How one data visualisation doubled a turnover

This is a true story about how visual information can change the course of history – yes, drawings (graphs, charts and diagrams) are that powerful.

It's a story about a failing business becoming the most profitable in the group that owned it.

It's a story about revealing what was really in the market data. What everyone could have seen, but didn't until it was visual.

And it's a case study in blindly applying an off‑the‑shelf market strategy without asking "should we?".

The project – the diagnostic stage

This story begins during the diagnostic phase of a large transformation project for a UK PLC.

We had been asked to look at a business languishing at the bottom of a performance ranking. The grading contained 21 businesses, owned by the plc.

We were leading a major transformation initiative. It was in the diagnostic phase, and we were exploring context. The market, competitors, and the position of the business were our concern.

I'd joined the boutique consultancy leading the project only the year before. I'd never worked for a consultancy before, so I had no preconceived ideas about how things were done.

Fortunately for me, the founder and owner of the consultancy, previously a member of an executive board at the helm of a market leading player, was entrepreneurial. He was open to unfamiliar ideas.

All of this created the perfect environment for powerful visual information to change history…

Data hides as much as it shows

… perhaps data hides more than it shows?

I was given two sets of data in the usual format: two tables. Each table consisted of only a few rows and columns of key numbers.

This is the competitor data, Lynne. Could you 'graphic‑ify' it, please?.

I knew what was expected. Alternately coloured rows and columns and a bold typeface so the numbers would present prettily.

(As I've explained, I was the new kid in the consulting team so my skills were not understood at this point. I went on to help the consultancy develop a new powerful way of working over the next eight years)

I examined the data, and it appeared to confirm the story I'd already heard outlined by everyone in the team. The data appeared to add nothing new.

Except, I knew the act of translating information into a visual usually reveals something. (I intend to explain this in a future blog post).

So I studied how the two sets of data – two slices through the same cake – fitted together and whether the extra dimension achieved told me anything new. It did, and it delivered a jolt.

I was certain no one understood what was hiding in the data. No one had sight of the real story the data was betraying.

How the transformation project was transformed

It took very little refinement to create the finished visual. Normally, there's many iterations.

In this instance, the data was complete and straightforward. There was nothing missing, contradictory, or plain odd revealed. That's why the finished visual was arrived at with minimum amendment.

The diagram was pinned on the wall in the strategic projects centre. It took its place with the rest of the project work, ready for a scheduled regional director's update.

(No death by Powerpoint, our presentations were focused on enabling input, challenge, and discussion).

Before

Until this point, the business we were analysing had not been convinced of the need for the initiative.

Phrases such as "Things always look lacklustre until our big annual sale" were repeated.

Stoppers were common, such as "No, we tried something like that, it won't work", and, "They're really busy, I doubt they'll be able to get involved at this stage. I'll ask, but I doubt they can fit it in, to be honest".

Regional Director Update

We were constantly giving updates to stakeholders throughout projects.

Updates were built-in to how we worked. We were constantly describing our project visually, in real time (I intend to explain this in a future post). The visuals were presentation ready, even when roughly right.

The update was one of many already scheduled. It had become clear since its inclusion in the calendar that we were dealing with most resistant level in the business: the Regional Directors.

It was set to be an interesting presentation. They were a lively, confident, highly invested team.

I positioned myself at our work table in the centre of the project space, where I would get the best view of responses to the graph.

I was keen to discover how effective the diagram was. The boss was presenting.

The Regional Directors moved on to the visual after digesting some initial findings. The boss explained it with a simple 'point n grunt': This is what we're up against he said, and stood quietly while they absorbed it.

All heads looked to the top of the visual, then back down to the bottom, then sharply up again.

Shoulders straightened and fingers pointed at the wall, challenging, unwilling to accept what they were seeing.

The graph was simple, clear, and robust. It could be understood without any explanation. The boss responded to the disbelief by stating the data source, and how the numbers had been worked out.

Shoulders slumped as confidence left the room. There was a palpable sense of dismayed shock. The tone of voices was subdued for the rest of the presentation.

After

We got a call early the next day. The Divisional Director.

He wanted to know if he could see what the Regional Directors had seen. He was flying down from Scotland tomorrow and could we take him through the exact same thing? Of course we could.

He duly arrived and was taken through the work, and shown the visual.

No wonder he said standing in front of the diagram. I got call after call yesterday. They were despairing, thinking we're all doomed. Are we all doomed?†

The shock rippled through the company, with others coming to view the chart.

The level of engagement with the project changed dramatically, with everyone agreeing they needed to do something, and to do something different.

As a direct result, the transformation project got full cooperation through diagnostic, feasibility and implementation.

Three years after completion, it was no longer at the bottom of the business group. It became the PLC's second highest performing business. Its turnover doubled, and it became the most profitable activity in the group.

History changed direction on that one visual.

Revealing bad strategy

So what was hidden in the data, that was shockingly plain for everyone to see once translated into a visual? Bad strategy.

The business under review, described as 'not investable' by the PLC's group board, had one strategy: copy the market leader.

They copied their sales, promotions and discounts. Everything they did, it seemed, was an imitation of the dominant player in the market.

Everyone in that market could name the leader. It were easy to see – the numbers were available. Except there was something that wasn't easy to see.

This is the thing about data, it doesn't actually quantify everything within its scope, though it appears to.

The visual revealed the gap between the market leader and everyone else. It was huge. Far bigger than anyone had thought, and way bigger than they'd have ever guessed at.

What was hidden was a gap. Open space with nothing in it doesn't tend to appear as a number in a column**.

The PLC's CEO described it clearly when he saw it. (Not an exact quote) This is like a tiny little monkey trying to be a great big silver backed guerilla. It's kind of sweet and cute, but it's a total waste of effort and tragically pathetic in the end.

The business was at the bottom of the PLCs ranking for a reason. It could not offer the same level of discount or sales promotion, nor could it advertise to the same level as the market leader. And attempting to these things at the same time as the market leader meant volumes saw minimal increase.

A strategy focussed entirely on attempting to copy such an unassailable market leader was damaging the business.