Author: Paul Wallbank

  • Does the motor industry matter in the 21st Century?

    Does the motor industry matter in the 21st Century?

    One of the key drivers of Twentieth Century industrialisation was the motor industry. Today it’s an industry plagued by over production, distorted by government subsidies and increasingly dominated by a small group of major players.

    In Australia, the Productivity Commission examined how the motor industry was evolving and its preliminary report (PDF) is a good snapshot of the current state of play in the global automobile sector.

    Chronic worldwide overcapacity is what stands out most starkly in the report with most of the world’s manufacturers operating at less than the 80% production break even point that’s assumed in the industry.

    global-motor-industry-overcapacity

    Australia is a good example of how the motor industry was held as being essential to a country’s development. Like most of the world, the early Twentieth Century saw dozens of small automobile manufacturers pop up in the backyards of enthusiastic tinkerers – it’s like the surge in smartphone apps today.

    Eventually only a handful survived the industry shakeout following the Great Depression and by the end of World War II the industry was largely dominated by US, British and European manufacturers, today that consolidation has increased with East Asian producers replacing the UK carmakers.

    The lessons of World War II

    One of the lessons from World War II was that having a strong domestic manufacturing industry was a nation’s strategic advantage. So governments around the world protected and subsidised their automobile industries along with other factories.

    For Australia, bringing in the required labour to run those manufacturing industries was a seen as a key to the nation’s post World War II growth and it was one of the contributors to the country’s ethnic diversity that started to flower in the late 1970s.

    Today the echoes of those policies remain with governments around the world still subsidising their motor industries despite the economic and strategic military benefits of automobile manufacturing being dubious at best.

    Australia’s failure

    In Australia the modest incentives provided by governments hasn’t been enough to keep local car plants operating, which was the reason for the Productivity Commission’s report into the future of the industry.

    The report’s message is stark for Australia, as a high cost nation that hasn’t invested in skills or capital equipment there’s little reason for the world to buy Australian technology as there’s little being built that the world wants or needs.

    With the nation’s advantages in agriculture and mining – not to mention solar power – Australia should be leading in technologies that exploit these advantages but instead the nation is a net technology importer in all three of those sectors.

    To be fair to Australian industrialists, they responded rationally to government policies that favour property and share speculation over productive investment. Coupled with the drive to create duopolies in almost every sector of the Aussie economy, it didn’t make sense to invest when they could exploit domestic markets rather than invest in new technologies.

    Becoming high cost economies

    For nations moving up the value chain such as China, Thailand and Brazil; Australia’s failure to develop high tech manufacturing and inability in adapting to being a high cost economy is a powerful lesson in the importance of framing sensible long term economic policies.

    The Australian Productivity Commission report illustrates how the motor industry does have a role in helping countries move into being industrial powerhouses, but once a nation becomes a high cost economy it takes more than dumb subsidies to maintain a competitive advantage.

    Germany and the US illustrate this, and the fact both countries’ motor industries are running at greater than 80% capacity shows how their automotive sectors are evolving. It’s no co-incidence that electric car manufacturer Tesla Motor’s plant in Fremont, California was a former GM-Toyota joint venture factory.

    As motor vehicles become increasingly clever so too are their manufacturers; unless car builders and governments are prepared to invest in the brains of their workers and modern technology then they have little future in the 21st Century.

    For nations, the question is whether the Twentieth Century model of building a car industry is relevant in this century. It may well be that other industries will drive the successful economies of the next hundred years.

    Similar posts:

  • Big Data, retail and the 80/20 rule

    Big Data, retail and the 80/20 rule

    Sorting out troublesome customers is one of the major benefits that big data offers businesses, a profitable example lies in reducing returns to online stores.

    One of the banes of online retail is dealing with returns, the industry pioneers overcame objections to shopping over the web through no-questions-asked returns policies that’s trained customers into expecting they can send items back regardless of the reason.

    The Frankfurt School of Finance and Management’s Christian Schulze surveyed nearly six million internet transactions and found returns are effectively costing online retailers half their profits, as The Economist reports.

    Leaving that sort of money on the table is painful for any business and online retailers are trying to find ways to reduce those return costs by sacking their customers;

    But this risks a backlash: rejected shoppers are likely to rush to the newspapers or social media to complain—and their gripes may turn other, more profitable customers against the firm.

    Much of this comes down to Pareto’s Law, that 80% of your problems will come from just 20% of customers, and a key imperative in business is to get the troublesome, high maintenance customers buying from your competitors without being too obvious.

    Identifying those troublesome customers is where Big Data comes into play, coupled with intelligent analytic tools businesses are able to identify who is more likely to return a product or dispute a bill before the sale is made.

    As the Wall Street Journal reports many online retailers are exploring ways they can reduce the return rates using Big Data and analytics.

    By giving buyers access to their purchasing history stores are able to suggest when a customer is buying something that isn’t appropriate or the wrong size.

    The WSJ cites fashion retailer Rue La La, which lost $5 million in returns last year, as an example.

    For instance, a customer who has continuously bought the same brand of dress shirts in both a small and a medium might see a note pop up saying: “Are you sure you want to order the small? The last five times you ordered both sizes, you only kept the medium,” Chief Executive Steve Davis said.

    Another tactic for retailers is to discourage frequent returners from buying high margin goods through targeted vouchers and offers. One point the WSJ article makes is how differential pricing is going to be applied – if you regularly return goods then expect not to be offered the best discounts when you visit the retailer’s website.

    Many returns though are the result of genuinely dissatisfied clients and this is where improving customer service kicks in, the WSJ describes how some retailers are now providing video tutorials for their products and increasingly smarter customer service can be used to avoid returns.

    With the increased sophistication of customer analytics and support tools, we’ll see online retailers squeeze more profit out of their businesses as well as look after their most profitable clients.

    The problem for ‘bricks and mortar’ retailers not deploying new technologies is they won’t have the tools to compete with their savvier online rivals.

    A good example of legacy managers struggling in the face of chronic under investment are Australian retailers and this week the Myer department store chain had to shut down its online outlet after the system collapsed.

    There is no timeline on when Myer’s website will be back up. It’s a tough time for those retailers that haven’t invested in modern system and an even tougher time for companies with legacy managers like those at Myers.

    The use of big data in analysing shopping behaviours is one area where well managed retailers will out perform their poorer rivals, it’s hard to see how companies like Myer will survive in the modern era of business.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • LG and the smart vacuum cleaner

    LG and the smart vacuum cleaner

    The theme for this year’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas appears to be the internet of things as vendors start peppering journalists with media releases showcasing the of the smart devices they’ll be showing off at the event.

    One of the early starter is appliance manufacturer LG showing off their range of smart appliances that are controlled though the Line messaging app that’s best known for its manga like emoticons.

    LG are particularly proud of their robot vacuum cleaner, the somewhat clunkily named Home-Bot Square that has a form factor similar to the Chinese made Win-Bot window washer.

    LG_SMARTHOME1

    Through the Line app, the Home Bot Square and other LG smart devices can be programmed with natural language, initially Korean and English, commands.

    Ahead of the CES show on January 7, the next few weeks will see more announcements like LG’s. There’s going to be no shortage of smart home devices to write about over the next few months.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Defaulting to transparency

    Defaulting to transparency

    Social media scheduling startup Buffer takes transparency seriously, will it help the business?

    Many fine words have been written about openness, sharing and collaboration in recent years but few organisations really practice what’s been preached. An exception to this is social media service Buffer that takes openness to extreme levels.

    Buffer keeps few secrets with the company sharing its monthly operating figures, internal emails and even its formula for calculating salaries.

    The company’s CEO Joel Gascoigne believes this helps build trust in his startup, saying in his blog:

    There are many reasons we default to transparency at Buffer, and perhaps the most important is that I genuinely believe it is the most effective way to build trust. This means trust amongst our team but also trust from users, customers, potential future customers and the wider public who encounter us in any way.

    Building trust is one of the most important tasks of any business owner or manager; whether it’s with customers, staff, suppliers or investors and startups have a bigger task than most. So Joel is onto something with this approach although one wonders how long the philosophy will last as the company grows.

    One thing that stands out in Buffer’s figures is how little Joel and his staff earn; while $158,000 is a good wage it isn’t the massive income that those who glamourize startups pretend founders earn.

    Joel’s experiment with Buffer is an interesting experiment and it will be fascinating to see how long the company continues the philosophy of extreme transparency and how many others follow the example.

    While it might not be necessary to be as open as Joel Gascoigne and Buffer, the idea of defaulting to transparency is one that many organisations – particularly governments – would benefit from adopting.

    Similar posts:

  • Reflections on our good fortune

    Reflections on our good fortune

    In his Christmas message, investment analyst John Mauldin quotes GaveKal’s Louis Gave on the good news in the global economy, that the UN has achieved some of its Millennium goals of alleviating global poverty.

    The UN has eight goals that were set out at the beginning of the century and in a progress report issued in September, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon laid out the program’s successes.

    Of the eight goals, Ban Ki-moon cites reducing poverty, increasing access to safe water, improving the lives of slum dwellers and achieving gender parity in primary schools as being successes under the plan, although there’s much room for improvement.

    “The picture is mixed,” Mr. Ban said. “We can do better. The best way to prepare for the post-2015 era is to demonstrate that when the international community commits to a global partnership for development, it means it and directs its resources to where they are most needed.”

    A sad statistic is that aid to the 40 poorest countries fell by 7.9% in 2012 and the Doha round of global trade talks, where the hope is trade liberalisation will help the most disadvantaged economies, remains stalled.

    From a technologist’s point of view the adoption of the internet and IT is of interest with the report claiming the number of internet users in the developing world grew 12% while broadband penetration increased by a quarter.

    While those numbers are encouraging, it’s hard though not to think that in the poorest countries access to more fundamental agricultural technologies and infrastructure – such as reliable electricity, water and roads – is more critical to development than the internet and ICT.

    At Christmas, it’s worthwhile those of us in the affluent developed world consider how fortunate we’ve been to be born in a place and time that makes us the best fed and most comfortable humans that have ever lived.

    That good fortune isn’t shared by everyone on our planet and that’s something we should be considering when we look at the consequences of our personal economic, political and technology choices.

    Similar posts: