Aug 30, 2011 | Alliance management, Collaboration, Innovation, Strategy
I was amazed to realise that the recent dog fight to buy Nortel, was really driven by the patents they had, rather than the value of the operational parts of the business.
After an opener bid by Google of $900mill, Nortel eventually was sold to a consortium that included Apple, Microsoft, (ironic partnership that) Ericcson and Sony for $4.5 billion, outbidding Google and Intel who had teamed up. The winners will share the patent bank of Nortel, some 30,000 of them covering all sorts of electronic ideas and gizmos. The Nortel sale then prompted the sale of Motorola to Google for 12.5 billion, as it put a value on their patent bank.
A new business has emerged from the development of the last 20 years, “patent troll” someone who buys up patents, and then launches litigation to extract royalties. Given the hazy boundaries of patents in the digital space, the ideas that patent applications address in the first instance often have potential applications in applications never dreamed of in the original form. Enter the patent troll, who chases the royalities, potentially ensuring innovation driven startups may make never get off the ground, as the threat of litigation is enough to smother the commercialisation process.
The giant of Patent Trolls appears to be Intellectual Ventures, started by Nathan Myhrvold, a brilliant bloke whose contribution to Microsoft was a key to their success, and who since has made heaps by effectively greenmailing tech companies with lawsuits and threats suits for patent infringement.
Long intro. This cost of insuring against greenmailing ends up in the cost of the stuff we buy, and virtually all of it is just risk management, avoiding the risk of litigation that adds no value to the innovation process at all. The patent process was developed to protect ideas in a simpler time, and seems to me to have lived beyond its useful life, at least in the digital arena. Ideas scale, they get better with use, and the evolution of patent trolling acts as a disincentive to use, a tax.
Aug 26, 2011 | Change, Management, Marketing, Small business, Strategy
The decision yesterday by the federal Court to allow Metcash to purchase Franklins from Pick n Pay, then onsell, presumably with tied supply agreements is another nail in the coffin of competition in the retail trade, despite the interpretation of the law by the courts.
Now you have Coles, Woolworths and Metcash with a share above 90% of the supermarket trade, limited choice for consumers, a nightmare for suppliers, particularly the decimated local suppliers who have struggled against the increasing power of the retailers for 30 years, and have largely failed.
Several things will emerge that will accelerate change in the supply landscape.
- Scale should dominate the strategic thinking of suppliers. You need to be a gorilla to play with gorillas, so get big or get out. The only alternative is to back off and be a small specialty producer, concentrating on the small share of retail trade not controlled by the 3 gorillas.
- It will be increasingly difficult at the smaller end of the size scale. The businesses left that turn over between a couple of million, and 50 million, many of them regional, with extreme pressure on their finances at a time when banks are not being helpful despite their advertising, will struggle. There are only a few left, and many of those will go to the wall.
- Competition between supply chains, from growers through to retailers will increase. Soon, if you supply Coles, you will not be able to supply Woolies, without risking your position with Coles. Suppliers will need to make choices, and gear up to integrate themselves into a supply chain system, losing their independence, and closing off options. This may not be a bad thing, but it is a substantial change from the current practice and way of thinking, and it limits the scope of customer base available through which to reach consumers with your product.
- The move to housebrands will accelerate, further enabling global sourcing by retailers, squeezing local suppliers. The $A has punched this process along over the last couple of years, adding more pressure to local suppliers who, having lost shelf space for their brands, were relying on contract packing to stay afloat
- Retailers are lousy marketers, good at sales, but lousy marketers. With housebrands coming to dominate categories on price, attractive to consumers in tough times, where will the innovation come from? Where is the incentive for local suppliers to risk their limited capital in doing something different?.
The ACCC, governments at all levels and the courts implicitly decided years ago that the SME end of the food industry was fair game, the survival of the fittest, and all that, and from an economic perspective, it may be the right thing to have done, but at what cost in human terms. The old question I have used in many seminars to make the point about retailer power:
Question. “Where does the 400kg gorilla sleep?”
Answer. “Anywhere he bloody likes”
Aug 18, 2011 | Marketing, Strategy
A common question every business asks itself regularly, and one with no answer without a detailed understanding of context.
Imagine you are in 1990, and someone asked you “how much would you pay for an internet search?” The only logical response is “a what?”
1990, there was no internet as we now know it, and little capacity to search the documents that were on the few networked computers of the time.
Fast forward to 2000, the same question would have brought an answer that gave the search value, as the net was around, but not everyone had access, or the know-how to search it effectively with the relatvively modest search engines of the time, so the quick assembly of the wide range of information that the few could gather had great value.
Fast forward again to 2010. Same question, different answer again, as almost everyone had the access and knowledge to do a comprehensive search, so the value is diminished because it is no longer a way of differentiating, delivering something unique.
This ebb and flow of value is common in almost any context you choose to examine, but we forget so easily that value is a relative term.
Aug 5, 2011 | Branding, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
Tesco is the leader in the field of retail social media marketing, as noted in the past, but have really outdone themselves with this experiment with a virtual store in railway stations in South Korea.
The speed at which innovations are being tested, and if implemented is increasing, but usually we would expect a smaller business to be sufficiently agile to try some of this stuff, but Tesco is building a really impressive track record.
Australian supermarket retailers are in the dark ages by comparison, although some of the smaller food service retailers are starting to move with location and coupon promotions, but I would expect Coles particularly, now managed by a veritable cricket team of ex-Tesco Poms to make the running amongst the big boys.
Aug 4, 2011 | Change, Strategy
Last time I bang on about the anomalies surrounding the carbon tax, promise.
I find it ironic that the party of so called free enterprise is calling for taxpayers to fund all the pain of the necessary adjustments, whilst the party representing the left of politics, Socialists in the old language, are imposing a tax to put a price on something in the reasonable assumption that if the price goes up, usage will go down. Basic Keynesian economics at work. Perhaps it is the work of the National Party whose unspoken wish has always been to capitalise profits, and socialise losses.
The bust of Bob Menzies, sitting outside the Liberal Party headquarters in the leafy Canberra suburb of Barton has probably grown bronze tears since the last time I looked.
Jul 18, 2011 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, Strategy
There is a new boy on the block to match Colgate, P&G, and other international brand owners, but one who does not play fair, one who controls access to consumers, removing their options of choice. Tesco. A retailer with the clout of Tesco that comes from its scale, with its ability to determine which products consumers will see on shelf, is aiming to develop international housebrands in competition with its suppliers.
Some will see this as just commercial common sense, Tesco leveraging their hard won position with consumers, whilst others will see it as the death-nell of brands, something to be opposed by any means.
I suggest it is neither, but neither is it something in the middle, there are other dimensions to the decision that will determine the outcome:
- Will a retailer be able to develop the deep consumer understanding that feeds a sustainable marketing, brand and product development effort necessary to build a real brand as distinct from labels on shelf?
- When a consumer has a problem with a Tesco branded product, and Tesco fails to manage that problem in a satisfactory manner, will the consumer just move to an alternative product, or move to an alternative retailer?
- Will the presence of Tesco branded products on shelf in a category further remove the incentive for proprietary brands to invest in category growth, and will the further removal of that support damage category profitability for Tesco? This profitability squeeze appears to be happening currently in many categories being demolished by retailer housebrands, will it just get worse?
This development is a logical evolution of the path retailers have been travelling for some time, the only real question is weather evolution accepts the change in the model, or will the model, having evolved past the point of sustainability, now wither and die in the face of more effective competitive models.
