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 10, 2014 | Change, Communication, Marketing, Small business
The most powerful way to get someone to agree with your idea is to ask them the leading question, and have them give you the answer you want.
Ronald Regan used this technique a lot.
He did not tell the American people during his election campaign: “your economic situation has deteriorated over the last 48 months”, instead he asked the famous question: “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”. The answer was a resounding “NO” which led to the obvious follow up question:” What do you need to change?”
Resoundingly, he was elected.
Asking a question compels a response, and the formulation of the words to convey that response in turn provokes a deeper, more intensive processing of the question, and leaves less room for ambiguity in the way the receiver responds.
It is the beginning of an engagement process.
However, it does not always work.
Ever noticed how pollies never answer the question asked unless the answer suits them?
Watching the 7.30 report a few minutes ago (Aussie readers will know what that is) the Opposition leader, in response to pointed questioning about the announcement by Toyota today that they will cease manufacturing cars in Australia, simply pointed out that in the 5 months since the Abbott Government had been elected, all three car-makers had announced production would cease. As if the last 25 years, overvalued $A, and small scale of the domestic market had no impact.
To anyone with half a brain watching, his failure to at least address the question in some modest way, simply corroded his credibility.
So, answering a question well is as much an art as asking them, and can be used to turn the tables.
Next time you see a really good salesman, just watch and listen, and learn.
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 5, 2014 | Branding, Leadership, Marketing, Strategy
SPC factory circa 1925
If ever you needed convincing that investing for the long haul in a brand was worth the time, energy, risk, and money, there is evidence aplenty in the remnants of the Australian food industry.
It has been reported that the Peters Ice Cream brand is on the market, again, and being scrutinised by the losers in the WCB takeover by Canadian Saputo, Bega Cheese and Murray Goulbourn.
This makes absolute sense as ice cream is a great product in which to store the value of that highly perishable raw material, Milk, almost irrespective of its consumer profit margins. Way, way better than cheese and milk powder, those other value stores currently favoured by Bega and MG
Peters was clearly going to be for sale at some point, having been bought and sold many times over the last 25 years. It is currently owned by a Private equity group, who bought it from Nestle, who bought it from National Foods, (themselves later flogged off to Japanese brewer Kirin) who bought it from Pacific Dunlop, who bought it from Adsteam, and so on. A venerable Australian company started in 1907 by Fred Peters, but passed around like a like a turd in a game of corporate pass-the-parcel.
Through all that ownership turmoil, restructures, factory rationalisation, re-engineering, asset stripping, and a whole bunch of other cliches, the brand still holds a very significant place in the billion dollar Australian ice cream/ice confection market.
Similarly, while SPC the company goes to the undertaker, SPC the brand now owned by Coke in Europe has a significant place in European food markets based on the heritage of canned fruit from the Shepparton region. From almost the formation of the company in 1917 to 1973 when Britains entry into the EU locked out agricultural imports, SPC built a brand that 35 years later is still worth a marketer the calibre of Coke resurrecting. Now of course, SPC branded product in Europe is grown and packed in Spain and North Africa.
If Australia is to be a serious player in the provision of sustainable long term food supplies for ourselves and export, we desperately need to recognise the role of branded value adding. We need the vision and commitment, emotional, technical, managerial and financial to stop just flogging the tradeable commodity, as we will never be the least cost producer, the only ones who survive in a commodity race to the bottom of the price scale.
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.
