Does Benihana Mean Birthday or Teppanyaki?

On the face of it, Benihana is a pretty simple restaurant which ought to mean just one thing in the mind of its customers: teppanyaki, the form of tableside cooking/entertainment for which they are famous.

I like the notion of businesses owning one word in the mind of the customer. While I’m not sure where it originated, Ries and Trout are big believers in this marketing concept. See, for example, Positioning, The New Positioning, virtually any of the Immutable Laws books, or the recent book by Jack Trout (not to be confused with the flyfishing guide) In Search of The Obvious: The Antidote for Today’s Marketing Mess.

Examples: Volvo means/meant safe. Siebel meant sales. PeopleSoft meant HR. At this point, I think Oracle means software. I’m not sure what Microsoft means. To me, Sun meant struggling. SAP meant ERP for a long time; I’m less sure what it means now. They would like it to mean clear, but there’s often a difference between what marketing puts in the ads and what sticks in the mind of the customer. LinkedIn means colleagues, or maybe jobs. Facebook means friends. Twitter means tweets, an example of inventing your own word which can work really well or be a total catastrophe such as fahrvergnügen.

I understand why teppanyaki doesn’t work in terms of word ownership for Benihana. The word is not well known, it’s hard to pronounce, and it’s harder to spell. There’s also the confusion with the word hibachi, which the restaurant seems to foster. So I get why perhaps teppanyaki doesn’t work as Benihana’s word, but I don’t get how Benihana came to mean birthday instead.

Many years ago, my kids started taking/dragging us to Benihana on their birthdays. I didn’t think much of it at the time. But now that I’ve done it multiple times/year for several years, I can say first-hand that every time I got to Benihana virtually every table (of eight) has at least 1 and sometimes 2 people celebrating a birthday. And, by the way, the place is always jammed.

How did this come to pass? Frankly, I don’t know.

Yes, they do an allegedly bi-lingual happy birthday song and free photo for those who claim/admit it’s their birthday. But that certainly can’t be enough to reposition the entire restaurant from “the place for wacky tableside grilling” to “the place for birthdays.” Yes, if you dig around you can find a $30 coupon for use on your birthday, but I doubt that’s it, either.

For now, it appears to be a great mystery of organic repositioning. For no matter what they’re trying to do at a marketing level, somehow they have been positioned in the only place it counts — the mind of the customer — as the place for birthdays.

ZL vs. Gartner: If At First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try Again

As previously covered, email archiving vendor ZL Technologies of San Jose, California sued leading IT market researcher Gartner for $132M earlier this year for its treatment in one of Gartner’s vaunted magic quadrants.

On November 4th, the case was dismissed, but have no worries. Armed with a seemingly endless legal budget and apparent certainty in its position, ZL is back at it. One month later, on 12/4/09, ZL filed an amended complaint (PDF) in US District Court of Northern California, naming both Gartner as well as the lead analyst for email archiving, Carolyn DiCenzo, as defendants.

After a quick read, it appears primarily to be more of the same story, just better and more clearly argued.

They assert that:

  • ZL has superior products and services
  • Gartner dominates IT research with make-or-break power over vendors
  • Placement in the niche vendor quadrant is basically a fate worse than death
  • Gartner’s marketing creates the impression that analyst statements and reports are facts rather than opinion. Recall that freedom of opinion was Gartner’s defense, so this claim strikes me as pivotal.
  • Gartner’s business model contains an inherent conflict of interest and therefore its reviews are not unbiased third-party opinions
  • Gartner labeled ZL a “niche player” every year from 2005-2009. (Ouch. Now we see where the anger comes from!)
  • Magic quadrants are not based on objective, verifiable fact but on subjective opinion. (Here ZL seems to be arguing against itself. As I understand the law, we are all entitled to our opinions and we have the right to be wrong. What we can’t do is assert known falsity as truth — that’s defamation. But if the magic quadrants are opinion, then Gartner’s allowed to be wrong.)

English majors will enjoy some of the language used later in the document — I’m mixing and matching some words and phrases just to show the language:

… statements were false, malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, vile, base, contemptible … made with malice, hatred, ill-will, improper and malevolent purpose, reckless disregard, and knowledge of falsity … exposed ZL to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy

OK. What the heck is obloquy?

Part of me likes this offbeat little company trying to buck the system. Gartner is very influential, no doubt. As someone who’s worked with analysts for 20 years, I can say they’re not always the easiest people with whom to work. Discussions about magic quadrants (and imitations thereof) and the factors that drive them can be frustrating. But every company, including Gartner, has its flaws and every industry has its movie critics.

So a bigger part of me thinks that ZL’s just plain nuts. They are breaking glass all around them and spending real money to do it. If their software really is as good as they claim, then if they’d simply done a better job at marketing then they probably could have avoided all of this.

Because — and I agree with Gartner here — the best product / technology doesn’t always win. It takes a great business, too. And suing Gartner is, frankly, not something that I’ve seen many great businesses do.

Put differently, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. And ZL is dropping vinegar on Gartner right now like a helicopter dropping water on a forest fire.

For those who enjoy reading source documents, I’ve embedded the complaint below.

ZLFirst Amended Complaint

The Great Dysfunctional Corporate Budgeting Process

A former colleague hit an old nerve the other day, sending me the following message about budgets and budgeting.

Dear Dave, 

A question for you — I just saw a typical idiotic internal email about budgets yesterday, and to my recollection [at our last company], you tried to make the system less dysfunctional, but didn’t really make much headway, and almost earned yourself some finance team enemies [in the process].

Now that you’re CEO, do you still have those feelings about budgets, or have you now seen the other side of the coin? Do you have any tips for somebody who still gasps at how bad it seems to be, but wants to understand?

I still find it incredibly hard to imagine that this is the best system possible for using money strategically.

Best,
Joe

Since it’s currently planning and budgeting season for most corporations — including mine — I thought I’d share a few thoughts as a former budget rebel turned CEO.

First, let’s review my problems with the classical corporate budgeting process.

  • It rewards negotiation not performance. The division manager who negotiates a 30% growth plan and who delivers 33% is a hero, while the one who negotiates 75% growth and delivers 60% is a zero.
  • It ends up a trending exercise. Budgets end up tweaked extrapolations of prior years. Well-intentioned zero-based budgeting exercises end up expensive re-creations and re-justifications of the status quo.
  • It ends up a budgeting, not a planning, exercise. What’s supposed to be a planning process that includes generating a budget as one part ends up a budgeting-only exercise. In marketing, I call this the “buckets of money” problem. Which tradeshows have we decided to do based on what strategic criteria? Dunno, but I have $500K allocated to tradeshows next year. Which analysts? Dunno, but I have $250K allocated. What are our key themes? Dunno, but we can figure that out later. All those questions should be answered in the marketing planning process, but they get lost in budget-myopia.
  • It encourages convergence to the norm, ironically in the name of “best practice.” CFOs and boards benchmark the company against competitors with keeping up with the Joneses logic. This drives everyone’s P&L to look the same. For example, at Business Objects, we consistently decided that we were underspending in R&D and overspending in sales and marketing (S&M) relative to industry averages. So every year, we’d cut S&M and increment R&D expense by a few points. I’d argue that we were good at S&M and bad at R&D and ergo we should reinforce our strengths and perhaps acquire (not develop) technology to dump into our excellent S&M engine. This argument repeatedly lost to the normalcy one, reminding me of the Vonnegut story where ballerinas have sash-weights and bird-shot tied to them so they can’t jump and geniuses have noises blasted into their ears so they can’t think. One person’s best practice is another one’s sash-weights and bird-shot.
  • It is, ultimately, not strategic. Somehow benchmarks, trends, negotiations, averages, and politics end up trumping strategy. Instead of strategically deciding what the organization needs to accomplish and then building a budget to accomplish that, the process gets hijacked by these forces along the way.

The problem is, of course, there’s only one thing worse than having a budget; that’s not having a budget.

Much as the marketing VP should be automatically fired if the company ever launches a new product without an updated website, so should the CEO (and CFO) be fired if the company ever enters a time period without a board-approved operating plan. I remember when I was a first-line marketing manager at (the original) Ingres and we went into June of a year without an approved budget. It was a study in how not to run a company.

So what can we do to improve things? Well, it’s not easy. If you’re really interested in this area, you can read the book Beyond Budgeting. It goes into great depth on the sorts of problems I’ve described and how to solve them. One key concept is to reward absolute performance (e.g., growth or growth in relative market share), as opposed to plan performance which is more gameable. The problem is that getting good data (e.g., relative market share for an emerging category for every country in Europe) can be very hard to come by — particularly in enterprise software.

I will tell you — and Joe — what I’ve done at Mark Logic to try and avoid and/or mitigate these problems.

  • I try to derive budget from strategy. We start the budgeting process with a strategy meeting. We end the strategy meeting writing down 10 -12 goals for the coming year. As we make, review, and iterate the budget, I keep checking and revising the goals to keep them top of mind and synchronized with the budget.
  • I stay aware of the endemic budgeting problems and try to keep an eye out for them.
  • I tend to rate people, whether I want to work with them, and how I help them in their careers by whether I think they’re gaming me in the budget process. So either don’t game me or be very good at it. I prefer hard-working people who are all about the company to a group of all-about-me mercenaries flying in greed formation.
  • I track metrics and benchmarks but refuse to be enslaved by them. I never assume that because the average family has 2.5 kids that I should, too. I want to know how many kids the average family has, and I want to use that information as part of the equation for how deciding how many kids I want to have.
  • I drone on endlessly on the difference between planning and budgeting. I try to find buckets of money (or buckets of people) and blow them up, asking for supporting detail. So, we have $250K for tradeshows — which ones and why? So, we want to hire X sales people — what will their territories be? If you don’t know, you have a budget, not a plan. I want both.
  • I remind people that happily, as a company gets some size, some budget issues are purely emotional. Those few people I cut might amount to a rounding error in a manager’s quarterly budget. I advise them to go ahead and do what they think is right, just checking with me once with me and finance before doing it.
  • I also remind people during the year to closely track their spending on both the high and low side. I remember one career-defining moment at Business Objects when a VP pleaded, begged, and moaned for money, saying he was under-staffed, complaining that the company was myopic and refusing to invest in his area. The CEO responded: “you spent only 85% of your budget last quarter; do not ask me for more money when you are not spending the money you have.” Ouch. Oddly that VP disappeared not too many weeks later.
  • In same vein, I remind people that the plan’s a plan. While I am a big believer in planning, I also remember the famous Eisenhower’s quote: “in preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” What we actually do will be a function of how things go once the year starts and we are free to spend more or less than plan as we go along. Think: uncertainty. Think: empowerment.
  • I try to be pragmatic. Decisions need to be made. Targets need to get set. In the end, getting the budget done trumps getting the budget done perfectly.

In the end, I don’t claim to have solved all the problems with classical budgeting, but I hope these measures take some of the usual insanity out of the process.

If you have ideas to share on how to improve the corporate budgeting process, please share them.

Marketing Tip of the Day: Never Say "Very"

I have a new pet peeve: sales and marketing people who use the word “very” as a condiment, sprinkling it heavily and indiscriminately — like salt — into any product or company claim.

Let’s look at some examples, which I’ll number for subsequent reference:

  1. … can process very complex queries …
  2. … a very unique product positioning …
  3. … has a very experienced team with very strong investors and very powerful technology …
  4. … has a very scalable architecture …

When you very-up everything, several problems develop:

  • Your speech (or writing) will end up sounding like puffery (e.g., “whiter than white.”) Very becomes a non-word that people will filter, eliminating its power in the few cases where it could be properly applied. You damage your own credibility. For example, see case 3.
  • You transfer the meaning of your claims to the very. For example, in case 4, the claim becomes a VERY scalable architecture as opposed to a very SCALABLE architecture. The claim should be about the scalable architecture, not about the very.
  • You will have a tendency to make unsupported claims, fooling yourself into thinking that very represents substantiation and/or differentiation. Try this: take every claim you make it and then re-make it without the very. When you do, I suspect you’ll end up wanting to change some of your claims.
  • You will make illogical claims. For example, in case 2 the claim “very unique” is ridiculous; something is either unique or it’s not. This is also arguably true in case 4: architectures are either scalable or they’re not. These damage your credibility.
  • The very-ies can backfire on you, over-positioning your product. For example, in case 1, perhaps the customer doesn’t think his queries are complex, let alone very complex. By needlessly adding very, you’ve potentially led the customer to think: “I don’t really need all this power, I don’t have very complex queries.”

Yes, hyperbole is an occupational hazard in marketing and we all fall victim to it. I remember the time at Business Objects when I was desperately in search of a word that meant “more ultimate than ultimate.” I’d heard “penultimate” kicked around a few times and figured that’s what it meant. Imagine my reaction when our PR guy, Randy Cairns, came back with: “uh boss, bad news, penultimate means one less than ultimate, not one more.”

When we stopped laughing, I realized that it made perfect sense. Ultimate means ultimate. Only a marketer would want to find a word means more ultimate than ultimate.

How can you reduce your own personal hype level? Speak more slowly and precisely. Listen to what you say. And never say very.

See a future post for a similar rant: never say true!

Keeping Up With The Conversation

The older, grumpier, and less patient I get, the more I realize that keeping up with the conversation is probably the key skill for career success and executive development. I wonder why it’s taken me so long to realize this because, like the discovery of the non-existence of Santa Claus, once seen, it appears obvious. But it sure as heck wasn’t obvious to me during the last 20 years of my management career.

Let’s make this concrete. To assess whether someone keeps up, I increasingly ask myself one question: do I want to talk to person X about problem Y?

There are three primary reasons why I wouldn’t want to talk to person X about problem Y:

  • Person X doesn’t understand problem Y. It’s not interesting to talk to him/her* because all I do is educate him on the problem. It is not a stimulating two-way exchange of ideas.
  • Person X doesn’t say anything interesting about problem Y. Person X understands the problem, but doesn’t have anything new or interesting to say about solving it. Boring.
  • Person X doesn’t follow through. Person X says interesting things about problem Y, but never follows through on agreements made during the discussion. Big talker. Or, to use the Texas equivalent: big hat, no cattle.

I reflect on the now-immortal words of a Business Objects board member who I (and several other execs) watched argue with a United flight attendant many years ago on a flight from Paris: “I don’t want to talk to you any more.” At which point the pilot came out not in an escalation of authority, but more to provide an appropriate-level contact with whom to resume the conversation.

(This became a running joke as we subsequently imagined ourselves being fired in a similar dialog. “What went wrong with the marketing campaign?” “Well, we had some trouble with the mailing lists.” “The mailing lists?” “Yes, you know sometimes it’s hard to find good –” “I don’t want to talk to you any more.” “But, but, but …”)

I like the want part of the equation because it provides an emotional element in the decision process. Yes, I’m supposed to talk to person X about problem Y because it’s in his domain as defined by the current organization. Yes, I know that. But do I want to talk to him?

Wherever I find a supposed-to/want-to gap, there’s a potential need for an organization change.

It might be that person X is wrong for the company. Or it might be that person X is a bad fit with his role or certain parts of it. But when things are working well, I should not only want — but be eager — to talk to person X about problem Y.

Now I’m sure I’ve condemned myself to weeks of “Hi Dave, do you like talking to me about X” questioning from Mark Logic staff. But I think it’s probably worth it to have shared this reductionist nugget.

According to this theory, the secret to career success is then: getting your bosses to want to talk to you about the organization’s top problems. That means two things: you need to figure out the top problems and you need to figure out how to make them want to talk with you about them.


* Henceforth, take all him references as him/her and his references as his/her.