Nov 15, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Management
We tend to think that the person on the top of the pyramid has the power to do whatever they wish within the boundaries of reason and the law.
To some extent this is true but there remains only five tools they can use.
Volume.
Price.
Costs.
Culture.
Strategy.
Everything in a business stems from these five fundamental tools when they are focused laser-like on customers..
A leader that has at their fingertips a few simple metrics that reflect these five tools, and focuses attention on the drivers will be successful.
The first three are quantitative. The fourth, culture, is much harder to define quantitatively. However, there are measures that will deliver insight, such as staff churn, Surveys into items such as psychological safety, diversity of training, thought, and experience, and team collaborative success.
Strategy is also qualitative, in that it cannot be measured except in hindsight, by which time, it becomes useful only as a lesson, and driver of future strategic choices.
The combination of culture and strategy, when they are mutually reinforcing, and aligned is a potent combination, that drives the quantitative allocation of resources, measured in outcome by revenue, price and costs.
Header generated by the newest shiny thing in a subsection of the toolbox: AI.
Nov 13, 2024 | Branding, Innovation, Strategy
One of the five costs in your business, in most cases, under recognised, under managed, and misunderstood, is Opportunity cost.
Doing A, means we cannot do B.
It is not always such a binary choice.
Opportunity cost is impossible to calculate with any precision, as it is forecasting the outcome of something you did not do, an opportunity forgone. It is however a critical component of any consideration of the manner in which the available capital of a business is deployed.
It is also driven by the strategy, which is another calculation of the shape of the future, and how you can optimise the leverage your resources deliver.
Commonly used models like discounted cash flows and the more demanding internal rate of return calculations are commonly used by accountants to make the choices between differing capital allocation options. Unfortunately, they both rely on cash forecasts, which are at best fragile. When the strategy calls for ‘innovation’ cash forecasts are usually over-optimistic, and the timing is wrong, so that beyond a ‘pin the tale on the donkey’ analysis, often grossly misleading. Such techniques favour doing more of the same, with at best incremental improvements. Deploying capital towards riskier uses means these calculations are less and less valid, putting off the risk averse amongst management, which is most of them.
We have a fantastic example facing us right now.
Intel used to be the dominating producer of semiconductors. ‘Intel inside’ remains one of the best known and respected brands around, and yet, Intel has fallen radically from grace.
Since the glory days, when they dominated the market, and had customers lining up to place orders years in advance, they are now struggling for relevance. The value of the business as reflected in the share market has plummeted, along with their market share in a market that continues to explode in volume and value.
Arguably, Intel should still be in the position now held by Nvidia, current market cap 3.64 trillion, and rising like a kite in a hurricane. Intel, while still worth over a billion dollars, is small by comparison.
Any calculation of the opportunity cost of strategic choices made in the past by Intel would make shareholders kick their cats. Intel delivered astronomical profitability resulting from then CEO Andy Gove making the choice to move away from memory chips and pioneer the semiconductor market. The emergence of the PC in the 90’s made Intel one of the biggest and most profitable businesses ever seen. They then missed the move to chip sets designed to enhance gaming, which doubled as the enablers of the exploding AI market.
At least Intel shareholders can feel better, as the missed opportunity club is a very large one, with some distinguished members.
Note: the graph in the header is the Intel stock price. $1 in 2000 is now worth $1.83 adjusted for inflation. In other words, the current year low price of $19/share is worth just over $10 in 2000 dollars after inflation. This is in a market Intel used to dominate, and that has exploded over the last 5 years, with Nvidia grabbing the chocolates. That is the opportunity cost intel has suffered.
Nov 10, 2024 | Governance
Last Wednesday evening I was at a small(ish) gathering of about 50 owners of SME’s as news came through of the US election result.
It seemed everybody in the room was aghast.
Not only at the result, but at the size of it, and the continued failure of pollsters to even get close to calling it. This was despite the money and media time spent discussing, dissecting, and forecasting in the lead-up.
Now the question of the week is ‘how will it affect us?’
Speculate all you like, but the only thing we know for sure is that change is happening at an accelerating rate around us.
A quick look around the web at election results around the world over the past decade shows a consistent pattern: Voters are an unhappy and vindictive lot, increasingly demanding change that the established body politic fails to see and respond to. The result is that the global political status quo is heading for the round file. In its place is a fragmenting and polarised electorate providing fertile ground for dissention.
Look at what has happened in Australia over the last 20 years.
The Labor party currently holds the prime ministership with 33% of the primary vote at the last federal election. The coalition in its various forms scored 36%. Greens 12%. One nation 5%, United Australia 4% with 10% rats and mice. Since 2007 when Howard was dumped by the electorate, we have had Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison, and Albanese sitting in the ejector chair. 7 changes over 17 years. Hardly a picture of stability, and who would be certain that in March next year we will not have another change.
We are at an inflection point.
Irrespective of who holds sway in the big house, climate change will march ahead, as will the changes wrought by technology. Conflict will increase in direct proportion to our inability to control it. The location of world manufacturing will continue to swing towards Asia as the compounding effects of Wrights law combined with technology turns the so called ‘western world’ into a manufacturing shadow of its former self. New materials emerging from AI driven labs will goose the rate of innovation in climate tech, zero carbon footprint, and the electrification of the world, while the social fabric is torn apart.
My generation, and the one that follows, which is largely now running the joint, are leaving a legacy for my grandchildren that history will judge poorly.
Nov 7, 2024 | Analytics, Management, Marketing, Strategy
How do you anticipate the reactions of competitors to your initiatives?
First you must understand them holistically and well. The better you understand them, specifically the strategic and tactical frameworks they work with, the better able you will be to anticipate and respond. You should also reflect on the leadership of your competitors, as their behaviour drives their decision making.
11 questions to ask yourself and your team:
- Will they react at all?
- Will they see and understand the strategic and tactical drivers of your actions?
- Will they feel threatened?
- Will mounting a response be a priority?
- What options will they actively consider?
- Do they have the right mix of resources to respond meaningfully?
- Which option are they most likely to choose?
- How many moves ahead do they look: do they play draughts or chess?
- What metrics do they use that will influence their decision making?
- What are the lead times required to respond effectively?
A final and key question in this volatile environment that is often missed:
- Who might emerge to be a competitor, who could change the dynamics of your market that currently would not be classed as a genuine competitor?
Commercial history is littered with failures to see the possibility of a disruptive new competitor emerging from left field.
Anticipating competitor reactions to your initiatives is a competitive superpower.
It enables you to strike at their weak points, and repel their advances at minimum cost to you, while having them consume resources for no result.
The downside of focusing on competition is that your customers do not see the world as you do. They are looking for the supplier who best addresses their need, solves their problem, or scratches their itch.
Those who spend their time looking over at their competition are risking taking their eyes away from their current and future customers. Lose sight of your customers, and one way or another, you will be eaten!
Nov 4, 2024 | Branding, Marketing
There is a big difference between a customer who always chooses your brand because they genuinely love it, and one who may prefer it as one of a group of acceptable products, but picks you just because of a good deal.
A truly loyal customer will choose your brand without thinking twice.
They come back because they trust your quality, your service, their emotional connection for one reason or another, and what your brand stands for. Price becomes irrelevant.
Working from home, good coffee is a crucial part of my morning routine.
I usually buy a specific brand to feed the habit, but only when it is on special.
The ‘standard’ shelf price is close to $40 per kilo, but on special, you can find it around $22. I tend to buy ‘pantry stock’ when it is on special to ensure I do not run out. On occasions I have run out, I switch to other brands, usually ones I am familiar with, on special at around that ‘special floor price’ of $22-25.
If asked in a research group to name my Favorite brand, it would be XXXX. Asked which I most often used, the answer would be the same. As a result, I would be classed as a ‘Loyal’ user. However, this is less the behaviour of a ‘Loyal’ user than one who simply has a preference and shops accordingly. The aggressive price discounting has established my perception of what it costs per kilo for a quality coffee I will enjoy. It is up to $25, not the $40 that is the nominated ‘usual’ shelf price.
The choice is driven by availability and price rather than loyalty, although I would be classed as ‘loyal’.
The power of the retail gorillas, and relative weakness of their suppliers have served over time to drive this gap between ‘normal’ shelf price and a promotional price that has become a category floor.
In the process it has killed brand loyalty. Dead.
Retailers make their money from the ‘rent’ suppliers pay in many forms for the shelf space, and thus access to consumers. The cash from the tills is the cream.
Suppliers over the last 30 years have made a rod for their own backs that is only getting heavier. They have forgotten the difference between brand loyalty and brand preference. They allowed retailers to dictate the split of available investment in their revenue generation activities.
There is a huge difference strategically between brand building activity, driving a consumer to take a product off the retail shelf because it best fills their personal requirements, and in store sales activation.
Suppliers to FMCG have forgotten that key driver of long term success. They have collectively taken the easy way out, and kicked the can down the road.
