Mar 31, 2022 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
Management over the last 50 years has been driven by strategic planning. Sometimes it has been done well. Often it is little better than a good chance to catch up with peers, have a few sherbets, and get away from the office for a few days.
After the session, the production of a new plan, and articulation of targets nobody really believes in, life gets back to normal.
Familiar?
The fundamental flaw is that we expect to be able to plan for a future we cannot predict.
This is in no way to ridicule the process of gathering information, generating ideas and views about the way forward, and the means to measure the success or otherwise of the efforts.
Those efforts are essential, they provide the intellectual fodder necessary to at least avoid some of the bigger potholes, and make informed and sensible decisions.
However, they miss the essential truth that planning for a future you cannot predict is bound to miss the mark.
The solution?
Instead of looking for the answers to questions thrown up by analysis of the data we can collect, look instead for questions that need an answer.
Setting out to answer a big question, go exploring the unknown, is way more powerful than figuring out how to change the status quo.
You do not have to be a Steve jobs or Elon Musk to see a big problem that needs solving, they are around us every day at a local level, we just have to see them.
A client of mine is busily solving the dual problems of poor acoustics and heat insulation of our windows and doors using European technology adapted to local environments. I watched a presentation last week by a local franchisee of ‘Bark Busters’. This is now an international business aimed at managing the behaviour of dogs, specifically dogs that bark. Perhaps neither are solutions to global problems like global warming, but both are big problems to those who are in contact with them.
Look for problems to solve, rather than extrapolating the present to a bigger version of itself.
Mar 18, 2022 | Change, Leadership, Strategy
Like it or not, official figures or not, inflation is back with us.
Inflation consumes cash like a ravening beast, but often goes unremarked until the 11th hour, by which time it is often too late.
Official figures always lag reality, and forecast models are only as good as the input data. My models are based on conversations with the owners and managers of SME manufacturers, very sensitive to rising input prices, and the ways they are responding.
Every input to manufacturing is in the beginning of an aggressive price surge that may see many go to the wall. Many SME manufacturers, those with whom I interact most frequently will see that wall close up for a number of obvious reasons, sadly mostly obvious only with hindsight.
- They use a standard cost model. Whether this be in a fancy enterprise tool, or excel, the product costs spat out are a function of the input costs. Typically, a standard cost system is reviewed and updated on a schedule, most often half yearly. When input costs are increasing rapidly, you quickly fall behind, and play catch up not only too ,late, but to the point where the input costs stood when the review started.
- Variances are insufficiently recorded and understood. A good standard cost model will throw variances from the standard. These may be reviewed monthly, but are they sufficiently well understood, and more importantly, does anyone take action to address the negative variances in input costs?
- Too few have visibility both forward and backwards into their own supply chains to understand the impact of rising inflation on both the supplier and customer side. In the absence of this insight, the forecasting tends to be both slow, and understate the impact.
- There is a strong resistance to increasing prices, not just from the sales force, generally over sensitive, but from senior management who do not get rewarded for rocking the boat. This results in price increases being too low, and too late. Do the maths and calculate the relative impact of losing a few sales by increasing prices, to keeping them low to retain sales at a lower margin. It almost always pays to increase the price.
Apart from addressing the 4 points above, what else should you be doing?
Act faster.
When you act faster than your competitors in a volatile environment, it leads to competitive advantage. The OODA loop at work. The enabler of speed has become digitisation, which requires investment in capability and takes time, but can deliver real time information, vital in a volatile environment.
Direct communication.
Direct and concise communication with others in the supply chain, and your own procurement people, dealing with supplier invoices every day, is essential. Being close to the action enables you to move quickly in response to changes and opportunities that emerge.
Reconsider your pricing model.
Most businesses have a price list that for ease is general, being the base from which various discounts and promotional opportunities flow. Being general means that you are probably leaving money on the table, as different customers will have unique needs and levels of price elasticity. Understanding these differences and pricing accordingly is both challenging and profitable. You might even take the opportunity to change completely your pricing model, usually extremely hard to change when things are predictable.
Change prices more frequently.
Find a way of enforcing some sort of dynamic pricing process. Developing the processes that will enable dynamic pricing will become a necessary competitive tool, impossible until recently, simply because the degree of data granularity was not available. Now it is, so there should be no excuse to at least embarking on the journey.
Understand the whole supply chain.
Develop a whole of supply chain understanding, knowing where the profit pools and points of stress hide to be able to anticipate and adjust to them, as the impact of inflation rolls through.
Operational Flow.
Removing choke points in all your processes releases capacity you have already paid for. This observation is as valid in the support and revenue generation processes as it is in manufacturing.
Apply Pareto
We all accept that 80% of your profit comes from 20% of your customers. In times of inflation, the need is for real growth of revenue and margin, not the inflated numbers, while holding costs. The most effective way to do this is to prune activities that fall in the tail of the Pareto. Double down on where the real margins are. The same logic applies to the products you supply. Weeding out those legacy products that no longer play a valuable role in the value proposition of the business will release capacity that can be used more productively.
The aggressive application of the Pareto principal always removes transaction costs that are hidden simply because they are hard to quantify. The choke points removed to enhance flow, will also remove transaction costs.
Strategic priorities
Focussing on strategic priories while managing a crisis is a very challenging double act. When time is not on your side, acting decisively is all that is left. Capex is one of the first things to be delayed when times get tough, along with advertising. While it is an understandable reaction, it is also the wrong one. History tells us that those that double down when others are pulling back benefit in the medium term. Do not let the organisation lose sight of the long term, this coming crisis will be over at some point, replaced by the next one.
Innovation.
Innovation is an investment in future cash flow. While it is usually expensed through the P&L, which is in my view a misleading treatment of an investment, it often suffers the same fate as marketing activity and capex. I break it out separately as it is even more often dismissed than either of the others, and is arguably at least as important.
Cash management.
All of the above are about the management of activities as they all impact on cash flow. This is critical at any time, but never more so than when there is a spurt of inflation coming at you. Managing by the P&L as many do, can be very misleading. Set aggressive targets for working capital, and aggressively apply them. Your suppliers and customers will be feeling the same pain. The risk of blowing out debtor days is real, as your customers will be looking to extend their payment terms, as you try and extend yours.
The risks associated with inflation are huge if you are too slow, or ignore it completely and hope it goes away. On the other hand, many opportunities will open up for the agile amongst us.
Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert. Again.
Mar 7, 2022 | Change, retail, Strategy
The supermarket business model, like most others, is evolving as we watch. It is slower in Australia than elsewhere given the challenge of distance and the stranglehold of Coles and Woolies. Nevertheless, it is evolving, and we can learn from elsewhere.
Four years ago, with great fanfare, Tesco in the UK launched a discount supermarket chain they called ‘Jack’s’. It was intended to compete with discounters Aldi and Lidl, to be the British hammer blow on the invading German discount retailers.
At the time, it seemed to me that the game was already up, that the position the discounters had carved in the market would be impervious to the exhortations of then Tesco MD David Lewis, calling Britain to arms.
Prior to the launch of Jacks, there was considerable shuffling of deck chairs as other retailers, Sainsbury and Asda particularly adjusted to the discounters by M&A. Since then of course we have had the fiasco of Brexit, still evolving amongst the shattered supply chains. This has been graphically illustrated by the carnage at the port of Dover, and inability of British farmers to farm in the absence of eastern European labour.
Now Jacks is closing, its promises of stores in every major town never eventuating. Jacks only ever opened thirteen stores, six of which will be converted to Tesco, the other seven just closed.
At the time in a post I reminisced on the demise of discounters in Australia, saying ‘I suspect history will reveal that Tesco has made a huge blue’. At least they recognised the mistake relatively early and reversed course under a new MD.
Given Australia tends to follow the evolution of the British supermarket sector by a year or two, what can we anticipate domestically, particularly from the two current retail gorillas, Woolies and Coles?
- I would not expect either to make the mistake Tesco made and open a discounter. In the past, both have dabbled with discount retail brands, none of which have survived. Besides, they have both watched as Aldi has carved out a place without launching a discount rival, it is unlikely they will change direction now.
- The doubling down on home delivery will continue, as will the logistic arrangements that support home delivery, and the technology that enables it.
- Retail is fragmenting. Consumer behaviour is evolving rapidly, accelerated by Covid. There is an obvious trend towards on-line and specialist retail using multiple channels of distribution, attracting consumers from their large-scale competitors by offering other than ‘average’ products. Some retailers are designing their stores as an ‘experience’ as much as a place to shop. These stores are a brick in the brand building wall, and are in effect, another form of media as well as a retail outlet. Apple saw this first, opening stores progressively around the world. By the traditional retail measure of success of margin/sq foot, Apple is now the most successful retailer in the world. At the other end, we see small stores, even ‘pop-ups’ selling very specific and focussed ranges. In between, shopping malls have passed their peak, the massive floor space they occupy will need to be re-purposed, at least in part. The potential here is for locally focussed office and residential hubs with a mix of specialist stores and entertainment venues.
- Direct to consumer from the farm is increasingly possible and attractive. Farmers markets will continue to grow and nibble away at the supermarket share of produce, by delivering superior taste and quality. I love so called ‘summer fruit’, peaches, nectarines, and plums. Finding any in a supermarket that do not feel and taste like a cricket ball is impossible, as they are picked in bulk and green to survive the supermarket supply chain. They may look OK, but the taste is what really counts, and here they miss out badly to specialist stores.
- Harris Farm has considerable potential if they can resist the temptation to become more like a ‘chain’. Woolies had a go at high quality specialist food retailing with Thomas Dux, and at first got the recipe right. Sadly, success breeds intervention by the back office boys who never actually see a customers, which resulted in ‘Dux’ being sent to the naughty corner to die.
- Automation in big distribution centres will continue to drive costs out of the system. Ocado, the British online grocer is licencing their technology around the world. Coles did a deal with them back in 2019 to build two automated fulfilment centres, which will feed into their home delivery strategy and no doubt generate a lot of thinking for the standard supermarket Distribution Centre logistics chain.
- Aldi will continue to grow, more slowly than to date, as they expand store numbers in an already saturated market. Costco with currently thirteen locations around Australia have the potential to double in the next few years. Their differentiator is an entirely different business model, which is very hard to copy for any established retailer.
- The demise of proprietary brands in Australian FMCG has probably reached its lowest point. Coles and Woolies have ransacked the profitability of their supply base, who have responded with little or no investment in genuine innovation, ultimately the only source of real growth. I suspect that some smaller brands may start to reappear as Coles and Woolies seek to differentiate themselves from each other, Aldi, and the alternative distribution channels slowly emerging.
- The big retailers will, or should, start to experiment with some of the technology proving successful in the US and China. The obvious place for such an experiment is in some of the CBD locations they both have. Shoppers looking for a quick shop for dinner as they run for the train home, might value the sort of service offered by Amazon Go and others.
- Managing inventory for suppliers will become even more difficult. Retailers are continuing to reduce their order quantities while increasing the order frequency and placing rigid delivery times on suppliers. This volatility is making supplier demand planning progressively more challenging, while getting paid in a reasonable time means they are funding the retailers. I suspect there will be technical solutions to demand planning evolving that involve AI, interacting in real time with store traffic, weather, and events to deliver a demand number by location. It may be that the DC starts to pack retail shelves, which are delivered on a roll in roll out basis to stores, removing the in-store labour and reducing back store footprint size. At Dairy Farmers 30 years ago, we experimented with this idea for fresh milk, and while it was promising, it did not catch on. Just 30 years too early?
- The physical movement through the supply chains is an increasing problem for supermarkets. Traffic density, and fewer drivers available as the old guard retires, unreplaced by a new driver cohort willing to accept the rigors of driving semis in heavy traffic for 12 hours a day. Combined with the challenge of demand planning, this will increase the number of product out of stock at the retail face, encouraging consumers to alternatives.
No business model remains unchallenged, and can remain unchanged in the face of evolving competitive circumstances. The supermarket business model is no different, although proving to be more resilient than I had thought it would be a decade ago. The core assumption of the business model however remains unchanged. They control a choke point in the supply chain, and take a margin that reflects their power on both sides of that choke point.
Mar 2, 2022 | Change, Leadership
For a change effort to succeed, it must solve a problem people care about.
The first challenge I have seen in many years of looking, is to find the few who care enough to get off their arses, and then make sure those few care about the same things for the same reasons.
Start small and focussed.
The status quo is a powerful antagonist, one that resists change with a power that is almost always underrated by those advocating for the change. There is a very real difference between the apparent agreement to change, and taking the actions that will lead to the changes seemingly agreed becoming a new status quo.
Being misled is a common occurrence. ‘I thought we had agreed‘ a common cry, followed up by a litany of excuses why the agreed changes were not able to be executed at this time.
The most common mistake the change-makers make, is to try and leap from the grievance to the solution in one step. It seems so obvious to them. Instead, small steps work much better. It is like changing a habit in your own life, going ‘cold turkey’ is much harder than making a series of small changes, none of which are too difficult, moving progressively towards the objective of a changed habit.
Once the change has been achieved, there must be some sort of foundation to prevent what I call ‘change recidivation’. That tendency to declare success, only to find later that there was slippage back to the old ways.
The metaphor I use is of a stretched elastic band. Once the pressure comes off, the tendency is for the band to revert to its former shape. You must ensure that when you think the change is successful, that it really is embedded, absolutely nailed down, not just waiting for the chance to revert when you are not looking.
The corollary of course is that in an environment where constant change is necessary just to keep up with what is happening around you, a stop/start approach will not be enough to stay competitive. The leadership challenge is to enable change to be the status quo, always happening on autopilot, rather than being that stop/start exercise undertaken as a separate project.
Feb 14, 2022 | Change, Leadership
When you do something over and over, you get better at it, the actions become automatic.
Remember the first time you drove to that new job? You looked up the route, probably put the address into the GPS (if you are under 30) and concentrated all the way, ensuring you were in the right lane to turn, and did not arrive at that annoying one way street the wrong way. After a short time, the drive became almost automatic, and you were sufficiently familiar with it to experiment with alternatives at divergent times to avoid bottlenecks and difficult spots.
Rather than contempt, familiarity builds competence.
Processes in a business are the same.
Do them over and over, and they tend to become automatic. This means you can spend the cognitive energy thinking about other things. It is the way we evolved, to preserve cognitive energy to be available when it was really needed, rather than being wasted on the routine.
However, the downside is that once something has become routine, carried out time after time in a relatively automatic manner, it becomes very hard to change.
Jan 31, 2022 | Change, Innovation, retail
Life in FMCG world is, almost unbelievably, becoming more competitive than it has ever been. However, the nature of competition has changed radically over the last 25 years.
Performance measures that we have relied on in the past no longer serve as well, we need a rethink.
The business model, while retaining the foundations that had delivered such success to supermarket chains in the past, has morphed.
No longer do big brands hold sway.
I suggest ‘Net Distribution Gain’ should be a standard measure in the FMCG marketer’s toolbox.
The previous business model used to be big add budgets splashed on TV, an OK product that appealed to the general average consumer, drove weight of distribution and shelf offtake.
That has all changed.
Most brands have disappeared, for those remaining, the name of the game is shelf space and position.
Where there used to be 5 or 6 brands competing in a decent sized category, there is now one, sometimes two, or at most three proprietary brands in big categories competing with house brands under various guises. These remaining brands have eroded their position by allowing retailers to convert their marketing budgets from brand building into price promotion, shelf position, and retailer margin enhancement.
Gaining distribution these days is a matter of buying it, and for a new product, if you are successful, there will be a copy house brand coming very quickly.
The outcome of all this is that innovation is at an all-time low, and the cycle just accelerates.
Retailers practise the one in one out method, it has become a standard procedure across supermarket retailers. It recognises their inelastic store sides and imposes minimum sales discipline on the suppliers.
For a supplier, having one of your competitors products deleted to make room for yours is a win, but for the retailer, it makes little difference which SKU is sold beyond any differences in the delivered margin. However, genuinely new products, ones that warrant net new space in a category, are where the real category gains and marketing success lie hidden.
NDG should be a standard measure to use by suppliers considering the planning and KPI of product launch strategies. There are several choices, which could become very complex with the addition of a weighting index based on shelf position:
One in one out of your range
Yours in, competitor SKU out
New space for the category.
Clearly in the last case the retailer is making choices elsewhere in the category mix, and the ripples widen, but for the category marketer, a NDG would be an indicator of a successful genuinely new product as distinct from a line extension of a successful competitive SKU.
