A question we get asked from time to time is whether we allow partners to own a topic of conversation exclusively.
It’s not an unreasonable question. Instinctively, you might expect being the only voice in the room talking on a particular topic would improve the chances of your message being heard above your competitors, and in marketing terms that’s gold.
But here’s the thing. Unlike advertising, where category exclusivity is common, a conversation isn’t a one-way monologue where you broadcast your message to a passive audience. A conversation is a multi-directional dialogue where the participants engage and respond.
And paradoxically, being the only voice in the room on a particular topic can actually diminish the effectiveness of your communication – because people won’t even come to the room in the first place.
Being the only conversation in the room is pointless if the room is empty.
To understand why, it’s necessary to understand what Silicon Valley, South African winemakers, and American High Jumper Dick Fosbury all have in common.
Knowledge Spillover and the Fosbury Flop
From the sporting world, one of the more inspiring stories is that of Dick Fosbury. In the 1960s, the aspiring high jumper had a major problem, he simply couldn’t clear the bar using the traditional ‘scissor’ method.
His solution was to pioneer a radical new approach – one which was ridiculed at the time. His approach was to turn away from the bar and then ‘flop’ himself over backwards, arching his back as he cleared the bar.
So successful was this technique, in 1968, he set a new Olympic record and claimed gold.
But rather than keep his secret new technique for himself, he openly shared his knowledge and experiences with other high jumpers, leading not only to widespread adoption but also improved performance levels across the entire sport. His technique, unconventional at the time, is now the standard method.
The knowledge spillover from Fosbury’s innovation had a transformative effect, and paved the way for athletes to soar to new heights (quite literally).
Competitor collaboration grows the market for all
Last year I was fortunate enough to spend time in South Africa, launching Ensombl in our first international market.
While I was there, I had the opportunity to spend some time with winegrowers from the absolutely-stunning Stellenbosch region. South Africa produces excellent wines, but despite their quality they don’t quite garner the same interest as French, or Australian, or Californian wines.
While they are all competing for the same consumer, these wine producers openly collaborate with each other on all aspects of their business, including grape growing, fermentation, and marketing and distribution. They share their knowledge and their experiences, knowing if they all become better at what they do, and produce better wine, it will continue to lift the overall quality of the wine and the reputation of their region as winemakers – meaning they will all be better off, and so will wine drinkers!
Silicon Valley
Silicon Valley is an outstanding example of knowledge spillover in the technology space. A collaborative culture is strong in the Valley, and the sharing of ideas, best practices, and even talent, between different firms has spurred countless innovations which have reshaped our lives.
The concept of Open Source (in software) started as a technological approach, but now can be thought of as a philosophy applicable to many different sectors and situations. It’s an approach that can foster a learning culture, and drive innovation, cost efficiency, and collaboration.
Allowing others to build on a base of knowledge in a way that accelerates learning and leads to improved outcomes for all may have once seemed a strange concept – it means giving away your IP after all – but is now recognised as a methodology that can benefit everyone, including the consumer, and as a result we regularly see ground-breaking knowledge spillovers occurring in healthcare and medical science, academia, and of course business.
Conversely, those who resist knowledge spillovers risk falling behind and becoming obsolete.
What advisors want to see and hear
Bringing this all back to where we started, I think there is a clear parallel between the concepts of knowledge spillover and open source, and the way advisors want to engage with their peers, and with product and service providers.
Knowledge sharing is central to the ethos of the Ensombl platform, and it is this ethos that has propelled its growth. The thousands of conversations and engagements taking place across the platform are all based around members sharing their challenges, and other members sharing their experiences and solutions. This sharing extends to learned experiences, IT recommendations, technical knowledge and even document templates and fee schedules. Every member wants every other member to get better, knowing the better each other becomes, the more the reputation of advice improves, and the more people will get advice, and this truly is a win-win.
Advisors expect the same ethos from providers.
If I had to distil all this down to a few key points, I’d say the benefits of having multiple voices in a conversation include these:
- It can give prominence to important topics that are perhaps new or misunderstood
- Advisors want and expect multiple perspectives on topics
- This need for multiple perspectives means it is always easy for providers to find their own unique angle within a broader conversation
- It signifies a collaborative approach which shows your genuine altruism towards the betterment of advice
- It can create the above-mentioned knowledge spillover – a rising tide lifts all boats!
Distilling it down even further, it means more people are likely to show up to the room. Because like I said earlier, being the only voice in the room is pointless if no one is in the room to begin with.
For more insights on how to engage time-poor advisors, feel free to reply to this email, or reach out to me at Emily@ensombl.com
More from Emily Jenkins
