Dec 4, 2014 | Category, Marketing, Operations, retail, Small business
Data management & analysis
The second of 10 ways to beat the supermarket gorillas at their own game, after understanding the way the supermarket business model works, is to be savvy with data.
Supermarket retailing is heavily data intensive. These days, any retailing beyond the archetypical lemonade stand by the side of the road is data intensive, but particularly supermarkets. Commonly a supermarket range is up to 30,000 Sku’s across a number of different formats and geographic and demographic locations, and several thousand suppliers, all with their own focus and story to tell.
The supermarkets physical space needs to be allocated across the Sku’s chosen to be on range in the way that best delivers a return on their investment in the particular store and strategically across the chain.
SME suppliers to chain supermarkets usually are playing from a position of weakness, as they lack the scale to have the data and category management resources that supermarkets demand. However, their strength is that they can be far more agile and market sensitive that their bigger rivals, often SME’s can develop and launch a product before a multinational can get the first development workshop together.
Whilst supermarkets have a wealth of data at their fingertips, both their own, and that supplied by their large suppliers, they recognise that not every piece of data is worth the digits it is written with. Data is only of any value if it leads to some sort of actionable insight, and it is here that SME’s have an advantage despite the disadvantage of small size. Making the connections between differing seemingly disconnected data points is where the gold is hidden.
There are several points at which data can be collected, from which insights can be gained. Internal, observed and purchased.
- Sales and margin history. No SME should be without a robust and detailed sales and margin analysis of their own sales history, and thus ability to forecast with some certainty. Every SME has a sales history in their accounting package, most do not use it. Most use the “Office” package, which included Excel, but many do not use the power of the tools in excel. Pivot tables are the most underutilised and useful tool I have ever seen for SME’s. If you are one of the majority who do not use them, wake up, spend 30 minutes on YouTube figuring out the basics, and start generating insights. Also in excel is the V-Lookup tool, which can be enormously valuable to SME’s to keep accurate track of a whole range of variables in their business.
- Sales intelligence. SME’s are usually in a position to have unfiltered market intelligence in the hands of decision makers easily and quickly. Usually the people best positioned to see change as it is evolving are those in direct contact with customers and consumers, often the lower paid front line staff. Being engaged with these staff, or indeed as is the case for many, being that staff as a part of the role of the SME business owner puts you in a position to see shifts as they occur, if you are watching. Finding a way to turn these random conversations and insights into data points that can be connected and acted on can build into a significant competitive advantage. There is no substitute for the insights gained by simply watching and understanding the drivers of consumer behaviour, then crafting an offer that adds value.
- Agile operations. Scale brings its own momentum, despite the huge improvements over the last 20 years by the adoption of Lean practises. Large suppliers to supermarkets, with large factories, fixed planning cycles and extended supply chains are often caught short by the unexpected and unplanned. Agile suppliers can often fill the gaps created, but do so they need to be able to make very quick decision on costs, time frames, and operational priorities and limitations. To make these decisions, they need absolute understanding of their cash and financial position, costs and decision drivers like break even points, the impact of discounts, and negotiation trade-offs they can make. To be truly agile, you need accurate and detailed financial and operational data that is easily useable to make well informed decisions, then track the outcomes of those decisions.
- Be experimental. Having good data enables experimentation on a scale that offers great insights, but minimises risk. The supermarkets are increasingly amenable to enabling SME’s to experiment with all sorts of offerings as they learn as well from the activity. However, you cannot just walk in and expect to be taken seriously without a history of sensible innovation and a relationship with the individual decision makers in the retailer. Having robust, realistic and well understood strategic and operational planning in place is a must if you wish to be experimental and stay in business.
- Purchase syndicated data. Scan data can be purchased in many forms, and to varying degrees of analysis and detail. There is a significant cost to this information, firstly the purchase costs, but more importantly, the data analysis capabilities. Increasingly scan data is being matched to the behavioural data emerging from store loyalty cards to add another dimension to decision making, and this trend will only accelerate. SME’e can dip in and out of this data, taking a slice here and there to provide insights without the significant investment of being fully engaged. Treated sensibly, it can be used a bit like market research, taking a small and well defined sample and using it as representative of the whole picture.
None of this is easy, which is OK, because if it was, everyone would be doing it. However, many SME’s simply think it is all too hard, and stay away, effectively walking away from 75% of the volume in the market. For many, this is a sensible decision, but for some, those SME’s with a genuine opportunity to become larger businesses, building solid capabilities in collecting and leveraging data is essential.
Feb 12, 2014 | Change, Management, Operations
Courtesy Cartoonstock
As a little kid, the milkman used to deliver from a horse drawn cart. Even then, in the mid fifties it was outmoded, almost rustic, but endlessly engaging for a 5 year old boy.
Much later, I was the marketing director of a NSW dairy co-operative as it wrestled with the inevitability of deregulation. I was continually reminded by those with vested interests that there should be no change, that the regulation was a good thing, that home delivery of milk was what had made us great, even though customers had voted with their feet. It sometimes sounded like that old milkman of my childhood explaining why he still had a horse when everyone else had trucks.
Yesterday listening to the various political blame allocations for the closure of Toyota, on the heels of the announcements by Ford and Holden, it was groundhog day, again.
Facts, and a dispassionate view of the whole picture played no part. Just like the farmer Directors of that dairy company, everyone else was wrong, they alone had the insights necessary to keep the boat from sinking, disaster from arriving, and the black forces from Hades consuming us.
Toyota has joined Ford and Holden in folding their tents, along with much of the Australian food processing industry.
Lets have a look at some of the underlying factors obscured by the smoke and mirrors of self interest:
- If we are so committed to an Australian car making industry, why do only 20% of us drive one made here? Some more heresy: A significant proportion of those 20% are company supplied cars, where the driver has no choice, and if they did, would that 20% be 10%? Death of an industry!! Who cares, obviously not enough of us. It is just like the food processing industry, which I would argue is just a touch more important, killed off by lack of scale, high $A, global supply chains, the move to low cost manufacturing locations, a history of self important and short sighted management, and political and bureaucratic hubris.
- 35,000 jobs will disappear!! Woe is me, the sky is falling! That number, not to make light of the distress of those who find themselves unemployed, and perhaps unemployable, is less than 0 .3% of employment. Anyway, why is 35,000 the number? Toyota has 600 people in their Sydney offices, none of them are going.
- 25 years ago manufacturing was 14% of jobs, now it is 8%, it was 12% of GDP, and now is 6.5%. The vast majority of people displaced by these changes have found new jobs in industries that barely existed 25 years ago, why not again? Anyway, 350,000 people change jobs every month, every month! Another 35,000 over 4 years is a drop in the bucket, again not to be unfeeling towards those who struggle.
- It could be a financial bonanza for the government. Instead of supporting a corpse, pumping in life support dollars, they can be just counting the revenues from tarriffs as imports increase 20%, they might even remove the “luxury” tax designed to “save” the local industry, now there is no local industry left to save. However, I doubt it, as the “luxury” tax raises$ 1.8 billion. When the previous government proposed changes to the regime to capture tax lost to corporate salary packaging of cars, the current government, then opposition, in a dose of real hypocrisy opposed it, but I sense a change of mind now.
It would be much better if the energy spent looking backwards and allocating blame was spent looking forwards, and building for the future.
Feb 7, 2014 | Change, Leadership, Management, Operations, Strategy
Scaleable.
My world is SME’s, helping them to be more profitable, more commercially sustainable, more accountable, by being focused on customers and their own processes and priorities. The outcome is that most successfully remain SME’s, avoiding the many death traps that lurk, and a few make the leap and become SLE’s, or sustainable larger enterprises.
Watching this evolution occur over many years, different in the detail every time, but following a few core principals, there is one principal, “StrategyAudit’s second law” (the first is “Look after the cash, and the cash will look after you”) that keeps coming up, time and time again.
The second law is “Solutions to problems are specific, and generally do not scale, but principals by which decisions are made can be successfully scaled”
Building scalability into the solutions of problems is about as fundamental lesson in growing a small business into a larger one that I have seen.
Principals scale, single solutions usually do not.
Feb 4, 2014 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Marketing, Operations
Charman Stone Member for Murray
The decision by the federal Government not to support SPC last week has opened a can of worms. This time, the worms have some grunt, as the head worm, Charman Stone has shone a light into the corners of the decision, and in the process, dumped on her party.
Thank heavens!!.
For the first time as another important business in the Australian food processing industry seemingly disappears, there is some debate about the facts, and analysis of the implications, rather than just having emotion and ideology spewed at us. Anything other than facts, and dispassionate analysis based on those facts, is meaningless if we are to come to grips with the real commercial issues, rather than those of political self preservation.
All this has been sparked by Stones vigorous defense of SPC in her electorate, culminating this morning in an interview in which she as much as called the PM a liar.
Pretty strong, even from one noted to be a bit outspoken
Over a long period, the Australian food processing industry has been gutted by a range of factors, from the globalisation of supply chains, the power of the retail duopoly, years of drought (drought is really the new normal) short sighted, risk averse, and spineless management, union intractability, subsidies of various sorts recieved by international competitors, and the high $A. Some we can address, some we can’t, but allocating blame is not a helpful strategy.
Hopefully, some further intelligent debate will evolve, but the inconsistencies in policy, highlighted by the Cadbury decision before the election, and announcement today of support for Huon Aquaculture will do nothing for the confidence of investors.
Charman Stone is aggressively putting her case, lets see some other pollies grow some backbone.
Dec 23, 2013 | Change, Management, Operations, Strategy
Amongst all the emotional rhetoric and dubious numbers being visited upon us by various interest groups and pollies after the announcement by GM that they will be folding their tents, there seems to be very little sensible analysis of the whole picture. Comment has all been focussed on the current supply chain, the economic and social impact of its crumbling, and what others should have done in the past to prevent it, and now clammering for compensation.
Compensation for what?
Lets have a look at some of the more common blathering.
- Holden is a national icon. GM is a huge multinational company, with problems facing it appropriate to its scale. Australia is a pimple on its arse, no matter how much we blather about “Holden, the national icon”. Why should we continue to support its operations here? If they are not commercially sustainable on their own merits, experience suggests, it is just a matter of time, and the longer we administer the medicine, the more painful the withdrawal.
- The workers need compensation. Fair enough, there will be pain in many households supported by Holden, and Ford over Christmas. However, compensation for what, where are the lines drawn? These workers have had many years of news that their employers are in the edge, so the announcements should not be a surprise, and now they have 4 years notice, and generous redundancy. There are many thousands of worker that have been displaced over the past 20 years who would have killed for just a month of notice and modest redundancy, let alone the largess heading the way of displaced auto industry workers.
- The supplier businesses need compensation. Similarly, the manufacturers in the supply chain, now to be supplying only Toyota whilst they remain manufacturing here, are facing tough times. Should be no news in any of this for them, so failure to adapt over several strategic horizons should not be an excuse for handouts.
- Employees pay taxes. So, the argument goes, being employed, even by a subsidised industry, owned overseas, is better than having them unemployed and the industry closed. This is the sort of economic and social poop, ignoring the lessons of many past disruptions that even the far left should be embarrassed about.
- The industry is the engineering University of Australia. There is some real truth in this, the capabilities nurtured by the car industry have benefited many other industries. However, as the decline in manufacturing in this country is across the board, not just in the car industries, perhaps we should be considering engineering capabilities in the wider context than just one industry that is clearly at the end of its life as it has been run to date. Australia has several sources of potential international competitiveness, mining engineering and technical mining services, solar engineering are just two. The fist of these we squeezed mercilessly for current income, disregarding the long term opportunities to build sustainable engineering capabilities, the second of which we actively encouraged to go overseas to find financial and technical support. How stupid are we?
- Loss of sovereignty. Perhaps the most spurious of the lot. As it goes, without the car industry we have no ability to defend ourselves, no national pride, no capacity to be Australian. Given that only 20% of the cars sold over the last couple of years have been manufactured here, this argument holds little water.
The solutions for the car industry have been obvious for a while, and although not easy, or without risk are not inconsistent with the commercial choices faced by any firm in an industry facing disruption. A few companies have embraced them. Futuris, a former subsidiary of Elders, and a major suppliers of car seats went offshore several years ago, and are reaping the rewards, and there are others, although way too few, who have moved to accommodate the long term trends in the industry, and have prospered.
Here is where I have problems. We are focussed on the political cycle, short term returns, ideology lacking foundation in the real behaviour of real people, and an expectation that it will be all done for us, by the “government”, forgetting that the government is us, spending our money in ways that suit them, and their political priorities, that have little to do with the long term development of engineering capabilities in the country.
Bit like Canute up to his arse in waves bitching about the tide.
Nov 18, 2013 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Management, Operations
Perhaps unfortunately I was on the receiving end of a rant about design thinking last week. It was a passionate, articulate, and informed rant, but a rant nevertheless.
There is no doubt in my mind that design thinking is a competitively crucial capability. In this homogeneous and connected world, recognising the value that design can deliver, that it is an integral part of not just the physical products, but of enterprise culture and processes, is essential to commercial longevity.
However, design thinking has a fundamental flaw, a flaw clearly demonstrated by the “rantor” last week. As my old Dad used to say, “Son, you get 1/10 for thinking about it, the other 9 are for doing it”
My rantor was a thinker, but do not ask him to do anything creative. It is hard, dangerous (to a career) work to be contentious, advocate stuff outside the status quo, to be the questioner who backs up the questions with action, and most shy away.
We do need more design thinking, but we also need way, way more design doing, so stop hyping, and start doing.
