Dec 11, 2023 | Change, Communication
Following on from a previous post about the value of information, it seems relevant to ask how long any value created lasts.
We are all familiar with the notion of the ‘1/2 life’. The time it takes for radioactivity of an element to decay by 1/2. Uranium 238 has a 1/2 life of several billion years.
What about the 1/2 life of information?
The 1/2 life of a daily newspaper is arguably 1 day, today’s news is ‘tomorrows fish wrapper’. For 99.9% of blog posts, and most other so called ‘content’, it is about 2 seconds. This seems odd in what is supposedly the ‘Information age’, why is the life so short in most cases, and what make the difference for the 0.1%?
The answer seems to be: It depends on the utility of the information, which is partly a function of the ‘friction’ or resistance which is applied to its transmission.
Businesses, and most institutions are structured to be top down in functional silos, a system that evolved before digitisation of information arrived at our inboxes. This enabled the scaling of effort and the most efficient allocation of resources. A 20th century solution to the challenge of information transfer and leverage.
In the 21st century, with digitisation, the structures of the 20th century are redundant. They are simply too slow to be competitive in an environment where the action happens at digital speed on the ‘front lines’ of customer interaction. It takes too long for the siloed decision making processes to work. Customers will now move quickly to someone who is able to satisfy their need on the spot.
We have to turn our power structures upside down, and give the front lines the authority to make on the spot decisions within a much broader remit than was previously the case.
This creates huge complications for organisations, as the status quo is upset. The power people at the top have worked to achieve all their lives is diluted, and for those at the bottom, suddenly they are being tasked to take decisions that last week were being referred up the chain.
There is a driver of activity, always present, but to date well in the background for most. This is the ‘operating rhythm’ of the market in which they compete. When their decision cycles are slower than the operating rhythm of the market, the market will go elsewhere, or at the very least, opportunities will be lost.
Getting ‘inside’ the operating rhythm of your market, being able to respond quicker than the market reacts, is an emerging key to strategic success.
The 1/2 life of information is now in the hands of others, those who really count, by being customers.
That is why the OODA loop, conceived by US fighter pilot John ’40 second’ Boyd in the 60’s is so relevant to 21st century competition.
Dec 8, 2023 | Change, Innovation
We make many types of investments in the future, brand building, capability development, process optimisation, building the foundations to scale, and significantly, R&D.
Each is aimed at generating future cash flow.
The management and strategic challenge is how we justify investments today in something that may or may not occur tomorrow.
In relation to R&D, we have a specific dilemma, in both private and public sectors.
Capitalising R&D is a problem, as it makes us very sensitive to the sunk cost syndrome. We have real trouble walking away from it when the outcomes are not as expected, and the experiment is clearly a failure.
R&D is experimental, most things you try will not work. When you have capitalised them, and they do not work, you have a balance sheet write-off to explain. In this situation, the propensity of humans to resist an admission of being seen as having been wrong is heightened.
Much better to expense it, then there is no sunk cost to write off, fewer egos and personal agendas to be managed, although the sunk cost syndrome is alive, powerful, and often hidden in jargon.
On the flip side, research is long term, and needs the certainty of long-term funding. It should be immune to the vagaries of the short-term profitability fix, that typically stalks expenses.
Take the marketing investment in brand building as the prime example.
Building a brand takes a long time, is incremental, and sensitive to short term fluctuations and changes in direction that can be influenced by the profitability this quarter, the demand for a discount from a significant customer, or a change in personnel. Being an expense makes investments in marketing the target for a short-term fix for a short-term problem, at the expense of the long term.
There is no right answer to the question, it always ‘depends’ on something.
For example, private enterprise typically has a much shorter time frame than government, and therefore, does less of the long-term exploratory science. By preference they take the output of publicly funded labs and apply it to problems they see in the marketplace.
Somewhat cynically, we see the time frame of government as being the election cycle. However, almost all the key discoveries in the last 75 years that I can think of have evolved in one way or another, from publicly funded science. The irony is that such funding is subject to annual budget pressure. In this country that has resulted in public science being gutted over the last few decades, which erodes the foundation of innovation.
I did not answer my own question, and it remains a key one to be considered. However, despite the recent announcements by the Albanese government, I suspect we are circling the drain.
Header photo: Monticello dam drain glory hole. USA
Dec 5, 2023 | Change, Leadership
One of Charlie Mungers better known quips was: ‘All I want is to know where I am going to die, so I’ll never go there’. He avoided that place assiduously, but last week, after 99 years, Charlie went there.
Perhaps by mistake, perhaps because even he recognised it was time, a very long innings behind him. However, he leaves a mountain of wisdom accumulated over that extended period, most of it as ‘wingman’ to Warren Buffett. While it was a partnership with Buffett as Chairman and Charlie as Vice chairman, Buffett credited Charlie as being the brains behind the strategic insights and wisdom that made Berkshire Hathaway such a profit powerhouse.
So, what can a local SME, struggling for visibility, relevance, and cash in an increasingly homogeneous and competitive market where size really does matter, learn from him?
Simplicity. We humans tend to complicate things. It is not usually deliberate, rather it is a function of our limited perspectives, reliance on others, uncertainty, risk management, and a host of other drivers we all feel. Charlie advocated simplicity. Break a problem or situation down into its component parts, and deal with them one at a time. Others might call it managing by first principles. Einstein noted that things should be ‘made as simple as possible, no simpler.’
Over the weekend I was reading through the updated Australian building codes trying to understand the complexities of the recent changes. One of my clients must ensure the products he sells into the building trade not only comply, but he needs to explain to his builder customers the application of the codes to his products. The codes are so complex, differing across state jurisdictions, that builders who are bound by them often knowingly ignore them, relying on their suppliers. The codes are simply too complex for a small builder to ensure currency is maintained, amongst the other tasks necessary to keep their businesses nose above water.
Simplifying decision making processes by ensuring that the boundaries of authority, responsibility and accountability are clearly delineated through the business, is a goal to which we should all aspire.
Focus. Competing priorities means nothing gets optimised, and often many tasks do not get completed. Focussing attention on the things that really matter and giving them undivided attention for as long as the problem or opportunity warrants is a key lesson from Charlie.
Focussing also frees up our most valuable resource: time. By deliberately ignoring distractions, and leaving the lesser issues to others, or ignoring them completely, frees time to concentrate on the most important things, those that in the long term will deliver the greatest return.
No SME client I have ever worked with has been able to clear their desk sufficiently to devote the time and energy they should to the long term strategic foundations and health of their business. They simply wear too many hats, and often have difficulty delegating, assuming there is someone to whom they can delegate. The smaller the business, the harder it is, as those to whom delegation can be made, and the cash to pay for it, are in short supply.
The discipline required, both personal and in the business culture nurtured is enormously challenging.
Think and act for the long term. When you think and act short term you inevitably find yourself whipping around like the end of a bullwhip. Logistics managers understand the ‘Bullwhip effect’ better than most, as they see it every day in their supply chains. However, it is just as potent in the management of every other facet of a business. Seeing and responding primarily to the short-term fluctuations usually just compromises your ability to adjust strategically to the long term drivers of success.
Circle of competence. Many consultants have made a business out of advising clients to ‘stick to their knitting.’ It has been so prevalent it has become a management cliché. A circle of competence as Charlie saw it is a wider concept. While you are sticking to what you know, you are also seeing opportunities to leverage what you know in other domains.
This idea also applies to those stakeholders with whom you engage. By ensuring there is overlap in the circle of competence each brings to the table, you widen your own. This is at its core a strategy for successful collaboration.
Incentives. Understanding the power and application of incentives to shape behaviour enables individuals and groups to optimise the outcomes for which they are responsible.
For years we have seen research report after research report articulating the reality that after the basic needs of life, food, shelter, and companionship are satisfied, individuals start to respond to a range of other incentives. Some will sacrifice money for free time, others seek public acknowledgement of effort, security of what they have becomes more important than risking it for some possible future benefit. The list of drivers of individual behaviour goes on, and it is never just about money.
A friend who runs a successful bookkeeping business has recently gone to a four day working week. Several of her staff were against it, and subsequently left. The significant majority were happy to do their hours in four days, with Friday off. Productivity has jumped, as there is several hours each day when the phones are not ringing, causing distractions, so tasks are completed quicker, and with less processing errors. Contrary to the expectations of some, clients have also embraced the change, and remaining staff love having Fridays free to get on with their lives.
Understand probabilities. Success requires that we have a picture of what we believe the future will dish up, and we are able to respond today to put ourselves in a position to leverage those future events in our favour better than competitors. Given the only thing we know for sure about the future is that we will not be completely right about it, we need to understand probabilities. The better you can articulate the odds of some future state, the better able you will be to respond positively to it. Charlie was a great believer in what he called ‘Mental Models’. Being a voracious reader, he was able to see situations through a range of perspectives, and equate them to previous known outcomes, thereby giving him the opportunity to shorten the odds of an outcome he felt sufficiently confident to predict, and invest in to leverage.
Understanding your odds offers the opportunity to give yourself an appropriate margin for error for the investment you are contemplating. This applies equally to how you will spend your time today, to a major strategic choice.
Continuous learning. Charlie never stopped learning, until last week. Much of the time freed up by his focus and personal discipline was spent reading and interacting with those he considered smarter than him in some domain, and satisfying his voracious curiosity. Every situation he saw was considered as a learning opportunity, particularly those that did not go as predicted. They enabled him to add to his wardrobe of mental models with another model through which he could see a situation to understand better the odds, and shape them in his favour.
Every owner of an SME I have ever dealt with understands the implications of the phrase: ‘work on your business not in it.’ Few achieve what they would see as the optimum mix, and it is always the ‘on their business’ that suffers. They are depriving themselves of the opportunity to learn by looking around, compiling mental models, seeing opportunities in other domains, and leading their employees and stakeholders.
Rationality over emotion. Successfully doing all of the above allowed Charlie to make rational decisions, avoiding the attraction of the emotions. He has been the living embodiment of what Daniel Kahneman would call ‘System 2’ thinking. He takes his time, removes the pull of emotion, seeks out the facts, and makes rational choices for the long term.
None of the foregoing practises are stand alone triggers for success. Each influences the others in a range of ways, offering compounding benefits. In taking the long term view of his investment choices, Charlie allowed that most powerful force in the universe, (according to Einstein), compounding, to deliver for him. An investment of $100 and subsequent reinvestment of dividends in Berkshire Hathaway in 1978 when Charlie teamed up with Warren Buffet would be worth almost $400,000 today. This is an almost 20% annual compounding of value of the investment. It is 25 times the value today had that same $100 been invested in a S&P index fund. This is the effect of patience, long term thinking, and powerful mental models that increase the odds of success relative to other investment choices. Every owner and manager of an SME I have ever seen could benefit from the wit and wisdom of Charlie Munger.
Vale Charlie. If I was having one of those imaginary dinner parties where the most interesting people from history were around the table, you would be there.
Header photo: Charlie 5 days before his passing, holding forth in an interview with CNBC
Nov 29, 2023 | Governance, Innovation, Leadership
Of the many objections to the inequity and shortcomings of the tax system I harbour, the most egregious is the seduction by the fossil fuel industry of governments of all persuasions over the last 30 years.
I have two profound objections.
The first: They have known of the impact of CO2 on the climate for at least that long, and have not only not addressed it, but have aggressively sought to ensure that regulators and the general public do not get the facts, just bilious dystopian stories of what they are preventing from happening to us in the absence of their visionary management. The public are therefore unwilling to demand of regulators and lawmakers that the hard choices need to be made.
Scientists have been telling us for 30 years that the longer we wait, the harder and more costly the necessary changes will become, but what would they know?
On top of that, the fuel companies pay no tax on the billions of revenue generated in this country as a result of quite legal, but in my view absolutely immoral structuring of their tax affairs.
This avoidance is well known, they hold an honoured place in the top 40 tax avoiders list, collated by Michael West media. Along with property developers and various lobby groups, the political donations add up to 6 or 7 million dollars.
The second: Clearly, the fossil fuel industry has bought their favoured place in the political arena, but I am astonished that the price has been so low. A few million dollars in donations, and I would be pretty sure an equal amount in various tactical ‘softening’ of politicians and their advisors, and the threat of adverse advertising, in return for billions in tax free revenue.
What a great wicket they are on, paying for a cheap scooter and being rewarded with a Ferrari!
Another way of looking at it is that if you are going to be a whore, you may as well be an expensive one so you can be properly comforted for the loss of dignity. Clearly, there is very profitable leverage being wasted.
Obviously, the pollies and hangers-on need a bit of marketing and image building in order to properly leverage the key position they hold in the generation of tax free cash flow of fossil fuel companies.
The 20213 Budget delivered 9/5/23 amended marginally the PRRT and promised to impose the 15% minimum tax rate on MNC revenues in line with the OECD recommendation, a good start. Sadly, it does seem that the 15% minimum will not be imposed for some time, if ever. The power of the large multinationals with tax bases scattered around idyllic islands across the globe, does not reside just in Canberra. It hides in plain sight in London, Brussels, Dover (capital of Delaware), Reno, and many others.
Meanwhile we struggle with investment in the future productivity of the economy we are leaving to our children due to lack of public funds.
Nov 27, 2023 | Branding, Customers
Every time I go through a supermarket checkout, I find myself surprised at the total of the bill. Should be used to it by now, but no, I’m not!
The two supermarket gorillas, Coles and Woolworths have both released their annual results in the last month, and shareholders, which via superannuation is most of us, should be very happy.
Woolworths pocketed $1.6 billion on significantly increased margins, and Coles managed $1.1 billion on similarly better margins. The percentages are way above those generated by peers in developed countries, for the simple reason that they are an oligopoly and leverage that power to generate profit. Aldi has made an impact and continues to do a good job of ‘keeping the bastards honest’ but the fact remains, profit comes from market power. It is also fair to acknowledge that both have done a pretty good job of optimising their current operations, which also contributes to those juicy profit numbers.
Supermarket retailers, and other retailers in a position to exercise market power, are in two businesses that together make a powerful business model:
The first is renting retail real estate to their suppliers.
The second is selling products to consumers.
Both are transactional, with constant negotiation between the retailers and their suppliers. Sadly, there is an unequal distribution of power between the retailer and the supplier, so the use of price on both sides of the equation by retailers has become ubiquitous.
They extract maximum ‘rental’ for the shelf space, while being relatively unconstrained at the checkout by competitive pressure.
As a result, suppliers are screwed down so hard that even the very best of them have trouble returning the cost of capital, and price competition that benefits the consumer is a myth.
The price-based promotion programs deeply embedded in the psyche of both retailers and their ever-decreasing pool of suppliers destroys brands. Over the time I have been watching, the supplier margins from which springs the innovation that keeps categories fresh and interesting to consumers, has disappeared.
Retailers are lousy marketers. Ask one to explain the drivers of purchase and they have only one answer: price. Anyone who has ever bought anything knows that is rubbish.
For long term commercial sustainability of both retailers and their pool of suppliers, there must be a balance between tactical promotion and the innovation investment that generates category and brand growth, and there must be serious competition.
That no longer exists. Marketing and behavioural research over many years is unequivocal. Healthy markets need both.
Retailers have used price as their only tool because they can. In the process they have killed off almost all proprietary brands, replacing them with house brands, which are no more than carbon copies. There is no longer category or product innovation, and no suppliers willing to invest in brands, just a conga line of copycats.
The cost-of-living crisis facing many consumers today will become a strategic crisis for the retail gorillas as they fail to evolve their business model.
