Author: Paul Wallbank

  • Building trust in an age of suspicion

    Building trust in an age of suspicion

    The world’s trust in business, government and innovation is falling reports global PR giant Edelman in its 2015 Trust Barometer.

    Surveying 27,000 participants around the world, Edelman follows up with questions to what they call ‘informed publics’; 6,000 college-educated followers of business and news media with a household income in their country’s and age group’s top 25%.

    Across the board trust in institutions have fallen with nearly 60% of countries falling into the ‘distruster’ category and the news isn’t good for businesses and governments.

    That decline in trust is a striking result given the ‘informed publics’ cohort are their country’s middle class and it shows the stresses being felt in affluent groups.

    “There has been a startling decrease in trust across all institutions driven by the unpredictable and unimaginable events of 2014,” the company’s release quotes CEO Richard Edelman“The spread of Ebola in West Africa; the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, plus two subsequent air disasters; the arrests of top Chinese Government officials; the foreign exchange rate rigging by six global banks; and numerous data breaches, most recently at Sony Pictures by a sovereign nation, have shaken confidence.”

    Whether the events of 2014 are responsible for the erosion in trust as Edelman claims is up for debate, the decline of trust in innovation indicates the general atmosphere of mistrust is a much bigger issue.

    Trusting innovation

    Particularly notable is the Australian result where over half the respondents believe innovation is happening too quickly and that it is being driven by greed. Only some, a piddling 14 percent, see innovation as making the world a better place.

    Those results are a concern for a country looking at dealing with a high cost economy. At this stage of Australia’s development it’s necessary for industry and society to be implementing new ways of doing business, not looking back to the past.

    One shift that marks a change in society is that online search engines are now more trusted than the media outlets that provide the news, that  the population trusts algorithms more than journalists is something that should concentrate the minds of newspaper and magazine proprietors.

    Regaining trust

    Towards the end of the survey Edelman suggests ways businesses and governments can regain the trust of their communities through ethical business behaviour, taking responsibility to address issues, along with having transparent and open business practices

    Other opportunities for building trust include listening to customer needs and feedback, treating employees well, placing customers ahead of profit and communicating frequently on the state of the business.

    Clearly building trust is the task of all staff but it starts with an organisation’s leaders to ensure ethics and openness are rewarded. In that light it’s not surprising that trust is declining given the way unethical financiers and opaque politicians have been the main beneficiaries of the post crisis economy.

    While a time of declining trust means our institutions are under great stress, it also means there are great opportunities as well for smart businesses and leaders. The challenge is to show the ethics and openness that the public is calling for.

    Similar posts:

  • Leaving the Jagger generation behind – Coca-Cola’s journey into milk

    Leaving the Jagger generation behind – Coca-Cola’s journey into milk

    Coca-Cola are now selling milk as their markets move away from consuming sugary drinks, how much of this is due to the baby boomer era coming to an end?

    Following yesterday’s post on McDonalds and the franchising model, it’s worthwhile considering how other businesses are being affected by today’s changing society.

    Certainly the fast food industry is one of the most deeply affected as KFC owner Yum Food starts experimenting with a modernised layouts and menus to counter the drift in consumer tastes.

    KFC are not alone in struggling with this as McDonalds experiments with own changes in response to the demographic and market shifts.

    75-3

    McDonalds’, KFC’s and most particularly Coca-Cola’s Twentieth Century success is largely due to the post war baby boom, as the children born during and after World War II reached adolescence – the Jagger generation as described by Irish economist David McWilliams – they indulged themselves in their newfound wealth and personal freedoms that were unthinkable for their parents who struggled through two world wars and a depression.

    Coca-Cola was the emblem of that freedom and wealth which made up the twentieth century American dram that the world envied, adopted and copied. Today the world still looks to the United States but its a different America they see.

    As the Jagger generation retires and sugary drinks are no longer their first priority their kids and grandkids are looking to different beverages; coffee, energy drinks, bottled water and, possibly, milk which are more in line with their lifestyles.

    The task of Coca-Cola, and all the other brands that represented post War American affluence, the task now is to adapt to a very different generation and a society with priorities very different to that of the previous century.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • McDonalds and the end of the Franchise era

    McDonalds and the end of the Franchise era

    One of the biggest business innovations of the late Twentieth Century was the franchising model. Now as technology changes that way of working isn’t necessarily the force it was a quarter century ago.

    While the concept itself wasn’t new – The East India Company at the beginning of the Seventeen Century was a type of franchise – the model really took off in modern business with the automotive industry where different manufacturers granted franchises to their brands.

    After World War II it was the fast food industry that developed the franchise model into a tightly controlled, procedure driven way of doing business.

    Building the fast food franchise

    The fast food franchise model worked well for everybody; for the brand, it meant they could expand without huge layouts of capital while for budding local entrepreneurs purchasing a franchise meant buying into a proven business model with a known brand name.

    McDonalds was the leader in the fast food franchising sector; the company expanded across the US and then globally on the back of the procedures first developed by the founding brothers then expanded by Ray Croc as he sought to roll out an industrial scale burger chain where a cheeseburger in Arkansas tasted the same as one in Alaska.

    To achieve this, he chose a unique path: persuading both franchisees and suppliers to buy into his vision, working not for McDonald’s, but for themselves, together with McDonald’s.  He promoted the slogan, “In business for yourself, but not by yourself.” His philosophy was based on the simple principle of a 3-legged stool: one leg was McDonald’s, the second, the franchisees, and the third, McDonald’s suppliers. The stool was only as strong as the 3 legs.

    Croc’s concept was fantastically successful as the franchisees took the operational risks and stumped up most of the capital while McDonalds providing the branding, procedures and supplies.

    Many other industries, and fast food chains, copied Croc’s idea and the modern franchise model spread from hamburgers to lawn mowing to industrial safety services. During the 1970s and 80s, a smart, hard working entrepreneurs could do very well buying one of the bigger franchises.

    Wobbling franchises

    Around the turn of the century though that model started to wobble; during the 1990s the sharks began to move into the franchising industry with many sub-standard systems. McDonalds and the other fast food chains compounded the problem of poor performance by selling too many franchises in a mad dash for growth.

    Young entrepreneurs have changed as well; rather than raising several hundred thousand dollars to pay franchise fees to be constrained by a strict set of procedures, today’s keen young go getters are more interested in the opportunities of building new businesses from scratch as startups.

    Access to capital is also a problem as today its harder to raise money from a bank unless a business owner has ample home equity or other real assets to secure lending; the risk adverse nature of banks is making it harder for these capital intensive businesses.

    Technological change

    The killer though for the franchise model seems to have technological and social change; as consumer lifestyles and preferences changed, so too has the underlying demand for both franchises and their products.

    McDonalds’ fading in the United States illustrates this change as companies like Chipotle take over from the once dominant chain as technology has made it more efficient to standardise procedures and customise food service.

    Once McDonalds was an investor in Chipotle and Quartz Magazine describes how the relationship foundered with one of the key points of friction being differences over the franchising model.

    “What we found at the end of the day was that culturally we’re very different,” Chipotle founder and co-CEO Steve Ells said. “There are two big things that we do differently. One is the way we approach food, and the other is the way we approach our people culture. It’s the combination of those things that I think make us successful.”

    Just as technology – the automobile created the increasing suburbanisation of America – drove McDonalds’ growth so too is it now contributing to the chain’s demise as chains like Chipotle can cater to a market with different expectations and deliver a product that doesn’t need the mass production techniques of the 1950s.

    As a consequence, the big procedure driven model of franchising isn’t so necessary any more. While the concept of franchising remains sound, what worked in the post World War II years isn’t so compelling today.

    It’s fashionable to think of companies like newspapers as being the victims of technological change but the truth is most of the businesses we think as being dominant today are the result of advances over the last 150 years, the evolution of McDonalds and the franchising model is just another chapter.

    Similar posts:

  • Samsung needs a win with the Galaxy 6 smartphone

    Samsung needs a win with the Galaxy 6 smartphone

    Having seen its dominance of the smartphone market eroded by a resurgent Apple and a range of upstart Chinese vendors, Samsung has announced it will launch its Galaxy 6 smartphone on March 1 reports the Sammobile website.

    The new phone is reported to boast a curved screen measuring somewhere between 5.1 and 5.3-inches a fingerprint sensor and a 20 mega-pixel camera, which compares well to the iPhone 6’s eight mega-pixel camera.

    While the proposed specs are impressive, the company has a challenge ahead as consulting firm IDC reported its smartphone shipments dropped 11% year on year last quarter in an market that grew by quarter.

    Top Five Smartphone Vendors, Shipments, Market Share and Year-Over-Year Growth, Q4 2014 Preliminary Data (Units in Millions)  source IDC Research

    Vendor

    4Q14 Shipment Volumes

    4Q14 Market Share

    4Q13 Shipment Volumes

    4Q13 Market Share

    Year-Over-Year Change

    1. Samsung

    75.1

    20.01%

    84.4

    28.83%

    -11.0%

    2. Apple

    74.5

    19.85%

    51.0

    17.43%

    46.0%

    3. *Lenovo

    24.7

    6.59%

    13.9

    4.75%

    77.9%

    4. Huawei

    23.5

    6.25%

    16.6

    5.66%

    41.7%

    5. Xiaomi

    16.6

    4.42%

    5.9

    2.03%

    178.6%

    Others

    160.9

    42.9%

    120.9

    41.31%

    33.1%

    Total

    375.2

    100.0%

    292.7

    100.0%

    28.2%

    *Lenovo + Motorola

    24.7

    6.6%

    19.5

    6.7%

    26.4%

    While the numbers for the Chinese manufacturers are impressive, Apple’s shipments should also worry Samsung given the two companies are fighting for the top end consumers in the European and North America markets.

    For Samsung  its smartphones form a central part of its Internet of Things strategy so the success of the Galaxy 6 is critical to the company’s future plans, particularly given the lukewarm reception to the Tizen based Z1 phone on the Indian market last month.

    Samsung’s China Crisis

    With Samsung struggling with both its high end Android smartphones and its lower priced Tizen devices as Chinese manufacturers like Lenovo, Xiaomi and Huawei steal market share, the company  desperately needs to hit the mark with the Galaxy 6.

    Google as well has a stake in Samsung’s success as the Chinese manufacturers are increasingly turning to open source versions of Android for their smartphone systems. A flagship device for Android to counter the iPhone 6 is desperately needed to keep consumer and developer interest in the Google Play store and for Google’s consumer IoT ambitions.

    The stakes are high for both Google and Samsung, the South Korean giant getting a mis-step with the Galaxy 6 could see it following the faded fortunes of its Japanese competitors.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • A year of competing beacons

    A year of competing beacons

    It’s early in 2015 but year shaping up as being one where beacon technologies start rolling out in meaningful numbers as Facebook joins the rush.

    Beacons are, as name suggests, small radio devices that signal their location to smartphones and wearable computers. If someone has the right software on their system, the beacon can alert them about anything from shopping offers to the presence of hazardous material.

    The biggest potential market for beacons currently is the retail sector along with stadiums and concert venues although the industrial aspects shouldn’t be underestimated. Along with sports stadiums some of the more enthusiastic early adopters have been mall owners and local shopping strips as they see the opportunity of delivering more value to customers.

    A question facing retailers and shopping centre owners is whether we’ll see competing networks of beacons being deployed as Facebook, PayPal, Apple and dozens of other companies rollout their own technologies. We may end up with a situation where businesses get sick of being nagged to install multiple devices for their shops or workplaces.

    There’s also the problem of crosstalk as the different beacons interfere with each other. In places like shopping malls multiple transmitters could prove confusing for even the smartest smartphone.

    Again we’re seeing how silos are developing across the Internet of Things sector as vendors release products tied up in their own proprietary standards.

    As the cost of beacons has come down – many are available for under a dollar – the ability of vendors to offer networks has increased dramatically, over this year we can expect all the big players to release their own systems in attempt to control a slice of the market.

    For beacons to really succeed in the marketplace it’s going to be necessary for vendors to agree on common standards. If we end up with a rag-tag collection of competing networks, then the promise of the technology will surely be lost.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts