Globalization has enabled unprecedented hyper-competition, and all types of dynamic comparative pricing models. Yet pricing within many segments of our economy appear like something from the The Stone Age.

If you go into a white tablecloth restaurant and order the sea bass on a Wednesday, you might pay $30.  If you return to the same restaurant on a Saturday the price would be the same, even though demand in the restaurant is likely to be very different.  Eateries price on the cost plus model built in the industrial age; the price is based on some multiple of raw materials (or labor).

Our economy doesn’t work this way anymore.  Consider the market for sports tickets. Sports franchises (the Lakers for example) set the initial price for a ticket. But the market resets the price in real time based on supply and demand. If it is a Tuesday night game against the Raptors, a seat may command a few dollars more than the face value.  A Sunday game against the Celtics could command double that within a market being energized by the likes of Stubhub and other online exchanges.

Variable pricing based on nuanced supply and demand is the future, and it is the present.  Marriott has historically been the most profitable hospitality company, as its revenue per available room (the industry benchmark) often exceeds that of rivals. In the case of hotel rooms (or airfares), business-to-consumer pricing models can shift daily based on numerous variables such as weather, events, or the calendar.  Like it or not, exchanges that provide comparative prices are proliferating, in both B2C and B2B.

I am not advocating the companies participate in such portals: they the fastest way to commoditize an industry. What I am saying is that the acceptance of such tools points out a broader problem (or opportunity), that markets re-price based on real demand, not arbitrary prices set by the seller.

Businesses, including those that market products and services business-to-business will need to be more analytical about which products and services could and should command higher prices and which will command less.  To set up a fixed pricing schedule seems overly convenient in a world where buyers have far more sensitivity over some purchases than others.  A software developer may need to sell a project at a low cost to win the business, but could charge far more (on an hourly basis) for change orders that are not foreseen by the client.

Most small and mid-market companies have not done enough research to understand the relationships between the products and services they sell.  If an accounting practice sells tax work and audit services, how should they price one against the other and what is the likelihood that clients will gravitate to them as a result of their pricing model or other variables? I think few really know.

Companies should test various pricing strategies to see what works best, and be more purposeful about tweaking pricing to reflect current demand.

And now for my very favorite quote of the year, offered by Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn.  In reference to the Nissan Leaf, a zero emission vehicle, Ghosn said “this is the future, and everything else is going to look obsolete, like sending messages with pigeons”[i].

As Gnosh put it in an interview in Fast Company, “if you already have an emissions problem with 700 Million cars, what problems are you going to have with 2 Billion?”. In the case of Nissan, Ghosn is looking beyond the defined needs of customers and is anticipating the needs of the global market in a decade or more. It is not good enough to solve problems we can see, the strategist must seek to solve problems that are not readily apparent. To consider such scenarios, strategists must consider Social, Technological, Economic, Ecological and Political trends and consider how various combinations may change the landscape of an industry.

In my book and blog“ Intended Consequences”, I predicted remarkably volatile prices for fuel and the potential for oil to reach prices of far north of $100 a barrel. The predication which became an eventuality was based on an evaluation of “converging factors”, independent trends that combine to create a tipping point. The automobile industry is on the cusp of such a fundamental shift. Toyota has been selling the Prius since, 1997 but the initial curve for adoption was remarkably slow. What we see in evidence today are converging trends that will provide the impetus to create disruptive change in the form of rapid adoption of alternative vehicles:

Political: The U.S. government’s recent announcement of an agreement with thirteen automakers that will reset the Café fuel economy standards to require an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.[ii] The willingness of OEM’s (original equipment manufacturers), to work with the government in a race to dramatically improve fuel efficiency illustrates their understanding of radical changes in their operating environment.

Social: Shifting sensibilities towards sustainability will drive adoption. Electric cars are somewhat impractical for working people who may not have time to charge them (up to 8 hours) providing a leg up to hybrids.

Technology: The new Prius plug in will offer up to 87 miles to the gallon illustrating explosive improvement in battery technology. Many of the world’s top scientists are working on batteries that could expediently improve performance, size and cost.

Ecological: In Nissan’s case,  the rapid growth of highly polluted Asian markets is viewed as a driver for future demand. Recent disasters in the gulf and elsewhere have heightened awareness of the risks of oil exploration.

Economic: Americans are still fearful of OPEC’s influence and the ability of the cartel to manage worldwide oil prices. As battery prices decline, the value proposition of hybrids will only continue to improve, and the total cost of ownership for such vehicles will be drastically reduced.

Businesses are well advised to review such variables as to develop scenarios about their industry. It may not be possible to look into a magical crystal ball to predict the future, but careful study of trends provides us context on what products and services to develop in order to create disruption.

One of the bi-products of our caffeine crazed, media blitzed economy is that we have virtually no attention span. It is as if we have a collective form of ADD.

Over time, customers get bored with their vendors, alliance partners and trade associations. Client relationships have a natural tail.

The ability to continuously delight customers is a skill mastered by few. Clients need some type of stimuli that reinforces the value we provide them and it needs to come in different forms at different times. Variety is not just the spice of life; it is the remedy to overcoming the dreaded inevitable customer fatigue.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that challengers are incented to barrage prospects with new offers and discounts. In relative terms, the incumbent can easily become complacent and offer clients much of the same. As the old adage goes, “if it isn’t broke…”.

Customer fatigue only magnifies themes we have often shared in this space. The number one rule of customer relationship management is to take better care of the customers you already have than new ones you might attract. Offering special discounts to new customers flies in the face of this principle.  Organizations often position their best people as hunters, and lowly customer service agents as the face of the company with current clients. An organization can easily lose sight of its most precious possession, its most profitable customers.

Vendors should track the average length of their relationships and take actions to prolong them. The element of surprise is understood by entertainers and magicians. Similar tactics can be applied from our business gifts, customer reviews, plant tours and the like. Customers should be treated differently based on their lifetime value, and perhaps even receive different benefits based on their tenure. Find a way to shake things up and keep customers coming back for more.

A federal judge’s recent ruling that elements of the health care bill are unconstitutional has heightened the health care debate.  Republicans, feeling their oats and perceiving a mandate are threatening to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It was only after my friend and colleague Dr. Bala Chandrasekhar explained most of the information in this post to me that I first came to understand the fundamental problem.  Our medical community suffers from perverse incentives. The system does not reward results; it rewards the extension of care.

In the world’s best hospitals, such as the Mayo Clinic, physicians collaborate, in a finite space, where information is shared and decisions are made. In the overwhelming majority of cases, patients are shuttled around, from general practitioners, to specialist, and from one laboratory to the next.  Information about the patient’s medical history is rarely shared, an approach that does not support the best medical outcome for patients.

The advent of electronic medical records and new rules governing payments is the impetus to consolidation in a business so unsophisticated, that many medical files and prescriptions are managed with a piece of paper, pen and fax machine.  The institution of medicine needs to undergo radical change, and the prospects of larger organizations managing our care means that the stakes are getting higher.

Unlike professionally managed businesses, there are massive variations in best practices in medical groups.  Physicians hate oversight, and we pay the price in an estimated 100,000 people a year dying in U.S. hospitals from pure negligence (errors).

It is intuitive to all of us that raising medical care costs are unsustainable, yet the numbers are daunting.  The convergence of an aging populace and exponential health care inflation will double Medicare costs within a decade.  By 2020, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to increase from 21% to over 30% of federal spending (non-interest payments), and that doesn’t include massive spending by state and local governments. Proponents argue that we have the best medical care in the world; but at what cost? A knee replacement that costs upward of $40,000 in the U.S., costs $5,000 in Germany. We all want the best health care, but at some point common sense must prevail.

According to the bipartisan congressional report -Restoring America’s Future, “slowing the growth of health spending is realistic. Other advanced countries have substantially lower health spending as a share of GDP, while still achieving measures of access and quality that often exceed those in the United States. Although a uniquely American approach is required, these comparisons show what is achievable.” Health care reform focuses on capping costs for doctors and reforming various forms of insurance coverage (including universal coverage). It does little to reform the underlying behavioral issues that are driving up health care costs.  The fee for service model is dated and irrelevant.

If these costs are not constrained, our fiscal mess will get much worse, and our businesses and personal wealth will be drained by massive tax increases.  Small business owners, who bear the brunt of a bloated health care bureaucracy in the form of inflated health insurance premiums must advocate for more meaningful reforms.  Our economic future depends on it.

Amongst my favorite Seinfeld episodes was that of “The Soup Nazi”.  As you may remember the story line, The Soup Nazi banished Elaine from his soup kitchen with his announcement “No Soup for You!” While the Seinfeld clan’s attraction to the Soup Nazi may have been soup of extraordinary flavor, the episode offers marketers a more compelling recipe.

In her brilliant book “Different”, Youngme Moon points out that in a mature market, added features that are not highly relevant to the customer offer little incremental value.  She offers the concept of differentiating strategies through “reverse and hostile brands.”

While the Soup Nazi’s fare was surprising good, the service was shockingly bad. I am not suggesting that our clients start insulting customers anytime soon, but there is lesson to be learned from the Soup Nazi.  Disrupters understand the need to find separation, even if it means not offering services and benefits offered by the competition. Southwest Air offers no amenities, but does offer free baggage.  Where United and Delta says yes, Southwest says no and vice versa.

Menchies and similar self serve yogurt shops have exploded on the scene.  Eat all the yogurt you want and we are not going to serve you.  By the way, you are going to spend about a third more than you would otherwise. The model is distressing to our waist line but stimulating to our business sensibilities.  Tart yogurt flavors are particularly hot as they offer the opposite of what we have been conditioned to expect; as sweet is ying, tart is yang.

For a good laugh with clients, I have occasionally handed out calendars from despair.com.  A spoof of the overused motivational posters, they have similar imagery that says things like “Consulting: Why find a solution when you can prolong the problem?” The calendars are popular because they are funny, but also because they are a shock to our senses.  When ordering such a calendar you get an email to the effect of don’t bother calling us. 

To be different may require the marketer to be entirely counter to the marketplace.  The iPad is revolutionary but lacks USB ports and other goodies.  Apple is unapologetic, as consumers intuitively understand the tradeoff.

We are drawn to things we can’t have, and thus one potential strategy in value creation is “the take away”.  To suggest that your product or service is only available to a select group of customers increases its value. When clients ask us to do Executive Coaching we say no (it is not in our core competency) which makes our Strategic Planning services worth more.  Customers know that to get something really good, they may have to give up something in return.

While I am not encouraging anyone reading this to go negative, I am suggesting we need to think more provocatively about creating products and brands that are not only innovative and different but counter to our thinking.  That may include cutting out benefits that we naturally assume are necessary, but may just be redundant. I wonder if George would go for the vanilla tart or caramel latte?