82,882
edits
Grand unifying theory: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "*Commercial imperative: to have clients coming back. Above all else. *Indications of commitment: :*expense of communication: the thick card, embossed envelope - Rory Sutherla...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*Commercial imperative: to have clients coming back. Above all else. | *[[Commercial imperative]]: to have clients coming back. Above all else. | ||
*What are ways of ensuring clients stay with you? You indicate commitment | |||
*Indications of commitment: | *Indications of commitment: | ||
:*expense of communication: the thick card, embossed envelope - Rory Sutherland | :*expense of communication: the thick card, embossed envelope - Rory Sutherland | ||
:*intellectual, social commitment to clients - Robert Cialdini | :*intellectual, social commitment to clients - Robert Cialdini | ||
:*build personalised, not cyclo-styled, interpersonal relationships with them. | |||
*Standardisation, commoditisation: | *Standardisation, commoditisation: | ||
:*guarantees margins tend to zero (you have solved the risk and therefore depleted the premium) | :*guarantees margins tend to zero (you have solved the risk and therefore depleted the premium) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
:*You can’t manage it by algorithm. You ''need'' experience; you need diversity; you need expertise. You need people comfortable with [[doubt]] and without [[certainty]]. Standard tropes and management bullshit will get found out. | :*You can’t manage it by algorithm. You ''need'' experience; you need diversity; you need expertise. You need people comfortable with [[doubt]] and without [[certainty]]. Standard tropes and management bullshit will get found out. | ||
:*Here [[redundancy]] is an advantage and an imperative, not a competitive disadvantage. | :*Here [[redundancy]] is an advantage and an imperative, not a competitive disadvantage. | ||
*Where the bureaucratic layer can make itself useful: | |||
:*In culling those clients who are not generating sufficient fees, despite the commitment and relationship skills thrown at them. This incentives salespeople to really double down with them, and creates a scarcity dynamic in the client’s perception which is in itself persuasive (see Cialdini) and likely to improve yield. | |||
:*Note also that the problems of scale kick in precisely when you have too many clients and the cost ratio of providing top end service to all of them is out of all proportion, and some clot goes “why don’t we just send them a [[Silverpop]]”. The answer is to ''not have so many-low yielding tail clients that you can’t properly look after all of them. Also bear in mind the total cost of onboarding new clients is monstrous, and you are bringing in a class of clients that QED have a much shallower relationship than the ones who are exiting. The job is not to make the onboarding more efficient to deprecate the cost of churn, but ''to slow down or stop the churn''. | |||
===Random thoughts=== | |||
The [[high-modernist]] disposition has reorganised, not banished [[redundancy]] cost and slack but rerouted it from productive units into the administration layer. The generals/troops mix has inverted, with the atomisation of functions, each with its own colossal bureaucratic machine. It has converted ''functional'' redundancy — which in a [[complex]] environment, is a competitive advantage and only a drawback in a [[simple]] environment, as it maximises reactivity, creativity, agility and adaptability, but minimises central controllability — into ''administrative'' redundancy, which is a competitive advantage in a simple environment, as it prioritises control and mechanisation over a basically unnecessary (and dangerous) creativity and diversity. In a simple system control, discipline and execution is all there is: your perfect ratio is all administration and only machines executing | |||