firms and their ability to generate value for the firm and stock owners.

When the problem that customers have or the job that they to perform goes away, this takes away the need, willingness to pay and with this, the very existence of firms and industries. In addition to this, when the problem or job to be done gets downgraded in terms of significance and centrality for whatever reason, this changes the economics of the game. Over and above this, when the solution to their problem or job to be done becomes widely available, this also changes the economics and ultimately the operating cashflows that the firm can generate.

Under the circumstances described above, assets of significance do two things really well. Firstly, they build foresight and eagle’s eye on emerging and latent high value problems or jobs to be done that customers will be willing pay premiums for. Secondly, they build an insight base as well as unsurpassable value creation Playbooks© that enable to squeeze value from a shrinking pie. In short, they build the ability to have one foot on the platform and another in the train.  In Clayton Christensen parlance, this is akin to keeping tabs on mainstream customers whilst at the same time reaching out to customers who are excluded either because of the existence of wealth, time or skill barriers.

In addition to paying attention on the Game©, “assets of significance” also pay a lot of attention on the PlayGround©. This is because at times, the game or underlying job/problem remains intact, but the PlayGround© changes. In other words, the geographies where the solution is sold, or the channels through which it is delivered or made available changes. In other situations, the form in which the solution comes and the way it is made changes. At times, firms change their focal points or scope by either going downstream or upstream. When the above happens, especially, when the form and the channels change, the impact on the top-line, gross margins as well as the operating profit margins is significant.

In recent times, we have seen the impact of the above mentioned phenomena on “attention” oriented businesses that use information or entertainment assets to attract attention and in turn, sell that attention to advertisers. With the increasing usage of the internet, penetration of screens; mobile, computers and tablets, and the explosion of publishers and aggregators for example, the informations assets changed from physical to digital/intangible. This in turn, changed the way the information assets get delivered as well as the address where the information or news assets are delivered to. Instead of delivering the news product in a physical form to some location; to street vendors who “on-sell” to the man in the street or retailers and grocery stores who “on-sell” to their end customers, subscriptions based deliveries to households and offices, today most news products are delivered onto screens and in real time.

The changes on the PlayGround© indicated above, have had and continue to have far reaching implications. Firstly, the barriers to entry have been lowered. In other words, the capital intensity of the industry has all but disappeared. As a result, new players have entered and continue to enter the industry on a massive scale, and with this, the product is now widely available and commoditised. This has in turn, affected the PlayBook©; 1) the top-pline playbook – type, size, frequency and sustainability of revenues, where and how they are generated e.g., target segments, problems or jobs, and pricing structure etc.; 2) gross margin playbook – spread (difference between the price and cost of sale/service) as well as the strategy and tactics employed to achieve the targeted spread; 3) operating playbook –  the size, scope and nature of support that is required to drive the top line as well as gross margins.

Net, in addition to the PlayGround©, assets of significance pay close attention on the PlayBook©, namely, the key strategies and tactics that bring in the revenue, deliver good enough gross and operating margins. Over and above this however, they recognise that slashing operating expenses and marketing budgets, redesigning products and services to ease the pressure on margins, can only take you thus far, in the end, you need to have a strong top-line playbook for all seasons. This is a playbook that works regardless of the season/cycle you are in, and that works for businesses whose top-line is dependent on the X-M part of the(C+I+G+X-M) the same way it does C, I or G dependent businesses.

 

Notes & References

  1. The concept of the “right” or “asset” that is being sold was sourced from; Malone et al (2006), Do Some Business Models Perform Better the Others?, MIT Working Paper 4615-06
  2. Quote was sourced from; Magretta M. (2012) Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition and Strategy, Harvard Business Press, Boston.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_trade (date accessed, 21/12/2017)
  4. The concept of “jobs to be done” was borrowed from; Ulwick AW., (2005) What Customers Want: Using Outcome Driven Innovation to Drive Breakthrough Products and Services, McGraw-Hill, New York
  5. Alexander, J., (2007) Perfomance Dashboards and Analysis for Value Creation, Wiley, New York.
  6. McKean, J., (2010) Managing Customers Through Economic Cycles, Wiley, Sussex

NB: Should you wish to obtain more insights or tools to help you with any of the topics raised above, please engage with us or contact us by using the contact widget on the contact page. Alternatively, get in touch with Kheepe Moremi.

 

Notes About the Author: Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Seasoned strategy & market facing professional with strong business acumen, operating experience and entrepreneurial flair. Former founder board member of the Marketing Association of South Africa, former founder marketing director of Brand South Africa, executive lead of customer strategy at Deloitte Digital, Advisor to the Board Chair of Eskom, head of strategy, innovation and marketing at FNB (a division of First Rand Bank), marketing manager at Nedbank, brand manager at African Bank and Procter & Gamble.

  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/kheepe-moremi-337a03/
  • http://whoswho.co.za/kheepe-moremi-829354
  • https://www.marketingawards.co.za/council/
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGd3ZdgA1yY
  • https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Advertising-and-marketing/Brand-SA-focus-shifts-20050920
  • https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brand-sa-worth-r380bn-says-marketing-council-754643
  • https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/4092-fnb-launches-cellphone-business-banking.html
  • http://allafrica.com/stories/201308270985.html
  • http://www.the-esa.org/news/articles/-/south-africa-saves-energy-with-49m-campaign
  • https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/6807/masa-announces-new-board-of-directors

Academic Profile

  • Beta Gamma Sigma Lifetime member,
  • Executive MBA From Brown & IE Business School
  • Strategy & Innovation from Oxford

 

 

How to Win in Emerging Markets

A lot has been written over the years about the benefits of doing business in emerging markets. As markets mature and multinational firms run out of room to grow in the developed world, most MNC’s have in a period of more that two decades, turned their attention to South America, Eastern Europe, China, India and Africa. Most MNC’s are drawn to emerging markets by two factors; firstly the possibility to reduce costs mainly because of low input costs found in emerging markets such as land, labor and materials and in some case benign tax regimes and other incentives.

The second big ocean current, that in my opinion, drives MNC’s to seek out emerging markets, is potential market sizes presented by individual countries and regions that make up the “emerging market mass.” The numbers are indeed staggering. Take population sizes as an example; 1.25 billion people in India, 1.35 billion in China, 1.1 billion in Africa, 250 million in Indonesia, 200 million in Brazil etc., For a detailed projection of potential population sizes by 2050, see Stephanie Garelli, Top Class Competitors, page 15 – 19. Whilst for some, the sheer absolute population sizes is enough, for others however, especially players in healthcare, packaged goods, etc., the size of the”consuming class” is by far the biggest lure. For some additional perspective on this, see Walmart’s acquisition of South Africa’s Massmart and Deloitte on Africa; The Rise and Rise of Africa’s Middle Class.

In most boardrooms in key centers of the world, the discussion is no longer about whether to enter an emerging market or not, but about how, most specifically about how to win in emerging markets. With this shift, one can also see a shift in curricula of MBA’s and executive programs as well the increasing number of emerging market practices in consulting firms. One also sees this trend reflected in the volume and content of business schools’ emerging markets site visits as well as the nature of the literature that is doing the rounds in academic and practitioner spheres. For additional perspective on this, see IE/Brown Executive MBA curriculum and the Cape Town site visit, Harvard Business Review articles (Thriving in Emerging Markets, Troubles Ahead in Emerging Markets) and books (Khanna & Palepu, Winning in Emerging Markets). Of course, I know I can also count on my sparring partner, Jerome Vetillard, to chip in with his experiences on “Sanitation in Cape Town Townships.”

The shift in focus may well be reflection of how difficult it is to enter and generate shareholder value in emerging markets with our current strategic and managerial logic, strategy and business models that may have served us well in our home countries, but that may be insufficient or irrelevant in some of the emerging markets, purely because the “distance; cultural, administrative, geographic and  economic” between home markets and emerging markets is so vast. For a detailed discussion on the topic, see Pankaj Ghemawat; Distance Still Matters, HBR, September 2001. It could also be a reflection of the “institutional voids” in emerging markets (Khanna & Palepu, Winning in Emerging Markets).

Regardless however, what is undeniable, is that MNC’s need to employ innovative and high impact strategies to win in emerging markets. In the first mile, the MNC needs to enter the market and gain a foothold of the market quickly and without burning too much cash in order build confidence, credibility and support from the firm’s headquarters so the parent company can see some early results and continue investing. The MNC faces two sets of issues in this regard. Firstly, issues in the non market space relating to obtaining permits and in some cases, building trust and obtaining the social license to trade and creating an overall good feeling about the company amongst gate-keepers, “influencers and legitimizers.” For a detailed discussion on permits etc., see World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Reports.

Without this, the MNC generally battles to secure good talent that is so much in short supply, good quality and reliable suppliers and go to market partners.  Secondly, the key issue that MNC’s face, is securing customers to launch the business. Generally, this is not a big battle for MNC’s especially in FMCG, since their launch customers are generally “global citizens” in emerging markets who pretty much have the same outlook, consumption habits and practices as their home based customers. The good thing about this, is that MNC’s, especially in FMCG can ship products from their home markets, modify packaging to comply with regulatory requirements and sell in an emerging market. The big issues at this phase that MNC’s face are; firstly, due to import duties and in some cases unreliable transport and logistics infrastructure, MNC’s are then forced to increase prices to improve the economics of their merchandise, thus reducing the number of global citizen consumers who see value in what is on offer and can afford.  Secondly, at times MNC’s suddenly discover that the size of the global citizen consumer market is much less than what off shelf research reports estimated.

In the “mid mile” phase, assuming that the MNC managed to navigate the market entry challenges referred to above, it now needs to grow sales volumes to spread its fixed costs over a substantially larger base of unit sales, especially since in some cases, unit prices may lower than normal on PPP point of view.  To achieve this, MNC’s generally need to go where the action is. In other words, they need to take their brand to low income market segments which are vastly different from the global citizen consumer. This is a major challenge for most MNC’s since they have to change the business model for them to have slim chance of winning. This is where the “in market team” begin to butt heads with the headquarters. In some cases, because of the different usage circumstances that prevail, the product that performed so well in its home market, at times may not live up to its promise without some formula upgrade which invariably increases the cost of goods sold.

An additional challenge in this phase, is navigating the go to market challenges to reach slightly lower income groups outside or on the periphery of the main centers. This is a big challenge that I plan to delve into in subsequent posts, but one of the big challenges is finding reliable suppliers and navigating the infrastructural and logistical constraints in order to reach a fragmented consumer base through fragmented retailers spread over a wider area, the majority of whom do not have have sufficient cash to buy enough, and as a result by small lots. For those with the means, storage and shelving space may be a challenge.

The underlying causes of most the issues discussed above, that give rise to first, mid and last mile challenges can be attributed to non existent or immature rules of engagement that structure and facilitate buying and selling (see Douglas North as well as Khanna & Palepu). Over and above institutions, volatility of financial and real markets induced by political business cycles is well documented. Javier Santiso has written extensively about impact of political business cycles on financial markets, but in real markets, political business cycles at times, lead to reviews of the same regulatory regimes that gave the MNC, the legal license to trade in the first place, thus making the environment uncertain and unpredictable and difficult to plan around. A lot has been written about how to navigate VUCA conditions, but this is a subject for another day.

The are many factors that can lead to winning the first, mid and last mile in emerging markets, but the factor that I want to start with, that probably is not receiving as much airtime and share of “voice” as others, is the non market strategy, especially the integration with the “market strategy.” I am sure it is clearly evident how intertwined the market and non market challenges across all the miles, first, mid and last mile are and that this topic requires increased emphasis. In short, MNC’s need to have a non market strategy that is integrated with market strategy, to either shape the rules of the game in its favor or to create a position of advantage or to complement and amplify its market position in order to increase the present value of difference between the cash that the firm uses up in order to deliver value to consumers and what it gets for delivering that value.

For a detailed discussion of non market strategy see David P. Barron, California Management Review Reprint Series, 1995 and David Bach & David Bruce Allen; What Every Ceo Needs to Know About Non Market Strategy, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2010. In a nutshell however, non-market strategy refers to the set of actions outside the market arena that a firm may take to either shape the rules of the game in its favour or to create a position of advantage for its products and services or to complement and amplify its market strategy.

NB: This article first appeared on LinkedIn.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-win-first-mid-last-mile-emerging-markets-kheepe-moremi/

Notes About the Author: Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Seasoned strategy & market facing professional with strong business acumen, operating experience and entrepreneurial flair. Former founder board member of the Marketing Association of South Africa, former founder marketing director of Brand South Africa, executive lead of customer strategy at Deloitte Digital, Advisor to the Board Chair of Eskom, head of strategy, innovation and marketing at FNB (a division of First Rand Bank), marketing manager at Nedbank, brand manager at African Bank and Procter & Gamble.

  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/kheepe-moremi-337a03/
  • http://whoswho.co.za/kheepe-moremi-829354
  • https://www.marketingawards.co.za/council/
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGd3ZdgA1yY
  • https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Advertising-and-marketing/Brand-SA-focus-shifts-20050920
  • https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brand-sa-worth-r380bn-says-marketing-council-754643
  • https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/4092-fnb-launches-cellphone-business-banking.html
  • http://allafrica.com/stories/201308270985.html
  • http://www.the-esa.org/news/articles/-/south-africa-saves-energy-with-49m-campaign
  • https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/6807/masa-announces-new-board-of-directors

Academic Profile

  • Beta Gamma Sigma Lifetime member,
  • Executive MBA From Brown & IE Business School
  • Strategy & Innovation from Oxford

 

 

 

 

What marketing can learn from private equity

BILAL’S QUESTION

A couple of years ago, Bilal, a good friend of mine, asked me a thoughtful question. The question was, what do marketers really do?” In his own words, he said, “all I see is that marketers are always in meetings, but I cannot really tell what they do.” To be fair, the essence of Bilal’s question has been on most people’s lips in boardrooms, academia and management consulting for while. As an example, in year 2000, the late Peter Doyle, mentioned that “Marketing has not had the impact its importance merits¹.” Deloitte’s 2007 Marketing in 3D Report² mentioned amongst other things, the fact that; “Tense relations between CFO’s and marketers are dividing boardrooms over the value of marketing.”

MARKETING VALUE & ACCOUNTABILITY

In 2017, ten years since the Deloitte report was released, David Aaker dedicated web-space on CMO Failure ,  Harvard Business Review dedicated space on “Trouble with CMO’s, whilst Forbes also dedicated space on How to Prevent CMO Failure. In addition to the above, other reports discussed at length, the different ways in which companies were restructuring their marketing functions to cope with the changing operating landscape. The  introduction of  the Chief Growth Officer role, in lieu of or alongside the CMO role, is one case in point. Despite the restructuring programs, the age old problem about marketing value, accountability and effectiveness remains. As an example, Malcolm McDonald and Peter Mouncey dedicated a 280 page book on the topic, whilst Sarah Vizard  continues to write about it in Marketing Week. In the midst of this, some, not all marketing functions, wasted, at least in the past year, managerial bandwidth, time and shareholder funds on marketing assets that failed. For more details, see “From Pepsi to Nivea: Some of the worst advertising fails.

In response to the genuine question about the true value that marketing really adds, marketers have responded with a plethora of marketing metrics that do not really address the key issue. One such response is brand league tables, especially those geared towards determining the “financial value” of a brand. I always find them an interesting read and of course some are more insightful than others. I have some sympathy with those that attempt to apportion a brand’s contribution to financial results based on “the intrinsic brand strength.” Like anything in life however, brand valuation has its own critics. For some of the criticisms, see Where is the Value in Brand Valuation?

From where I sit though, brand valuations have their place. As an example, their role in mergers and acquisitions is noteworthy. Within organisations as well, they also come in handy in helping marketers, especially in non marketing oriented firms, build a business case to invest in building a brand. As a case in point, the author, used brand league tables to build a case for investment in a brand at a state owned utility in South Africa. In many other environments however, the role that intangible assets such as brands etc., is a “fait accompli.” The key issue though, is that as markets mature (get into repeat cycles) and as some categories lose their shine and in some cases, brands lose their relevance, growth is hard to come by. In other cases, categories and brands remain strong and relevant, but the cashflows generated are not commensurate with the health of brands and their categories.

When all is said and done though, Bilal’s question indicates that marketing needs to press a “reset” button. To be clear, the underlying marketing philosophy remains intact, but the marketing discipline and function can do with some “reboot.” There are three  levers that firms can pull to reboot their marketing. Firstly, the marketing discipline needs to go back to basics of marketing. Secondly, marketing needs to take a leaf from from private equity. Thirdly, marketing needs to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset.

BACK TO BASICS

For marketing, going back to basics means revisiting the timeless words of wisdom and counsel from Theodore Levitt in Marketing Myopia, where he said amongst other things that; The railroads did not stop growing because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined. That grew. The railroads are in trouble today not because that need was filled by others (cars, trucks, airplanes, and even telephones) but because it was not filled by the rail- roads themselves. They assumed themselves to be in the railroad business rather than in the transportation business. The reason they defined their industry incorrectly was that they were railroad oriented instead of transportation oriented; they were product oriented in- stead of customer oriented.

Like the railroads that Levitt referred to above, we are also of the view that the marketing discipline and its supporting ecosystem, is too product focused as opposed to being customer focused.  In other words, the marketing discipline worries a great deal about the things it produces, such as TV commercials, radio and print ads, content, sponsorships, events, etc., as well as exposing those to targeted audiences, than on their contribution to cashflows to the firm and to equity. To get back to basics, the marketing discipline must understand that its sole reason for existence, is to create value for the customer, the firm and stock owners. As Karl Van Clausewitz would put it, ” individually planning and engagements is called tactics, whilst joining the series (own emphasis) of engagements to achieve the objectives of the war is called strategy.

Put differently, getting back to basics for marketing means becoming more strategic than tactical. In practical terms, this means that marketing has three masters that it must serve with distinction. These are; 1) the customer, not the audience; 2) the firm and 3) the shareholders. If you focus on the customer alone, without paying attention to the firm or the shareholder, there is bound to be some misalignment. The marketing outputs/products in whatever form, are simply a means to an end, and not the end. Equally important as well, if you focus on the marketing products or outputs without paying attention to the “cycle” in which the firm is, there is bound to be some misalignment, in which case, something has to give.

The core metrics for measuring value to customers are pretty clear and need no embellishing and should answer the following questions; Is your output helping  customers to perform the jobs they want to or is it helping them solve the problems they have? Do they see the value you offer? If that is the case, do they buy from you, how much, how frequently, at what price and how much does it cost you to serve them and engage with them. Most importantly, at the current running rate, how much discounted cash flows will accrue to the brand or the firm over the projected shelf life of the firm’s relationship with the customers.

TAKE A LEAF FROM PRIVATE EQUITY

In addition to the above, we believe that for marketing to be effective and demonstrate its value add, marketing people must make time to understand the language of stocks and flows and the iteration between the two. To illustrate this point, using a marketing budget as an example. Typically, in any given FY, the marketing department or brand team starts off with “stocks of money” called a budget. The stocks of money then flow into any marketing inventory or asset that gets placed in front of consumers/customers or in their hands. For the system to be sustainable, something must flow back from the marketing assets or inventory into the original pool of money. As a principle, the new stock of money must be greater than the original pool of money after adjusting for the cost of capital.

To achieve the above, marketers need to think and behave like private equity firms. Firstly, marketers must see themselves as general partners who have been entrusted with funds in order invest in assets that will earn a return. As a starting point, GP’s understand that any funds entrusted to them have a cost. The cost is the expected return. As an example, if an investor entrusts you with say $1million and expect a 15% return, the 15% represents a cost to you. In other words, before anything else, you need to generate $150k more, to meet their expectations. Anything less represents destruction of value.  This is major mindset shift that marketing needs to make.

Private equity firms have grown in stature and influence over the years. Despite this, they also have their own critics. Regardless however, private equity firms can teach marketing a couple of things. These are:-

  1. They have a deep understanding of drivers of shareholder value and the levers that need to be pulled to create value, e.g., revenue growth coupled with operational efficiency, capital efficiency as well as cost of capital. Over and above this, GP’s only use few metrics aligned to value creation drivers.
  2. They are second to none in selecting investment opportunities and deploying capital, time and effort. Private equity firms target firms with strong upside potential, specifically, where “agency costs” are putting a “drag” on cash-flows. VC’s on the other hand, select “tides” that are big enough or have the potential to be big enough. For more detail, see Don Valentine – Target Big Markets
  3. They sweat their assets. Once they lay their hands on an asset, private equity firms ensure that they generate more from it. For marketers as well, the focus should not just be on building or buying marketing assets, but also commercialising and sweating them. This is a key area of improvement for most marketing teams.
  4. They are not shy to use leverage. Archimedes is rumoured to have said, “give me a lever long enough and I will move the world.” Leverage means to use somebody else’s soldiers to fight and your battle. Marketers should not be shy either. In the modern era, it is a lot easier for marketers to use leverage in order to increase the top-line whilst at the same time preserving cash. This is a subject on its own and we intend to dedicate an article on it.

To achieve 3 and 4 above, marketers need to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset, but also to act like entrepreneurs.

ADOPT AN ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSET

A lot has been written about entrepreneurship and many definitions of entrepreneurship have been advanced. In essence though, entrepreneurship is made up of four elements. Firstly, it is the people (entrepreneurs). Secondly, it is what they do. Thirdly, it is the instruments they use. Lastly, it is their outputs and the impact of their outputs. Although all four elements are important, I place more weight on the things they do and the instruments they use. A lot has been covered over the years about entrepreneurial outputs and their impact, think about Face-Book, Airbnb, Uber, Apple iPhone.

Firstly, what do entrepreneurs do? Entrepreneurs do three things. Firstly, entrepreneurs “search for changes and analyse the opportunities that such change might offer for economic and social innovation.” Secondly, according JB Say, entrepreneurs “shift economic resources out of an area of lower into an area of higher productivity and greater yield.” Thirdly, they change the yield of existing resources. Fourthly and lastly, they create new economic resources.

The questions you need to ask are as follows: 1) Do your marketing teams have a systematic process and methodologies to “search for change” and the potential opportunities that changes may bring to bear; 2) Do your marketing teams have an opportunity register where they record the opportunities; 3) Do they have tried and tested methodologies to select winners or potential opportunities with great upside potential, the same way VC and PE first do; 4) Do they have the ability and flexibility to shift resources; 5) Do they have the ability to change yield of existing resources and lastly, how big is the pipeline with ideas to “create new economic resources.”

As a rule of thumb, if your marketing team cannot answer the majority of the questions above affirmatively, indications are that you may need to press the reset button in this area. This may also imply that you may also need to sharpest knives in the drawer that entrepreneurs use to either create new economic resources or to change the yield of existing resources. These are, creativity and innovation. These two instruments are best defined in “When Sparks Fly” with an added twist from Tidd, Bessant and Pavitt, Managing Innovation.

Creativity is a “process of developing and novel ideas that are likely to be useful and Innovation is the embodiment, combination, and or synthesis of knowledge in novel, relevant, valued new products, processes or services.” To qualify as innovation, the ideas or concepts should not only result in relevant “new products, processes or services, but in products, processes and services that are adopted and put to widespread use.

The natural inclination however, in the marketing field is to think creativity only in so far as marketing communication is concerned. Creativity and innovation should be instruments that are used to change the yield of existing resources or create new economic resources. These could be on products or services or the shift from one to the other, especially in instances where one is commoditised. Creativity and innovation could also mean turning your product or service into a platform, supported by complementary products and services. Creativity and innovation could also be applied on “value capture” mechanisms. In other words, pricing/revenue models.

 


NB: The earlier version of this article was first posted on LinkedIn in June 2015. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-marketers-can-learn-from-private-equity-kheepe-moremi/

  1. The text is sourced from; Doyle, P., (2000), Value Based Marketing: Marketing Strategies for Corporate Growth and Shareholder Value, Wiley, West Sussex
  2. The Deloitte Report is quoted in; McDonald, M., & Mouncey, P., (2009) Marketing Accountability: How to Measure Marketing Effectiveness, Kogan Page, London
  3. Damodaran, A. (2009) The Dark Side of Valuation: Valuing Young, Distressed, and Complex Businesses, FT Press, New Jersey
  4. Von Oetinger, B., Bassford, C., Von Ghyczy, T., (2001) Clausewitz on Strategy: Inspiration and Insight from a Master Strategist, Wiley, USA
  5. Leonard, D & Swap, W., (1999) When Sparks Fly: Harnessing the Power of Group Creativity, Harvard Business Press, Massachusetts.
  6. Drucker, P., (1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper Collins
  7. McGrath, RT., & MacMillan, I., ( 2000) The Entrepreneurial Mindset, Harvard Business Press, Massachusetts.
  8. Levitt, T., (1975) Marketing Myopia, Harvard Business Review, October – November 1975.

Notes About the Author: Kheepe Lawrence Moremi

Seasoned strategy & market facing professional with strong business acumen, operating experience and entrepreneurial flair. Former founder board member of the Marketing Association of South Africa, former founder marketing director of Brand South Africa, executive lead of customer strategy at Deloitte Digital, Advisor to the Board Chair of Eskom, head of strategy, innovation and marketing at FNB (a division of First Rand Bank), marketing manager at Nedbank, brand manager at African Bank and Procter & Gamble.

  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/kheepe-moremi-337a03/
  • http://whoswho.co.za/kheepe-moremi-829354
  • https://www.marketingawards.co.za/council/
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGd3ZdgA1yY
  • https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Advertising-and-marketing/Brand-SA-focus-shifts-20050920
  • https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brand-sa-worth-r380bn-says-marketing-council-754643
  • https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/4092-fnb-launches-cellphone-business-banking.html
  • http://allafrica.com/stories/201308270985.html
  • http://www.the-esa.org/news/articles/-/south-africa-saves-energy-with-49m-campaign
  • https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/6807/masa-announces-new-board-of-directors

Academic Profile

  • Beta Gamma Sigma Lifetime member,
  • Executive MBA From Brown & IE Business School
  • Strategy & Innovation from Oxford

 

 

How to Bridge the Planning, Doing & Performance Gap

The strategy discipline, in all its manifestations, has grown in popularity, stature and usage, especially considering the fact that Peter Drucker was forced to change the title of his book from “Business Strategies” to Managing for Results partly because then strategy was deemed to belong to the military or perhaps political campaigns but not to business. These days, businesses, government departments and non-profit organisations, big and small, and at different stages of their evolutionary cycles embark on strategic planning exercises every year to develop long-term, medium-term strategies as well as annual operating plans. It is also now commonplace for different divisions and subdivisions within these entities to embark on these processes.

It is no wonder that strategic planning ranked first in Bain’s 2007 Management Tools and Trends top 10 most used tools. Though it is not within the scope of this article to delve into the key driving forces behind this trend but, at the face of it, it would appear as though the trend towards strategising or planning is being driven by policy, legislative or governance requirements. At least this appears to be the case within the South African public service. To note, Treasury Regulations, chapters 29 and 30, as well as the Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information require government entities to, among other things, develop strategic plans specifying the entity’s objectives, indicators and targets that then get translated into annual operating plans and also form the basis of quarterly and annual reporting.

Although the planning trend is set to grow in the South African public service, my sense is that the focus will now shift towards the quality of planning and also towards ensuring that government departments produce impactful and deliverable plans. There are two underlying reasons for this. Firstly, the recession, which South Africa seems to be tentatively coming out of, has wiped off a substantial portion of the government’s revenue base, as a result the scarce money will have to be allocated to areas that make the most difference. Given the global economic uncertainties that we may live with for some time, I suspect this move will not be a once-off event. Secondly, the planning, monitoring and evaluation moves initiated by the Presidency aimed at, among other things, developing a coherent and coordinated national strategic plan as well as ensuring that sector and entity level plans are geared towards outcomes, combined with the fact that the Auditor General is set to start giving audit opinion on the performance of audited entities against set objectives, I sense that this interplay will lead to qualitative improvement in planning and service delivery in the public service.

Though the moves cited above are welcome and provide a positive signpost, I think policy makers and government officials will be well-advised to take into account the universal strategy cracks that have been spotted and documented by practitioners and academics around the globe. Though some of the cracks have been incorporated into the frameworks and green papers cited above, I do believe that it may worthwhile for government officials and policy makers to glance through some of the insights shared, who knows, this may trigger a “eureka moment”.

The biggest identified crack is the “planning and doing gap” or the “promises versus delivery gap”. For instance Morgan, Levitt and Malek in Executing Your Strategy (2007) indicate that less than 10% of effectively formulated strategies carry through to successful implementation, thus suggesting that 90% of companies fail to execute their strategies. Kaplan and Norton (authors of The Balanced Scorecard) in The Execution Premium (2008) also quote surveys which suggest that 60% to 80% of companies fall far short of the targets expressed in their strategic plans. In addition to the above, Gilbert, Buchel and Davidson in Smarter Execution (2008) also cite surveys which suggest that only 3% of executives believed that their companies executed their strategies effectively.

There are numerous reasons advanced for this state of affairs, for instance, Kaplan and Norton attribute the problem to the following factors:

1) Only 40% of companies linked their strategies to budgets.
2) 30% linked compensation to strategy, fewer than 10% of employees in the majority of companies surveyed reported that they understood their company’s strategy, as such cannot link their daily activities to its successful execution.
3) 85% of executive teams spent less than one hour per month discussing strategy, with 50% reporting that they spent virtually no time on strategy discussions.

Collins and Rukstad in the Harvard Business Review article “Can You Say What Your Strategy Is?” (April 2008) believe that the problem lies with the failure by entities to synthesise their strategies (defined as objectives, scope and advantage) into a simple and clear strategy statements, as a result the strategy does not cascade properly throughout the organisation, hence it does not get executed properly.

Though many of the reasons advanced above are valid and definitely contribute to the state of affairs, I believe that in most situations the main contributing factor lays with inadequate strategy formulation processes. In the Harvard Business Review article “What Is Wrong With Strategy?” (Nov-Dec 1988) Campbell and Alexander indicate that most planning processes do not come up with any new or effective strategies because the strategies that emerge are not anchored or premised on the basic ingredient of a good strategy, namely insight. Because of this, Campbell and Alexander argue that most planning processes set unrealistic or unachievable objectives.

In turn, because the strategies and tactics are not premised on solid insights, they are also ineffective or not implement able. Campbell and Alexander go on to argue that “planning processes are not strategic unless they initially focus on defining insights from which a strategy will be developed … and developing strategy without insights is dangerous because it leads to unrealistic plans”. Net, my sense is that it is important for private companies and government to spend time and effort identifying and articulating insights on which any strategy or operational plan will be based as this increases the odds of success. Insights, will help identify key drivers that will deliver the set outcomes, as well as the internal operating and social levers that will need to be pulled to create movement towards the desired outcomes. This will also makes it easier to determine how changes within the broad operating environment will impact on the outcome drivers and also what changes and adjustments to make well in advance.

 

Notes About the Author: Kheepe Moremi

Seasoned strategy & market facing professional with strong business acumen, operating experience and entrepreneurial flair. Former founder board member of the Marketing Association of South Africa, former founder marketing director of Brand South Africa, executive lead of customer strategy at Deloitte Digital, Advisor to the Board Chair of Eskom, head of strategy, innovation and marketing at FNB (a division of First Rand Bank), marketing manager at Nedbank, brand manager at African Bank and Procter & Gamble.

  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/kheepe-moremi-337a03/
  • http://whoswho.co.za/kheepe-moremi-829354
  • https://www.marketingawards.co.za/council/
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGd3ZdgA1yY
  • https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Advertising-and-marketing/Brand-SA-focus-shifts-20050920
  • https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brand-sa-worth-r380bn-says-marketing-council-754643
  • https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/4092-fnb-launches-cellphone-business-banking.html
  • http://allafrica.com/stories/201308270985.html
  • http://www.the-esa.org/news/articles/-/south-africa-saves-energy-with-49m-campaign
  • https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/6807/masa-announces-new-board-of-directors

Academic Profile

  • Beta Gamma Sigma Lifetime member,
  • Executive MBA From Brown & IE Business School
  • Strategy & Innovation from Oxford

 

Is the Underlying Logic of Your Business Still Valid?

If your business were to close its doors, who will miss it, what will they miss, under what conditions and is there any firm or brand that can readily replace you? This is the question that Cynthia A. Montgomery asks in her book titled, The Strategist: Be the Leader Your Business Needs. Apparently, this is one of the fundamental questions that get asked to participants in the Harvard EOP Program.

This is the same question that management and business experts have asked countless times in the past and continue to devote considerable amount of space to, in their publications, presentations and speeches. Examples include Joan Magretta: “What Management Is;” Brandenburger & Nalebauf: Co-opetition; Ritchie-Dunham & Rabbino: Managing from Clarity; Peter Drucker: On the Profession of Management etc.,

It is also the same topic that gets considerable attention in MBA programs and advanced executive education.The underlying logic comes in many forms. Regardless however, the essence is the same. It is the idea that underlie and drive your business, your venture or brand that finds its expression through the products and services you make, the promises, the activities you undertake, where you undertake them, how you undertake them as well as the asset base you invest in.

It is a simple idea that answers a set of questions such as; “what do we exist for, what difference do we exist to make and to whom and what does success look like?” Embedded in this concept as Peter Drucker points out, is a set of assumptions about what society values, what your company/brand or venture gets paid for and the resources and capabilities that should underlie your central idea.

As things change – technological changes that enable or disable certain things and regulatory environments, demographic structures, tastes, preferences and priorities – it is vital to test the relevance of your central idea. The central idea should always be tested for its ability to inspire and motivate staff, build supplier and channel partners commitment and support, channel partners, equity providers confidence and customers’ interest and satisfaction. More importantly, the central idea should always be tested for its generative capacity – ability to generate free cash-flows for the firm and stockholders.

Whilst there are many things to look at, both in the short, medium and long term that may give signs of health of the central idea, I would suggest a multi-disciplinary approach including the following building blocks:-

  • Philosophy and logic – Test the assumptions behind the idea. Are they still valid? Does the underlying idea still make sense given the changes in the current reality or assumptions of the current reality?
  • Anthropology and Meaning – What meaning, images and associations does the central idea evoke amongst different market and non-market actors.
  • Energy and emotions both positive and negative.
  • Actions and behaviors that the meaning, energy and emotions generate.
  • The economics and duration of the central idea.

In addition to the above, it is always advisable to map the key driving forces that impact on the underlying idea the most or those with the biggest potential to move the central idea, the behavior patterns of the driving forces, the direction they may take and how the different driving forces may interact, collide or combine.

Notes About the Author: Kheepe Moremi

Seasoned strategy & market facing professional with strong business acumen, operating experience and entrepreneurial flair. Former founder board member of the Marketing Association of South Africa, former founder marketing director of Brand South Africa, executive lead of customer strategy at Deloitte Digital, Advisor to the Board Chair of Eskom, head of strategy, innovation and marketing at FNB (a division of First Rand Bank), marketing manager at Nedbank, brand manager at African Bank and Procter & Gamble.

  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/kheepe-moremi-337a03/
  • http://whoswho.co.za/kheepe-moremi-829354
  • https://www.marketingawards.co.za/council/
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGd3ZdgA1yY
  • https://www.fin24.com/Finweek/Advertising-and-marketing/Brand-SA-focus-shifts-20050920
  • https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brand-sa-worth-r380bn-says-marketing-council-754643
  • https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/4092-fnb-launches-cellphone-business-banking.html
  • http://allafrica.com/stories/201308270985.html
  • http://www.the-esa.org/news/articles/-/south-africa-saves-energy-with-49m-campaign
  • https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/6807/masa-announces-new-board-of-directors

Academic Profile

  • Beta Gamma Sigma Lifetime member,
  • Executive MBA From Brown & IE Business School
  • Strategy & Innovation from Oxford