Apr 22, 2024 | Governance, Innovation
Suddenly, everyone is interested in batteries.
When mobile devices took off after the launch of the iPhone, the demand for batteries with a longer life than the then existing chemistry could deliver took off as well. Panasonic held a dominating position in this new market, being the major supplier of batteries made using Lithium as the power store.
Then along came Elon Musk. The first Tesla cars, the initial roadster and early models of the series 1 and 2 sedans used what was in effect just large-scale Panasonic batteries. Individual units were linked together with cooling tubes assembled into the pack to dissipate the heat generated by the lithium, which otherwise led to spectacular fires.
Musk in collaboration with Panasonic envisaged a ‘gigafactory’ in Nevada that would supply the packs. As has become a pattern, Panasonic found the task of working with Musk all too much, and were bought out. However, to the point, an essential part of a lithium battery is a range of rare minerals, amongst them Cobalt.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) hardly democratic, holds almost all the worlds known reserves of Cobalt. Rapid development was inevitable, as was the corruption of local power brokers, and the human rights blindness of the major corporations. Cobalt is a dangerous material, yet much of it is mined by kids in holes with a pick and shovel, dying like flies. There is a registration process designed to monitor and outlaw these practices, but they are useless.
The challenge of replacing Cobalt is therefore the focus of much scientific attention. It is the chemistry of batteries that will deliver a power to weight ratio that will guarantee longer charge life, in everything from your phone to your car, and all the other uses to which Lithium batteries are suddenly being placed.
The world as a choice of three strategies, which should be mutually exclusive:
-
- Find an alternative to cobalt, and quickly.
- Find alternative sources of Cobalt, leaving the DRC out of the picture.
- Internationally strengthen and enforce the existing regulations on the mining and processing of Cobalt to remove the incentive for the current corruption and exploitation that occurs.
The first two options are clearly the best. However, the challenge of replacing Cobalt requires a scientific breakthrough that while probable, is yet to be made, and the DRC remains the primary supplier. The third option seems to be beyond our joint capability.
The first to find and commercialise a solution will reap the rewards.
Apr 15, 2024 | Governance, Leadership
We lost an intellectual giant last week, Daniel Kahneman.
Psychologist and Nobel prize winner in economics, he along with long term collaborator Amos Tversky, created what has become known as ‘Behavioural Economics’.
So what you say.
In 2010 Kahneman published research that demonstrated that income was strongly correlated with happiness at lower levels, but above a seemingly modest level (US 75K at the time) it had no effect.
In 2021, a Wharton academic Mathew Killingsworth published a paper that came to the opposite conclusion.
In order to reconcile these conflicting outcomes, Kahneman teamed up with Killingsworth and a third, neutral researcher to establish the truth.
The result was a case of diminishing returns.
It found there were substantial gains in happiness up to 200k income, but after that, diminishing returns kicked in. The ‘happiness curve’ flattens out, eventually delivering no increase in happiness with an increase in income.
This seems to make sense to me.
At a point, an increase in income does not increase happiness (I aspire to discovering that point) it just becomes a scorecard, no different from the one used on a golf course.
Given this instinctively sensible outcome, should Dr Chalmers add a level to income tax?
At a point above an income level few will ever see, impose a further meaningful tax rate on the increments?
Despite the inevitable screams, they will not miss the money, and you never know, it just might make those few happier.
Apr 5, 2024 | Governance, Strategy
Democratic governments have always spent time talking about creating regulations to control monopolies, or at least the profits that can accrue to the monopolist.
In Australia, it has only been talk, and choices to sell public natural monopoly assets to private industry for short term cash. The new monopolist then exercises monopoly pricing power, while the seller governments bleat about market power, as Sydney airport, and electricity distribution have clearly demonstrated.
Elsewhere the examples of action beyond the exercise of the Legislative power to break up monopolies are few and far between. In the US, powers under the Sherman Act were used to break up Standard Oil in 1911, and AT&T in 1984. There was a failed attempt to break up Microsoft in the late 90’s, and currently there is much bleating about the power of Tik Tok, yet to see concrete action.
Beyond those examples, and a few fines of digital platforms under European legislation, little progress has been made. We may see some action in the US to separate the ownership of TikTok from its Chinese parent at some point.
Dictatorships tend to go the other way, with the person at the top holding the whip hand and amassing the profits.
Monopolies are huge profit generators.
Governments feel compelled to control them (until they sell them). So, it seems like a pretty good idea to me to find a market niche, or product category where you can hold a monopoly, or dominate such that you have price setting power.
Be the only solution to a problem, control the best itch scratcher available, and the profits will flow.
I suspect this may be a bit politically incorrect, but think about it.
Creation of something that is so good, so far in front of the competition, so irreplaceable, that there is no viable alternative is surely the objective of all commercial enterprises.
Mar 26, 2024 | Governance, Sales
This is one of the most common questions asked, particularly when configuring a new product.
The ‘right ‘ price will be the pricing model that delivers superior value to customers while delivering optimal returns to the seller.
Developing a pricing model involves a series of strategic and market driven choices. Packaging, high Vs Low, the channels used, marketing collateral deployed, shape of your business model, identification of your ideal customer, and a host of other factors that make up the ‘marketing mix’.
However, despite most of us knowing these things, typically price is set on a cost-plus basis, mixed with what others are charging for the same or similar/substitute product.
For an entirely new product, it is a guessing game that has potentially serious consequences. At one end you kill the product, at the other, you leave money on the table.
Dutch economist Peter van Westendorp introduced a method that ended up being named for him in 1976. It has been used sparingly since, but not as widely as it should be.
It is a simple and reasonably reliable method to determine the ‘right’ price for a product or service.
There are four questions that will set your price ‘guidelines’:
- At what price would it be so cheap that you would question quality?
- At what price would you consider the product to be a bargain?
- At what price would you start to think the product is getting expensive, but you still might consider buying it?
- At what price would you consider the product to be too expensive, and you would not buy it?
Analysis of the responses will give you the point at which you are attracting the most customers who make the trade-off between buying intention, price, and quality perceptions. Putting this on a simple two-dimensional chart makes explanation easy.
Header courtesy Wikipedia
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!!
Mar 19, 2024 | Governance, Marketing
Recently at a meeting of SME’s, I found myself in a conversation about accessing government grants, initiated by a guest speaker. She was a very impressive woman with significant experience delivering grants from the Department of Industry.
The notable omission was, in my opinion, a view that reflected the experience of someone contemplating investing the time and energy into an application should consider.
Full disclosure: I ran a small grant funding business called Agri Chain Solutions as a contractor for almost 3 years from 1999 to 2002. It was a company limited by Guarantee, with a commercial board, and ranks as the only time I am aware of that a task has been outsourced by the federal Bureaucracy in this manner. The department concerned, then called Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries Australia (AFFA) was implacably opposed to the exercise, and only complied after express instruction from John Howard, as the then new PM.
Following is a list of the irritations you can expect.
- Ambiguous guidelines, and sometimes they appear to be on roller-skates as you seek clarification.
- Unusable templates, seemingly designed to frustrate applicants.
- Bureaucratic time and commercial time do not match. The process will always take longer and consume more resources than you think would be possible as you initiate the process.
- The revolving door of ‘officials’ who will manage your application, through to the approval and then implementation. You will constantly be covering the same ground, again, and again, as departmental personnel rotate.
- Commercial in confidence: it does not exist.
- Rounds and the money has run out. For ease of management, most grant programs operate in ’rounds’, and when the money for that round has been allocated, bad luck. You could reapply in the next round. This system disregards overall merit, replacing it with merit in a particular round. The result is weak projects in less competitive rounds are sometimes approved, when in later more competitive rounds, highly meritorious projects miss out.
- The effect of influence of competitive rent seekers. Who you know is always important.
- The time taken to prepare without any indication of the probability of success usually challenges resources of SME’s. This leaves the field open to larger companies with the staff, who probably need the grants less.
- Having inexperienced young bureaucrats believing they’re important, and can dictate to you particularly in grant implementation.
- Recognise at the outset that an application will take a long time, consume significant resources, and you may not be successful. When you are not successful, the reasons for the failure may never be clear.
- Grants are taken into account as revenue, and therefore if you make a profit, you pay tax on it.
- Finally, what is important to you is usually absolutely irrelevant to those responsible for assessing and progressing your application for ‘their’ money. They are just people with their own baggage, ideas, perceptions, ambitions, and worries. Your application amongst all the others in the pile hardly rates on their radar.
Header credit: Cartoon by Tom Gauld from New Scientist magazine.
