No individual person should have a problem that bothers them when they wake up, go to sleep, or at any time during their day.
No business person should waste time on low-return activities that leave them frustrated.
The current system is broken in the primitive way that it tries to match people up with those that can help them – both personally and in business.
Here I explore the current norms, why they’re inefficient, and the solution that solves pain while generating huge revenues from a low-cost model for businesses …
Solving business pain
Businesses, particularly smaller businesses, tend to have more capacity available than customers to fill that capacity.
They undertake various activities to market themselves to potential customers, most of which have limited success.
Here are some examples …
Business networking (online and offline)
1-2 hours networking (online or offline) with other businesses, hoping to build trust and to gain business from others within the networking, or those people that they know.
Where this works: over time, some business can be gained from that time investment.
Where this fails: the overall time spent on all networking will rarely translate to business that makes all that time worthwhile. The opportunity cost is the time that could have been spent in better ways. Few networkers are able to demonstrate that the total time spent on networking equated to profitable business being gained.
Paid advertising
Whatever form of paid advertising it takes (e.g. Google Ads, printed media, radio), the return on investment will often be weak for these reasons:
- The advertising drives people to resources (often the business website) that are too weak to convert the initial interest to an enquiry being made.
- The advertising is set up inefficiently so that it attracts the wrong types of visitors. This is very common in online advertising such as Google Ads.
- The advertising is not set up so that enquiries can be linked back to the source of advertising. This means that the business does not have a clear picture of which form of paid advertising worked.
- The timing is wrong. For example, a radio advert or letter received in the post is a poor match for what the audience needs solving at that moment in time.
Where this works: for some businesses, the cost of the paid advertising can be covered by just a small percentage of the advertising leading to business. It also works because some forms of paid advertising are in the right place at the right time (when the potential buyer is actively looking for a solution).
Where this fails: a lack of thought about the outcomes from the advertising result in the majority of budget being wasted. It also relies on people being active within the media where the advertising is visible.
Speculative marketing
Speculative marketing can take a range of forms, typically relying on active outreach to those who could be potential customers, but who have not actively searched for the solution being offered.
A common example is telemarketing, which is a numbers game of a small percentage of call recipients who will buy into deeper dialogue than the initial sales calls.
Other forms of speculative marketing including aspects of paid advertising. For example, paid adverts on Facebook or towards specified LinkedIn profiles who may be in the market for what’s on offer.
Email marketing is another form of speculative marketing, targeting a list, out of which some recipients may be responsive at that time.
Where this works: in the minority of cases, the speculative marketing will achieve some interest. A minority of email marketing recipients may want to engage. One in hundreds of telemarketing recipients may be positively responsive. Some people seeing speculative marketing online will react positively to it.
Where this fails: for the majority of recipients, the timing will be wrong. At the time of the marketing, they have no interest in what’s on offer.
The examples above are just a few of the more common ways that businesses attempt to gain new customers.
Some of those methods enable them to be ‘in the right place at the right time’ when a potential buyer is in the market for what’s on offer, but the results overall will be a low conversion rate because the timing is not right.
Solving human pain
Whether the human wants to solve a business-related pain, or a personal-related pain, they will be looking for a solution that is sometimes hard and time-consuming to find.
Whether for business or personal, humans will use these methods to try and solve their pain point:
- Asking other people (via personal or business networks) to see if they can help.
- Researching online (typically, via an initial Google search).
Here I cover why both of these bring their own challenges and inefficiencies …
Asking other people
Personal pain problems
Where this works: some personal pain problems can be easily shared with others, who will have personal recommendations. For example, a need to find a new hairdresser or to find a reliable car mechanic who won’t rip them off.
Where this fails: some personal pain problems can’t be easily shared with others. For example, someone has relationship problems, or a debt problem, or they are overweight but don’t want to share that with others.
Business pain problems
Where this works: online or offline engagement with others in a business setting (for example, on LinkedIn, or an online networking meeting) can answer problems that can be easily shared. For example, finding someone who can help with an IT problem, or getting recommendations for a good website developer.
Where this fails: many types of business problems are not those that can be openly shared beyond a trusted 1 to 1 conversation. For example, a business may have debt problems that it doesn’t want everyone to be aware of, or there is overwhelm within someone working for the business and they are looking for answers.
Researching online
Personal pain problems
Where this works: a Google search can sometimes unveil resources that will help with the problem. That can be as simple as a hairdresser that has brilliant reviews online, through to finding resources that help with a debt problem.
Where this fails: research can be very time-consuming and sometimes doesn’t generate the required answers. It’s not such a problem with something simple (e.g. finding a recommended hairdresser) but is a problem with bigger pain problems. Quite often, the person ends up in a position where they have to provide their contact details to engage further with those who can help them, but they are not yet at the point where enough trust has been built. For example, they may have found a website that provides some advice about debt problems, but the next step is to provide their contact details to have a more detailed discussion.
Ideally, the person with a pain problem is looking for is a safe and anonymous way to share their specific problem and then to be presented with a range of options to consider, before deciding to engage with one solution provider.
Business pain problems
Where this works: a Google search can sometimes lead to resources that have done a brilliant job of inspiring enough confidence to make contact with the business offering solutions.
Where this fails: there’s usually not a clear answer to the problem. There may be a range of options to dig deeper into, and very few websites provide the assurances that they will solve the pain problem. There can be a reluctance to make contact with a website if there are doubts about the efficacy of the solution, and whether it will generate a return on investment. An additional failure is that it takes extensive time to undertake the research. One example is the business person who is looking to gain more enquiries from their website visitors. They will be faced with some websites that offer new websites and others that offer marketing services, but they won’t know for sure which is the right solution, and they don’t want to make contact because it will be time-consuming to deal with several potential providers, and they also don’t want to be sold to.
What the business person with a pain problem is ideally looking for is a safe and anonymous way to share their specific problem and then to be presented with a range of options to consider, before deciding to engage with one solution provider.
The proposed solution to human and business pain
Humans (both personally and in business) find it hard to find answers to the pain points that are eating away at them. They may also sometimes want to feel anonymous in their search until a position of trust is built.
Providers of solutions (typically businesses) spend too much time/money on making themselves visible but are often pushing against closed doors.
The solution is to solve both of the above at the same time – to efficiently bridge the gap between real-time challenges and those who can potentially solve those challenges.
Scenario 1 – a business problem
Joe Bloggs (within a business) is worried about their cashflow, but they don’t want everyone to know about their problem.
They go to Ineed (working title), which is an app/website that they can log into with a profile that keeps them anonymous (their real email and name are protected).
They describe their problem, which may or may not include tags related to the problem. For example:
My business has suffered during Covid and we owe £20,000 in taxes and are unsure if we will get through the next 3 months. We manufacture metal widgets and serve a worldwide customer base.
Tags: cashflow, tax problem, manufacturer
They would also include the geographical locations of who they would like to deal with. For example, worldwide, UK-wide, Kent only, or CT postcode area and 20 mile radius.
The system (Ineed) would then match their need with potential suppliers on the database (that has been built prior to launch so that there are plenty of potential suppliers who can respond).
Matched suppliers would receive an instant email of the anonymous request and would respond via the Ineed platform. At this stage the potential suppliers are identifiable but Joe Bloggs in the business is not (although the system would clarify that they are a genuine business with a profile that is currently hidden, rather than a competitor trying to get free information from other competitors).
Each matched supplier would supply a response via the system.
Joe Bloggs receives 4 responses, summarised as follows …
Supplier 1 (an insolvency firm) says they help businesses to shut down and start up again, providing a link to their website that explains the process.
Supplier 2 (an accountant) provides a link to a resource on their website that helps to dig deeper into the cashflow shortfall, resulting in an opportunity to engage further, based on that outcome.
Supplier 3 (another accountant) provides a link to several relevant examples of similar scenarios they’ve helped with in the past, designed to show that they get results.
Supplier 4 (a website development company) provides a link to a case study where they had a manufacturing sector client who sold internationally, but their website didn’t provide enough evidence of that. The website development work enabled the business to gain more enquiries, which boosted their revenues.
Joe (who is still anonymous) rejects supplier 1 and 2 but wants more dialogue with suppliers 3 and 4, which he does via the Ineed platform.
Joe gets to the point where he is ready to engage with one of the suppliers and at that point shares his real identity with the supplier that he feels most confident with. He doesn’t yet reject the other supplier but keeps them ‘pending’ (in case he wants to return to their proposed solution).
Joe should have found the solution to his problem, having refined down his options, then choosing to remove his anonymity to the supplier that he has built trust in. Joe (who has benefited from the service that he has benefited from) is then obliged to do the following:
- Provide (anonymously) feedback to those who weren’t successful (explaining why he chose who he chose). This enables those suppliers to evolve the way they present themselves in the future.
- Grade the quality of outcome from the chosen supplier in the short-term and also longer term (they would be reminded by the Ineed system months into the future), to ensure that the result was long-term beneficial.
The gradings/feedback referred to above would be used as part of the ongoing algorithm of keeping suppliers within the Ineed infrastructure, or removing them (to ensure ongoing quality of service).
Scenario 2 – a personal problem
Jane Smith has a relationship problem with her husband, but they don’t want everyone to know about their problem.
She goes to Ineed (working title), which is an app/website that they can log into with a profile that keeps her anonymous (her real email and name is protected).
She describes her problem, which may or may not include tags related to the problem. For example:
I have been married for 5 years, have three children, and my relationship with my husband is poor. We have all been going through a lot of stress with Covid, our work, and a child with special needs. We are in a very different place now to where we were years ago and we are just existing. I don’t want to divorce my husband as I think there is something worth saving, but just don’t know what to do next.
Tags: marriage problem, relationship problem
She includes a geographical location of her postcode CT only, but also ticks a box to say she would consider input from UK-wide if a solution could be delivered remotely.
The Ineed system matches her need with potential suppliers on the database.
Matched suppliers would receive an instant email of the anonymous request and would respond via the Ineed platform. At this stage the potential suppliers are identifiable but Jane Smith is not (although the system would clarify that she is a genuine person in that geographical location, with a profile that is currently hidden).
Each matched supplier would supply a response.
Jane Smith receives 3 responses, summarised as follows …
Supplier 1 (marriage guidance counsellor) says they run sessions in her area, include the pricing, plus a link to their website explaining how it works.
Supplier 2 (marriage guidance counsellor) provides a link to several relevant examples of similar scenarios they’ve helped with in the past, designed to show the positive outcomes (as well as some of the negative ones), plus a link to their website that explains pricing and how it works.
Supplier 3 (marriage guidance counsellor outside her geographical area) provides a link to a resource on their website that helps to dig deeper into specific problems, creating a ‘score’ and suggested next steps (that include an initial free phone session and pricing if continuing afterwards).
Jane (who is still anonymous) rejects supplier 1 but is interested in suppliers 2 and 3. She tags supplier 2 as ‘interesting’ (which the supplier would see, telling them that they have raised interest by what they offered) but initially wants to utilise what supplier 3 offers (even though outside her geographical area).
Jane is now at the point where she is ready to engage more with supplier 3 and at that point doesn’t need to share her real identity because she is able to (anonymously) utilise their website resource. She doesn’t yet reject supplier 2 but keeps them ‘pending’ (in case she wants to return to their solution).
Jane decides that she liked what she saw with supplier 3 but then decides to look at the website of supplier 2.
In the end, Jane decides to have the free phone session with supplier 3 (at which time she chooses not to be anonymous to them anymore), but she is still open to engaging with supplier 2 if she doesn’t feel right about the outcome from supplier 2.
Jane will (at a pace that matches her timescales) have found the solution to her problem, having refined down her options. She is then obliged to do the following:
- Provide (anonymous) feedback to those who weren’t successful (explaining why she chose who she chose). This enables those suppliers to evolve the way they present themselves in the future.
- Grade the quality of outcome from the chosen supplier in the short-term and also longer term (they would be reminded by the Ineed system months into the future), to ensure that the result was long-term beneficial.
The gradings/feedback referred to above would be used as part of the ongoing algorithm of keeping suppliers within the Ineed infrastructure, or removing them (to ensure ongoing quality of service).
The business model
The (Ineed) system is available free to all those looking for a solution to their pain point (whether business or personal).
It’s also free for businesses, up to a specified point. For example, they may have got to the point where:
- They have been able to respond to 5 (suggested number at this stage) needs for free.
- They have either had a positive outcome, or they have had feedback about their responses that enables them to refine their offering in order to get more success in the future.
Businesses would then be charged a low rate (estimated in the region of £20-50 – or equivalent currencies worldwide – per month) to continue to receive ‘leads’.
There could be an alternative ‘per lead’ rate offered instead of a monthly fee.
The model is designed to be scalable to numerous countries worldwide and the targeted outcome would be to gain 1% of all small to medium-sized businesses as paying members.
The expectations of positive outcomes (beyond purely revenue) from this model would be these …
- Businesses would spend more time on perfecting their offering (to those who have needs to resolve), rather than wasting it on activities that gain low results (e.g. spend an hour perfecting their content instead of an online networking call).
- Those businesses who gain success from the system will prosper more than their peers who are stuck in outdated ways of generating business (for example, networking or speculative marketing).
- Popularity of the system would grow via the positivity (including social sharing) of those who use it to fast track a range of potential answers to the problems they have, working within a system that protects their identity until they are confident in the potential supplier.
- The system would become a significant alternative to ‘Google it!’, due to its stronger ability to match real-time (and sometimes necessarily initially anonymous) needs with those who can help, and who will prove their worth as a potential supplier.
Minimum viable product
The minimum viable product (MVP) to launch Ineed (working title) would incorporate:
- Core system/database structure that allows both individuals and businesses to utilise the platform (initially for free).
- Pre-population of the database with all small to medium sized businesses within the pilot geographical city.
- Marketing infrastructure to attract the pilot area businesses to claim their listings and actively respond to potential buyers.
- Marketing infrastructure to ensure high awareness/uptake within those people within the pilot geographical city (both for business and personal needs).
The expectations from the MVP would be to demonstrate the scope of the uptake (from both those with real-time needs and those businesses that can serve those needs) within the pilot geographical city, then enabling rapid scaling (via further investment) to other locations, both within the UK and worldwide.