Category: Australia

  • Playing with Dragons

    Playing with Dragons

    Chinese manufacturing has been in the news recently with various exposes of factory conditions by the New York Times, the now discredited Mike Daisey and a fascinating look at US store chain Wal-Mart’s supply chain by Mother Jones’ Andy Kroll.

    In his examination of Wal-Mart’s Chinese suppliers Andy Kroll interviews factory owners and managers with a common theme, they are all loath to be identified for fear of incurring Wal-Mart’s wrath.

    This is wall of silence is familiar in Australia; the reluctance of local suppliers to speak about the conduct of the Coles’ and Woolworths’ policies has hobbled enquiries into the domestic retail market.

    Another aspect Chinese and Australian have in common is how the retailers drive down costs with big buyers insist upon regular price reductions from their suppliers.

    This is what happens when your business is a price taker that relies on one or two suppliers; you accept what you’re offered or lose a large chunk of your business.

    With many of Australia’s industry sectors now dominated by one or two incumbents, this way of doing business is now the norm rather than the exception.

    As a nation Australia’s finding itself in that position as well. Now our governments and business leaders have decided Australia will only dig stuff up with a few favoured, uncompetitive industries like car manufacturing being being protected, the entire country is in a position not dissimilar to a Foshan coat hanger manufacturer.

    Having that dependency on one or two major customers is a risk and when the commodities boom turns to bust – commodities booms always do – our relationships with these customers will be tested.

    When that test comes, the clumsy way the Federal government has banned Chinese companies from tendering to the National Broadband Network or blocked investment in mining projects may turn out to be mistakes.

    This is the problem with being a price taker selling a commodity product, you become hostage to fortune and when the market turns against you there isn’t a great deal you can do.

    In the early 2000s computer manufacturers like Dell and HP decided to sell commodity products then watched with despair as Apple captured the premium, high margin end of the market. Neither business has truly recovered.

    Being trapped at the commodity end of a market is not a comfortable place to be, particularly if you don’t have a plan to move up the value chain.

    If your business is currently selling low margin, commodity goods then it’s worthwhile considering what Plan B is should the market turn against you. You might also remember to be nice to your customers

    At least you’ll show you have more forethought than our leaders in Canberra who seem to like to play with dragons without thinking through the consequences.

    Similar posts:

  • David Jones’ wasted decade

    David Jones’ wasted decade

    In 2001 Australian retailer David Jones shut down their website.

    Back then, the future was clear; profits were in financial services and certainly not in online sales or investing in improved stores and service.

    Today the company released their strategic review that looks forward to financial years 2013 and beyond. You can downloaded it from David Jones’ investor website.

    On Page 13, they show just how far David Jones has fallen behind their international competitors. Less that 1% of DJ’s sales are online compared to 4.5% of the UK’s House Of Fraser and 13% of John Lewis.

    Australian executives claim they are in a global market for their talents which is why they deserve world standard remuneration. David Jones’ results show how hollow that mantra is.

    The problems start with the board, five of the eight current David Jones directors were with the company when that decision was made in 2001.

    None of them have been held to account.

    David Jones illustrates the weakness in Australia’s business sector – largely unaccountable boards answering only to institutional investors who themselves have grown fat and lazy on clipping the compulsory superannuation ticket.

    One hopes the some of the competitors who are displacing flaccid incumbents like David Jones are based in Australia or the locals may soon find that many of these sectors, not just in retail, will go offshore to better run companies.

    Similar posts:

  • Milking the dead cow

    Milking the dead cow

    Many big Australian businesses seem untouchable as they dominate their markets to degree almost unknown in most other developed countries. As the story of Sensis shows, Australia’s big duopolies may not be as strong as they appear.

    The last few months have been tough for Sensis; revenues last year fell nearly 25%, the once strong business was folded into the latest incarnation of Telstra Digital Media and now the CEO Bruce Akhurst has departed after seven years.

    What could have been a dynamic business is now shriveling away, what went wrong?

    Milking the revenue cow

    Bruce did a good job of keeping revenue coming in during a period that the then owners, the Federal government, wanted to maximise the book value of Telstra before its sale.

    Year upon year Sensis could be relied upon to squeeze more money out of the businesses advertising in it.

    Management were focused on extracting revenue from the existing client base rather than responding to the obvious threat from online search.

    Expensive distractions

    When senior management decided to respond to the online world, they were sucked into unnecessary and expensive distractions; the most notable being the 2005 launch of Sensis Search where the then Telstra CEO – the disastrous Sol Trujillo – famously sneered “Google Schmoogle”.

    Three years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, Sensis admitted defeat. By then the small business advertisers who were the life blood of the directory market had woken up to the reality their customers weren’t using the Yellow Pages anymore. Sensis had missed the boat.

    Clunky processes

    Whenever I spoke to small businesses about Sensis through the 2000s there was the same complaint, “I don’t have time to deal with their sales people, just let me tick a box on a web page or send a fax!”

    Purchasing space was difficult for customers, their 1950s Willy Loman sales model should have been automated in the 1990s and never was.

    Instead Sensis was locked into a high cost sales model and added friction for advertisers which they shouldn’t need, not only were they expensive but they actually made it difficult for their customers to place orders.

    Should Sensis have been sold?

    At its peak in 2005, Sensis was valued at between 8 and 10 billion dollars as a stand alone company.

    Many, including myself, believe that breaking Sensis away would have been the best result given Telstra were at the time focused on protecting their fixed line copper wire monopoly and the directories business was not getting the management attention or capital investment it needed.

    History shows though that we might be wrong.

    Commander Communications was spun off from Telstra in 2000 and like Sensis had inherited an almost monopoly position in the small business communications market.

    By 2007 Commander was out of business thanks to a combination of incompetence, management greed and an inability to recognise the changing communications marketplace.

    The Australian disease

    Commander’s biggest problem was it saw its customers as cash cows, just as Sensis did. This exposes a much deeper problem in Australian industry and management culture.

    Over the last thirty years Australian government policies have seen duopolies develop in almost every key sector of the economy.

    All of these duopolies share the same “customer as a milk cow” philosophy which, along with the rampaging Australian dollar, has dragged Australia into being a high cost economy.

    The banking industry, while not a duopoly for the moment, is an even more debilitating example of the cash cow syndrome where small business has been crippled by excessive interest rates and fees – particularly since the 2008 crisis.

    Sensis’ demise is systemic of a culture that fixates on extracting maximum revenue from customers; concepts like innovation, R&D or adapting to market trends don’t have a role in this mentality.

    Milking cows is a fine business, but sometimes you have to think about the health of the herd.

    Similar posts:

  • Building a digital economy

    Building a digital economy

    Yesterday the NSW Government hosted the Sydney leg of their Digital Economy Industry Action Plan forum meetings.

    The aim of the action plan, one of a series for targeted industries, is to develop “a vision and strategy for the Digital Economy over the next decade in NSW.”

    So how do we build a “digital economy industry” in a country that seems to be hell bent on staking everything on China’s continuing demand for coal and iron ore?

    Picking winners

    One of the things implicit in forums and plans like this is that the government has identified the ‘digital economy’ as a priority for economic development.

    To help identify the opportunities the New South Wales plan breaks the sector into various industries;

    • Digital content and applications
    • Information services and analytics
    • Smart networks and intelligent technologies
    • Autonomous systems
    • E-research
    • ICT service innovation
    • ICT biomedical innovation
    • ICT safety and security innovation
    • Locally developed technologies and applications

    The underlying assumption is the state has some sort of natural advantage in these areas or the potential to develop into a leader.

    If these are the foundations of a region’s digital industries then we have to understand how they were identified as it’s difficult to build an industry if we don’t know what we can do.

    The role of government

    An important question is the role of government, an unfortunate thing with bureaucrats and politicians is they sometimes over estimate the influence they have on industry and the economy in general.

    In NSW the state government’s role is going to be at best marginal, they can establish policies and offer financial incentives but business needs access to essential skills, finance and infrastructure.

    Walking the talk

    It’s all very well for governments to proclaim they support local businesses but if they prefer to buy from multinationals – even if the big boys are more expensive and have a less than stellar delivery record – then the domestic industry cannot thrive.

    To be fair to governments, this reluctance to buy from local suppliers is shared by Australian corporations and on its own is probably one of the biggest obstacles for innovative companies and entrepreneurs to thrive in Australia.

    Until this attitude changes among governments and corporations, it’s  difficult to see how local businesses can develop and survive.

    Open data

    For the digital industries, open data is probably the most important aspects. Unfortunately the current generation of Australian public servants, managers and politicians share an almost Stalinist view about access to taxpayer owned information.

    Without making public data accessible so entrepreneurs can develop new applications and existing industries can improve productivity, governments are only giving lip service to building a digital economy.

    A good example of this is the expressed desire of successive state and Federal governments to build Sydney as a global financial centre.

    To do this, free and open investment information is essential yet company and stock exchange data that is assumed to be public information in the United States and much of Europe or Asia is propitiatory and locked away behind paywalls.

    Government and corporate obsessions with controlling information makes it unlikely any Australian state or city can be global centre in the digital economy or the banking sector which the NSW government sees as an other priority sector.

    Consistent standards

    Another area governments can improve is by having open standards across government agencies so, for instance, land information can be properly matched with health data or public transport details.

    Right now policies on data and things like social media or content platforms is fragmented making the cost of government and doing business more expensive and convoluted than it should be.

    Promote advantages

    One of the weaknesses in Australia’s overseas marketing is the nation is portrayed as a bunch of alcohol swilling beach bums cuddling koalas.

    Google Maps founder Lars Rasmussen once said Google’s head office reaction when he suggested establishing a development office in Sydney was “what are you doing to do? Sit on Bondi Beach and drink Fosters?”

    A missed opportunity in Australia’s disjointed tourism and investment campaigns is ignoring the nation’s diverse ethnic and skills base. We need more emphasis on the multilingual skills of the state’s workers and less on bikini babes.

    Capital Problems

    Whenever a group like the forums gather, there’s always complaints about Australian business’ access to capital.

    Australia’s taxation, finance and social security system favours speculation on the share and property markets rather than long term investments or taking risks on new business ideas.

    Three generations of these policies have a created a population who, understandably, see owning property as the safest way to provide for retirement. The banking system has responded to this and is reluctant to lend for anything not secured by real estate assets.

    At the same time we’ve allowed the compulsory superannuation system to be dominated by flaccid ticket clippers who are content to charge working Australians outrageous fees for hugging the stock indexes.

    Sadly what should have been a source of capital for innovative businesses largely spends its time lobbying governments for more protection and a bigger cut of workers’ incomes.

    The access to capital is a serious problem for Australian business and one that can’t be kicked up the road for ever by Liberal or Labor Federal governments but it isn’t something the states can fix.

    Not only do the distorted investment priorities of Australian society damage developing industries, it almost certainly guarantees the dream of making Sydney a global financial centre unattainable.

    Education

    One of the canards that always pops up at industry development forums is that educators aren’t in touch with employers’ needs.

    There’s a certain type of business manager or owner who believes the roles of schools, technical colleges and universities is a sausage machine popping out perfectly formed young workers who can pick up a spanner, hair clippers or a copy of Photoshop and start productive work straight after being shown where the tea room is.

    Those business owners are deluded.

    None of that’s to say educators shouldn’t be adapting to their times as well as being open and transparent but the idea that the role of schools is to equip kids with the skills we need today would see them unprepared for next decade’s economy.

    Equally however, Australia’s universities and training colleges have been encouraged to offer third rate courses to overseas students attracted by the prospect of getting permanent residence in the country. That bums on seats model had hurt the quality of the nation’s education sector and the skill levels of graduates.

    Attitudes

    The most essential part of building any nation’s industry is the attitude of people – if the prevailing view is it’s too hard, or threatens established interests then it won’t happen.

    Probably the best advantage New South Wales, and all of Australia have, is a comparatively young, diverse and outward looking population.

    The best thing the government can do in trying to build new sectors, be they in the digital economy or anywhere else, is to fix what they can such as procurement, open data or taxation and get out of the way.

    A constant dreams of governments is to build the next Silicon Valley, just as it once was to build the next Detroit or Birmingham.

    The era of the big engineering works passed, at least in the Western world, and the age of venture capital driven social media platforms will probably be over soon as well.

    Aping someone else’s success – while ignoring the historical factors and accidents that created it  – seems a guaranteed way to disappointment.

    The best part to build a digital economy, or any thriving society, is to encourage the risk takers and the inventors. Bring them together, let them loose and you build the next economic powerhouse.

    Similar posts:

  • Investing in the future

    Investing in the future

    UK supermarket chain Tesco announced it intends to create 20,ooo new job over the next two years through “significant investment in customer service, refreshing existing stores and opening new ones”.

    That word – investment – is the key to business growth. Not whining about the internet stealing jobs or begging the government to bail out failed industries and their managements.

    Investment is more than just buying a shiny new machine, it’s also research, development, training and educating a business’ management, staff, suppliers and customers.

    Too many businesses and governments are locked into the the 1980s mindset that investments, along with things like customer service, are a cost that that has to be driven down.

    Driving down costs was profitable for many managers through the 1990s and early 2000s, in fact we could argue this was one of the big drivers of corporate profits and productivity through that period.

    While some of those costs were undoubtedly unnecessary and deserved, it’s now clear that many governments and businesses ran down investment as well.

    Today we’re seeing the results of that; crumbling infrastructure, skills shortages and businesses that can’t compete in a changing global economy.

    What we invest in our businesses – be it time or money is essential to its long term success. Only the biggest companies in the most protected industries can survive for a while without investment.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts