Another day passes and the discussion over prospect acquisition, contact frequency and sales rumbles on.
Don’t worry if you are not riding on the correct frequency just yet, it takes time. In a quantum of uncertainty, delivering precise momentum and position will entangle itself, possibly. Saatchi and Saatchi famously tried to uncover the statistical dynamic and pronounce formula and rigidity onto this most complex arena. Google’s algorithms, however complex, will not harvest a universal, mathematical solution. A thousand books, papers and irrelevant, uneducated web garbage likewise.
The big question remains. If 0 is previously unknown and 1 is a sale, how many time increments would we reasonably expect to ensure a positive result?
“Keep in touch with your prospect and client base regularly and relentlessly within 90 days. Less than 90 days is fine, but never let more than 90 days go by without contact – or 60 working days.
Proven by Saatchi and Saatchi’s London advertising agency over twenty years this is the missing link in most people’s business development process.
Asked how often, intensive research has shown us that 90 days is how often.”
Sounds so straightforward, there is just one problem – variables. In this case, far too many have been discounted to prove the theory. Industry sector – yes. Contact type – yes. Delivery – yes. Time – of course. Humans and their uncertainty and unpredictability – no.
And here lies the fundamental flaw with the extract above. Let me just extend some of the research to make a fair opposition.
“What Saatchi & Saatchi (London) found was that the people they had been contacting by phone and face to face had a clear enough memory of the previous call and conversation for up to 90 days. After that, it was as though the mind had cleared itself of all memory.
At Saatchi & Saatchi’s (Hong Kong), working for their client Procter and Gamble, they stayed in touch with 100,000 mothers every three months, advising them that their babies were growing slowly and steadily and it was time to move up to the next size of Pampers. They enclosed a ‘price-off’ voucher to make their next purchase very affordable.
The research had showed that mothers blamed the Pampers product when the baby grew too big for its previous size to be effective. Because of this, around 50 per cent of mothers in other countries had stopped buying disposable diapers. They did not want that to happen in Hong Kong!
Through this quarterly educational program, They grew their market share from 13 per cent to 42 per cent and each point was worth US$1 million over the life cycle of the product.”
Human nature is a mathematical phenomenon. Saatchi have managed to simply uncover examples of consistent behaviour in a snapshot of time, in one industry, using one sample and with one product.
Granted, they have many examples throughout their glorious history but crucially cannot guarantee a working generalization in pure mathematical terms. Let me simplify. If you have ever played monopoly, the third, fourth and fifth time will generally lead you by experience to gain a more learned strategic approach. You are learning what is required to acquire property. Whether your opponent(s) are weak or strong is irrelevant in the first instance. You are learning. You are gaining experience. Much in the same way, Saatchi have gained experiences in acquisition across a raft of industries, products and situations. Their learning is at a very advanced state.
However, your game strategy cannot guarantee success, as there is always a human opponent around the corner to defeat you. Their strategy and skill is one thing. However, it is their behaviour and mentality on the day that will have a huge effect on the outcome. This is precisely the uncertainty that can elude you, however hard you try to influence them.
The conclusion we take away from this is that the riddle is yet unsolved. Not even Saatchi’s wealth of knowledge and experience can derive a predictive outcome generator – an equation. Landing on 1 can be as ludicrously easily as a moment of luck. Equally, it can take a succession of attempts. Maybe 5? Maybe 25? Maybe infinite attempts will not lead to 1? Probability would strongly disagree though. Don’t let uncertainty get you down though. Monopoly, remember is not roulette. You can determine certain elements and influence others. This is why Saatchi’s expertise is so valuable and worthy. They will undoubtedly land on 1 more times than you, more often, in more circumstances. The more you play though, the more that parity (relatively) will even itself out. One last consideration.
What if Saatchi knew a thousand mini formulas that worked individual games? Do you know what – they probably do. Do you think they will let you see them – not a chance! One may slip from the net, as employees leave, every so often. But think about it, Saatchi is harvesting new ones all of the time, so this is inconsequential in the universal scheme of things.
For all of those smaller pieces playing the game, we must remember why we do? For a game is like a lottery, one day you may just land a 1, and not just any old 1, a BIG 1! Game on…..
Mike Emmett is a Director at Happy Creative, a full service marketing and creative agency based in Blackpool, Lancashire. To learn more or contact us please go to www.happy-creative.co.uk
