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 28, 2024 | Leadership, Small business, Strategy
Success of an SME means they have crossed that shark filled river where most SME’s fall over.
They have sufficient scale to employ functional personnel to address the day to day running of the business, and are returning the cost of capital and a bit more to the owner.
For some this is a level of comfort that is satisfactory, but to most who have strived to get across that river, it will not be enough, they are of a personality type that will be looking for the next challenge.
So where should they look?
Do yourself out of a job.
When you can go away for 3 months and wonder why nobody missed you, the business has reached the point where you are no longer needed daily. Accept that and get a life, or knuckle down to scale the business. For many that might mean becoming a non-executive chairman, staying engaged, but well away for the week-to-week challenges. You have created a manager system and ‘bench’ that does that. Leverage it.
Identify the industry constraints.
Every industry has a set of constrains that are rarely even noticed, they are just the edges of the status quo. Every useful innovation that has evolved, has done so by addressing a constraint that few, if any had even seen. The outcome of this insight is to deliver the opportunity for significant value addition.
The exempla was Steve Jobs. He saw the constraints in personal PC’s when he saw the work being done at Xerox Park developing a Graphical User Interface. When deployed in the Mac, the GUI changed Apple from a hobbyist into a leading PC. He repeated the magic with the original iPod, then the iPhone, and the App store. Each of them operated in an existing environment, with existing technology that could be deployed in ways that removed the accepted industry constraint, changing the face of that industry. You do not need to be a huge organisation to do this. In my local area there is a plumber who guarantees his work, and guarantees the time he will turn up to do it. Failure to address either means the client does not pay. He charges a significant premium, and now has a number of vans on the road, simply because he redefined an existing constraint in this local area.
Identify and remove internal constraints.
As with an industry, every business has a range of internal constraints that together become the culture and status quo in that enterprise. There are always opportunities to do things better, but are often overlooked, by simply not being seen, or miscategorised.
A former client removed an internal constraint and added 10% to his gross margin overnight by doing so. The business, a medium size in his industry had kept three suppliers of the core item in his manufacturing operations holding roughly equal share of his business, for roughly equivalent products. There was little to no internal competition, each of the suppliers did so from their price list, while maintaining very friendly relations with the MD and purchasing manager. We instituted a competitive bid for a guaranteed 80% of the purchases, with the remaining 20% to go to the runner up as a consolation prize, and ‘backup’ to the major supplier. The cost reduction that came from that relatively simple exercise dropped straight to the bottom line.
Currently the evolution of AI is creating huge opportunities for enterprises to deploy tools that will optimise existing processes and enable scaling at little or no added cost. There is a learning curve, an investment required, but not engaging means you will quickly fall behind competitors, while ignoring the opportunity to go quickly past them.
Build performance consistency.
For those with a view to one day selling the business they have built, there is no substitute for being able to show consistency of performance over time.
Even when an exit is not even contemplated, seeking ways to build consistency has the result of simplifying an enterprise which almost automatically adds margin and cash.
To build performance consistency takes time and effort. It requires a combination of being ‘in the weeds’ implementing processes that recognise and address tactical and operational improvements daily, and taking a ‘helicopter’ view that enables strategic positioning. This combination is easy to say, hard to do.
A buyer is buying two things, both of which are extremely valuable, irrespective of the inclination to exit the business:
- Optimise the existing business processes and infrastructure,
- Map the path that best delivers future cash flow.
Demonstration of positive performance consistency on both these parameters will give you back time, and optimise the buying price if and when you exit.
Header credit: My thanks to Hugh McLeod at gapingvoid.com
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!!
Feb 21, 2024 | AI, Change, Governance, Strategy
Often, I hear the term ‘Digital Strategy’ used as if it were an end result, some discrete set of activities to be completed.
To my mind, this is a misuse of the term.
As it is usually used, ‘Digital’ is all about the devices, the technology, whereas the value in digital is elsewhere. It is in the ability to get things done, differently, more quickly, efficiently, and in a distributed manner by those best able to complete the activity with the minimum of organisational friction.
It is about the business models enabled, the understanding of customers, ability to visualise the unseen, and communicate it clearly. It is not about the RFID tags, VR, and all the other enablers of digital, it is the outcomes that count.
Your strategy may be enabled by digital, but you do not need a digital strategy any more than you need a telephone strategy. They are both just tools to be leveraged.
Management of these changes is confronting, there is not a lot of precedent to go by. This is particularly the case now following the explosion of AI onto the scene. There is a lot of advice around, often delivered by those with a stake in selling you another product or service. However, it seems to me that there are a few simple parameters worth considering.
Functional Silo thinking is poison. The communication enabled by digital is inherently cross functional, better reflecting the way customers and suppliers see us and want to interact. Functional silos have little to do with optimised outcomes anymore. They have outlived their purpose and value.
One step at a time. While the pace of change is getting faster, and the pressure to keep up increasing, we all know what happens when we try and run down a hill really fast, we end up arse over tit. Matching the speed of change to the pace that your enterprise can absorb the change is pretty sensible. Of course, if you are the slowest in the competing pack, it may be better to get out while you can.
Digital is a team game. Hand balling digital responsibility to the IT people is a mistake. You will end up getting what they think you need, which is rarely what you really need. The real challenge is engagement of people not really focussed on digital. The primary example is in the space of marketing automation. Suddenly it exploded, way beyond the capabilities and experience of most marketing people, who are nevertheless now investing more in tech than the IT people. It is essential that the right capabilities are built in the right places. Finally, everyone affected, which is everyone, needs to be in on the secret, with all the options, challenges, and opportunities transparent. The unknown is the father of all sorts of ugly children.
Think long term. Digital transformations are not just about which software you will install to automate a process. Is more about what the business may look like in 5, 10 years, and what steps do you need to take over that time to reman relevant. Technology, much of which may not yet be available, will play a vital role in that evolution, but they remain tools of the evolution, rather than the main game.
Header credit: My thanks to Tom Gauld in New Scientist.
Feb 5, 2024 | Change, Leadership, Strategy
‘Going digital’ sounds easy.
Sadly, it is not.
Almost every company I visit or work with needs, to one degree or another to be aggressively moving down the path towards ‘digitisation’.
Just what does ‘digitisation’ mean?
For most of my clients it means automating some or all of the existing processes driven by bits of unconnected software and spreadsheets, liberally connected by people handing things over.
It is a mess, and there is not one, or even a suite of digital measures that will address the whole challenge, despite what the software vendors sprout.
The world is digitising at an accelerating rate, so keeping up is not only a competitive imperative, it is a strategic necessity. Never more than now as ChatGPT burst onto the scene, compressing everything, and making the ‘digitisation’ drive one of life and death.
On of my former clients is a printing business, an SME with deep capabilities in all things ‘printing’ that enabled the company to be very successful, in the past. Their capabilities are terrific, cutting edge, if we were still in 1999.
If I use them as a metaphor for most I work with, there is a consistent pattern.
- They did not see Digitisation as an investment in the future, rather it is seen as an expense.
- There was no consideration of the application of digital to their product offerings, beyond the digital printing machines, and services beyond those that made them successful 20 years ago.
- Their business model, beyond what is demanded by the two biggest customers, who between them deliver 34% of revenue, has not changed.
- They have not considered digitisation of operational processes, beyond a 25-year-old ERP system. The system has not been adequately updated, and they only use a portion of the existing capability.
- They have not modified their organisational and operational culture to meet the changed expectations of their customers, and the market.
No digitisation effort can succeed without the support of an operating culture that encourages ongoing change. Organisational processes can be modified by decree, but they will not stick. It takes everyone in the boat to be pulling in the same direction, in unison to make progress. This takes leadership, and a willingness to be both vulnerable internally, and a strong ability to absorb the stuff from outside. The leadership group must ‘get out of the building’. Not to smell the roses, but to see the lie of the land, and understand where the opportunities and challenges are hiding.
Coming to this point, where there is a recognition that change is no longer a choice, is where you are given one point out of a possible 10. Now you need to do something about it all to have a shot at the following 9 points. A daunting prospect for most.
The process has 5 easy in principle steps:
- Map the existing operational processes so you know what to change, and where the gaps/opportunities are hiding..
- Map and change the mindset of the people, so you understand the extent of the challenge.
- Take small and incremental steps along a path that all understand leads to a digital future, which means that a lot of collaborative planning has been done.
- Ensure that there are the necessary opportunities for all stakeholders, but particularly employees to grow and change with you. Those that choose not to, also choose to work elsewhere. There are no free rides.
- Ensure the resources of time and money are allocated uncompromisingly to the long-term outcomes. It is just too easy to put aside something that is important but not urgent, for something that may seem to be urgent, but is not important to the transformational effort.
As noted, since the public release of ChatGPT in November 2022, the time before the liquidator comes around for those who choose not to change has compressed radically.
Most, if not all SME’s beyond the digital start-ups now cropping up like mushrooms after rain, will need outside expertise.
Consider that help to be an investment in survival, not a cost.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Fishburne at Marketoonist.com
Jan 22, 2024 | Leadership, Strategy
Tempo.
Everything in life has some sort of tempo to it.
The change of the seasons, the cycles of our lives, the routines we follow often without thought, and the planning/execution cycles in our public, private and business lives.
What has changed dramatically over the last decade or so is the tempo of change. Our commercial, social, and political environments have had a huge dose of steroids injected, radically disturbing the placid status quo that has prevailed. The status quo is now fighting for its life, using any means at its disposal.
Some of this tempo acceleration has been driven by the now obvious impacts of climate change.
2023 was the hottest year on record, climate scientists are now muttering that their worst-case scenarios of a decade ago now look conservative. We are fighting fires and floods simultaneously on multiple fronts.
We are also fighting wars on multiple fronts, all of which have the potential to spread like a viral pandemic.
Much of the balance of the tempo acceleration has been driven by the digital revolution of the last 15 years. The release of ChatGPT into the wild in November 2022 makes what has gone before looking modest.
Look around, those businesses that have done well over the last few years are those that were able to pivot quickly, evolve their business models, and take advantage of the opportunities opened up by the suddenly changed circumstances. Those that fell on hard times were those that for one reason or another, often reasons outside their control, were unable to make those changes.
Once change gets rolling, it builds up momentum, and the tempo of change becomes a real thing. It drives activity, pushing aside many of the objections raised in less heated circumstances. The outcome is that you end up dealing with trade-offs and probabilities in entirely different ways, the impact on individuals and their own agendas seems to be diminished, caught up in the tempo of change.
Tempo, the word of 2024
Header credit: Dave Grohl working up a sweat belting out the tempo for Nirvana
