Mar 21, 2024 | Collaboration, Governance, Marketing, retail, Strategy
Collaboration between competitors is illegal, but tough to prove. It is also the natural state of affairs in an oligopoly.
When a competitive market evolves over time into an oligopoly, the focus of management attention of the remaining oligopolists moves from the customer to the competitor. With the resources available to an oligopolist in any decent sized market, they will know in considerable detail the strategies, internal processes, pricing, and resource allocation choices made by their competitors almost as quickly as they happen.
Supermarket competition in Australia has evolved in this manner. It has turned from ruthless competition for customers 40 years ago, to ruthless collaboration between the two major players now.
Collaboration is illegal, and I am sure that the leaders of the two supermarket gorillas are not setting prices together, or collaborating in other ways that would be contrary to the competition laws in this country. However, given there are only two of them, and they have the resources to watch the other very carefully, there is a sort of quasi co-operation that emerges.
It is driven by the commonality of their activities: The need for shareholder returns, driven by market share acquisition costs, both fixed and variable. They work aggressively on both, and if they did not, the senior management would be fired. In addition, directors have legislated fiduciary responsibilities under the Corporations act in relation to shareholder interests and importantly, returns.
We must also remember that via our superannuation funds, we are all shareholders in Coles and Woolworths.
Once again, just like the ‘housing crisis’, we have short term populist press release driven band-aids being suggested. They are touted as the remedy for long term strategic choices made in the past that to some, have turned sour.
The time for institutional concern about the increasing power of supermarket chains was when they were assembling the scale they now have. All of the take-overs and mergers that have happened have been waved through by the ACCC. This is despite commentary at the time about the impact of the lessening of competition for the consumers dollar.
Now it is too late, other remedies must be found, which do not include a forced break-up. Apart from the immorality of retrospectively applying new rules to the conduct of business, there is no logical or practical way to break apart either of the supermarket chains.
We should stop bleating, and get on with life, while ensuring we do not make the same mistake again.
Header credit: Gapinvoid.com. The cartoon put a huge amount of meaning into a simple graphical form. Thanks Hugh!!
Jan 15, 2024 | Collaboration, Leadership
‘Do not ever patronise me again.’
Those words are seared onto my brain, coming from the mouth of a new boss many years ago.
I had not long been employed and wanted to make an impression. Therefore, every conversation was a combative one, a conversation I set out to win, seeing that as a way to impress.
As the conversation which took place in my office ended, the new boss for whom I had quickly built a strong regard, stood up and walked out. He turned around just outside the door, and walked back a couple of paces, and uttered those words.
‘Do not ever patronise me again’.
He then turned on his heel, and walked out.
I was both astonished, and very concerned. It was only after a painful re-run and examination of the conversation that I realised he was right.
I had, completely unwittingly, patronised him.
What had driven that destructive behaviour?
It took a while for me to understand my own behavioural characteristics. In those days I went into every similar conversation with a point of view that I was prepared to defend aggressively. While I was always prepared to adjust my position in the face of good arguments, this was deeply hidden. In addition, I failed the most significant test of a good debater.
I failed to listen.
My ‘tin-ear’ did not hear a word that was said in any context other than: ‘with me or against me’.
No such thing as active listening, understanding the basis of a differing view, or reflecting on the quality of the foundations of my own.
Later that day I did go into the boss’s office and apologise, acknowledging my mistake, and thanking him for bringing it so painfully to my attention.
We worked together very productively for a decade after that incident in two different companies. We had many debates, and rarely was the outcome black and white, right, and wrong. It proved absolutely that two heads are always better than one, assuming the heads are aligned to the same objective.
Header acknowledgement. My thanks to Dilbert and Scott Adams.
Nov 20, 2023 | Collaboration, Innovation
‘Great minds think alike’ is a common saying. Sometimes it might be right but the greater value of having a few great minds in the one place exchanging views is the fact that they will bring different ideas, values, backgrounds, and depth of knowledge to any discussion.
Throughout history those we remember as great have always had around them a group that has helped form and test their views.
‘The Inklings’ was a group of eminent writers meeting regularly at a pub in Oxford. They called it the ‘Bird and Baby,’ when the actual name was the ‘Eagle and Child.’ CS Lewis, and JRR Tolkien were amongst this group who through debate and constructive criticism tested, improved, and refined the thinking and writing of their comrades.
President Theodore Roosevelt had what he called his tennis cabinet. This was a group of younger men with whom he would go hunting, fishing, shooting, and climbing. All are the ‘masculine’ pursuits for which the President was famous. In the course of these adventures the conversations were all about the problems challenges and potential solutions facing the nation at that time. It was not an official cabinet, but probably held as much or more power than Roosevelts official cabinet, made up of men older than him.
Henry Ford was part of a small group made up of himself, Thomas Edison, President Warren Harding, and Harvey Firestone. This group of men who held in their hands a big chunk of the future path of America, went camping together into the mountains with a tent, a bottle, a few cans of beans, matches to light a fire, and a readiness to discuss the pressing issues of the day.
Even the great Einstein had a peer group, made up of Michele Besso, who was a college friend he called ‘the best sounding board in Europe, Marcel Grossman another college friend and mathematician with who he shared long walks around lake Geneva, and his first wife Mileva Maric, herself a substantial mathematician.
These days business ‘Networking’ groups proliferate, as owners of SME’s in particular, budding entrepreneurs, and solopreneurs look around for advice, input, sales leads, and often somebody to talk to who understands their situation. I am a member of several, and all are different, and I attend each for different reasons.
Where is your mastermind group?
Do you have one? Do you have in your own mind that dinner party where the six people you would most like to invite are, in your imagination, with you? While eating and drinking, you will be imagining a discussion where your ‘private’ group is responding to the things on your mind, offering you their views, ideas, and their perspective, on the issues you face and actions you are contemplating? Clearly in order to have such a powerful imaginary cabinet, you do need to have developed a clear understanding of each of your imaginary dinner guests in order to be able to reflect on your problems from their perspective.
Header photo is the Eagle and Child pub in Oxford, UK. Home of ‘The Inklings’ during the enlightenment.
Nov 15, 2023 | Collaboration, Leadership
As a kid I was a reasonable tennis player, having been coached by an expert and playing competitively from a relatively young age. Nothing outstanding, just competitive at a district level.
Aged about 16, my father who had been an outstanding player and myself started coaching on a Saturday morning on two local courts for a bit of pocket money. I discovered to my surprise, that breaking down, simplifying, and articulating to others the lessons I had absorbed from my coach, to enable me to communicate with those I was in turn coaching, made me a better player.
Recently in a (business) coaching session with one of my clients, we discussed for the 3rd or 4th time the concept of break even. How a break-even point is calculated, the discrimination between fixed and marginal costs, and the management value it delivers. The conversation started because it became evident that despite the previous conversations, my client did not understand sufficiently well to be able to implement in his business.
Therein lies the secret.
The discussion involved him explaining the concept of break-even back to me, while drawing a typical break-even diagram. It took prompting and discussion, but by the end it was clear he understood the meaning and value of calculating his break-even point.
The secret was him explaining it back to me, and demonstrating that he understood by drawing an illustration of how and why it worked. It required him to break down in his mind the elements of a break even into its simplest form. Then, explaining it back to me, as if I was someone who had absolutely no understanding of the idea. Drawing the diagram, enabled the understanding.
This simple act of writing down an explanation is the value that writing this blog delivers to me. I often start a blog with an interesting idea which requires research and building of understanding before writing it down in its simplest possible form. Through that process, understanding builds.
If you cannot explain something in a way that a 10 year-old can understand, you probably do not understand it well enough yourself. The greatest exponent of this technique of using illustrative metaphors to explain complexity in simple ways was Albert Einstein.
Oct 27, 2023 | Collaboration, Communication
Throughout human evolution, we have existed in small groups, tribes and clans. Individuals have worked together for the common good of the small tribe, and often, perhaps most often, been at odds with the tribe across the river.
British anthropologist Robin Dunbar introduced his theory that humans can maintain stable social relationships with no more than 150 people. This is a theory now so well accepted that ‘Dunbar’s number‘ has almost become a cliché.
The phrase ‘Stable Social Relationships’ has particular relevance in the age of social media platforms. How many friends do you have on Facebook, connections on LinkedIn, followers on Instagram?? For many, it is way beyond 150.
Question: How do you maintain ‘Stable Social Relationships’ with that number of people?
Answer: You cannot.
Social media gets the blame for all sorts of things, rightly so, but it is not the fault of the platforms, it is the fault of evolution.
Our application of technology has run well ahead of our evolutionally capacity to manage it and retain the relationships that made us the most successful species ever.
It seems to me that the growth of private messaging, reversion to personalised even handwritten notes, and emotional engagement of ‘Local’ things is a response to the ‘platformisation’ of our social relationships.
I think it is a trend that will continue and grow.
Now we have the relative unknown of AI coming at us like a train, changing again the basis on which we interact.
Dr Dunbar has little advice on that score.
I wonder if ‘friends’ will ever include Robbie the Robot?
Mar 8, 2023 | Collaboration, Leadership
We are all familiar with Darwin’s theory of natural selection. The forces that drove our evolution drive much of what we do, personally, socially, and professionally.
If you apply the idea to the marketing process, where we are dealing with qualitative factors that are really difficult to turn into numbers, you by necessity implement what is accepted as the ‘scientific method’. Form a hypothesis, test it, and revise the hypothesis to retest in a cyclic process, trying to disprove the hypothesis. In the absence of evidence that the hypothesis is wrong, accept it, at least for the moment.
It is the same process as Natural Selection, with some wrinkles.
In marketing you are entering a world where you have a fair idea of where you want to go, but no concrete roadmap. Therefore, you experiment with different approaches, ideas, treatments, whatever you choose to call them, using a combination of data, instinct, domain knowledge and A/B testing to progressively select the best options and improve on them.
Creative selection.
Every project I have been involved in, of any type, has risks.
On most occasions, the only risk that is really considered in any depth is the business risk. Can we make a bob? The answer to this relies absolutely on the forecasts of cash flow, which are usually on the optimistic side. More often than not, I have seen the other key risks we always face in marketing underweighted or completely ignored. Risk factors such as competitive reaction, failure to closely define the real customer problem you are solving, which product will customers stop buying to buy yours, and many others. Failure to consider these sorts of externalities constitutes a significant and often underrated risk to any project.
Without this sort of rigorous analysis and its countermeasures, you are often just left with a cheaper price as the attraction to a customer, and that is not good for anyone in the long run.
Thinking about our marketing as a risk management tool is a useful way of thinking.
Risk for us is reduced when we reduce the risks facing our potential customers, we can guarantee the outcome of using our products.
Creative selection shares another characteristic with natural selection.
It requires sex.
Not physical sex, but intellectual sex, the type that happens when a range of engaged and creative people collaborate deeply to solve a problem, to map an alternative course. Collaboration, real collaboration, not the organised type where a boss throws together a ‘team’ and instructs for a solution. That is never a real team, it is people working in close proximity. A team is one where minds meet to address what all members see as a truly worthwhile challenge that may deliver something great.
When you have that creative ferment, the focus on outcomes for customers, that is where you find great marketing.
Again, a bit like great sex.
Easier to talk about than to find and participate.
Header cartoon credit Scott Adams and the Dilbert crew.
