Beyond KPI’s : Measuring the “execution” of your plan…

Posted on August 5, 2011 by Bob Champagne

Simple scorekeeping isn’t enough…

I am always amazed at the number of organizations that equate Performance Management with measuring only business results and a handful of supporting KPI’s, and calling it quits. Performance Management is much more than that, and I would argue that if that is the extent of your PM program, you have a pretty good chance of doing more harm than good.

I guess we’ve all gotten caught up with the notion of keeping things simple–seeing the “forest through the trees” if you will. And there is some merit to that type of thinking. After all, it’s difficult to manage at the strategic level when the organization measures too many seemingly irrelevant things. And there is no shortage of “experts” in the field preaching about the importance of limiting the number of KPI’s and “optimal” numbers of business metrics. To some extent, I agree with their argument that a highly focused set of KPI’s is essential to a good PM program. But it doesn’t stop there.

If you’re a regular golfer like me, you certainly track your scores over time. After all, you can’t get better if you don’t track your results. This is the business equivalent of your annual P&L and quarterly earnings trends.

Good KPI’s also tell us about the “drivers” of your success…

But if you play often enough, and aspire to get better, you’ll undoubtedly do more than that. You’ll begin to track things like “% of fairways hit”, “number of greens in regulation”, “average putts per hole”, “up and downs”, etc. Every sport has its key statistics, just like every business has its Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s). In fact, many golfers now track these statistics on their “Sky Caddies” or mobile phones in real time, just like most businesses now track their KPI’s on a myriad of desktop and mobile applications that are available for that purpose.

But for most golfers, and for many businesses, that is where their PM stops. Sure, we all do things to get better and “manage our performance” over time. In golf, we practice and practice more. We spend hours at the driving range hitting balls. We read countless magazines, watch instructional videos, and pay others to “fix” our swings. In business, we train and coach our staffs, improve our work environments, redesign our processes, and invest in new equipment and technology in pursuit of getting better. But in terms of tracking our progress, many of us still revert to the same limited suite of KPI’s to tell us whether we’re improving or not.

Are good KPI’s enough?

A few weeks back, I read Bob Rotella’s new book called “the 15th club”. Bob is a renowned sports psychologist who has coached many of today’s tour professionals–not on the mechanical elements of their game, but on the mental aspect required for peak performance. I’ve referenced his work in some of my past posts, like “progress over perfection,” because of the strong parallels I see between his teachings and corporate performance management.

One of the key points Bob makes in his latest book is the difference between how good golfers and bad golfers think about their shots, and what they spend their time measuring and tracking. As any golfer (beginner or professional) knows, “thinking” about a shot, both before and after its execution is inevitable. It’s WHAT you focus on that’s important.

When most of us hit a good or bad shot, we think about its impact on our round. Maybe we ponder the effect the shot will have on our statistics. We “shank” a ball into the trees and translate that into hitting one fewer fairway. We miss a long putt and worry about the impact it will have on our putting average. It’s hard not to look at each failure through the lens of the impact it will have on our overall results. It’s only natural. People around us will tell us to “shake it off” and stay positive. Well, the fact is that human emotions don’t easily allow for that. More often than not, we retain that thinking, allowing it to work itself into future shots and future rounds. One bad shot leads to more. It’s how good golfers get into slumps. Most golfers who play regularly know how to strike a golf ball (they’ve done it hundreds of times), yet it’s not uncommon to see some really ugly shots repeat themselves several times during a round, and for that ugliness to then continue into future rounds.

Measuring HOW you execute is often just as important as the results…

Rotella doesn’t preach the mantra of just “shaking it off”. Instead, he proposes new things to focus on and measure. His premise is that even the pros only hit a few “perfect shots” per round. After all, golf (and life) is not a game of perfection. The key is recovering after a bad shot and finding creative ways to score amidst the imperfection. After a bad shot, he suggests exploring the things that are essential to a good shot. Did I go though my pre-shot routine? Did I choose my target well? Did I visualize the trajectory I wanted? Did I finish my swing? If I did, and the shot did not execute well, then accept it and move on. Sure, there are times where the fundamentals may be broken, but that’s for your practice time, not in the middle of a round. In competition, you work with what you have, the strategy you select, and focus on whether you executed that strategy or not.

More often than not, measuring the things that are essential to good execution is as important as measuring the execution itself. In fact, thinking about the outcome DURING execution can actually be counter productive. It’s why most pro golfers try to not spend too much time looking at their stats or even the leader-board during the round.

Measuring critical behaviors and practices…

In business, it’s just as important to measure the parts of a process or activity as it is to measure the outcomes. In fact, good companies often measure the presence or absence of specific instances of certain behaviors essential to success.

When it comes to safety performance, good companies have gone beyond simple reporting of lost time and “recordable” events, and even beyond things like “near misses” (all valuable KPI’s). In addition, they look at the presence or absence of safe behaviors and practices. Good call centers go beyond measuring transaction times and satisfaction levels and now look at whether the rep demonstrated certain behaviors that are linked to a successful resolution of an inquiry. If your plan is a good one, and you understand how specific practices and behaviors drive your results, then measuring those behaviors is often as important than the result itself.

Good companies trust their strategies, processes and policies to produce the outcomes they desire and measure their effectiveness at adhering to those activities. If they don’t produce the specific business outcome, then they will undoubtedly go back to the drawing board and evaluate whether the plan was a good one and redesign if necessary. But they won’t do this in the middle of execution just as good golfers don’t do it in the middle of competition.

This may sound a little like I am opposing the very flexibility that is needed for managing in real time, and enabling in-situ course corrections. But that’s not my intent. In fact, what I’m saying is that you should have a set of execution measures and ways of thinking that will help you focus on the right things during execution rather than doing that by the “seat of your pants” and relying on a distant set of KPI’s to navigate that process.

A good performance management system starts with the right goals, objectives, and KPI’s. But these KPI’s will not help you manage the execution of your strategy and focusing on them DURING execution will often cause more harm than good. Instead, measure the behaviors and actions that were part of your strategy even if specific day-to-day outcomes don’t pan out exactly like you envisioned. Only then will you be able to consistently execute and determine if your plan is working, and whether or not it needs retooling.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Data, Dashboards, and Debt Deals…

Posted on July 25, 2011 by Bob Champagne

Bear with me, folks! Today I’m going to take a little departure from my regular discussion of business performance, and talk a little bit about the manner in which data and indicators are used (or misused) in the debate we are having now with respect to US economic policy and direction. As is often the case, the same principles that are critical to business performance management can be just as valuable in our public policy debates. So I think the departure is both timely and relevant.

Today, the President and Speaker of the House Boehner… Blah…Blah…Blah….(Yawn!)”

If you’re anything like me, these “debt talks” of late have become nauseatingly irritating. No matter which side of the political aisle you occupy or favor, it’s hard for anyone to see this as more than a glorified adult schoolyard brawl. It is certainly not rare these days for our elected officials to engage in such a political circus, but this one has taken on a new level of insanity.

What we have here is a public debate about financial and economic policy that is occurring devoid of any meaningful facts or analysis. I’m not saying that the facts are not there, but they have most certainly been kept out of the public debate, only to be replaced by the rhetoric and soundbites of political hacks. And that’s a recipe for a solution that will at best be a meaningless and impotent compromise , and at worst, a precipitator of market panic and economic chaos.

Needed: Basic Facts (AND a Common Language)…

Many of the conversations I witness on this topic, regardless of whether it’s at the family barbecue, the water cooler, or various financial and academic circles, seem to turn a blind eye to the basic facts necessary to contribute in any meaningful way to the debate. Ignorance? Perhaps. Intellectual laziness? Maybe. Pure emotional politics? Probably.

Sure, we see lots of numbers thrown around, but most of them either lack sufficient context, or are deliberately telling only a fraction of the story. And even those facts need a translation guide to determine what they really mean. Does a tax increase mean a raise in the tax rate, or simply continuing with a previous tax cut? Does spending mean decreasing a future forecast, or a cut to the actual baseline? Without some real digging and filtering of the noise, it’s virtually impossible for the average person to have an educated opinion about any of this. Given how “muddy” the information has become, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that this has taken on a purely emotional level of debate.

Any good debate that has a prayer of resolution, whether in business or public policy, starts with a basic understanding by all parties of a key set of “accepted” facts, understood in the same basic context. That type of “common language” allows the debate to hinge on differences in principle and philosophy, which can be argued toward some resolution (or acceptance of a path forward). Without that common language, the vast majority of the dialogue becomes noise, tied up in debates about the validity and relevance of the data amidst the corresponding rhetoric that accompanies both.

Creating a Common Starting Point…

Years ago, and for a brief moment, an eccentric presidential candidate with an irritatingly noisy voice attempted to change the debate by introducing some semblance of simple, fact-based information into the political debase using very basic illustrations. It came in the form of hand-drawn posters that were later imitated by nearly all Sunday morning talk show hosts and other political commentators. Who can forget those “white boards” presenting analysis of the conflicting vote counts in subsequent election results?

Lately, however, the attractiveness of utilizing SIMPLE factual information to inform these debates has clearly waned. I’m not sure what the main culprit of this is–whether it’s pure information overload, or the shortening of our collective attention spans to be able to process it, but the truth is that simple facts themselves are no longer informing our public debate.

Sure, there have been some attempts to inform the debate through unbiased factual information. For example, the national debt clock presents many key statistics that are pertinent to the debate. And back in 2008, David Walker, former head of the GAO presented, as part of his ” Fiscal Wake Up Tour “ one of the best unbiased visualizations of our collective financial health I’ve ever seen.

Much of what Mr. Walker presented in this undisputed picture of our economic health in 2008 (most of which is still relevant today) would be invaluable as a context and starting point for the conversations our politicians are having at the moment. Instead, we now operate in a world where we launch straight into policy debates without any shared or accepted fact base and no common language.

Stepping up the quality of our debate (in government and business)

Here are 5 suggestions for getting our debates better informed and more relevant:

Respect the audience– Too many of our leaders refrain from using unfiltered data to drive dialogue within their organizations, largely because they view it as too complex or advanced for the audience to effectively process or comprehend. While your audience may not operate in the same business or intellectual circles as you, most have a capacity to detect BS and see through overtly biased narratives.
Keep it simple– In some cases, the data needed to inform the debate is in fact complex (particularly in areas like the current debt discussions). In such cases, it’s the leader’s responsibility to simplify it. The above presentation from David Walker is an excellent example.
Make it visible– Make the information easily accessible and visible. Repetition and visualization are usually the keys.
Create a common language– be clear on what the information you present means, and the context within which it operates. Context is as critical as the validity of the data itself. Creating understanding and alignment around both are essential in focusing the dialogue toward a productive end.
Limit the “noise”/ rhetoric- Commentary is ok, and often valuable. But when the narrative departs from the factual information presented, and becomes visibly biased, it becomes mere rhetoric and quickly begins losing credibility.

Maybe I’m being a bit of a Pollyanna, but I believe we could have avoided much of this political mess if those at the core of the debate were aware of the basic facts and context surrounding it, and transparent enough with the data to allow them to defend their REAL positions.

These lessons are as critical in managing the performance of a business as they are in managing the performance and direction of our public policy. Hopefully, we can all learn from this current debacle, and start our future debates on more solid footing.

-b

A CPO’s Declaration of Independence

Posted on July 4, 2011 by Bob Champagne

At its core, the word “independence” means being free of outside control or influence.

We celebrate independence from many things: from the oppressive control of people and governments, to simply becoming independent from our once protective or “controlling” environments. Every 4th of July, we in the United States celebrate our national independence from prior years of British control, and its declaration of that freedom in a charter that would define the very freedoms and liberties we in the US enjoy today. Most often, when we celebrate “independence,” whether it is as a nation or as individuals, we are celebrating a moment in time, or a phase when that independence is either declared, demonstrated or both.

But there is another type of independence we should also celebrate, i.e., the act of distancing oneself from the (isolated, blind, and often inappropriate) influence of another person or organization’s actions. It is more of a “state” that an organization exists within, and one that defines the boundaries of its existence, than it is a single event or moment in time. Such is the case with most corporate oversight and regulatory functions that have emerged in recent years.

As an aspiring young auditor over 20 years ago, I remember this type of independence being drilled into my head more than any other directive in my early career. It’s a principle that has shaped both external auditing as a discipline since its inception over a century ago, and one that has defined internal auditing now for decades. It is also a principle that today defines most common forms of regulatory and oversight functions, particularly when issues like safety and security are involved. But these functions, while sometimes viewed as oppressive in their own right, were initially set up to prevent inherent conflicts of interest that arise in the absence of “common sense” checks and balances.

While many would call these functions a “necessary evil,” their independence and objectivity gives us comfort that someone else is watching–someone who does not necessarily have an “axe to grind” or a “dog in the race.” And if positioned correctly, this independence can also be a powerful enabler for the business by providing outside and unfiltered information and perspectives that are not easily observed by day-to-day operating management. Learning how to create that balance is critical to any function performing in that type of advisory or oversight capacity.

Today, the role of the Corporate Performance Manager, or Chief Performance Officer (CPO) as some companies have positioned it, is one in which the concept of independence and objectivity is becoming increasingly critical. Just as auditors have had to weather the perception of being the “bad guy,” so it is as well for the CPO. In fact, many companies that have deferred making the decision to have a Corporate PM function, have done so to avoid creating another oppressive layer of control, and avoid the animosity that might get created between operating and corporate management. But it is these organizations who sacrifice a very significant benefit that a Corporate PM function can deliver. I would submit that it is not the presence of independent advisory or oversight functions that create these problems, but rather the way they are set up, chartered and managed that does so.

So how does this sense of “balance” get created?

Here are some common traits of successful Corporate Performance Management functions that have been able to use the principles of independence and objectivity in a way that enables more collaborative success, while providing the healthy oversight and control that is desired by the firm’s Board, Officers and Shareholders:

Organizational Independence and Visibility- Just as most Audit functions have a corporate responsibility to the CEO and Board of Directors, so it is the case with most successful corporate PM organizations. By the very nature of their reporting relationship to the CEO (or equivalent), they eliminate the very conflict of interest with specific business functions that can compromise more integrated and synergistic solutions from occurring.
Strategically Balanced– Their charter is driven by the Firm’s Balanced Scorecard, rather than limited subsets of operating metrics that may yield more limited operational successes at the expense of the more balanced set of business outcomes desired by shareholders
Non-Threatening- While their ultimate customer is the CEO, they view operating executives as a key enabler of, and partners in, their collective success. They do this by addressing issues and performance gaps in a way that makes the operating unit become successful in the eyes of the Firm’s C-Suite and Board, rather than their own visible value add.
Removing Barriers- One way they become viewed as genuine partners with operating management is that they use their corporate visibility and influence to break down barriers (like corporate politics, access to information, and cultural roadblocks) and unlock value that has often eluded operating management.
Inclusive and collaborative– Good PM functions are inclusive, not only with respect to their approach, but also in their delivery tactics. They often staff their departments with people from the operating units themselves (using short term and rotational assignments), increasing their operating credibility and ultimately developing real PM champions across the business.
Facilitative– These functions are far more facilitative in their approach, rarely performing direct roles in developing conclusions and implementation. While results are often the same as those they might have developed themselves, playing a background role and “leading” the operating staff to the right answers ultimately strengthens operating ownership for the conclusions and changes that ultimately emerge.
Share the Joy– Good PM organizations are often generous in giving credit for operating changes directly to operating executives. While they are successful at tracking corporate value delivered by the PM process, the credit for the implemented changes is often given directly to those who implement it.

The "bad cop" perception that is often ascribed to corporate oversight functions will never get eliminated completely, and will continue to be a factor as Corporate PM groups proliferate across the industry. By its very nature, there will always be times where their responsibility to the CEO and Board will result in the development of recommendations or the presentation of information that benefits the collective whole, rather than the specific interests of a particular business unit. But more often than not, the type of synergistic value we are looking for can make heroes out of operating executives while still benefiting the collective Enterprise.

So on this Independence Day, let’s remember that we can still preserve the independence and objectivity our profession requires, while being a strong force that liberates and frees our operating executives to reach their goals and ultimate potential.

When Benchmarking Gets “In the Way” of Good Performance Management…

Posted on June 27, 2011 by Bob Champagne

Nearly three decades after benchmarking came on the scene, companies still claim it to be an integral part of their internal performance improvement processes. But few would argue that its value to the business is now well below where it once was. And sometimes, it actually gets in the way of identifying improvements and driving change.

There is not a client I work with who doesn’t have their shelves lined with volumes of benchmarking studies and reports. Nearly every industry group produces some kind of comparative metrics report for its members. And every industry has those companies that we might consider to be “benchmarking addicts” — those who participate in nearly every study they can in the spirit of demonstrating their performance improvement “commitment” and “prowess” around driving change. Ironically though, it is rarely these companies that define the top tier of their respective industries in terms of real performance.

Here are some inherent flaws with benchmarking today:

Benchmarking is largely “point-in-time” driven and retrospective in nature. While this can be useful in “stress testing” targets and defining high-level gaps (“low-hanging fruit” or “quick wins”), it largely ignores the trends or shifts in metrics that are far more critical to identifying and driving course corrections.
Comparative studies almost always focus on lagging versus leading indicators. This often leads to a culture of “managing through the rear-view mirror”. It also fixates the organization on measuring things for the sake of comparisons, when some of those metrics may have have become irrelevant or even obsolete.
Benchmarking focuses on “common metrics” versus those that may be critical to you, but perhaps not everyone. It’s okay to have a few metrics you routinely measure for the sake of comparison, but when these metrics begin to define your scorecard, it’s time to recognize when the “tail is actually wagging the dog”.
Comparisons are done for many reasons, not all of which are performance driven. More often than not, benchmarks are used to identify strengths for the sake of communicating to shareholders, regulators, or sometimes even internal Executives. They’re sometimes even a vehicle for rationalizing and justifying poor performance, often confusing the organization and sending all the wrong messages.
Benchmarking often leads to “group think”. We look for commonalities and like to follow the “herd”. Let’s face it — It lowers our risk to say, “if company x is doing such and such, then we should be doing it too.” But it’s sometimes the anomalies in the data that can show us where real innovation is happening. And in the benchmarking world, anomalies are often dismissed as outliers and suggestive of data problems rather than solutions.

These are just a few of the many ways that benchmarking “gets in the way” of real change, and there are many more where these came from.

As with anything we do long enough, it’s easy to get into a corporate habit of doing something and forget WHY we are doing it in the first place. So if you want benchmarking to be a value-adding component of your performance management process, here are a few things you can do:

Realize that benchmarking is about you, and not about others. It’s fine to use comparisons to help you better understand yourself and your performance weaknesses and perhaps “stress test” your targets, but when you start using benchmarks to rationalize and justify existing performance and actions, it’s time to refocus your thinking on you and your company’s improvement goals and the learning benchmarking can provide.
Determine where benchmarking fits into your overall performance management process, and use it that way. In cases where benchmarking is done for some other reason, like communicating to stakeholders or regulators, call it what it is and keep it at arms length from the game of real performance improvement.
Focus your benchmarking on the measures that matter to YOU rather than a consultant’s peer group or client base. More often than not, it may be better to do a small internal project to gather that competitive intelligence, than it would to consume resources to force-fit yourself into a large peer group.
Orient your benchmarking around learning and innovation, rather than simply “following the herd.” This will sometimes cause you to look at different metrics, and look at them differently. Anomalies will become a source of new innovation rather than simply a data problem to discount.

Benchmarking can be a great tool for defining, catalyzing and inspiring change in your organization. Take a hard look at how your organization uses these comparisons today and be honest with yourself about where this supports or hinders your performance management process. Make benchmarking part of your performance management process rather than an end in and of itself.

A “Sticky Situation” -When product/ service “stickiness” is not a good thing!!!

Posted on April 27, 2011 by Bob Champagne

My annual springtime gardening experiment…

This past weekend, I was doing some backyard gardening in North Jersey- my futile attempt to convince myself that winter is over in the Northeast and that we are headed full-steam toward sunny skies and warmer temperatures. Of course, anyone who lives in this part of the country knows how useless this tactic is, as within a few days we’ll be back down into the 40s with rain. That is, until June when the weather will instantaneously switch to the hot and humid days of summer, bypassing spring entirely. But taking advantage of the nice weather, even if just for a day, would be worth it even if it were just for a few hours of sanity and relaxation, right? Not so fast.

Why exactly I choose “gardening” as a way to decompress is about as clear to me as why bad golfers choose to endure hours of hacking at a golf ball as a way to spend a nice Saturday afternoon. But just like the bad golfer who trades off four hours of frustration for what may be a few good shots, such is the case with me and my annual bouts with cleaning up the yard and getting it ready for better days ahead.

It all starts with the “Orange Aprons”…

The trend is usually predictable: The inescapable trip to fight the crowds at Home Depot (which I now rationalize as my contribution to improving HD stock performance), the often painstaking task of unpacking the purchases and unpotting the plants, and the ensuing hours of digging (usually through layers of rock which seem to “grow back” every winter), raking, planting, mulching, and the inevitable cleanup that follows well into the evening hours. But like the bad golfer who slices his first shot of the season into the woods, my annual gardening experience usually starts yielding frustration long before any planting begins, and sometimes even before I leave the Home Depot parking lot.

This year, the frustration took a little longer to materialize. In fact the entire shopping experience was pretty good. I had little difficulty finding what I was looking for, and the staff was both accessible and helpful. The lines moved quickly and I was out before I knew it. In fact, against the many dimensions I typically grade service providers on, I’d have to give the “orange apron guys” an A+. The day appeared to be turning out better than in years past. But I knew better. It was only a matter of time before that glorious Saturday afternoon would begin generating increased blood pressure and the collection of four letter words that accompanies it. Such would be the case upon my arrival home.

The dreaded “unpacking” phase…

After arriving home and convincing my teenage boys to unpack the car (yet another delightful surprise), I began the unpacking process. And, within an instant, the calmness and serenity that had occupied my mood changed to frustration and anxiety. For whatever reason, this year’s unpacking process appeared to me significantly more difficult. It started with the requisite layers of bubble wrap and tape that enveloped each component of new patio furniture we had bought. And when I say each component, I mean down to every individual nut and bolt!!! Then there was the military-grade plastic packaging that encased my new 10-dollar pruning sheers, protecting it from God knows what. (You know, the kind of packaging that requires the “jaws of life” to successfully extract). And then, there were all those damned “sticky” labels that invariably require countless hours of “picking” to effectively remove, lest your new purchase live the remainder of its useful life with its caregiver instructions and warning labels intact.

Now maybe I was just paying more attention this year, but it seemed as if the people responsible for packaging all this stuff were playing a big joke on yours truly. Just why companies feel compelled to spend 30 dollars on packaging to protect a 10-dollar garden tool is more than a bit perplexing. Ironically enough, every single product I bought had some kind of environmental or recycling message on it, which screamed hypocrisy given all of the trees and petroleum used to create (or recycle) these labels and packaging. But I digress.

Those damned “sticky labels”- ARGH!!!

This year, it was those damned “sticky labels” that threw me over the edge, particularly the ones affixed to each of the 10 segments of “garden border” I purchased. Those stickers appear to be everywhere these days, and some are admittedly easier to remove than others. I happened to be the recipient of the latter type. And yes, I KNOW that I can remove them with warm soapy water or Windex. But really…does EVERY 6 inch segment of garden boarder need three sticky labels conspicuously affixed to the visible side of it? To amplify the frustration, the garden border I purchased was sold in a 10 pack! 30 stickers in all, each requiring a few minutes of removal, lest I live with a perpetual banner of warning labels and bar codes around the border of my garden.

I couldn’t help but think how so many good products lose their impact because of such bad packaging decisions. Talk about a moment of truth! I can assure you that most of the products I purchased that day will be remembered by me, not for their uniqueness, robustness, or endurance,but rather for the annoying unpacking experience created by their unfriendly and obstructive packaging.

A bright spot amidst the madness…

There was however one bright spot in the unpacking experience, At the bottom of the bag was an attractive ceramic outdoor oil candle my wife purchased- an inexpensive impulse buy, but still a nice centerpiece at a holiday BBQ or summer dinner party. The candle wasn’t boxed, as it was probably a Home Depot brand or otherwise “generic”. Affixed to the side of it was yet another single “sticky label”. Only this one was small and inconspicuous, and contained nothing but one of those square bar codes (what is known now as a QR code) with a note that suggested I “scan it” with my smart-phone for more info . Intrigued, I scanned it with my iPhone and it took me directly to a Home Depot web site that displayed an array of other outdoor products apparently related to my purchase which caused me to look at a few more products that were kind of neat. I bookmarked the page and removed the sticker (which was of the other, easy-to-peel variety). Overall, a very cool example of less being more.

The rest of the day went pretty well. In fact, I am now wondering just how much of the past year’s angst was created by something as simple as the unpacking process. Did that part of the ordeal set the tone for the entire day? For me, and on this day, it most certainly did. And it got me thinking: How often is our frustration as consumers linked to one simple trigger event like this? Do the manufacturers and distributors of these products have any clue about the emotional chaos created by such simple, yet stupid packaging decisions? And why they would allow this to occur in such an early stage in the product experience?

What’s your “sticky label”?

Most of us have aspects of our product or offers that create the same kind of frustrating experiences. And just like the people who sold me the garden border, we probably don’t have a clue that these emotions are occurring as I write this.

So I ask you: What is your “sticky label”?

Author Archives: Bob Champagne