Jan 17, 2024 | Analytics, Strategy
Imagine. Possibilities.
‘Strategic thinking’ has been overtaken by the ‘quants’.
Those that believe that by generating loads of data, analysing past events, behaviour, and outcomes, you can create a model that will give answers to the key strategic question: How best to deploy limited assets for the best return’?
Aristotle 2,500 years ago observed that in some things the past will always be the same as the future. Think about gravity. We know it will be there tomorrow exactly as it is today.
Your task in this case is to identify and quantify cause and effect.
Aristotle also observed that in other things it is not the case that what happened yesterday will be repeated today. In that case, you must form hypotheses, test them, learn, then rinse and repeat.
In other words, you need to imagine possibilities.
Look at the evolution on the mobile phone for evidence. On January 9, 2007, Steve Jobs officially announced the original iPhone. On January 10, 2007, despite luminaries like Steve Ballmer poking fun at it, all preconceptions about what a mobile phone was, were out the window. The past was not representative of what the future would look like.
The world is a messy place, today rarely looks like yesterday. In that messy place our task is not to look at the past and project onto the future, our task is to imagine possibilities.
Strategy development is all about imagining those possibilities, making choices on what appears to be the best bet, and putting your money down, adjusting as necessary as more information and insight are gathered.
Aristotle did not conceive the OODA loop. He left that to John ’40 second’ Boyd 2,500 years later, but it was inherent in the ‘scientific method’ he articulated, and should be required learning for every decision-maker.
Header is a representation of the ‘Johari Window’, made famous by Donald Rumsfeld
Jan 8, 2024 | Leadership, Strategy
2023 was a difficult year for everyone. Uncertain economic conditions, war, dodgy deals, politicians cuckolded by their own weasel words, and the emergence of AI.
The last one is the only one over which any of us working to pay the bills can have some level of control.
AI has emerged from a long gestation since Alan Turing first made it a topic of conversation 72 years ago. It is now firmly on the plate of every person in business.
Like any tool, it is in the hands of the user, and cannot do any job without being directed. The cookies in 2024 will be awarded to those that best direct AI capabilities in their businesses.
It will not happen by itself, but is one of the secrets of competitive success.
The world is filled with noise and distraction. To cut through and resonate with an audience you need clarity.
Clarity of strategy, and clarity of all your messaging from the advertising and marketing collateral, the stories of the salespeople, to the colour of your delivery trucks, and the greeting of your receptionist.
Clarity.
AI will not give you that clarity in the absence of instruction from you, the user. Lack of such user clarity will deliver generic burble that will be unnoticed wallpaper.
Clarity Wins.
What AI will deliver in spades is the killer tool to leverage that clarity.
Header illustration courtesy DALL-E in about 20 seconds and two sets of instructions.
Jan 5, 2024 | Change, Strategy
The Christmas break is a good time to have that delayed conversation with mad Uncle Charlie. Good old Charlie is a Luddite that the originals would have been proud of, we all have one somewhere. The conversation was about AI, a topic in which I claim little expertise beyond the bits I have read, and superficial fiddling I have done.
However, Charlie was adamantly opposed to any notion that AI was anything more than a gimmick used by computer companies to sell their devices.
In trying to make the case for the continued growth of AI, and stuff emerging, I used an old chestnut.
Compounding.
As Einstein observed, compounding is the most powerful force in the universe. The story of the peasant who did a favour for the emperor and was rewarded with anything he wanted and asked for a chess board to be covered with grains of rice, doubling at each square explains it. At casual observation, easy, but the maths is different. There are 64 squares on a chess board. Doubling the gains at each square ends up in billions of grains of rice. The first few are easy, 1,2,4,8,16, but after a modest number of iterations, the numbers really take off.
Digital transformation is similar.
One step compounds on top of the next, and next, and so on, until you recognise it is not a destination, it is a journey.
Fascinating to think we are at the very beginning of the journey.
An idea that has been attributed to many is that we overestimate what can be achieved in the short term, and underestimate what can be achieved over a longer period.
This is compounding at work.
If you think the developments of the last decade have been huge, unpreceded in history, I suspect the next one will make the last one look like it was snail’s pace.
Charlie has his good points, but he really is a devoted Luddite.
Header graphic is via DALL-E. A Luddite trying unsuccessfully to stuff AI back into its box.
Jan 1, 2024 | Governance, Strategy
I cannot believe another year has gone by. The older I get, the faster time seems to go.
As I considered how to articulate the emerging landscape that will be 2024, two headline items screamed at me.
Strategy, and governance.
Without a solid, deeply considered and articulated strategy, you resemble a flock of sheep, moving here and there in response to the latest and closest barrier or threat.
Without a thoughtful governance process, performance measurement and improvement are simply out of reach.
From running the local café to running the country, these two driving parameters remain the guardrails of progress.
A year ago Strategy and Governance were on my mind as I wrote a 2023 new year post that used the removal of Dave Rennie as Wallabies coach, and reinstatement of Eddie Jones as the example.
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since. It seems both strategy and governance were not on the agenda of anyone in the administration of Rugby. The Wannabees were bundled out in the preliminary rounds of the World Cup, then Eddie walking away from a five year contract. The lessons I suggested they learn from tennis Canada ignored. Who knows what is now concerning the new management of Rugby. Whatever it is, there seems to be scant concern at the long term health of the game.
Rugby is in trouble at all levels, in the myriad of ways that a lack of strategy and governance exhibit. Stakeholders shooting off in differing directions, poor competitive performance, the grasping of new shiny things supposed to fix everything, (eg Joseph Suaali) turmoil in leadership ranks, strapped for cash, but long on promises of better times to come, and previously loyal ‘customers’ turning away.
Is this just a failure of strategic intelligence, being able to develop and stick to a challenging long term strategy, an abject failure of governance, or both?
January 1 also sees copyright on a number of major creative works coming to an end. Significant among them is the first cartoon feature that synchronised the sound with the animated visuals. Steamboat Willie, the cartoon that saw the emergence of Mickey Mouse heads the list, with a range of works becoming free of copyright.
The release of Steamboat Willie, while being just 7 minutes long, was one of those seminal moments that led to an explosion of creativity and technical innovation. As it was with the 1991 release of the HTML software that created the www by Tim Berners-Lee, and release of ChatGPT by OpenAI in November 2022, the world crossed an inflection point and nothing would be the same again.
We look back on 2023, and hope that 2024 will be an improvement, coming from what we learnt from the mistakes of 2023.
Sensibly we should ask ourselves a series of questions:
- What did I get right, what did I get wrong, and what were the drivers for those choices?
- What did I miss that I should have seen?
- What did I see that others may not have seen?
- How will I progress personally and professionally in 2024
If you genuinely ask yourself those questions, deeply consider the answers, and act on them, chances are 2024 will be better than 2023.
Happy new year.
Header: Mickey Mouse as depicted in Steamboat Willie in 1928.
Oct 31, 2023 | Change, Marketing, Strategy
When I was a boy in this business, back in the seventies, having a brand was table stakes to be in the game. At that time, there were a number of supermarket chains, and every one was stocked with a suppliers proprietary branded product.
There were many types and scale of brands. From the small producers hoping for a modest segment in the market that would provide a living and employment in their modest factories, to the multi-national, mass market giants. There were no ‘House brands’, until Franklins as an experiment ranged ‘No Frills’ margarine, packed by my then employer Vegetable Oils Ltd, which later became Meadow Lea foods.
Over time, the number of supermarkets reduced to the two gorillas and Aldi that we have today, and the number of brands reduced from the many hundreds down to the few MNC brands, with a very few exceptions, which are slowly being squeezed of life today.
If the trends of those 40 years continue, a brand extinction event is getting closer every day.
The latest victim is Sara Lee.
Originally the brand came from the US, and at its height had diversified into a wide range of products from the initial frozen cakes to clothing, and real estate. The Australian business has been through several owners, the most recent being a Dutch company nobody outside the industry would have heard of.
Manufacturers have been their own worst enemies.
They have failed to recognise the long-term impact on their profitability of the increasing power of Woolies and Coles, with the recent addition of Aldi. Retailers do not care about proprietary brands; their goal is their own profitability. If they cannot have your product on shelf, they are just as happy to have an alternative.
Increasingly over the past 30 years that alternative has been a house brand.
When retailers own the shelf space from which consumers pick products, and also ‘own’ the sales margins from half the products for sale, guess who wins. Retailers have used their muscle to squeeze out proprietary brands, taking the proprietary margin for themselves. The stupidity is that manufacturers have aided and abetted this quest to destroy them, by supplying the products and stopping the long-term brand building that made them successful. The funds have been redirected by manufacturers from advertising and brand building back into price promotion. Selling with price being the only differentiator is a sure way to destroy a brand.
To explain the resilience of a few brands, and some that resisted the retailer pressure for years before succumbing, you need look no further than effective, long term brand building advertising. The Vegemite jingle is in the brains of most Australians over 40, and Vegemite persists. Aeroplane jelly is also there, and I would guess the brand could be rejuvenated by a return. Similarly, Meadow Lea is a shadow of its former self, but 30 years after the great ‘you ought to be congratulated’ advertising finished, the positioning of Meadow Lea remains viable, and could be revived with investment.
To explain the failure of FMCG management to continue to invest in their proprietary brands over the years, allowing house brands to take over, you need look no further than the lack of understanding of the contrary dynamics at work.
Advertising is a long term investment, over numbers of years. Advertising is treated as an expense, one that is accounted for on an annual basis in the accounts of businesses. These two contrary forces, when allied to executive KPI’s dominated by accounting thinking, and the increasing power of the retailers to demand discounts as a necessity for distribution has drained the capital necessary for brand investment. The retailers are happy, they have the margin. The short term executive profitability goals of a few executives may be reached, so they are happy individuals. However, the brands have been destroyed, and the long term viability of their manufacturing operations been compromised, in most cases, terminally.
That in a nutshell, leaving aside questions of the operational efficiency of the Sara Lee business, is why it is now on the discount block itself.
Oct 18, 2023 | Governance, Strategy
Australia is an economy that has allowed the big to get bigger to such an extent that the barriers to entry in many vital and emerging industries are simply too high for new domestically funded entrants to swallow. This has led to multinationals buying their way into our market, further reducing competition. The latest is the purchase of ASX listed Origin Energy by serial asset accumulator and tax avoider Brookfield.
We are all used to thinking about economies of scale, the bigger we get, the greater the opportunity to spread the capital cost incurred over a wider base. The obvious example is IT, the costs can be huge, but they scale rapidly downwards as the number of nodes in use increases. It costs less to run each node as you increase numbers than it cost to run the first one.
This ignores the natural increase in transaction costs that used to occur when you scaled, but the use of IT, when done well, radically reduces the friction caused by transaction costs.
When you consider the economics of scope, the same sort of thinking applies, but you seek to leverage the capabilities built in one domain into others. Amazon is the poster child, leveraging the automation of their book selling IT investments into operating the Amazon store, then into Web services, retailing, hardware, and many other products and services.
What has happened is that we have seen the two types of economies of scale and scope give each other a dose of steroids.
Take a step further back, and you see that the expansions of scope are generally coming from adjacent markets that are fragmented, and often regulated.
Fragmented markets naturally coalesce into markets that are increasingly dominated by a few firms. The power of scale in a market overwhelms the fragmentation, and you end up with fewer firms competing, and taken to its logical conclusion, you have an oligopoly. In some cases, oligopolies end up as a monopoly by another name, such as Google in search, Microsoft in office software in the 90’s. They have been ‘defragmented’ by the application of capital that delivers economies of scale.
Then follows the search for scope, the usage situations where capabilities from one market are extended to other markets, at a lesser cost than the adjacent markets could do on their own.
Into this mix you throw regulatory barriers.
The cost of managing compliance is going up and up.
Corporations as they scale apply capital to the management of their compliance, and the wider the scope of activities, the greater leverage they get from that investment.
Look at the fossil fuel companies in Australia. Largely they are multinationals with huge scope and scale, too big for governments to take on. As a result, the increasing returns on the capital employed historically in scale and scope, are now being applied to compliance, particularly tax compliance, as they seek lower tax regimes that insulate returns. The purchase of Origin Energy is a further example of the process.
The strategic policy dilemma for Australia is clear.
For the long-term health and innovative vigour of the economy necessary for us to climb out of the basement in the innovative economy list, there needs to be tough decisions taken that will have a short-term cost, while increasing the odds of a long term benefit. Unfortunately, there are no votes in that equation.
