Revolutionary Measures

Marketing your business post-Brexit

English: (Green) the United Kingdom. (Light-gr...

Most people I know have been deeply depressed since the results of the EU referendum came out. Many clients and colleagues are EU citizens who have no idea what the future holds for them, while others work for companies that will be directly impacted by Brexit, either because they trade with the remainder of Europe, or because they are owned by businesses based in the EU.

The fact that many people seem to have been swayed by the downright lies of the Leave campaign adds to the anger, as does the hasty backtracking of Brexiteers on key pledges repeated during the campaign.

We’re left in limbo, and what’s more it won’t be resolved soon – negotiations to leave will not begin until the Autumn at the earliest, and then could take two years to complete. So how can businesses ensure that they are not casualties of Brexit, and what marketing lessons do they need to learn?

1. Strengthen existing relationships
It could be tempting to deprioritise any customers within the EU and focus on the UK only. This is exactly the wrong approach – now is the time to invest in the relationships that you have and even extend them. No-one knows what will happen when it comes to potential trade tariffs or barriers, but the best way to be ready is to build a strong relationship with customers that mean they still want to deal with you if tariffs mean your prices will potentially go up. Make the effort to go out and visit customers and get under the skin of their businesses to make yourself as critical as possible to their operations.

2. Target the US
One immediate consequence of the Leave vote has been a slump in exchange rates between the pound and other major currencies. This means that for those selling abroad, they are currently more competitive – particularly if you are a services business that is not buying in raw materials from overseas to make products. So look at how you can exploit this by marketing to Europe and the US and coming up with new offerings targeted at their particular needs.

3. Develop new markets
Brexiteers claim that we don’t need Europe, as we should focus on trade with emerging economies such as China, as well as internally within the at the moment United Kingdom. So do look at how you can market yourself to new countries – what is required and what advice/grants can you access to build a presence in new areas?

 4. Show you are open for business
As many commentators have pointed out, companies can only play the hand of cards they are dealt – unlike Boris Johnson they can’t just walk away from the mess we are in. As we move forward it is time to show that you are going to focus on the positives. Invest in marketing to spread the message that you are open for business and ready to take on the challenges of the next few years. This is equally true if you are an international company or a local one – people are looking for reassurance, so ensure that your marketing reflects this.

5. Focus on the value you deliver
Even if there will not be a recession in the UK, there is likely to be an economic slowdown of some sort. The companies that survive will be those that deliver real value to their clients, rather than just winning business due to costs or familiarity. Go back to basics, talk to clients and understand what the benefits are that you deliver, and market these strongly to existing and new clients. This might mean pivoting your business, or introducing new services, and that can be difficult, but might be necessary for your survival.

Nietzsche’s quote that “that which does not kill us, makes us stronger” has already been trotted out many times, but it is not a bad place to start post-Brexit. Unless you plan to flee the country your business needs a plan to move forward, and following the marketing ideas above is a good place to start. If you have any further suggestions don’t hesitate to add them in the comments section below.

July 6, 2016 Posted by | Marketing, Uncategorized | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Are startups solving the right problems?

 

I don’t think there’s ever been a better time to launch a startup in the UK. The public profile of the tech industry is incredibly high, and those that create businesses are more likely to be seen as visionary entrepreneurs than cranks who couldn’t get a job in a proper company. Indeed, for those leaving university, setting up your own startup is a valid (if not as initially lucrative) alternative to becoming an accountant, banker or lawyer. I’m sure startups would complain that it is still difficult to raise money, or scale up their businesses, but it feels that there is now wide public and political acceptance of the importance of creating a culture that encourages startups.

Relief map of Europe and surrounding regions

Read the press and politicians’ speeches and there seems to be a relentless search to find the ‘European Google’ or ‘British Facebook’, multibillion dollar global companies that can become standard bearers for the industry. Alternatively, other European companies essentially mimic what is being done in the US, taking their business models, localising them and then hoping that first mover advantage will let them create viable businesses before the original enters the market.

The people that run startups are smart, as are the venture capital funds that back them. But are they looking in the right areas when it comes to creating new businesses – as an article by Liam Boogar in Rude Baguette recently asked “Where are the European startups to solve Europe’s biggest problems?” Leaving aside the question of whether Europe is cohesive enough that the same problems apply to life in Edinburgh, Athens and Bucharest, it is a valid point. What issues can be solved, first in Europe, and then expanded globally, to create thriving companies that benefit us all?

The article focuses on the need to shake-up the savings market, and with interest rates in many countries close to (or even below) 0% I can see the opportunity to transform the sector, such as through peer-to-peer lending.

However, what other areas would enable European startups to build global businesses? Thinking about the particular problems Europe faces, here are four that come to mind:

1. Healthcare
Across Europe, people are living longer and birth rates are falling. Longer lifespans increase pressure on health and social care services, as the elderly battle chronic diseases and poor health. While this isn’t just a European problem, it is one that startups can focus on, particularly given the public money currently being spent on healthcare research. Areas such as wearable monitors and the Internet of Things can potentially help improve the quality of care, even allowing people to remain in their own homes, rather than be treated in hospital.

2. Transport
From driverless cars to drones, technology is revolutionising transport. With its combination of major car and aeroplane makers, Europe is well-positioned to lead the way, but it needs an injection of startup energy and fresh thinking to succeed. Whether it is new ways of charging electric vehicles as they wait at traffic lights or smarter cities where you are automatically guided to the nearest parking space, there is plenty of scope for innovation, along with the chance to scale up to export the technology across the globe.

3. Employment
More than 6 million jobs were lost in the recession between 2008-13, and youth unemployment in many countries remains high. Many of the roles that were made redundant are simply not coming back as they have either been offshored to lower wage economies or replaced by technology. What are needed are ways to reskill European jobseekers so that they can compete in the global market. Much of this should be the responsibility of governments, but technology can help with new ways of training, new opportunities for collaboration and the encouragement of remote working to combat rural depopulation.

4. Cutting bureaucracy
All governments, of whatever political persuasion, seem to delight in creating red tape that tangles up citizens and businesses alike. And, despite the European Union, there is still a range of different measures that need to be met. Many countries have begun to put their services online, but more can be done, and in many cases nimble startups can get things done quicker than lumbering government departments.

I’m sure there are plenty more European problems that need solving, from the environment to education. These don’t just benefit society, but are potentially extremely lucrative as well. So the challenge for startups and entrepreneurs is to try and solve them – and at the same time we might create the European Googles that politicians are so keen on.

August 5, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Are online monopolies a good thing?

European flag outside the Commission

European flag outside the Commission (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The cover story in last week’s Economist looked at the growing global dominance of internet giants such as Google and Facebook. This was partly driven by the fact that the European Parliament recently passed a resolution to more tightly regulate internet search and potentially break up Google, as well as by ongoing worries about competition and online privacy.

So are effective online monopolies (Google has 90% of the European search market for example) a good or bad thing?

Obviously in the real world monopolies are viewed with suspicion, particularly when a dominant position is then used to raise prices, unfairly squeeze competitors and generally provide a poor deal to customers. But a monopoly on its own is not enough for regulators to step in. In many niche markets (say chemicals) the investment needed to compete with a dominant incumbent would put off any new entrants, so it becomes a monopoly by default. If it doesn’t abuse its position regulators tend to just monitor the situation without taking action.

So, no-one would argue against the fact that monopolies need to be watched closely. But what is interesting is the difference between the online and offline worlds, in four key ways. Firstly, the cost of entering an internet market is relatively small – you’d don’t need to build an expensive factory, but can rely on scalable, inexpensive cloud-based servers and storage to host your business. This makes expansion easy, particularly given the widespread adoption of the internet and mobile phones across the globe, providing a proven way of connecting with customers.

The second factor that causes internet businesses to grow exponentially is the network effect. Essentially the more users on a service, such as Facebook, the better it is for everyone involved as there are more people to interact with. In turn this attracts more people in a virtuous circle. It can work the other way though – as the fate of early social networks such as MySpace show.

Thirdly, the majority of the internet services being discussed are free to consumers. So they don’t directly see any negative impact from the monopoly (such as a rise in costs). What isn’t immediately obvious to users is the price of free. Essentially their personal data is used to power advertising, direct mail and other marketing campaigns, with many consumers having a hazy understanding of what their information is being used for, or how to increase privacy settings. In fact, it is advertisers that can feel the impact of higher prices, given the online control of the internet giants.

The final difference, and one that The Economist makes much of, is the speed of change in the technology space, and how this makes today’s monopolies tomorrow’s has-beens. Companies find it hard to jump from leading one wave of innovation to competing in a new space. IBM dominated the mainframe market, but has had to reinvent itself in order to survive, while the replacement of the personal computer with tablets and smartphones has dealt a major blow to Microsoft.

However, these are still multi-billion dollar companies and have hardly withered away. Therefore in my view, technology innovation alone is not enough to regulate the internet giants. What is needed aren’t heavy handed rules, but a more measured approach that balances the needs of consumers with the speed of innovation and the potential competitive impact of monopoly positions. It is an incredibly difficult balancing act – and will require give and take from both sides if it is to succeed. Done right and new breakthrough services will be allowed to grow, but without trampling on other businesses. Get it wrong and innovation is stifled, potentially harming consumers and businesses who want to access the latest technology and services.

December 10, 2014 Posted by | Marketing, Startup | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Selling out too early

Cambridge is rightly highlighted as one of Europe’s biggest innovation hubs, particularly when it comes to commercialising ideas that began in the research lab. This has spawned a huge biotech sector, and helped create a series of billion dollar tech companies that lead their industries, such as ARM and Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR).

The University of Cambridge has the largest un...

The Internet of Things (IoT) has been identified by many commentators as a key emerging market – and one where Cambridge has the ecosystem, experience and ideas to play a major role. So the news that IoT pioneer Neul has been sold to Chinese telecoms equipment behemoth Huawei depressed me. Not for nationalistic reasons, but simply due to the low reported purchase price ($25m) and the fact that the company has cashed out so early in the growth process. While there was a fair amount of PR spin around Neul’s progress to date, I genuinely believed it could join the billion dollar Cambridge club by developing its technology and building alliances and routes to market.

At the same time, Cambridge Silicon Radio is mulling a multi-billion pound sale to US firm Microchip Technology, reducing the number of major, independent, quoted Cambridge companies. Obviously investors and founders do look to realise their profits at some point, but it is important to balance this by looking longer term. While those that put money into Neul no doubt got a decent return, think how much more they’d have received if the company had been allowed to grow and exploit its market position.

I’m not alone in taking this stance. Cambridge Innovation Capital (CIC), the University of Cambridge-backed VC fund, recently warned its portfolio companies against selling out too early and promised to provide long term, founder friendly, capital to help grow the next ARMs and CSRs.

So what we need is the support, both financial and in terms of time, that gives companies the ability to achieve their potential. Not all of them will make it, and many will be niche players that logically fit better within bigger companies – but at least they’ll have had the ability to aim for the stars before finding their real place in the world. Otherwise Cambridge (and other parts of the UK tech scene), will simply act as incubators that turn bright ideas into viable businesses that can be snapped up and digested by tech giants looking for the newest innovation. It is much better for both the local and national economy that some of these startups make it the stock market as fully fledged businesses, creating ecosystems that generate new sectors and jobs. This requires longer term thinking from everyone involved – otherwise the number of billion dollar Cambridge companies will shrink even further.

October 1, 2014 Posted by | Cambridge, Marketing, Startup | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments