Dec 9, 2012 | Branding, Change, Lean, Operations
Tim Cook, the Apple CEO has just come out and announced that Apple will restart manufacturing in the US, starting with an unnamed Mac computer model, some time in the near future.
The driver of “offshoring” to sources of cheap labour to escape the high manufacturing labour costs in developed countries, has been a convenient excuse for a lack of ideas by the management of many companies. Virtually all the manufacturing businesses I interact with have an operational labour cost of substantially less that 20% of total BOM and operational logistics costs, so why not work on the other 80%? Often I suspect because it is easier to join the herd charging towards China than do the hard yards on their own business model.
“Outsource the manufacturing, and let the capacity utilisation be someone else’s problem”. Clearly this happened in Apple’s case, as the business tanked in the late eighties, cost cutting led to the closure of factories, and outsourcing of manufacturing and key parts of the technical design, remained the model through the revival led by the ipod, iphone, ipad, and siblings.
However, the competition has now caught up, and volumes are not growing the way they were. Apple may be hugely profitable, but as they no longer ship the volumes, capacity utilisation in their supply chain must now have swung away from over utilised to underutilised in a very short space of time. Android is rapidly becoming the OS of choice in both phones and tablets as Apples share drops, so the Apple profit bubble must be getting a bit fragile.
It is significant (I think) that Samsung is a major supplier to Apple, what a competitive advantage they have been handed by foreknowledge of component specifications, and delivery dates, and now the supplier has become the major competitor, competing on the ground they are in a position to choose.
This boom/bust cycle of manufacturing volumes imposes huge costs on the supply chain. Having too much capacity and carrying the unrecovered overheads is as bad having too little, and chasing output targets that end up in carrying high logistics and operational costs while compromising quality. Weather this is owned capacity, or outsourced, it remains a part of the supply chain, and somebody is paying for it, generally the consumer who has little motivation to pay for stuff that does not add value.
Perhaps I am a cynic, certainly I have no insight into the workings of Apple, but the move to announce the re-opening of manufacturing in the US without any detail at all sounds a bit “iffy” to me, perhaps a PR gesture to deflect some of the odium from the ongoing saga of Foxconn. Just put the word Foxconn into the search engine of a media outlet, this one Huffington Post, and you get over 6000 articles in response, and not one is doing the Apple brand any good at all.
Too little too late, or the beginning of another swing in the cycle?
Nov 26, 2012 | Change, Collaboration, Leadership, Social Media
What you do, say and think is no longer private. Our lives are opening up to scrutiny as our previously private data moves into the public domain at geometric speed. Much of being human depends on our ability to forge relationships with a few people based on dreams, problems, challenges, and attitudes that are shared with a small group, often only one person.
Radical transparency is the new reality of privacy where the notions of privacy as they have applied in the past to individuals and institutions are simply no longer relevant. It seems absurd to me that we still have regulated privacy in situations where there is a clear benefit to that community to remove it, such as in the case of contagious medical conditions, and whilst we shake our heads at the photos our kids (grandkids?) put up on facebook, that is the new reality.
This change happening around us is emerging as one of the most radical social revolutions in history. How are we, and our institutions going to deal with the absolute ubiquity of information?
Over the last decade, we have effectively given away the assumption of privacy as we understood it, surely the challenge now is to figure out how to manage the new transparency rather than doing a “Canute” about it.
This notion is engaging greater minds than mine. Part one of an email conversation between a couple of the real thinkers in this area, Clay Shirky and Don Tapscott, appeared recently in the Atlantic. It deals forces of change unleashed by the collective intelligence of the net, the 4 broad principals of the internet age, Collaboration, Transparency, Sharing, and Empowerment, as outlined by Don in his June 12 TED talk.
Part two of that conversation examines the impact of the information revolution on the Arab Spring, and its wider implications, demonstrating again, the 4 principals at work .
Radical transparency is a part of our world now, it cannot be undone, so our corporations, institutions, and every individual need to respond to this new reality.
Nov 15, 2012 | Change, Communication, Marketing, Social Media
Comment on digital media, the opportunities, challenges, and pay-offs is largely made by people engaged in the business, and they are different.
In a previous life, I dealt with a series of advertising agencies in the great days of the radio/mag/TV triumvirate of advertising, spending a “shedload” of money.
In those days, the personnel engaged in the industry all seemed to live, work, and play east of St. Leonards (in Sydney, Australia), while most of my consumers lived west of Lidcombe. Whilst these may locations may not be as different as night and day geographically, there were fundamental demographic, ethnic, cultural, and economic differences that, had to impact on their consumption behavior, and the manner in which they consumed and responded to advertising.
It is a reasonable assumption to think that the democratisation of media enabled by the internet would change these demarcation lines, at least blurr them, but instead they have seemed to have redefined them as obsessed, or otherwise by digital media, as noted by Bob Hoffman.
Consumers use the net as a tool, and like all tools, they use them differently depending on their skills, inclinations, experience, and where they are. However, the tool now understands how, where, when, and why it is being used, by whom, and responds accordingly. In this terrific post by Avinash Kaushink, consumer purchase behaviour, and the manner in which the data can be leveraged is examined, with Ash’s usual forensic eye.
Nov 14, 2012 | Change, Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
The interesting and fun bits of our world are driven by the vision, imagination, and execution capabilities of people. Much of the capital and technical capabilities required to enable these great things to happen are tied up in our corporations, governed by the legislative, and community demands for absolute compliance to an established norm.
Almost by definition, the norm is boring, ordinary, “so yesterday” as my beautiful daughter would say. How is it then that the boards of those same companies, the people with the ultimate responsibility to determine the long term priorities of the business, and allocate the resources to deliver them for stakeholders make the necessary choices. They have to make choices between the creative, the risky, and the new stuff that will cannabilise their existing position, whilst being tied down to processes that demand short term, conservative, risk averse, and ultimately boring behaviours.
The Corporations Act and various accounting standards, domestic and International, require many things of directors, almost all are quantitative, take great time and energy, and deplete resources, when the real value is added by the qualitative.
As a community, we demand probity from directors, and largely we get it, but the few who play fast and loose, who feed self interest at the expense of the interests of those who are footing the bill, ensures that there are rules crafted to catch the 1%, but that hamstring the 99% in the process.
The few truly great leaders around in charge of our large corporations that manage to make those choices are the exception. Jack Welch at GE made six sigma the manufacturing standard of the west by driving GE along a path invisible to most, and his successor, Jeffrey Immelt followed by a pivot of GE into green power, and has created an 18 $billion manufacturing division in just a few years that promises to be hugely profitable whilst delivering enormous value to the planet. There are a few others, the oft cited Apple, FedEx, Disney, add your own, but it is a short list.
Perhaps it is happening again as the suppliers of the milling and moulding equipment used in manufacturing, are about to be made at least partially redundant by a few outliers who are putting manufacturing equipment on desktops.
Just a pity there appears to be so few in Australia.
Nov 9, 2012 | Change, Innovation, Marketing
Much effort, particularly by public bodies, is focused on invention, in the mistaken belief that by inventing, patenting, and just being first to do something new, will lead to some great outcome.
Not so.
It is a bit like supply side economics, make the rich richer, and some will trickle down to the less well off, not a great outcome there.
Innovation is driven by different things, a perceived need in the market, an opportunity to improve something, two bits of existing technology combined in a different way, something from one market applied to another unrelated market, and many more. Invention is generally driven by curiosity more than anything else.
Don’t confuse the two, the technologies that have changed the world have largely been commercialised by entrepreneurs, or innovators who saw the opportunities, not by the inventors who conceived the technology.
Invention and innovation are not the same thing.
Nov 7, 2012 | Branding, Change, Communication, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
“Change behavior, before you try and change attitudes”.
These were the wise words delivered to me by Hugh McKay, 30 years ago, and I have never forgotten them, and am constantly reminded as I see people justify something they have done that is different, unexpected, or inconsistent.
Behavior is easier to change than attitudes, so get to the behavior first, then again, and slowly, attitudes will alter to accommodate the altered behavior.
Therefore if you want to have effective advertising, focus on which behaviors you want to change, and worry about attitude later, but generally, you need not worry, it will take care of itself.
People are the same as they were 50 years ago, 500 years ago, the things they own and want have changed absolutely, but what motivates people has not. Just look at the behavior that Shakespeare wrote about, greed, jealousy, love, ambition and regret, they are still all with us.
The net is just like an electronic yellow pages. When you know you want something, you go to it to find the best buy, what meets your specs, etc, but you do not create demand in the yellow pages, similarly, you do not create demand on the net, the best you can do is generate awareness of your offer.
Make sure that the two fundamental purposes of advertising are not mixed.
The first is to create awareness,
The second is to create demand.
These two things are not the same, and the communication strategy used must be consistent with the potential of the medium and the manner of the message to achieve it.
