Don’t let your brand go LeBron

In case you missed it, last week NBA superstar and Cleveland-area native LeBron James elected to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers in favor of the Miami Heat. He announced his decision midway through an hour long, nationally televised special conceived by his team of personal advisers. It all came across as incredibly self-absorbed and spectacularly anti-fan as he essentially broke up with Cavaliers fans in front of a national audience. He repeatedly referred to his decision as being about “business” and hoped his fans would understand.

But they didn’t understand.

When shown an image of fans burning his jersey, James seemed temporarily startled before stating that he couldn’t “get involved in that.” His Sports Q rating, which determines an athlete’s popularity and advertisers use to determine whom to endorse , was the highest in the NBA pre-announcement, but it’s sure to take a hit now. In fact, this post calculates a drop in Q score could cost him as much as $150 million.

But what does this all have to do with retail?

I think there’s a lesson we can all learn about dangers of making business decisions without fully considering the effects of those decisions on our customers. After all, our businesses wouldn’t exist without our customers, and we continue operations at their pleasure.

We’ve probably all been in those meetings where a suggestion motivated by self-interest groupthinks its way into a spectacularly anti-customer business decision. I imagine that’s the type of meeting that occurred with LeBron and team when they hatched the national TV special idea.

A retailer colleague of mine recently told me a story of such a session at his company. The head of the call center was complaining about volume spikes that kept hitting the call center. Her call center operations were deemed a cost center, so the metrics she used to measure her operation were all cost related. These spikes in volume were jacking up her costs, and she was making a lot of noise about it. My colleague noted the spikes in volume were following promotional email blasts that were widely considered very popular because they drove a lot of sales. No one would even consider stopping those emails, so the group began to latch on to the idea that they simply close the call center on days when the promotional email went out. Seriously. Luckily, my colleague was able to pull the group back from the brink and save them from going LeBron. But it was close.

We have to be careful that we don’t get so caught up in our own perspectives that we lose sight of our customers’ perspectives. Because we have direct control over the experience we provide, it’s sometimes easy to let that control be dominated by our own needs without considering the needs of our customers. When that happens, we’re seriously in danger of going LeBron.

Consider a few potential scenarios:

Does your company’s loyalty program makes its rewards intentionally difficult to redeem in order to reduce costs? If so, you might be going LeBron.

If your return policies make your job easier while making your customers’ returns a lot more difficult, you might be going LeBron.

If you promote a sale of up to 70% discounts and bury only an item or two at 70% off within a sea of items that are less than 20% off, you might be going LeBron.

If you choose to leave in place an onerous process for customers to check the status of their orders because it saves you time and money, you might be going LeBron.

Whenever our needs get way out of line with our customers’ needs, we’ve got a business problem that could be deadly. We provide products, services and conveniences that our customers value enough to give us their hard earned cash in exchange. But the relationships we have with most of our customers are somewhat fragile. When we make business decisions that are primarily motivated by our own self interests (especially those motivated by some subsection of our businesses and driven by short sighted personal motivation), we risk potentially fatal damage to many of those relationships. We don’t want be caught startled that our customers are burning our jerseys. We don’t want to go LeBron.

Instead, we can best succeed by regularly considering our customers’ needs and desires when making business decisions. Such consideration will help us maximize the customer engagement cycle and lead us to solid and profitable growth.

What do you think? What examples have you seen of companies going LeBron?

The Monkey Cage Sessions

monkey throwingI’ve seen a lot of strategies and “solutions” fail over the years primarily because the solution was crafted before the problem addressed was thoroughly understood.

Many times, the strategy or solution was the result of a brainstorming session filled with type A personalities (me included) ready to make things happen.

You may be familiar with the type of session I’m referencing. Usually, there’s a guru consultant leading the charge. He separates the group into teams and gives them Post-It notes and colored sticker dots. “Write down as many ideas as you can in the next 20 minutes. Don’t think too much. Be creative! No idea is dumb. Stick your ideas on the wall. Now go!” After 20 minutes, a leader from each group presents their best ideas to the rest of the room. Then each person in the room is allowed to vote for maybe six of his or her favorite ideas using the colored sticker dots. A few people are assigned the winning ideas and off we go.

Those types of session frustrate me. I’m concerned there’s too much action, too many unspoken assumptions, and not nearly enough serious thinking.

Over the years, I’ve developed a problem solving technique that I’ve found to work a lot better. I call it the Monkey Cage Sessions. The technique is all about thoroughly identifying the problems from all angles before developing carefully considered, thoughtful and collaborative solutions.

It’s got an intentionally silly name because the process should be fun.

Here’s how it works:

Step 1 Define the problems.

We start by gathering a group of cross-functional people – ideally from different levels of the organization – together in a room to talk about the problem or problems we’re trying to solve. This could be as simple as enhancing a Careers page on the corporate website or as complicated as building a complete company strategic plan. It’s important to define the general scope of the problem, but it should be defined fairly loosely so as not to stifle the discussion.

The rules of the meeting are fairly simple. We only discuss problems. No solutions. This is a license to bitch. Let it be cathartic.

I usually stand at the whiteboard, marker in hand, and write down everything everyone says. There is no need to be overly structured here, and anything anyone says is legitimate. We throw it all at the wall and we’ll sort it out later.

Sometimes people want to debate whether or not something another person says is really a problem. If someone said it, it’s at least a perceived problem. It’s legitimate. Also, there is often an attempt to offer an explanation for why a problem exists. The explanation is covering for another problem, so that problem should be written down.

People are always tempted to offer solutions, even when they think they’re offering problems. For example, someone might say it’s a problem that we don’t have a content management system. Actually, a content management system might be the solution to a problem. What problem might a content management system solve? Beware of any problem statement that starts with “We need…” and be prepared to break down that need into the problems needing the solution.

Sometimes the problems offered up are very broad and vague. In those cases, it’s important to work with the group to dissect that broad problem into its component parts.

This first session generally uncovers a LOT of problems, but the problem is still usually not completely identified yet. Which leads to…

Step 2 Categorize the problems

While the chaotic approach of the first session works well to get an initial set of problem descriptions, it’s important to create some order in order to prepare for the problem solving stage. So Step 2 involves writing down all of the problems and sorting them into logical categories. I don’t have any pre-determined set of categories. Instead, I prefer to the let the problems listed dictate the categorization.

Step 3 – Widen the circle

We probably have a pretty good description of the problems now, but we’ve also still likely missed some. For Step 3 we send the typed and categorized list of problems to the original group as well as a widened circle of people. The original group will likely have thought of a couple more issues since the day of the meeting, and the new group of people will almost definitely add new problems to the list. Since this is the final stage of problem description, we want to give this step at least a few days to allow the team to think this through as completely as possible.

Step 4 – Develop the solutions

Finally, we can start solving the problems. Woo hoo!

Now it’s time to gather a subset of the original meeting to start working towards solutions. There should be at least a few days between Step 3 and Step 4. We want to give people some time to think over the full problem set. The group should enter the Step 4 meeting with at least some basic solution ideas. There is no need to come into the room with comprehensive solutions that solve every problem on the list, but the solutions considered should certainly attempt to solve as many problems as possible (without causing too many new problems).

I usually find that by this point many of the solutions are fairly obvious. But there should be good discussion about the relative merits of each suggested solution, and the solutions should be measured up against the problem list to determine how comprehensive they are.

I like to end the meeting by assigning people to lead each of the proposed solutions. Obviously, any suggested solution from this session will need to be fleshed out in a lot more detail, and the leader from this meeting is responsible for determining the viability and solution and then potentially leading the development and ultimate execution to completion.

Subsequent progress is then handled via a separate execution process.


I’ve had very good luck over the years using this technique. Some of the primary benefits I’ve found are:

  1. Better understanding of the problems
    As the initial meeting wraps up, most people are inevitably feeling enlightened about the problem. They’ve outwardly expressed their own assumptions (which sometimes even they didn’t know they were making) and they’ve understood the perspectives and assumptions of others. They’ve seen the problem in an entirely new light.
  2. More comprehensive solutions
    The heightened understanding of the problem and the critically important time between steps to allow the team to be more thoughtful in their ideas. Those ideas are usually pretty all-encompassing solutions to start with, but the discussions in Step 4 lead the team to collectively choose the best of the best of the solutions offered.
  3. Better execution
    Solutions are nothing but fancy ideas until they’re executed. And poor execution can cause even the best ideas to fail. The process of fully defining the problems and sharing that work with wide circles of people is an incredibly important stage that sets the foundation for success in execution. When the execution team provides input in the process and understands the basis for the solution, they are far more supportive in the effort. They are also far more prepared to make the daily, detailed decisions that are often the difference between success and failure.

So, that’s the Monkey Cage Sessions. I hope you find it helpful. If you try implementing the process in your business, I’d love to hear how it goes.

What do you think? Would this process work in your organization? Have you ever used a similar process?

Retail: Shaken Not Stirred by Kevin Ertell

Home | About