Reading Right to Left in Segmentation

Doing things backwards rarely makes sense. Usually it means undergoing a task directly opposite to standard practice. There are many parallels in the scientific community that led to breakthroughs by turning conventional theory on its head. It often involves re-ordering an established stepped process, resulting in a markedly different outcome. The same concept can be applied when one looks at segmentation in the business/disability space.

Typically in marketing, one first buckets a population into homogeneous groups to speak to their common experience. Soccer moms, NASCAR dads and baby boomers are excellent examples as they all have a set of common experience that can be targeted. Marketers tend to drill down to the smallest segments, bundling these segments as appropriate to attain efficiencies along the way. When composing a message the first question one asks is, who is the audience, and how can I speak to them as directly as possible?

Disability is a little different. The typical approach is to segment based on medical diagnosis, which has been the bastion of charities and health-related businesses. As we have previously suggested, the ‘holy-grail’ in business/disability is to bond the entire disability market to a common lifestyle brand. Let’s envision the 1.1 billion person disability market at the core of three concentric circles, a bull’s eye if you will. Immediately surrounding that core, are the stakeholders in disability – family, friends, employers etc. This group understands disability and is swayed by things that marketers do to address the disability market. This group unto itself has a potential size of 2 billion people globally. Finally, in our outer ring of the ‘bull’s eye’, is the broader market. The broader market is made up of the 3+ billion people on the planet that define pop culture, societal norms and the general limits prior to which revolts take place.

Disability currently has a poor standing in the brand library of the broader market. The approach to date has been to target the center of the bull’s eye directly, speaking directly to specific conditions and only those conditions. The real hay to be made in business/disability is to start with the broader market by trotting out a positive brand/twist on disability. Taking the notion that most PWD don’t define themselves as disabled, going to them with a direct disability message falls flat on its face. A more subtle approach is required.

If you sell the broader market, the stakeholders and PWD will follow. This statement simply says that what is most important to Jane Q Public, is also important to PWD and Stakeholders. All one has to do is find a way to connect disability to it. By defining disability in terms of pop culture and mainstream desire, we start to relate to its context. How many people with disabilities (or anyone else) can relate to a one-legged skier hurdling down a mountain? Last time I checked, disabled sports weren’t anywhere near Nielson’s top ten rated shows. Yet this is the imagery used in the disability space. Now, if you put Simon Cowell’s butt in a wheelchair with Christina Aguilera on his lap belting out ‘Ain’t no other man’, you’re in the right ballpark.

You are telling your market base, “Hey, this is how we include our Customers with Disabilities. You should too”…without actually saying the words. It’s got to be bold, it’s got to be jarring and it’s got to be so positive that even Walt Disney himself would scratch his head. It must center on what everyone desires or denotes important, not just people with disabilities. If you are successful in getting the broader market to open a door to PWD, the other two parts of the ‘bull’s eye’ will follow.

Organizations have been approaching PWD and their stakeholders as a foreign market that has nothing in common with the rest of society, akin to how one would pitch Marvin the Martian. The average American male with a disability likes football, wants to date (at least) a Cowboys cheerleader and probably eats too much red meat. If your firm can put a disability twist on Peyton Manning hugging a cheerleader while eating a cheeseburger, you’ll sell more product to all three bands of the ‘bull’s eye’…at least amongst men.

Marketers currently message on disability using as sledge-hammer. That may work if you’re selling pills and canes, but some subtle scalpel dancing is needed in every other product/service group. Direct messaging is proven a turn-off to PWD, and is risky with their stakeholders. By integrating a disability message in the broader market, the target group follows. While backwards to convention, this approach propels your firm forward.

Musings on the Future of Disability

Predicting the future is a mugs game. Unless your name is really Madame Zelda, and your crystal ball is set on vague to attract the after-bar crowd, future tellers should keep their thoughts to themselves. That said, educated forecasting is a critical element to charting a path forward. One must have a hypothesis, based in tested observation, to put in place smart goals that achieve continued success. As we look to what will be the future of disability, what changes and what will drive those changes.

Before we look at what is to come, let us first review where we are. Some will tell you that disability now follows a ‘civil rights’ model. This would denote that disability is seen amongst the population on par with economic, legal and PR efforts of the women’s and racial equality movements of the 60s and 70s. The folks that assert that this model is an appropriate description of where disability is today are too close to trying to make that happen; they are lawyers, politicians and non-profits working their tails off to make equality in society occur. The reality is, disability is firmly rooted in the ‘medical’ model, where doctors define language, desires and market wide goals. The ‘civil rights’ model came out of legitimate frustration with the ‘medical’ model where the overwhelming majority of people with disabilities did not want their futures defined by diagnosis or a medical file.

This has all taken place outside of the public eye. Evidence of this abounds. An excellent example of medical branding vs civil rights branding rests in recent Autism Awareness campaigns. Put bluntly, these campaigns are based in fear. They are designed to scare the crap out of expecting parents and the general public, in order to raise money and awareness. Their message is simple, you do not want your kid to get Autism, it’s akin to a death sentence. A medical definition of what is ‘normal’ guides this strategy at its core. This author makes a Joe Nameth guarantee that no people with disabilities were at that table when these campaigns were born. Can you imagine an ad campaign pointing out the downsides of being female or African-American? There would be riots in the streets. An accurate description of this effort is a scorched earth policy. You may reach your goal, but at what cost? The simple existence of these campaigns is telling; the ‘medical’ model still dominates.

To get to the next step, beyond mere awareness to inclusion, a new model is required. Given that government makes up a mere 20% of our society, as denoted by GDP involvement, let’s make the logical assertion that legislation will not do the trick. A ‘market’ model is the route that delivers on three core needs of all people; a) explicit inclusion in the workforce(and the requisite income/esteem that comes with it), b) explicit inclusion in the customer base(and the satisfaction of desires that come with that), and as a result of a) & b) a positive brand in the eyes of society.

Here is the fun part…this is easy to do. The business case is there. Economic entities who engage in a) & b) above will make outsized profits in the near term and grow markets to be harvested in the long-term. There is no need for the ‘Disability Fairy’ to wave her magic wand through legislation; all that’s needed is a sound plan and dogmatic execution. This is not a niche market. It’s 1.1 billion people globally, 74% of which have invisible disabilities. They use toasters, drive cars and take their families on vacation. She wears dresses above the knee, buys his deodorant, and follows Maslow’s hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg) just like everyone else. While the government spends it’s time focusing on the bottom two rungs, this market is starving for a little belonging, esteem and self-actualization.

Author’s self-indulgent note – Apparently Abraham Maslow was quoted saying “the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple”. I’m really enjoying the irony here, on many levels. Yo,, Abe…kiss my butt, and thanks for proving my point in an eloquent, ivory tower manner.

The challenge before us is to refocus on the private sector, partnering with the allocators of economic factors to drive disability to its place in an inclusive marketplace. There is a predictable, measurable, and best of all, realistic path to achieving this goal. Working with corporations in executing an emerging market strategy over 5 to 10 years is a leap forward from the quick-sand quagmire that currently surrounds disability.

Seeing past tomorrow is a real challenge for most. They are understandably tied to what they see around them, tempted to tinker rather than build. By following other successes in the Inclusion space and shaking off the legacies of the ‘medical’ model, disability takes up the position that its demographics suggest. Relying on proven empty promises is no longer acceptable, and can be compared to following a palm reading strategy when you’re 12 years old, versus the proven path of education and hard work. Fancy illusions are no longer enough.

Market Coverage of Disability

When a hungry man faces a feast, where does he start? Abundance, both in terms of types and volume of edibles, can cause some difficult decision making. A quick decision can lead to missing glaring opportunities. Taking one’s sweet time prolongs hunger and risks spoilage. A similar situation exists when one looks at the vast expanse that disability covers in terms of market desires. It isn’t just pills and wheelchairs, people with disabilities drive demand in every sector of the economy, and every firm within those sectors has a material growth opportunity within easy reach.

People with disabilities buy stuff, lots of stuff. This author estimates that annual global disposable income controlled by PWD is in excess of $1 trillion (based on US Census extrapolation). Consumer Goods companies need to pay attention to a market of that size. The big players in this sector are best positioned to access these consumers first. Beauty products, food/beverages, apparel, autos and home goods are included in this sector. Most of these areas are highly competitive with relatively low switching costs between different brands. Reaching out to a market like disability adds to a consumer base from the PWD segment specifically and the broader market in general.

As this market comes online in the next 10 to 20 years, it requires various types of infrastructures to be built. The financial sector has been focusing on the relatively small win in ‘Special Needs’ financial solutions, services like trusts and estates planning, driven mostly by stakeholders(care-takers) of PWD. The real opportunity ahead for firms in the financial sector is to play its historical role as the efficient arbiter of capital as entrepreneurs take positions to serve the PWD market. All industries will have significant capital needs as they strive to satiate business/disability demands. This author sees disability as the next environment/green movement, and financials will play a similar role in sorting winning allocations of capital vs. those destined for bankruptcy court.

Health Care. You may think this obvious, but this is this most mature area of the business/disability space. It is also where the ‘fat & happy’ reside. Government funding, patents, high barriers to entry make the health care sector disability’s equivalent to the domestic auto sector. Mature products and stable margins make this sector a target for unbridled innovation and the gumption of a true value investor, willing to toss out tired, established models, cut costs and extend maturing product cycles. It is the area in the most need of demolition, as poor models need serious turn-around actors to unravel and rebuild.

Let’s take a walk past the storefronts of Main Street, and look at the Services sector. First task…it costs you $200 in Quickcrete to eliminate the single step to your store. Simple, no? All you need is 4 new customers using a stroller, wheelchair or the inanely clumsy to pay off your investment. Oh, did I mention it can be counted against revenue, so it’s really only $150 to open your door to 250mm new customers with alternate ways of getting around the world. This industry can follow the same logic as the Consumer Goods sector by making one time investments to access 1 in 5 consumers and over $1 trillion in annual disposable income. The interface with the client is of prime interest here, and tools like the internet can not only reach out to PWD, but access the broader market as well. Media, travel conduits, hotels and restaurants have significant leverage to capitalize on here, as it does not take a large capital infusion to have significant impact on their top lines. That means that margin expanding activities are well within reach.

Technology, the great equalizer. Whether it’s hardware or software, technology is at the core of productivity gains, disability or no disability. This author can remember testing voice recognition software in the early eighties as it was developed for those of us who cannot write. That same technology is now used by my four-year-old niece as she belts out Hanna Montana into her Nintendo Wii. Productivity gains and their offshoots have direct marketing appeal to the PWD market, their stakeholders and the broader market. That puts tech firms at the head of the pack when it comes to the disability space being at the core of their business.

Industrial Goods, Utilities and Basic Materials have one thing in common, they sell commodities. As Jack Welch, former Chairman of GE likes to say, “Differentiation is a critical component of success”. Gas is gas, whether it’s Chevron or BP. BP is a good example of attempted differentiation by branding itself as the ‘green’ gas firm. The same can apply to the disability market. Texaco has a sign on their gas pumps in Maryland, requesting that PWD honk twice for assistance at their self-serve stations. Guess where this author fills his tanks now? This should be a no brainer for these firms starving for a way to change from a white spot on a white wall.

In this quick trip, one can see how, and where, disability plays a material role in every aspect of the economy. Warren Buffet, the world’s best known value investor, made buying rich opportunity cheap a movement and an art form. It’s called value investing. Even in Mr. Buffett’s wildest dreams he has not seen opportunity like this. Growth hungry firms need to step up to the feast before the table is bare.

Reflecting the Market in the Workforce

Chicken or the egg? Yes, it is a children’s game meant to perplex. It pre-supposes that one preceded the other. The answer of course is simple, yet the question has become the inane focus. The same is true when we look at raising the involvement of people with disabilities in the workforce. The answer is simple, but there is a whole industry around studying the question. At the end of the day, an organization must reflect its market in order to understand it and deliver to it.

Let’s assume for a moment that a firm wants to count the 1.1 billion person disability market amongst its customers. Seems to be a rather robust assumption. How does that firm know what the market wants? Yes, the stop-gap method is to engage consultants who carry portable knowledge for hire. In the shorter term, this is a workable solution. In the longer term, firms need agents who have their best interests at heart, and agents who can build legacies through their careers. These employees build both intangible and tangible assets that allow the firm to embrace and serve the market better, while ensuring requisite returns for shareholders. Customers can also see when a firm’s employee base is a reflection of themselves by simple interaction. Is it any surprise that the percentage of female race fans raises when Danika Patrick wins?

There are some existing programs out there, both external and internal, that strive to increase flow of PWD into the workforce. Results can be described as minimal at its charitable best. Even various governments have lost thousands of employees with disabilities over the last few years. So why are they failing? In a word, ghettoization. A few firms have parallel programs by which they go out to source people with disabilities, train them, and actually hire them in quasi-material numbers. They work alongside one another, attend separate social events, and report to supervisors who are outside the business line hierarchy. The only champions the employees have in these firms are the program leaders. This author was even told that each candidate was a “labor of love” by a program leader. A ‘labor of love’? This was one of the largest tech firms in the S&P 500, not the Peace Corps!

This same program leader went on to say that the firm could not retain these employees for even one year because managers ‘didn’t know what to do with them’. Of course they didn’t. The managers were not involved hiring, developing or championing these employees. These programs often seem to follow the ‘Special Ed’ model; segregate, attend to special needs, hit upon basic curriculum, and repeat as needed. This model is deader, and more irrelevant than Carl Marx.

Let’s be clear, these parallel programs are not the same as Diversity & Inclusion recruiting. D&I efforts reach out to talent pools that the firm is not otherwise capturing. Once a candidate is sourced, they are injected into the ‘normal’ recruiting stream. A good comparison would be baseball teams scouting in Japan or the Caribbean. Once the player is found, they enter the farm system to compete for a shot at the Big Leagues. Without the global feeders, these teams would miss out on world-class talent. The ill-fated parallel systems may get the players into minor league line-ups, but they play in Alaska and the coaches never see them hit.

To be successful in building an inclusive workforce that reflects your desired customer base, candidate ownership by line management is the key. For any career to progress, PWD or not, one must be recognized by one’s peers as a leader, or at least competent. In a parallel system, this information does not get disseminated to peers. Disability cannot be a ‘hobby’ for hiring firms, it must be critical to the growth of the firm. Would a hiring manager be thrilled about any ‘parachute candidate’ on her team? Reality is, no. Yet parallel systems for hiring PWD advocate just that.

In the short-term, a firm may need to open a separate door to gain entrance to the process, but once inside, these candidates need to be integrated into the ‘normal’ hiring system. Both HR and the line need to treat PWD hires as any other inclusion hire, knowing that there are some characteristics that are outside the ‘norm’. They also need to understand that these characteristics do not, in any way, preclude success. By focusing on the firm’s everyday hiring practice, and tweaking it slightly to account for PWD, managers own candidates. When a manager owns a candidate, the prospect is more likely to succeed.

This is not difficult to accomplish. Firms are already adept at feeding other segments through their recruiting process. Women, racial minorities and GBLT already have effective feeder systems into firm’s umbrella recruiting efforts. All firms need to do is refocus on PWD and tap talent pools using proven practice. Start small, and then scale it up.

Oh, some of you may be wondering what the answer to the question posed at the top of this article is. Simple, either way you get the same result. It is how you manage the result that denotes whether you are in the chicken business or the egg business. Ignore the question and get on with managing the answer.

The Role of Regulation in the Business/Disability Space

Tension as a creative force can be powerful. Opposing methodologies, when based in fact, cause parties to critically analyze their and other points of view as well as alternative avenues of innovation. Governments around the globe have struggled mightily to unlock the potential in the 1.1 billion person market of people with disabilities. Almost $480B of government funds go into disability annually in the US. Regardless of the results seen, that financial stake makes government a player in the business/disability space.

Business is used to regulation. Whether you are producing nuclear power, or towing trucks to generate revenue, society’s proxy is telling you, to some degree, where, when and how. On a global scale, the same is true in business/disability. While we will avoid debating the merits (or the lack thereof) surrounding various pieces of legislation, we will take a high-level look at how regulation impacts the business/disability space and the potential for innovation.

It is useful to acknowledge the difference in government involvement in various western economies when assessing disability regulation. Staying within the developed world, we see nations in Scandinavia (Sweden at 69%) with the highest levels of government involvement in national accounts moving along the spectrum to the United States (20%). Putting aside value judgments for a moment, large government involvement in an economy theoretically gives society a bigger ax to cause change. Put strong emphasis on the theoretical.

Given the above, it is no surprise that there is greater regulation surrounding disability in Europe, South America and Canada. In these regions, there are long established laws surrounding employment, access, and supports. These laws put in place hiring quotas, physical plant requirements and ‘incentives’ for education and training. The results of this are spurious at best, with the only meaningful difference being that measurement systems seem more pervasive as firms are required by law to keep records around statutory compliance.

One interesting offshoot to higher regulation is a greater public awareness of disability. Government funded groups channel those public monies into public awareness campaigns, giving these issues a taxpayer-funded voice. Objectively, the added ‘benefits’ of higher regulations are marginal, and far from the stated goals of their authors. The added benefits of awareness are barely marginal, but worth mentioning. The upside result for profit-seeking firms is a customer base that is more open to disability. The down-side result is a more challenging environment from a legal perspective, as lawyers may warn against potentially profitable ventures given the added regulatory risk. We won’t even begin to address how tax dollars are spent.

In the United States, there is practically zero regulation surrounding disability. The much vaunted Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is only real to some in Washington D.C, and a few niche lawyers outside the Beltway. It is very difficult to assign any weight to this law, as very few know it even exists outside disability, unless a) they’ve been sued under its auspices, b) they have an uncanny knack at remembering the third story on the nightly news once a year. Given the government’s relatively small role in the US economy, the impact of this law is congruent.

One should be aware of efforts in the US to strengthen regulation of the ADA. While not having the structure of foreign regulatory regimes that set quotas, there have, and will be rulings that make regulation marginally material for firms in the business/disability space. Brands are often a firm’s most valuable asset. While a negative ruling in this space may not be financially material, the potential fall-out of a Supreme Court ruling can have unwelcome impact on reaching out to the globe’s third largest market segment in people with disabilities.

This author has made one revealing observation surrounding both heavy and light regulation. The constituents of both regulatory regimes each think that the other has a better regime. This is curious, as convention says that both constituencies would prefer more ‘protection’, yet each says the other does a better job. That denotes one of three things, a) both regimes miss the mark, b) there is a lack of empirical global knowledge around disability regulation, or c) both a) and b).

What regulation does do is flag disability as important on society’s agenda. Looking back at the civil-rights laws of the sixty’s, we did not see an immediate shift away from discrimination, but a slow realization that the norm was no longer acceptable to the customer. Innovative marketers began to identify and consolidate previously ignored markets. Only then did material change occur.

What started with laws was finished by markets in the experience of women’s and multi-cultural markets in developed economies. Whether one is a Kennedy or a free-marketeer, regulation is a reality to accept. Understanding its impact on one’s business, and marketplace, is critical to success. With business/disability, regulation is not a tier 1(or tier 2) issue, but it is worth addressing for just that fact. To begin your foray into business/disability with a legal/compliance focus will lead to wasted time and give your competition an edge you cannot afford.

The Global Nature of Disability

A mega-segment. That is what disability can be termed in marketing parlance. At 1.1 billion people, it is third in size behind the segments of men and women. Its prevalence is not subject to historical migration patterns, it has no state affiliations, no celebrated religion and recognizes no income/societal status. Governments and cultures may deny its existence, but from a business standpoint, the demographic is real. At the end of the day, when asked the question, “Do you consider yourself to have a disability?” one fifth of the world answers “Yes.”

So why is disability quietest 1.1 billion people ever to walk the earth? The easy answer is rooted in difference. Our society has historically felt comfort around ‘sameness’. In cultures around the world, the tolerance for difference varies from mere observance, to a cause for the end of one’s life. The tolerance for difference to has evolved as information creeps across the globe more readily. As this tolerance evolves, disability starts to make material noise. This is now reaching a tipping point.

In the West, most elements of diversity is now entering the mainstream. The evolution to equality has taken root in western societies over the course of the 20th century. Whether it is gender, race or disability, statutes have been enacted to theoretically denote equality under the law. While these laws set floors from which to stand, a lawyer’s pen has never changed society, alone. Markets change society by practice. For women’s and ethnic markets, the best firms have recognized significant profit opportunities by both opening doors to employees and serving the unique desires of these markets. Leaving aside political struggles (as this author strives to remain outside that realm), the realization of market development for women and ethnic markets occurred over the span of thirty years. Following the logic of Moore’s law(albeit extrapolated) one can assume as firms get better at serving ‘different’ markets, the time it will take to identify and execute will be slashed dramatically. If it took 30 years to figure out the women’s market, it’ll take 5 to 10 years for firms to see results in disability. For a market this size, that means action needs to start last Tuesday.

In Asia, the Middle East and South America a different picture is painted. The key concept here is leverage. In these emerging markets, they are building the fundamental building blocks of a 21st century market democracy. Yes, even in China. While these markets have a lot on their hands, and disability is not high on their to-do lists, the population will play a material role in development and is not going away. As witnessed in countries like Lebanon and Jordan, as information moves more freely, populations become engaged and play larger roles in society. Disability will be one of these populations. How quickly this happens is nothing more than a guess, but 20 years seems a stretch.(shorter rather than longer) The firms that hone their model in developed markets first, adapting that model to emerging markets later, will reap the massive rewards of leverage. Leading begets leading in this case.

Africa is a different reality. There exists a whirlwind of cultures that range from respect to outright fear of disability. Demographically, the population is as prevalent as the rest of the world, but as in mainstream emerging market investing, the volatility in Africa makes assessing risk opaque at best. This win will come at a later time.

The magic of disability is that what is true in one part of the world is largely true in other parts. Disability is a rare phenomenon, a global homogeneous market. While there are some cultural differences in disclosing one’s disability, the core reasons are similar, only amplified. Strategy can be ported from one successful application to another with minor local twists, leveraging prior local success. This makes disability a scalable global market for both multinational corporations and international agencies, with the ability to capture share of wallet/mind without the added costs of local process replication.

Peering into the not too distant future, the global disability market will be a part of doing business no matter where business gets done. Its size, pervasiveness and potential means that it cannot be ignored. There is a path of least resistance, flowing from developed economies, into the emerging world and finally resting in the developing nations. At this flow’s culmination is a base of power, both market and political, that equals the largest groups on the planet. Those who move now will lead this mega-segment into the latter half of the 21st century.

The Myth of Awareness – The Eroding Beachhead

Rarely in military history is a successful campaign made on spontaneous charge. Marshalling, an understanding of the battlefield and coordinated action are hallmarks to gained ground. A beachhead allows for deeper progress and a point from which to launch new action. The strongest beachhead, however, is a means to an end, and has never won a war by its mere existence. There is a common practice in the business/disability space loosely termed ‘Awareness’. It is often seen as a game-changer. In reality, it is nothing more than a temporary beachhead, and a weak one at that.

The firms and governmental bodies who have played in the business/disability space over the last 20 years have hung their hat on this notion of ‘Disability Awareness’. The thinking goes that enlightened individuals understand the hidden value in the business/disability space, and once a bright light is shone, all will fall into place. A noble goal, and at its eventual end, a correct one. In a corporate environment, cases are made and acted upon, sometimes without permission, to quickly prove value. The theory goes that it’s tougher to say no if results are already shown. This is called intrapreneurship, taking initiative on innovation. If ‘awareness’ is not followed with promised results, it languishes on the sand, and will be looked upon as a losing horse in the future.

Awareness programs to date have consisted of lunch-and-learns, poster campaigns, web-based tutorials (often regulatory in nature) and a drone of bogus statistics that highlight silly notions like employee loyalty. Decision makers and those who the programs are ‘aimed’ at do not take these efforts seriously and mentally toss them into the fringes(at best) or a pile of things that have no impact on life what-so-ever(at worst).

These programs fall into the category of ‘preaching to the choir’, as those who pay attention already understand the message. The people who are not aware, and need to become aware, only respond to quantifiable results and actions that will make them look better to their boss, whether their boss is a middle-manager or a major shareholder. Tugging at the heart-strings and appealing to one’s sense of building a ‘better world’ may make a great sound bite, but it carries no real currency.

The real danger in these ‘awareness campaigns’ is that they send the wrong message, both to their internal constituencies and to people with disabilities who are potential employees and consumers. Go take a look at the images in these campaigns. They contain people with visible disabilities, who represent less than 25% of the market, in poses holding mail, in a call center or playing the ‘empty hero’ role. Even various governmental/charitable bodies fall into this trap. These campaigns create awareness, but they also reinforce tired stereotypes that move the needle in the wrong direction.

Awareness is a product of value creation, not the other way around. A wise person would look at these campaigns and quote the famous burger ad, asking “Where’s the beef?” An organization that wants to create positive awareness of people with disabilities needs to put talented butts in seats, allowing them to show value to colleagues, or churn out projects that add to the bottom line in a material manner. Awareness inside a profit-seeking organization is a direct result of success.

The days of being a leader in the business/disability space by trotting out an awareness campaign backed by one employee and a low six-figure budget are fast coming to an end. Those firms who have had this space to themselves with little (or no) effort are about to be crushed by their competition. There are a handful of firms who are ramping up with annual 8-figure budgets, C-suite level support and an understanding of the market that is both quantified and is in-line with their mainstream efforts. The old way was to attend a dinner in Washington, collect an award, perhaps write a tax-deductable check and pen an empty article for the firm’s intranet home page. Sound familiar?

The new way is to build a rigorous strategy around talent acquisition, market research, product development and profitability measurement. Take that strategy and execute it in an emerging market the size of China over 5 to 10 years and watch the firm’s share price start to tick up. While the ‘experts’ are collecting their awards after another rubber chicken dinner, your customers and shareholders are collecting their returns, and have a product that better serves their desires. Nothing creates awareness like a profit upgrade attributed to penetration in the business/disability market on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

Awareness needs to be part of the battle plan to make material impact in the business/disability space. It is not the silver bullet, nor is it the endgame. It is part of the rationale for being a leader and nothing more. It is proving to leadership the demographics support further research and development, while constructing a path to growth. Used briefly, it can open doors. Used without the proper support and strategic direction, it looks weak and can cause serious blowback. A beachhead without waves of support is destined to be over-run.