Mar 22, 2024 | Customers, retail, Small business
Anyone dealing with Australia’s two supermarket gorillas knows how hard it is.
You know the old adage:
Question: Where does a 400 kg gorilla sleep?
Answer: Anywhere they bloody like!
Over the 45 years I have rubbed up against them, beginning as a young bloke when there were a number of now disappeared alternative retailers, it has only become harder. However, the rules of dealing with them have not changed much, just become clearer and more cut-throat.
Some years ago I did a presentation to the CEO’s of the SME group of companies who were members of the food industry lobby group AFGC. Looking back on that presentation, republished in several places, it is clear little has changed, certainly not for the better for battling SME’s.
My advice to those I work with also has not changed much, and can be summarised as:
- Have a solid commercial foundation before you contemplate the challenges of distribution through supermarkets.
- Never forget that retailers might be your customers, but they are not your consumers. At best they are a massive barrier between you and your consumers.
- Be relentlessly focussed on your long- term strategy, while recognising retailers are only the means to that end, not the end itself.
- Unless you are clearly differentiated from others, particularly in the minds of consumers, you will be a retailers breakfast.
- Know your numbers intimately. This is the barrier upon which most are wrecked, they have insufficient control and understanding of all their costs, margins, risks, and cash flow.
- Be very willing to say ‘No’ and live with the consequences, as they will almost always be better than the consequences of saying ‘Yes’.
These basic rules, and several others were the topics of conversation in a podcast with Chelsea Ford, published yesterday. The links to the podcast on Spotify and Apple are below.
🎧 Spotify: https://lnkd.in/dWzMN5mN
🎧 Apple Podcasts: https://lnkd.in/dq7yWGJZ
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 4, 2024 | AI, Change
Covid was a Darwinian catalyst, at least in my view.
A decade of slow change was supercharged into 6 months as businesses, institutions, and individuals, struggled with the need to change rapidly, and radically. It also unleashed an unprecedented innovation cycle in medical science that will have long term impacts on drug discovery.
In November 2022, another Darwinian catalyst struck. Open AI launched ChatGPT into the wild, setting off a chain reaction that surpassed the impact of Covid, which has since become endemic, and we have largely stopped worrying.
We have yet to understand the longer-term impacts of AI on social dislocation, personal security, and the ways in which the largess can be fairly spread across the community.
The trends in both cases were all there for those who looked closely enough with an open mind to see.
Pre-Covid it was clear that there were too many cafes, and we were generally over-shopped. Home delivery was increasing, as was remote work. The installation of ‘smart’ devices in factories and homes was normal, and product differentiation based on digital features was everywhere. Yet, it was slow going.
We had a binary mindset, the cake was a given size, and any change to the way it was sliced up meant there were winners and losers. Nobody wanted to be the latter.
Suddenly, in two whacks behind the ear, the cake has changed size and shape radically. The pre-Covid/AI status quo that included many points of friction and often unseen waste, previously sacrosanct, have been swept away.
All this costs money, so the cake has changed ingredients as well as shape and size. The suppliers of those ingredients have morphed into a few monster corporations that will continue to change the shape of our cake with little or no public oversight. Governance has become whatever it takes to make more money, as the power of regulators is substantially diminished.
This level of uncertainty has made us very jumpy, unwilling to trust, and wary of the future impact on our finances, security and familial connections. It has also made possible development of products and services inconceivable previously.
If you are a glass half full type, the opportunities are endless. If you are the other sort, find a comfortable place to hide, if there are any left.
How would Darwin see human evolution post covid & AI?
Header: Is a photo of Ghandi leading the ‘Salt march’ in 1930 which was the catalyst to the recognition that British rule over India needed to end.
Feb 29, 2024 | Change, Leadership, Marketing
If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.
On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.
There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market. So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of yesterday’s fish wrapper from the newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.
There is a welter of research and opinion that confirms the notion marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations.
I asked myself the question again, after stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.
Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just 5 years ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.
Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Engagement Officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles. The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not present 5 years ago.
Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all. The role of marketing is to tell the future and adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.
The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.
In the past, marketing has generally been a passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table. This requires that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.
Look at it from the top down.
Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.
It has changed organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.
Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares. Tactics are short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is limited.
The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this role of leadership, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, as well as being able to remove the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, that are not directly accountable to marketing.
Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more as they are the future tellers. Those who currently occupy that office are usually the engineers, lawyers, and accountants who are good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.
Who is next in your corner office?
Feb 26, 2024 | AI, Governance
The astonishing ability of the new AI tools to increase productivity relies on being able to ‘learn’ by mining pools of data, then detecting and projecting responses based on statistical outcomes of that mining.
The next step, Generative AI, Generative Artificial Intelligence, is the point at which the artificial systems can reason, much as we do. This happens by making ‘neurological’ connections between apparently disconnected data, depth of domain knowledge and experience, breadth of more general knowledge that provides a ‘thinking canvas’ and context. These add up to instinctive responses we sometimes describe as pure ‘gut feel’.
There is however, a middle point.
‘Deep mind’ is a research unit now owned by Google. Their models evolved as AlphaGo and subsequently AlphaZero. These models cracked the barrier that seemed uncrackable, the ‘4-minute mile’ of computing. By beating the best humans at the complex game of Go, it demonstrated the ability of an algorithm to replicate in some form, the neural networks we have in our brains. In short, it can learn from its own experience, not reliant on outside data.
Crossing this Rubicon opens whole new territories to be explored.
It is in effect a ‘rolling probability’ calculation, each step using an estimation of the outcome of the previous calculation to deliver an adjusted outcome, in an ongoing process.
This is how we learn: from our experience.
As a kid I remember my younger cousin crawling towards a campfire surrounded by rocks. The immediate response of most was to grab him to prevent him getting burnt. However, my aunt stopped us, pointing out he would not be badly hurt by the mildly heated rocks surrounding the fire. However, when he touched a heated rock, it would create a memory-response loop that connected the fire to a modest hurt, thus ensuring he would automatically adjust his behaviour, and not go near another fire.
That incident stuck in my memory, and it reflects the way these AI tools are evolving rapidly towards ‘thinking’.
The dystopian view is that such developments over a few decades will see the machines take over. I prefer to think that we humans will find a way, as we always have, to overcome such threats. I guess my great grandchildren might know the right answer.
The header was created with help from DALL-E in about 3 minutes using a short series of prompts.
E&OE: A few hours after posting this post, I stumbled across this post on Medium that might bring forward the passing of the Turing test by a machine back into my lifetime. It records the evolution and current state of Googles 1.5 Pro tool, claiming it is to Current ChatGPT4 what a Model T is to a Ferrari.
The pace of change is astonishing, logarithmic, which makes it hard to comprehend by normal people..
.
