Too many slices and the loaf disappears: Is this the end of Australian FMCG?

Too many slices and the loaf disappears: Is this the end of Australian FMCG?

Nov 16, 2017 | Change, Governance, Leadership, rant, Strategy

What the hell have we been thinking?

Some time ago I mused that the slow death of the Australian FMCG manufacturing base was akin to nicking a slice off a cut loaf, one at a time. At any specific time you do not really notice the difference, but looked at over a period, the loss is obvious.

Well, it seems that someone nicked the Food industry loaf, and all we have left are the crumbs.

A report released last week by Food Navigator reveals Australia’s top 10 FMCG suppliers.

Not one of them is  owned by Australians.

Let me say that again: Not one is owned by Australians!

Over time I have worked for two businesses on the list, and at the time, both were aggressively and proudly Australian, wearing the national flag on their shoulders, and in their advertising, and both were in their way successful despite themselves.  However, dismay at some of the nonsense that went on is a primary reason I have been self-employed for the last 22 years.

I struggle to think of many substantial companies still domestically owned, Bega, Patties Pies and San Remo come to mind, but we are then down to the minnows.

All these multinationals will rightly say that they pay lots of taxes, employ lots of Australians, both directly, and indirectly, and that they have Australian best interests at heart.

Bullshit.

It is true they employ many people, and it is true that they pay unavoidable taxes, like GST, local government rates, and collect from their employees PAYE, but do they carry the full weight of their ‘moral obligations’ to the communities they live in via income taxes?  The reality is that have their own best interests at heart, or at least, most of them do. Transfer pricing, creative funding, corporate domicile on low tax environments, and all the rest of the shenanigans revealed again, by the Paradise Papers in the past weeks or so are widespread. It should not come as a surprise to anybody when these large companies make decisions in their interests, not in those of Australians and Australia.

This is like renting a house. You are allowed to live in it, under certain conditions,  but you have no control over the property, someone else makes all the key decisions. The renters best interests are not a factor in the determination of the owners best interests.

We tell ourselves we are a food bowl, and we are, but without any access to the markets at all. We no longer even have any brands for direct contact with consumers (Vegemite is a rare example, purchased back from Kraft last year by Bega, hooray). We are therefore nothing other than commodity suppliers in a price driven world. Not being a low cost producer, without the umbrella of brands and control of the operational infrastructure that can deliver genuine value to consumers, we are inevitably going to be screwed, with the benefits of ownership exported.

Coles and Woollies have ‘conspired’ to destroy the domestic suppliers and their brands by limiting ranges, replacing proprietary brands with house brands, sourced from wherever is convenient and cheap, realising short term margin gains at the expense of long term prosperity, both theirs and that of the communities they serve.  They have also lost in the process the cover of brands at a time where there is a huge retail  disruption looming: Amazon, online ordering, AI, ‘Ubered’ home delivery, and all the rest.

It seems to me the two retail gorillas will now reap the poison crop they sowed as an outcome of their short term,  one dimensional and absolutely unimaginative strategies.  Taking on Amazon with that mind-set is suicide, as if we know anything about Amazon, it is that they do not play by the existing rules. They make up a new set, and  the incumbents are left to wonder in their wake.

Food manufacturing used to be our biggest manufacturing industry, and we have given it away, or at least the benefits of ownership of it, for next to nothing. It is not even as if for the most part the interlopers paid a premium for control, they just waited until the numbers were so crap that they could take it for a song. The most recent example, Murray Goulbourn is a classic case in point, as are two of my previous corporate employers, Dairy Farmers and Goodman Fielder. Both reasonably large, reasonably successful businesses stuffed by poor management decisions until they became unsuccessful smaller ones, that could be scooped up out of Multinational petty cash.

Our kids will pay a heavy price for the short sighted and incompetent management of their fathers and grandfathers. (Cannot help wondering if their grandmothers and mothers would  have done a better job)

Our so called leaders mumble abut populist causes, ignoring the difficult and challenging long term choices that need to be made, which are usually by definition, not populist. It took a crisis to get them to consider ‘power policy’ in their quiet, moments when not looking after their own jobs in the face of failing to check if they are technically Australians, but it is 25 years too late. ‘Manufacturing policy’ discussions are pretty thin on the ground, now the motor industry has folded their tents, and more specific ‘Food Industry Policy’ discussions are as rare as sightings of the  Tasmanian tiger. Rumoured but carrying very little real credibility.

There has been very little of much value about any policy setting that might help us control and leverage our own agricultural and manufacturing capabilities that would enable us to feel confident we can feed ourselves, and others in the region into the medium term. The horse has bolted, and we are left with a pile of shit in the stables.

Sadly, few in power seem to be too concerned with the demise of our ability to control our own food supply, value adding and distribution.

If nothing else, we may have discovered an innovative solution to the national obesity problem.

 

8 Reasons not to change.

8 Reasons not to change.

Nov 13, 2017 | Change, Governance, Strategy

We all understand the power of ‘Not broken, don’t fix’ sort of thinking. When things are going OK, even if that is not as well as you would expect, the temptation to leave the status quo in place is compelling.

No risk in that is there.

I see reasons not to change all the time, and find that change is easiest when all concerned see that there is simply no option, and even then, it is sometimes hard, as any improvement is put down to the status quo delivering as it always has, not to the changes made.

Here are the reasons I hear most often, each with their own variation.

  • We are doing OK, do not rock the boat, there are sharks out there.

Counterargument. The success to date is no indicator of  success into the future, in fact we do know that the future will not look like the past, so we better get on with shaping our own future or we will end up being shark-shit.

  • We are really busy getting stuff done, in order to make these changes, there is a whole bunch of work we do not have the resources or time to do.

Counterargument.  If we are so busy getting stuff done, that is a sure sign that what we are doing is suboptimal. In a world where knowledge is king, unless we are sufficiently curious to think about and try new stuff we will just get busier, and busier, and end up  not seeing the wall before we hit it.

  • We tried that, and it did not work.

Counterargument. It may  not have worked, but do we understand why it did not, and how with the benefit of hindsight we would go about it a second time? Perhaps things have changed sufficiently for it or a variation of it to work today.

  • If we improve what we are doing just a little bit, we will have a huge improvement, so let’s concentrate on that.

Counterargument. Having in place a process of continuous improvement is great but not enough to be sustainably successful. Continuous improvement is a core management responsibility, not an option, or reason for celebration, as at best it optimises existing processes, which may be poor process in the first place. The challenge is to seek new ways of achieving the result that create new sources of value, or indeed, create a new result.

  • Our customers do not seem to think that we need to do it that way

Counterargument. Customers usually see things in their existing context, and so long as the product or service you provide continues to be competitive, often see no reason to change or push you for improvement. However, when an alternative supplier turns up with a better solution, they will move. Steve Jobs famously quipped that he never asked customers what they wanted, simply because they did not know, and Henry Ford observed that if he asked customers what they wanted, the answer would be a faster horse. Don’t get caught having the best horse stables in town when the residents are all driving cars.

  • Change is risky, what if it all goes to hell?.

Counterargument. Change is risky, and it can easily go pear-shaped, so the smart managers avoid betting the farm while changing as quickly as practical and possible.

  • What if we are wrong?

Counterargument. Being wrong can and does happen, indeed, being wrong some of the time is a part of learning how to improve. The key is to plan the changes, understand the outcomes required, monitor the outcomes as they emerge, and be prepared to make adjustments quickly as necessary.  You could also ask yourself ‘what if we are right, but did nothing. What would be the cost of that inaction?

  • We do not have the skills or experience to make these sorts of changes

Counterargument. Few do when they start, that is what change is all about, and what makes it so challenging. What is required is a dose of leadership, someone who inspires the idea that change is necessary, communicates the need widely, then is seen to be ‘walking the walk’ and leading it. Besides, there are plenty of advisors out there with a lot of experience  and knowledge,  pick someone who can help by guiding, mentoring and advising.

Initiating and managing change is the biggest challenge a leader faces. It impacts on every corner and crevice of their business. Most shy away, and very few are able to see all the forces at work themselves. Change is necessarily collaborative and highly ‘leadership sensitive’. An appropriate dispassionate and experienced outside resource, often teams of them, always add value to the process.

Header cartoon credit: Hugh McLeod at gaping Void.

5 realities we Australians should  be thinking about.

5 realities we Australians should  be thinking about.

Nov 10, 2017 | Change, Governance, Leadership, rant

This is a personal rant motivated by the continuing  sight of politicians pontificating about stuff that does not matter and either ignoring much of the stuff that does, or presenting as facts, suppositions and bullshit that is supposed to make their case and cover their culpability for inaction  and stupidity.

Not a bad start.

However, much as it is good to blame someone else for the things frustrating the hell out of us, it is not entirely their fault.

We live, for those who have not noticed, well into the 21st century.  Our institutions were designed and evolved in the 19th and 20th centuries. Most would accept the notion that change has never been faster or more all-encompassing as in the last 20 years, so why are we surprised that  the institutions have failed to keep up?

So, let me just have a look at an area I am at least partially familiar with after 40 years of operating in it, the current state of small business, and the relationship they have to the economic well being of the communities they serve. Nothing about the stupid non binding vote on same sex marriage, nothing about the nonsense of setting out to build submarines of a hybrid and bodgied  design over which we have no control, and cannot crew anyway in the name of saving a few government seats, nothing about the hysteria and confusion about what is means to be an Australian citizen, …. Need I go on?

There is a general recognition that small business is the backbone of the economy, employing 5 million (the data is 2 years old, which tells you something about our institutions) people and contributing billions in tax, in other words, they carry the weight of the economy, but the statistics do not tell us all we need to understand, as they, like everything else, were designed to give information on the 20th century economy, not the 21st.

A few examples.

  • Micro entrepreneurs are everywhere. There are hundreds of thousands of Australians making a bit on the side via eBay, Etsy, and Amazon, buying and selling stuff that never gets counted. This is a new breed of entrepreneur, and they are operating almost under the radar. The tools that enable this sort of activity did not exist 20 years ago.

 

  • The net is ubiquitous. The enabler of the previous point, the net, has also enabled thousands to start new businesses, often on the side, simply because the cost of failure is now so low, as the cost of entry has shrunk to a fraction of what it was 20 years ago. Many of these businesses fail, perhaps even most,  but that no longer means penury for  the entrepreneur, he/she simply picks up and has another go. Few of my children’s friends and colleagues expect to work for a corporation all their lives, then retire, as my generation did, although many of us are radically rethinking that at  the moment. They expect to get some experience, at somebody else’s expense, then  leverage that into their own business.

 

  • The tax base is hiding. The goldmine of PAYE tax is rapidly disappearing, as individuals go into business for themselves, rather than working for corporations, and often, as well as working for corporations. This gives access to all sorts of reasonable deductions of expenses not available to a PAYE employee. While we have a spending problem in this country, pollies spending to get themselves re-elected, or massively overspending to correct the failures of the past (look at the Sydney road and rail systems for any evidence you need of this) we also have a revenue problem. The GST was a sensible step, compromised as it was, and is, by politics, but the whole tax and welfare system needs a radical rethink, which simply will not happen until we are faced with a true crisis. On top of all that is the simple reality that paying tax has become optional for the large multinationals around the globe who have the reach and resources to structure their affairs towards minimisation. it may not be illegal, but it sure as hell is immoral, and the price we ‘ordinary taxpayers’ are all paying, and will continue to pay unless we, and other international tax institutions figure out that we need to collaborate to stop it. Perhaps we should summon the ghost of Kerry Packer to deliver another broadside.

 

  • Baby Boomers are not ‘retiring’. The so called baby boomers, of which I am one, are not retiring, they may be cutting back, but often they are starting businesses, setting out to use their experience and lifetime wisdom in some useful way. The retirement age is a function of a world where we worked physically much harder than we do now, and the body gave out just before we kicked the bucket. Now the body is not giving out, and when it does we go in for renovations to keep on going. The  only bucket we are interested in  is the list of stuff we still want to do.

 

  • Manufacturing is not dead, it has just changed shape. The 20th century manufacturing model is dead, but is being replaced by a highly technical, globally connected combination of technologies from electronics to additive and 3D manufacturing, which employs just a few highly qualified and motivated people. Yet, our industrial institutions still believe we have big factories full of people doing repetitive tasks. Worse still, our education systems are still geared to mass production of kids who can recite rather than think, and this is despite the disastrous rebalancing of education towards university at the expense of trade skills. While we need less people digging holes, we need more who can design, fabricate, and operate a complex piece of machinery or electronics, and we are not training them in sufficient numbers, or giving them the self belief that valuable and rewarding work does not necessarily equate to sitting in an air conditioned office driving a mouse.

 

All of this simply means that opportunity multiplies, as the institutions that supposedly govern us sit idly by at best, but get in the way most of the time, more often than not by accident. The status quo for which they were designed has been chucked out, trashed, and is significantly irrelevant now, rapidly becoming utterly irrelevant  and a wet blanket on progress without real and immediate change.

 

Will regulators ever catch up with innovators?

Will regulators ever catch up with innovators?

Nov 3, 2017 | Change, Governance, Leadership

 

Following on from the rant about the dominance of Gooface a short while ago, comes this ‘explanatory‘ note from Facebook about a test being carried out in several countries that smacks of changes being made to the newsfeed that will remove completely organic posts from a company you might follow.

In other words, if a company wants to communicate with you, the current squeeze that applies is insufficient, there is a revenue opportunity available to Facebook by removing completely the currently thin chance their posts will get into your feed.

Josh Bernoff explains it clearly, in this post  along with his usual dose of cynical amusement at the arrogance of Facebook.

If there was ever evidence needed that marketers have no option than to build, over time, their own digital presence, based on digital properties they own,  it is this move to eliminate the organic reach that gave the social platforms their start, in the chase for revenue.

In this country (Australia) we have been beset by an ongoing debate about the rules governing the ownership of media. Back in the 80’s, rules were imposed and adjusted over time, that prevented ownership in one regional (in Australia) market summarised as ‘no more than 2 out of three and  75% reach’.   They were designed to ensure the diversity of ownership and therefore points of view being expressed by the few who had the wherewithal to own a media outlet. It finally dawned on the geniuses in Canberra that by stealth, while they were not watching, Gooface and their ilk had changed the face of media, and the rules were the equivalent of banning the shooting of dinosaurs.

Righteous,  but a little redundant.

Now everybody can own a media outlet, everyone can be a publisher, for a few dollars.

I suspect the answer to the question in the headline of this post is a definitive ‘No’ and we all know the problems that emerge when you are doing nothing but playing catch-up in an environment where your domain knowledge is limited to non-existent. You get the  sort of reactionary decision making and half-baked ideas that make you look stupid.

It strikes me that this is the core of the lack of confidence slowly eroding the respect and confidence we have in our institutions, and the only true antidote to that sickness is a solid dose of leadership.

I am not holding my breath.

 

Message to the new CEO.

Message to the new CEO.

Nov 1, 2017 | Change, Governance, Leadership

It is a scary place, no matter how much you have worked  and trained for it, suddenly you are the man (or woman) everyone is looking to for the cues they will use that drives behaviour and ultimately results.

No person can do everything, but every leader needs to tell those around them what is important, and in every business, there are always 5 things worth putting on the table as your priorities.

Cash flow.

Cash is the lifeblood of every business, without it, the business is dead. Too often I see little or no attention paid to the cash that flows into and out of  a business, the leader relying on the monthly P&L for the financial feedback. Cash flow and the P&L are different, they give a different picture of the health of the business. Both are essential, but neither gives a full picture of performance without the other. However, failing to actively manage your cash is akin to going swimming in the Alligator river.

Hire the best people you can find.

The mark of a great leader is to find engage and motivate people who are better than they are, even in their areas of strength. Delegate the things you do not like to do to someone who not only does it well, but who you can trust to give honest and considered feedback.

Focus.

Focus relentlessly on the manner in which the organisation delivers value to customers, and secondly on the development and deployment of the capabilities necessary to ensure that value is sustainable because it is able to evolve faster than the surrounding competitive environment.

Build a management rhythm.

Every business has a rhythm that dictates the order  and importance of jobs to be done. In my experience, starting with the macro, and working progressively to more detailed reporting and task allocation ensuring extensive feedback and adjustment loops along the way  is the most productive and efficient way.

Embody the culture you want to build.

The only person who can really change the shape of the culture in a business is the person at the top, so it pays to be very explicit about the culture you want to build. You need to talk the talk, while walking the walk, and be able to do  both without faltering, and with absolute consistency, in even the tiniest detail. We have all heard the quote  ‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’ by Peter Drucker.  It remains absolutely true, and do not forget it.

Good luck, and have fun and build lasting personal relationships with those around you, after all, you only get one life.

 

The right tool is still not enough 

The right tool is still not enough 

Oct 30, 2017 | Change, Governance, Management

A huge impediment to effective and ultimately successful marketing is our obsession with the tools, especially the new and shiny ones.

My father was a very keen golfer who practised and sweated for years to get his handicap down to 20. One of his mates was a very good golfer, could easily do a round within 5 strokes of par with Dads clubs.

Same tools, different user.

Marketing tools are no different.

While every tool has its limitations, you would not use a sand wedge off a tee except perhaps on a very short uphill par 3, the skill of the user also has a profound impact on the outcome.

A tool is just an item that gives you leverage, able to do more with less, how much more depends on the skill of the user.

Every business uses a range of tools to deliver leverage, it is the means by which they scale. However, just having the tools deployed and at your disposal is nowhere near enough. The winners are those who extract the most value from them.