Nov 27, 2013 | Change, retail, Sales, Strategy
The verb that describes the process of retailers ignoring the shift to digital: payment, e-shopping, mobile selection of destination, on-line reviews, and so on.
The business model is rapidly evolving, whatever your current model may be, nothing is set in stone, or even rubber. To survive, business models need to be granular pieces of collaborative capability that capture the instantaneous, mobile, web-enabled future.
Currently, our esteemed political leaders are debating how to extract GST from net sales, bleating about the lost revenue that should go to hospitals, schools, and perhaps overseas study tours. It has happened for the last few Christmases; the retailers’ association generates some on-line sales numbers, then applies GST, hyping up the lost revenue to pollies who are too silly to recognise the flaws in the logic:
- Not all sales over the net are “lost” sales to bricks and mortar retail: the net is a demand generator, it does not simply suck sales away from retail.
- Not all net purchases are from international sellers: many are domestic, on which the GST is collected.
- On-line sales are growing strongly, but are still a modest 6.3%, according to the latest NAB survey. Optimising the other 93% would seem more productive than bleating about the little they lose.
- The compliance costs will be huge. Irrespective of how many economic models are generated, common sense would lead to the conclusion that a significant percentage of parcels would need to be opened, and heavy fines imposed, to put a brake on international purchases. If Customs cannot stop the flow of drugs, guns, and such by post, what makes them think they can be more effective slowing the flow of Barbie dolls and books at Christmas?
- Our retailers have the perfect right, if not the capability, to sell internationally, boosting their numbers. Obviously, boosting capability would seem sensible.
The world has moved on. Being “netf…ked” is optional – a choice in the hands of management. So, why not set out to be the netf..ker” rather than the” netf..kee”
Nov 6, 2013 | Alliance management, Branding, Marketing, retail, Small business
The agricultural supply chain that has dominated the way we get our food has evolved as a fragmented, opaque series of transactions that occur to fill the gap between the producer and the consumer. Many of these transactions add no value to the consumer, rather, they serve to capture value for some link in the supply chain.
As they add no value, it is fair to ask “are they necessary”, and in many cases the answer will be “No”, in others it will be that whilst it may add no value, it is a necessary cost, like transport.
Were we to set out to re-engineer the supply chain with consumer value as the driving force, what would we change?
Well, a fair bit, much of it as a result of the communication and data transfer capabilities that have exploded in the last decade. There is now absolutely no reason a grower cannot see where his product goes, each transformational stage, every point at which it is moved, and the costs and margins involved.
Whilst there are sensitive commercial implications in all this, the technical capability is there, and using those capabilities to eliminate costs and margins that do not serve the consumer will increasingly become the focus of competitive activity and innovation.
Wool is the archetypal Australian commodity, and it is also representative of the worst of commodity “marketing” where each link in a very complicated operational chain is a set of strand-alone transactions. However, even in this conservative, institutionalised chain, there are rays of light, enterprises like WoolConnect that have evolved over a considerable period, to deliver a transparent, collaborative chain that has eliminated much of the cost that adds no consumer value, becoming far more productive in the process.
I am working with a small group of horticulture growers and specialist retailers in Sydney on a pilot, a transparent, demand driven chain that responds to consumers, not what growers have on the floor, or what wholesalers think they can squeeze a good margin out of, but real demand. It is a fascinating exercise, one that is hopefully successful and commercially scalable.
This will deliver tree ripened fruit to consumers the day after it has been picked, and similarly, veggies harvested this morning, on your plate tomorrow.
“Sydney Harvest” brand, get used to seeing it in your greengrocer.
Innovation in a horticulture supply chain, who would have thought??
Oct 1, 2013 | Category, Customers, Demand chains, Marketing, retail
It is pretty trite to point out, again, that the reason businesses survive is to satisfy customers.
In fresh produce markets, this has been pretty much forgotten as the share of the consumers dollar that ends up in the farmers pockets has progressively dropped over the last 50 years from around 50% to now 10% for the lucky ones.
This is below in many cases the cost of production, so there goes food security, at least at the prices we have become used to!
This squeezing of farmers has evolved as retailers have built scale, and managed their logistics to deliver margin from produce, and consumers have favored convenience and price over product “eatability”.
Now however, it may be that the worm is turning.
Some consumers, certainly a marketable proportion, are turning back to favour freshness, product provenance, and taste, and are finding those characteristics in farmers markets, direct home delivery, and the few specialist retailers who have survived. These consumers are driving the evolution of a transparent “demand chain” which is putting some leverage back into the hands of farmers, if they can figure out how to remove the impediments to transparency, and the ticket clippers who inhabit the chain.
The tools of the web are slowly turning the supply chain of old into a demand chain, a supply process that responds to consumer demand, preferences, and habits. Farmers being able to communicate with those who consume their produce, and respond accordingly disappeared when we moved en masse to the cities, as no longer were we living in the small communities that enabled the communication.
Now however, that ability is back, so use it, and eat better!
Sep 30, 2013 | Branding, Category, Marketing, retail, Small business
Consumers make purchase choices for a whole range of reasons, quality, size, experience, brand, price, freshness, produce provenance, and so on.
Supermarkets in Europe have for years been marketing their housebrands as much more than cheapo versions of branded products, they are brands themselves, with all the attributes of proprietary brands.
In Australia there have been housebrands for 35 years, I know, as I peripherally s involved in the launch of the first one, the now defunct Franklins “No Frills” margarine, in about 1978. For most of the 35 years since, Australian Housebrands were little more than cheap products, where the manufactures pulled out as much ingredient and packaging cost as possible, apart from the few regulated categories like milk where Housebrands did not appear until de-regulation of the distribution system, and ice cream where the dairy fat level is proscribed at 10%.
More recently, Housebrands have been repositioned to be more like “Brands” than cheap substitutes, and retailers are actively seeking to add product quality to the parameters, while still being extremely aggressive about product cost from the manufacturer, difference now is that the world is the potential source, not just Australian manufacturers.
However, the efforts appear to be flagging, as price remains the primary consumer purchase reason for Housebrands, but the consumers choice is being reduced as retailers allocate their shelf-space to their own brands in an effort to both build Housebrand sales and the enhanced margins they can deliver. Perhaps this is a contributor to the apparent renewed growth of specialty and niche retail, and the decision of many SME’s to avoid the two major retailers, and pursue alternative channels.
Housebrands are failing to be either guarantors of quality, as “proper” proprietary brands would be, and they are often no longer as cheap as they were, so consumers are getting confused.
In consumer confusion lies opportunity for innovative marketers.
Sep 11, 2013 | Branding, Change, Marketing, retail, Strategy
As our cities continue to suck people off the land, and grow bigger, swallowing adjacent farm land, we face the challenge of how we feed ourselves into the future.
It may not be a problem now, or in 5 years, but it will be a problem. China’s urban middle class is currently around 400 million out of a 1.5 billion population. 20 years ago, there was little if any middle class, so the move has been dramatic, and is not slowing.
China is an extreme case, but one we need to consider in Sydney as we look to the future of our children. Marrying agriculture with urban living, figuring out how we can feed ourselves without destroying the landscape should be on the planners radar, so for those thinking about the challenges, here is my “two penneth” worth.
- Personalised. We are in a world of “i” one in which consumers expect to be addressed and marketed to on a personal level for clothing, cars, even shoes, so why should it be any different for the food we consume? Indeed, the food we consume is arguably more relevant to us than almost anything else. As I observe the strategies of the major supermarket chains, they are hell bent on removing consumer choice as a cost reduction strategy. This is working currently, but the rise of farmers markets, resurgence of specialist retail, and new net based business models may indicate a stirring at the edges that will at least partially disrupt this “efficiency over choice” business model in time. The opportunity for intelligent values based branding of food products has never been greater.
- Localised. As a kid in the late 50’s and early 60’s (yes, I am that old) there were a number of southern Mediterranean migrants living in the local area. Every single one of them had a back yard garden producing an array of vegetables and fruit for the table. I came to realise it was not a matter of cost, but availability, freshness, and a cultural imperative that drove them to grow in their backyard. Their children, the ones I grew up with, did not follow their parents, sacrificing the back yard garden for the convenience of the supermarket, but the pendulum has swung back, and our children, the grandchildren of the migrants, are returning to the notions of freshness, combined with low food miles, minimum chemical use, and product provenance that their grandparents had. The reasons may be a bit different, and more considered, but the preference for local product, with the inherent freshness and provenance is the same.
- Efficiency. The world has moved from being a place of plenty to increasingly a place of scarcity. Water, energy, labour, and available land are all becoming scarcer, and the increasing price of these resources is reflecting that scarcity. For many, the efficiency of their use of resources is often the difference between profitability and bankruptcy. The side benefit is that efficient use of natural resources also makes ecological sense.
- Intensity. We are seeing increasing intensity on every operational parameter you care to measure. Capital, IT, production, labour, all are far more intensely utilised than just a few years ago. In addition to the operational end, consumers are increasingly scrutinising the product they buy, looking for confirmation of the explicit and implicit claims made, and are unforgiving in the event that they smell a rat. This intense consumer scrutiny and selectivity that is emerging I have called elsewhere the ‘Masterchef effect”
There is considerable overlap between these four factors, and they are mutually supporting, but it seems to me that they reflect the foundation challenges faced by successful urban agriculture.
Aug 20, 2013 | Collaboration, Demand chains, Marketing, retail, Strategy
This is a far longer post than normal, motivated by some very sensible feedback from the previous post. Bear with me.
The “tools” that add value to management of any supply chain, playing a role in the transformation into a demand chain are relatively simple to list, but extremely difficult to implement.
I have seen, and worked with many over the years, largely based in agriculture, but the lessons are widely applicable.
The difficulty of implementation is why there are so few successful agricultural demand chains, but those that are in place, at least the ones I am aware of, deliver enormous long term value.
In addition, the classification of something as a “tool” usually creates debate, as it can also be an “outcome” of a successful initiative.
For example, is the “Shakedowns” brand of baby carrots from Bolthouse Farms in the US a marketing tool, or an outcome of a successful marketing and demand chain initiative? Truth is, that it is both, but the debate can become excited.
Following are what I see as the six key components that are the characteristic foundations of successful initiatives, but having them in place is not a panacea, as like any tool, the use remains in the hands of people of varying skill, motivation, and outlook.
- Appropriate scale, and the supporting processes to manage that scale. The scale and supporting processes needed to be successful in the local growers market are very different to those necessary to be successful in Woolworths, Tesco, or a major food service distributor. It is not just a matter of size, it is largely a matter of alignment. At one extreme we have growers market customers, who value product provenance to the point of wanting to communicate with the grower personally, and to know all about a particular piece of produce, and price is not all that relevant, so long as it delivers value. At the other end by contrast, a supermarket customer is way more focused on price, availability and convenience. To be successful with a supermarket chain, you need:
- Working capital reserves, as the margins are thin and payment terms long.
- Data capability. Supermarkets are run by data, and category management, and not having the capability is as good as going to a shootout with a penknife.
- Low cost. A necessity if you are to survive the pressure on operating margin, and marketing investment necessary to combat increasing penetration of housebranded substitutes.
- Operational scale to be able to service a chain nationally, or at least throughout a state.
None of these factors matter a whit in the local farmers market.
- Chain Transparency. Transparency drives accountability, surfaces market and improvement opportunities to every point in the chain. Of increasing importance, transparency also delivers product provenance. This is critical in a farmers market, and branding initiative, and rapidly becoming a marketing tool in supermarkets, but more importantly, is a critical component of controlling a chain. Without transparency, you cannot have control beyond your immediate domain, and thanks to the net there are now fine tools available to suit every situation, the standard setter being an Australian home grown product offered by GFA .
- Collaborative structures and processes. Arbitrage margins are made possible in a supply chain by a combination of lack of transparency and a culture resulting from the old way of “information is power”. This dying a difficult death, but dying it is as the communication tools now available provide the opportunity to collaborate as never before, and as a result the nature of organizations is evolving rapidly. A great example is the wool supply chain, 2 years from sheeps back to a consumer article, a production process that involves at least 7 product transformations which are typically highly competitive, and involve inventory, risk, and time, all of which add substantial cost. A collaborative structure that creates a forum of all the chain players can cut that time, risk, and cash tied up by a factor of 2/3. The poster boy in Australia is Woolconnect, a collaboration all the way through the chain that delivers product from farm to the consumer in 4 months. This did not come about easily, or quickly, but as a result of the vision and determination of a few people over 15 years.
- Contract capable. Customers need certainty, they need to be able to rely on undertakings given, and part of that is a single contract capable party with whom you do business. In simpler times, a handshake was sufficient, and as relationships evolve, it sometimes evolves back to that level, but for the most part, certainty involves a contract. Weather that is with an individual, Pty Ltd company, a co-operative or public company is not relevant, it is simply an agreement with consequences.
- Business model. Success requires the combination of a sustainable commercial business model with an attractive value proposition to the end user, and all points in the value chain. The “business model” represents the combination of all the points where costs and revenues are generated through the chain, mixed with where and how “value” is created. “Value” is the key component in a business model, often missed with traditional thinking. The business model also incorporates a capability to balance supply and demand transparently through the whole chain, not just at any individual point in the chain. Amazon creates value not only by selling books cheaply, but by having an inventory hundreds of times bigger than any bookstore, and offering a crowd sourced rating system. What they cannot offer is the personal and often emotional experience some have with browsing in a good bookstore. The supply chain models and resulting business models are very different quantitatively, and they create value in a different manner. I suspect there are enough bibliophiles for bookshops to survive and prosper against Amazon, but they will no longer be in every shopping location as we have been used to, and will not be a shop-front for recent releases and best sellers, but will be something entirely different.
- Marketing. There are as many definitions of marketing as there are consultants and academics. Mostly they talk about the “4 P’s” the mediums for communication, the need to focus, but my take is both simpler, and more strategic. To me, marketing is all about the definition, building, leveraging and protection of competitive advantage. The way enterprises go about this task is almost infinitely varied, and over the last few years has become increasingly fragmented and confused. However, really good marketing always has a simple, clear articulation of a value proposition that motivates action.
You got this far, well done.
Perhaps it should be an e-book, as there is plenty more to say.
