TechnoBrands

I love to watch the CBC show “Dragon’s Den” (based on a BBC show of the same name). Having had some experience with small technology companies that have great ideas and no money, I can empathize with the inventors and entrepreneurs that stand in front of this group of harsh-but-brilliant angel investors and present their best business case. In the episode I watched last night though, I was a bit shocked to hear Kevin O’Leary argue that the “only thing that counts is profit”. This is coming from a guy that calls himself an “Eco-preneur” and clearly practices ecologically sustainable profitability first, rather than a no-holds-barred “profit at any cost” approach. As usual I think he was probably trying to be controversial for the cameras, trying to stir a fight with Arlene Dickinson, one of the other “dragons”. The reason I bring this up is that it is key to where I believe we need to go as a marketing and product management community: we need to be using metrics based on the sustainability of a business for evaluating success. Monetary profit is only one element (albeit an important one) of the measure of a product line’s real success. I would argue that, even in the name of pure capitalism, it makes sense to extend beyond the profitability-only model and to use a balanced score card to measure the success of any venture (and its associated products), in terms of economic, environmental and social benefit to all stakeholders. Economic This is the “normal” Harvard Business School and Bay Street measure of success – cold, hard return on investment. Easy to simplify, measure and provide great motivation (if there is no profit, your family will eventually go hungry and be very cold) this is the classic measure of success for most products. The biggest problem with this measure is that it is often the only measure used – it is not weighed out against and balanced against environmental and social measures. Environmental It is becoming easier to justify environmental responsibility from an economic point-of-view. Many investors will not provide cash for an enterprise that is not “eco-friendly” and government environmental regulators are cracking down hard on companies that violate existing eco- policies. In the same way that radiated emissions compliance has just become part of baseline product development practice, RoHS and WEEE considerations will follow. When will it become accepted business practice to purchase carbon offsets for international travel? We have a long way to go. Social This is harder to nail down – who decides what is best for the development of society? Take, for example, the Internet. The number one technological and economic driver for the Internet from the late 80s to mid-90s was pornography. The Internet would not have grown into the ubiquitous instrument of economic and social change that it is today without the desire to be able to download streaming video. If we temper our investment in products only for those that are for the good of mankind (with some set of moral filters), will we undermine the development of something that will change the world? We need to take a step back and ask ourselves what we really want to achieve with respect to product success. Do we just want to make as much money as possible in the shortest time at the cost of anything else? Or do we want to make the entire world a better place to live for our children and their children after them?