Jul 31, 2023 | Innovation, Strategy
Strategy development is driven by the need to make difficult choices with less than complete information. The successful see a problem to solve before anyone else realises there is a problem, and reap the rewards.
When you think you have all the information you need to make a risk-less choice, my advice would be to look again. Either the path you are contemplating is tactical rather than strategic, or you are simply following some orthodoxy that will not lead you anywhere new or different.
The great and unusual skill is in nurturing the capability to generate an insight that makes a difference. It is challenging to see a situation as presenting a problem to be solved that others did not see, until you have solved it. Then they rush to follow, often commoditising your insight in the process. The classic case here is iTunes, a solution to a problem nobody saw until Apple made it obvious there was a goldmine hiding behind the fence. Apple built a first mover advantage, and by not stopping the innovation process, ensured competitors followed without catching up. Competition just added to the breadth and depth of the market Apple continues to dominate.
Every major behaviour changing innovation I can think of has solved a problem that either nobody else saw or had failed to solve. In the latter case, Thomas Edison and the light bulb are the classic case. Many people had been working on solving the problem of the filaments burning out with a flash when a charge was applied, but it was Edison who came out with the solution first, and is therefore remembered as the ‘inventor’ of the light bulb.
Anybody for a faster horse?
Jul 28, 2023 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
So, Elon Musk surprised everyone, again, by killing Twitter and launching X.
Whatever X is.
Everyone in the marketing, strategic and management world generally seems to have had a go, except me, so here goes.
He must be effing crazy!
(Psst.. He is, but is it crazy smart or just crazy?)
Twitter had a range of problems, magnified since Elon sent the previous owners an offer to buy the joint for an absurdly large chunk of change. It was so large that the then board almost killed themselves racing to sign before he changed his mind and halved the offer. This might have been closer to the value, albeit still overly generous.
Having failed to wriggle out of the offer to buy, he then cut staff numbers 80% from the staff of 7500. Meanwhile ad revenue continued to tank, the rate just increased, dramatically.
Surprisingly, twitter still worked.
Estimates of the value of the twitter brand pre-execution vary a lot, but commonly vary between 5 and $6 billion. That is a lot to just flush down the dunney for no apparent reason.
Competitors must be rejoicing, particularly Meta that just launched ‘Threads’ as a twitter competitor, only to find the gorilla in the garden has been turned into a gnome.
Musk, and everyone else in this space has watched what WeChat has achieved in China, and into the Chinese diaspora, and wanted to emulate it. Given the original source of Musk’s wealth was PayPal, he would be in as good a space as anyone to make that happen. That makes sense, but why sacrifice twitter in preference to starting a separate company?
It simply does not make sense.
There are a few other things that do not make sense, until they did.
Re-useable rockets were not possible, until he did it.
Tesla electric cars at volume did not make sense until he did it.
Tesla as a public company would never make it, until it did. (Tesla now has a market value more than all other US manufacturers and Toyota combined, and continues to climb)
Gigabattery factories did not make sense until he did it.
Distributed recharging infrastructure did not make sense until Tesla reached scale and persuaded Detroit to sign up, a fortnight ago.
Based on his history, betting against Musk is a mugs game, no matter how little sense it makes to the rest of us.
Jul 24, 2023 | Innovation, Strategy
Innovation sessions typically involve an expensive consultant who has some sort of manicured track record exhorting the group to ‘Be creative, let your mind wander, nothing is silly, think outside the box’ sorts of session.
That does not work very well, except of course for the consultant.
What is usually missing from these sessions is diversity. Not of gender, but of expertise, training, experience, and knowledge gained in seemingly unrelated areas.
Pose a difficult problem to an accountant, and you will usually get a numerical answer. Pose the same question to an environmentalist, and you will get a different, but entirely valid answer. People see problems and their potential solutions through the perspective of their training, domain knowledge and experience.
Imagine you are running an innovation session for Australia’s new space agency. Chances are you will have 25 rocket scientists in the room. All will be applying their skills and knowledge to the problem to be solved. Would you rather add another rocket scientist to that group, which may not add much to the 25 already there, or a biologist, musician, or surgeon, any of whom may not know anything about rocket science, but just may have a solution to your problem that comes from an entirely different field.
The best solutions to really difficult problems are more likely to come from asking better questions of different people, than from just asking more of the same ones directed to the same people.
Header cartoon credit: the great Gary Larson with thanks.
Jul 10, 2023 | Change, Strategy
As a kid in the sixties, some of my friends had extensive record collections, mostly albums, but also singles of the ‘hits’ from albums. The Beatles dominated, Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band selling millions of copies when released in 1967, and was still selling millions into the 70’s.
In 1963 Phillips introduced the compact cassette, portable, and it offered the choices of fast forward and replay. I can remember carefully taping favourite songs from the radio to make personalised ‘playlists’. Sales built rapidly, then took off when the Sony Walkman was introduced in the early 80’s.
Meanwhile, Philips had been developing the CD, born in their labs in 1974, and by 2000, held 96% of all sales of recorded music.
Again, parallel development was happening, and the digital audio format called MP3 was born in the late 90’s. This format enabled the conversion of music into a digital file that could be shared. Up popped Napster and similar sites, from which you could download music for free, in breach of copyright, but free.
Meanwhile Apple had made MP3 players sexy by putting ‘A thousand songs in your pocket’ with the iPod. The music industry, tightly held by a small number of large corporations sued, and won, but it was a pyrrhic victory, as Pandoras music box had been opened. As a side note, the sight of an industry body suing to ensure that their product was not distributed is a touch unusual.
Then along came Apple, again, with iTunes and its multifunctional devices we still call phones, followed by more streaming devices and services. Spotify changed the face of the industry, again, and the fight became the more traditional marketing fight for your attention, and money
You can follow a similar path with the development of the movie industry, motor cars, aeroplanes, computers, electricity, and many others.
The point is, the seeds of destruction are planted well before the visible disruption occurs. The timelines we typically think about when considering disruptive innovations are much longer when you step back and look at the lead-up changes that prepared the ground for the disruption.
What is happening in your industry that could bite you on the arse?
Jul 5, 2023 | Change, Demand chains, Innovation, Strategy
All the recent focus of industry development, Control of IP, and sovereign manufacturing, has been on High tech.
Should we, or perhaps why don’t we, look to areas where we have dropped the ball in the past, but still have the opportunity to shape world markets, built capability, and diversify our economy.
Should we be looking at some of the obvious, but perhaps boring stuff that can make a significant difference, and where we already have a huge head start.
This race towards the newest shiny thing is fun, generates a lot of press releases, is exciting, attracts attention, as well as capital and competition, but is it the whole game?
In years gone past, Australia supplied a huge percentage of the world’s wool.
We grew it, and processed it through the many stages to the production of yarn, and exported the highly value added product to the world.
No more.
We have been supplanted as the number 1 producer by, you guessed it, China. We proudly, for now, occupy second place in the production stakes. China also is the biggest importer of Australian greasy wool, which they then process and gain the huge value add that the processing stages contribute.
I do not have all the numbers, but the current mean fibre diameter of the Australian clip is 20.8 microns, (AWPFC numbers) which is significantly less that the average of other major producers. At the extreme, production of wool at 13-15 microns is very small, requiring very considerable skill, animal husbandry, and investment in genetics. However, that investment is returned with huge price premiums paid by high end fashion manufacturers. That fine wool sells at auction for up to and sometimes more than $150/kilo, 15 times the average.
Australia’s share of world fine wool production is upward of 80%.
Why is it beyond our capability to capitalise on such a premium position, based as it is on 150 years of experience, a continuing production advantage in the preferred raw product, and many millions of dollars on R&D?
Australian Wool Innovation has been pissing around for the 30 years I have been watching, and from time to time dipping a toe into the water. They have wasted growers money and matched funding from the public purse, while failing to build a sustainable industry value chain that builds Australia’s competitive position. Making excuses, and generally having a fine old time has been the outcome of their efforts.
Having just read the latest strategic plan I can find, that sorry situation is not going to change.
As part of the National Reconstruction Fund, should we revisit old friends like wool that despite the best efforts of the last 40 years, we have failed to kill off? Surely that level of resilience requires some examination and consideration for rebuilding the supply chains that delivered many of the foundations of the prosperity we still enjoy. Such an effort would tick 5 of the 8 priority areas nominated in the reconstruction fund legislation.
13 years ago in a post I asked ‘Where next for wool‘. The question needs to be asked again, and this time we should be expecting some sensible answers.
The header graph is the average price of greasy wool over time. You can see the impact of the wool industry pricing model that ended in tears in July 1995, leaving a huge inventory of unsold wool that screwed the market for a decade. As with all averages, the graph hides the huge opportunity that has been facing us for years, which we continue to ignore.
Jul 3, 2023 | Marketing, Strategy
When building a marketing plan, one of the key choices that must be made early is a deceptively simple one that most fail to recognise.
- Are you setting out to serve existing demand?
- Are you setting out to generate new demand?
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, when I look at a marketing program, I have no idea which the marketer has chosen. Usually this is because they have jumped the early and challenging question of translating the strategic objectives back into the planning of marketing activities. Marketing is simply the means by which the strategic objective is translated into a series of actions which are communicated to those who might be interested in paying you to consume your product.
There is of course a third option: attempt to do both. However, to do both effectively requires a specific strategic choice. Allowing the ‘do both’ option to become the default of not deciding where the priority lies is commercial cowardice. It leads in most cases to sub-optimal allocation of the limited available resources.
Header cartoon credit: Dilbert demonstrates that choices must be made for clarity.
