November 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Website

MBM Principal Sources

Blog powered by Typepad

« Vision(s) | Main | MBM in a Non-MBM world »

25 August 2010

Comments

David McGinnis

I think a roundhouse kick to the face would be classified as a DISincentive. Umm... incentives work.

I would say that Stallone did (and many managers do) miss out on 2 key concepts: Subjective Value and Customer Focus.

The fact that our beloved "Guille" doesn't feel the need to reinvent himself in an "overly patriotic" film for cold hard cash suggests that Van Damme values more than money. Anybody who's ever seen "Knock Off" knows that he didn't turn this down to avoid looking silly. But he probably did want to get something out of the deal that money wouldn't fulfill.

I'm not totally convinced that this falls under Customer Focus because I've always had trouble defining WHO the customer is, but for the sake of argument, I bet if Rambo had anticipated and satisfied the "needs" of this Universal Soldier, he could have turned him into a mercenary. (even if the armed conflict IS staged).

so Mike, is it worth the price of admission?

Mike Rupert

I think you are dead on when bringing in subjective value. I suspect that many managers miss the notion that what motivates person "A" can be very different from person "B." Sometimes even to the extent that applying A's motivators to B may lead to demotivation. I think it's important to recognize that there may be a number of financial and non-financial incentives that can have a positive impact on increased value creation and bolstering fulfillment.

As for Customer Focus, I'm with you that it can be difficult to identify who the customer is. For example in non-profits, there is a tendency to view donors as either customers (consumers of the outputs of non-profits) or investors (individuals interested in seeing long-term results.) Which way you see your donors may impact how your organization operates.

Regardless, I think an easy customer for Stallone to have focused on would of been the end consumer. If he believed (rightly so in my humble opinion,) that audiences would value seeing Jean-Claude participate in the film, then he might have taken greater care to understand Van Damme's subjective values so that the final product (the film in this case) had the qualities that the end consumer desired (Van Damme delivering said roundhouse kick.)

As for being worth the money, I actually got to see it at the advanced press screening for free. So it was definitely worth the price of admission.

Jonny B

I just appreciate a post by "That Guy". Way to go Rupert. Especially tying it all into Van Damme.

The comments to this entry are closed.