Jul 30, 2021 | Governance, Innovation, Strategy
The old saying that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune‘ is almost always true.
The piper in this case has been the orthodoxy prevailing over the past 40 years in Australian manufacturing.
I have been actively observing the trend towards outsourcing for a long time, deeply concerned that as a country we were collectively making a huge mistake, by focussing on lowering costs by outsourcing. By slicing off the things that are not deemed to be ‘core’ in some way to your profitability, you can reduce costs while maintaining revenue.
I guess it is much easier than being truly creative, taking risks, betting on a future different to the present.
As a result, manufacturing businesses in this country have progressively outsourced manufacture of sub-components, then whole components, then manufacture and assembly of finished products, and finally, because the manufacturers in China, Vietnam, or Thailand are closer to the technology, the design.
All Australian manufacturers, those few that have survived so far, are left with is a brand, with nothing to support it.
A brand without the supporting ‘brand infrastructure’ is a bit like a heavily inflated balloon. At some point a bugger with a pin will come along and, ‘bang’, you have nothing left.
The bugger with the pin proved to be a virus.
Supply chains have been ‘kneecapped’ and there is suddenly a recognition of the need for ‘sovereign manufacturing’.
Being driven by short term profit at the expense of long-term commercial sustainability has been a dumb choice.
I understand how it has happened.
Along with outsourcing manufacturing, we outsourced good old common sense to the educated but inexperienced crowd who applied IRR (Internal rate of return) and RONA (return on net assets) models shoved down their throats in MBA classes. These led to incremental investments in little, short term things at the expense of longer term and less certain but potentially bigger returns, to satisfy IRR hurdles. Reductions in the denominator in ROI calculations by flogging off productive assets made them look good by increasing RONA numbers.
They forgot that cash, and intellectual capital are not ratios, you either have them or you do not. Without cash you will be dead tomorrow, without the intellectual capital underpinning operations, you will be dead by a slower route, but just as dead.
Covid has awakened us to the effects of those decisions made over an extended period. Question is, do we have the resources and resolve left to start playing a different tune, one that common sense rather than capital ratios dictates?
I truly hope so for the sake of my grandchildren.
Header cartoon courtesy www.Gapingvoid.com
Jun 15, 2021 | Branding, Marketing, Strategy
A few weeks ago, Apple released an upgrade of their operating system, iOS 15. This release includes a (potentially) monumental change in the digital world of communication. Its default is to turn off the ability of a third party to track your online activity. If you are relaxed about being tracked, you can opt in and continue to be tracked.
This will be an opening shot in a war between very powerful vested interests.
For years there has been genuine and rapidly increasing concerns about the volume and use of the data collected by apps, and the privacy invasion and leverage that data can generate. As the concerns grew, so did the mumbling from the advertising industry about the value of targeted ads, and soothing bullshit from Facebook.
Apple has gone in hard by making opt-out of tracking the default of the new release. I suspect Apple sees it as a point of competitive leverage that they can exploit. Their advertising is making this differentiation not just clear, but an explicit reason to move to Apple.
I think it is an absolute game-changer.
There are several dimensions to the vested interest battles I expect:
-
-
- Facebook Vs Apple. The business model that has made Mark Zuckerberg one of the world’s richest men, and arguably one of the most powerful, is based on the ability of Facebook to track activity and market their ad services based on that ability to target. Removing that ability will compromise that model, and Zuckerberg has not demonstrated any sort of tolerance to any interference to his ability to accumulate more and more billions.
- Apple Vs Android. For many consumers, the ability to turn off tracking will deliver a valuable competitive advantage to Apple over Android. This presents Google, the owner of the Android system with a dilemma. Do they follow and compromise their own ad business, or allow Apple to retain such an advantage in mobile computing? Indeed, is the attraction of an automatic ‘No cookie’ environment as strong as I anticipate?
- Regulators Vs Tech. For the past 5 years or so, regulators have been suggesting that some sort of regulatory framework was necessary to protect the privacy of consumers from the rampages of ad targeting. At the same time, regulators have demonstrated a rancid inability to even understand the basics of the challenges that such regulation will face in implementation, enforcement and unintended consequences.
- Advertisers Vs Ad fraudsters. The emergence of ad fraud because of so called ‘programmatic’ digital advertising, has offered fraudsters the opportunity to milk billions out of the system unhindered. Advertisers controlling large budgets have been largely unwilling, and perhaps unable to stem these losses, so just paper them over with cliches and bullshit. In a 2017 presentation to the IAB, Marc Pritchard the CMO of P&G publicly took a stand against the ‘crap’ as he called it spawned by digital channels. Crap ads, and the fraud perpetrated by those who assembled digital advertising inventory. The P&G initiative to stop advertising in the absence of hard data about the reach to humans rather than bots, and the location of ads placed, was followed by several other major advertisers. Sadly, the words were more hollow than substantial, as the fraud continues. The fraudsters will not go quietly, and based on performance to date, advertisers are too timid, or seduced by the seeming ease of reach, to do much. Dr Augustine Fou in his research highlights the tactics, breadth and depth of the fraud being accepted by advertisers.
- Consumers Vs advertisers. Marketers have found their ability to communicate compromised by the never-ending demand for new and different content to throw at the digital channels. They no longer have the time, and increasingly the inclination, to do the foundation work that leads to creativity and advertising cut-through.
Apple’s advertising revenue is very modest, by comparison to Google and Facebook. It has little to lose from this change. Facebook and Google by contrast have huge ad revenues. In Facebooks case, advertising is 98% of its total revenue, for Google the number is about 80%.
This change by Apple, if it creates a surge of iOS market share from its current 15% will compromise these revenues, and erode the business model of both Facebook and Google.
It certainly creates a strategic dilemma for the Google owned Android software, powering around 85% of mobile devices currently. Do they follow Apple, or take another route?
For marketers who understand ‘marketing’ as distinct from the digital ‘new shiny thing’ syndrome, who treat ‘marketing’ as an integral part of their investment in future prosperity, it will be a boon. They will be much better placed to leverage real marketing skills that the large businesses have lost.
To the question posed in the headline: the degree to which consumers demonstrate they value privacy, will be measured by the rate at which they will switch to Apple to protect it. Alternatively, if Google decides to follow with Android, game over.
Note, an hour after publishing: I omitted to mention above that Google pays Apple something around 12 billion a year to remain the default search engine on iOS and Safari. This is so Google can collect information on your searches on Apple. For Apple, it is money for jam. If I am right, and there is a significant move towards the auto opt out in the new iOS upgrade, this 12 billion will erode over time, so Apple does have a bit more skin in the game than noted above.
Header cartoon credit: Dilbert explains tracking codes.
Jun 2, 2021 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Successful businesses in my experience have several things in common, and in general do most of them well.
Focus.
They are sufficiently disciplined to be able to assemble and deploy resources against a limited number of objectives and opportunities. This requires that there is a robust strategy in place, as they have made a series of choices about what they will do, and what they will not, which are all clearly understood throughout the business. Being all things to all people is never an achievable outcome, so they leave it alone.
Niche.
In one way or another, all successful businesses I have seen operate in a niche, where they have sufficient scale to be relevant to their selected customer base. This is the same for a small local business as it is for a multinational, each in their own way have defined a niche and set about owning it. Of great value is the niche that others do not recognise, where competition does not exist, or is marginal.
Leverage.
Leverage is doing more with less, so it follows that the greater the leverage of assets, the greater the success. Of course, when taken in purely financial terms, leverage can lead to disaster, as leverage also increases risk, but when looked at from the lens of human capabilities it works. It also works when you consider outsourcing as leverage, keeping your most valuable assets doing jobs that deliver greater returns. In successful companies, the jobs that just must be done to keep the machine grinding, are broken down to repeatable processes and done at the least cost, so the assets released can be deployed to deliver optimised results.
Differentiation.
In the absence of some sort of differentiation that increases the value of an offering to a group of customers, all you have is price. When price is all you have, you will, eventually, lose.
External sensitivity.
Being able to ‘feel’ the changes as they happen in their competitive environment and react before others marks not simply good businesses, but ones that have the DNA to be sustainable, as they incorporate in their DNA the ability to change early, and often. This does not imply a moveable feast of strategy, rather an agility in the implementation, which requires a considerable dose of leadership.
To my mind, businesses that are able to keep themselves in front of the ‘market Takt time’ are well placed to prosper.
Robust and shared culture.
‘Culture’ has become the rallying cry of all sorts of pundits, and self-proclaimed experts, but is clearly a major differentiating factor in good businesses. The cliches of all rowing in time and in the same direction apply, but the best definition is still Michael Porters definition: ‘Culture is the way we do it around here’ holds. In addition, when setting out to measure culture, as we are increasingly trying to do, I have yet to see any measure of culture that make a lot of sense beyond the simplest, ‘bad news travels quickly, & untainted, to the top’. When I see that, I know there is a robust culture in place.
Collaboration.
Part of superior performance is understanding where your capabilities are best deployed, and from time to time, a collaboration makes sense as a means to leverage both yours and another’s capabilities into an outcome neither could hope to achieve on their own. Collaboration is a really challenging thing to pull off, as it requires that both the businesses and all the personnel understand that their own best interests are best served by serving the best interests of the partners.
They have a detailed understanding of their strategically important customers.
This may not always be their biggest, although that helps, but those that will deliver sustainable profits into the future. Every large and important customer started as a small one, the trick is to pick those that will, long term, make a difference to your business, which can only be done when you can make a difference to theirs. This implies some sort of key account strategy is in place.
Robust financial management.
It should not need to be said, but sadly, genuinely robust financial management is not all that common. Anyone can deliver the statutory accounts required, but it takes creativity and understanding of the complexity of customers and markets to produce useable management reports that reflect the current, and more importantly forecasts of the state of the business.
Of all the reports, cash is the most important. All the sophisticated marketing, procedures, and cultural initiatives become redundant in the absence of cash.
Header cartoon credit: Hugh McLeod at www.gagingvoid.com nails it.
May 24, 2021 | Change, Strategy
The product lifecycle is a well understood concept. Introduction, growth, maturity, decline, illustrated usually with a nice even normal curve, which almost never reflects what happens in the real world.
Despite its distance from the real world, it remains a central core of many strategic planning exercises.
However, it is not the only cycle to impact on the commercial sustainability of enterprises.
The life cycle of enterprises is shortening radically. Many of the dominating companies in the Dow Jones top 100 were not there 20 years ago. A number had not even been born. The emergence of tech companies into the top of share market valuation has been astonishingly quick, as has the demise of many of those that were the standard bearers 20 years ago.
The hand-over has been driven by the emergence of a host of new business models. No matter how great your product, loyal your customers, deep your IP and brand protection, how actively marketed, when the business model erodes, everything else goes with it.
Amazon killed off bookstores in quick time. The bookstore business model became obsolete as they watched. Air BnB is an entirely new business model to that successfully leveraged by hotels for 50 years, themselves a business model that killed off the local tavern as a place a traveller could get a meal, a drink, and a bed. Perhaps the most telling is the end of encyclopaedias, which seemed to happen in the blink of an eye. Microsoft first launched their Encarta digital encyclopaedia on CD in 1993. Encarta was itself disrupted and destroyed by Wikipedia in 2001.
The leadership challenge is how to manage the portfolio of eroding and potentially emerging business models that will support growth in the future, while also managing the contracting and often conflicting lifecycles of their product and product development portfolios.
The leadership of enterprises spends the bulk of its time in one way or another searching to maximise the leverage it can build from finite resources. So, what happens when someone comes along and suggests that they take some of those resources, and allocate them to some new thing, that is inefficient, scrappy, and will deliver lower returns, if any at all, than the existing business? It gets canned, few managers will proceed, it is against the existing ethos of maximising efficiency.
The net result is that the incumbent enterprise tend to ‘pass’ on taking up the very things that will replace them.
I have a client, an emerging SME in a market that is in its early stages, growing rapidly, with very few ‘rules’ beyond the expectations set by the incumbent industry players, backed by regulation. At some point the pressure to revise the regulations will become irresistible, and the dominant existing business and manufacturing model will become compromised almost overnight.
I was in the dairy industry in the leadup to deregulation in NSW. I clearly remember the resistance to change, and the resulting organisational and financial chaos when it did arrive. The chickens did not just come home to roost, they crapped all over the pre-deregulation incumbents, and none of the major businesses survived in any form that resembled the pre-deregulation organisation.
The evolution of often competing business and product models happening in real time, creating a raft of organisational, cultural, and financial conflicts is unprecedented. It will also open up opportunities galore for the agile, and crevasses for those less nimble to stumble into.
The demand for strategic creativity and an action-oriented culture have never been greater.
May 17, 2021 | Leadership, Strategy
‘The smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.” Jeff Bezos
Strategy development is an inherently creative pursuit, you are seeking to visualise and articulate something that does not currently exist. Like any creative pursuit there are barriers to thinking in this manner, barriers that must be addressed if you are to build a robust strategic response to opportunities that may be very hard to see.
6 ways to achieve this elusive outcome:
- Forget finding the right answer. The ‘right’ answer probably does not exist, what does exist is the best answer today, that delivers another step on the road to the strategic objective. Looking for the ‘right’ answer is a way to ensure nothing gets done and that you drown in data.
- Don’t follow the rules. Every industry and market has ‘rules’. These are the assumptions that this is the way things always work. If you follow them, you will never come up with any combination of factors that delivers anything new. The best you can do is optimise, and while optimising is a very sensible and competitively necessary thing to be doing, it is not strategy.
- Allow yourself to ‘play’ with ideas. Try applying metaphors and similes to the situations you outline and see what happens. This is hard work, but it frees the mind. Just like little kids do not play by any rules, they make them up as they go, you should do the same. Throw logic out the window and enable the ‘inner child’ to come out, you may be surprised at what emerges. Like children, everybody is creative in their own way, it has just been beaten out of us by the education systems and life. Encourage the creativity by play, it is in these unrestricted and non-confrontational situations where tacit knowledge flourishes and is shared, and can be turned into original ideas.
- Get everyone involved. this is a cultural thing, and enables the seeds of creativity to grow. One of the greatest impediments to creativity is when someone thinks ‘this is not my job’. Strategy is everyone’s job. Being close to customers is typically the job of the salespeople, but look at what happens when your engineers and logistics people get close to them, all sorts of opportunities emerge because they are looking at things from a different perspective. It is challenging to create and nurture the processes and cultural drivers that encourage this sort of general engagement, but it pays great dividends.
- Ambiguity is your friend. It enables different thinking to be applied when the rules are unclear, so redefining the situation is easier.
- Be prepared, even happy to be wrong. So long as you recognise being wrong as a learning opportunity rather than one to apportion blame, this is a powerful practice. Recognising a mistake means you have tried something, learnt something, and moved forward. One of the realities that risks becoming a cliché is ‘Psychological safety’. This is when people are relaxed about being wrong, it is safe to call out mistakes while knowing it is about the process and conclusion, not the person. There is however a flip side to this ‘happy to be wrong’ choir. It is not an excuse for sloppy due diligence, or shallow consideration. This is a cultural tightrope that requires confident leadership to flourish
None of this is easy, if it was, everybody would be doing it. When you need the necessary outside assistance, let me know, I can help. Alternatively, Call Jeff, he has some time now, and has exemplified strategic creativity for the last 25 years.
Apr 13, 2021 | Change, Governance, Strategy
When should you let go of the sunk cost that is not performing?
How do you decide when to quit, walk away from an investment? It is as important a decision as the one you made when planning where to allocate your resources in the first place.
Strategic quitting is the flip side of strategic planning.
Realistically, you have only a limited amount of resource to be allocated. Determining the priority for those allocations includes being able to stop proceeding with some, and redirect. This acknowledges the opportunity costs often swept under the corporate carpet.
It is not being a quitter, it is sensible strategic leadership
The good thing about being at the point of strategic quitting is that you have actually done things, and hopefully learned from them. Therefore the next action you take should be better informed.
I am sick and tired of the fluff around strategic planning, what we need is less of it, and more strategic doing!!
Strategic quitting is a fundamental part of strategic success, embrace it.
