Aljan de Boer presents the IRG growth study’s work on abundant markets. The starting position is that traditional business growth formulas are lacking and that marketing has been losing influence.
The study behind it draws on more than 750 qualitative interviews, more than 5,000 quantitative responses across markets and functions, an AI analysis of 3,500 growth publications, and behavioral analysis of more than three million LinkedIn members, read as a comparison between overperformers and underperformers.
Key findings
- The claim that the objective is to boost profitable growth is labeled a myth. Everyone focuses on top-line growth, indexing 98 and 93 across the two groups, so it does not distinguish anyone.
- What does differ is where attention goes next. Bottom-line profit as the top growth ambition indexes 85 and 130, and impact on the people served indexes 120 and 76.
- The idea that growth means winning market share from competitors is treated as a second myth. Fifty-five percent against 44 percent focus on increasing market share, while 56 percent of overperformers focus on category growth and beyond against 46 percent.
- The capability gaps are wide. Eighty-six percent against 43 percent assess and understand market developments, and 67 percent against 34 percent can link different data sources to distil insights.
- Time horizon separates the groups too: 63 percent against 29 percent hold a long-term growth focus, and 72 percent against 38 percent stay consistent with big bets.
- Only 40 percent against 13 percent embrace risk and experimentation, which the deck attaches to working differently rather than to strategy.
Two myths about growth
The first myth is that the objective is profitable growth. Everyone says that. Top-line revenue as the number one growth ambition indexes 98 and 93, so it separates nobody. The separation appears underneath it: underperformers land on bottom-line profit, indexing 85 against 130, while overperformers land on impact on people, indexing 120 against 76.
The second myth is that growth means taking share from competitors. More underperformers focus on their slice of the pie, at 55 percent against 44 percent, while overperformers take a more expansive view, with 56 percent against 46 percent focused on category growth and beyond.
What thinking abundantly looks like
The examples are all redefinitions of what business a company is in: creative software becoming total marketing solutions, pet food becoming pet care, and lunch and dinner extending into coffee and breakfast.
The approaches are listed as a ladder. Innovate from the core, enter adjacent categories, expand the target group, add services or experiences to the offering, redefine the market in terms of human needs, and elevate the offering from functional to emotional and societal benefits.
The two directions of travel are from product to service and experience, and from functional to emotional and social. Extension runs off core competencies and into adjacent categories, with a caution attached.
Building the skill
Spotting and riding the right wave rests on assessing and understanding market developments, where the gap is 86 percent against 43 percent. Having one version of the truth for everyone depends on linking different data sources to distil insights, at 67 percent against 34 percent.
The behavioral half is about commitment. Overperformers make a bet about the future, with 63 percent against 29 percent holding a long-term growth focus, and then stick with it, with 72 percent against 38 percent consistent on big bets. The supporting habits are hiring differently, listening differently, watching differently and working differently, where embracing risk and experimentation runs 40 percent against 13 percent.
The progression, and three actions
The checklist runs from a product-based market definition to a future needs-based one, from ad hoc trend presentations to a systemic approach that aligns investment with the size and shape of future demand, and from traditional usage and attitude studies to AI-based social watching, tension mining and friction identification.
The last move on the checklist is organizational: from ad hoc, unaligned initiative overkill to embedding one vision of the future across the company.
The three actions are stated plainly. Define compelling growth platforms that guide everything the business does and stop everything else. Define your market so you have no more than 3 percent share. Shift investment from explaining the past to predicting the future.
The point of the redefinition is not scale for its own sake. It sits inside the humanized growth equation, where colleague value, customer value, community value and capital market value are multiplied together.
Scope and limitations
All comparisons are between overperformers and underperformers as the IRG Growth Study defines them, over a base of more than 750 qualitative interviews and more than 5,000 quantitative responses. The deck does not state the definition.
Source
This page summarises Why and how marketers drive innovation for all stakeholders, by Aljan de Boer, December 2021.