Category: Disruption

  • Closing the video store

    Closing the video store

    The last video store in my neighbourhood is closing down. A few years ago there were six in the suburb.

    Last year the US Blockbuster chain closed down its disk rental business and now the same thing is happening in Australia as people move from playing DVDs to streaming or downloading from the internet.

    In a generation the video rental industry went from nothing to boom to nothing again; a classic case of a transition effect.

    The rise and fall of the video rental industry is a cautionary tale of how yesterday’s hot new industry can become a dinosaur within a couple of decades.

    Similar posts:

  • Where are all the salesfolks’ yachts?

    Where are all the salesfolks’ yachts?

    “All the pieces are now in place,” President of Google At Work, Amit Singh, tells Business Insider in an interview about how the company’s enterprise offerings are competing in the marketplace and, perhaps most critically, undermining Microsoft’s Office products.

    While Singh may be confident about Google’s products, the company’s earnings from its cloud services are trivial compared to its competition.

    ‘Other’ categories

    Google don’t break out their income from their apps services, instead lumping it into ‘other’ revenues which also includes Google Play, Apps Engine and all their other non-search products. In the last quarter that was $1.9 billion, barely 10% of the organisation’s entire income.

    Microsoft also obscure their office software earnings having split its products into the Devices and Consumer licensing division and Commercial Licensing however the last quarter Office’s income was reported it was a seven billion dollar a quarter business.

    While Microsoft’s income from the various forms of Office will have shrunk in the shift onto the cloud, it’s still safe to say it still dwarfs Google’s income from Apps.

    Google’s ‘other’ category is also a general bucket of products that is competing against Microsoft Office, Amazon Web Services and Apple iTunes – with a combined total of 17 billion dollars, ten times Google’s quarterly income.

    Slim pickings

    Another problem for Google are the margins in its cloud services, as Microsoft have found the profits from online products are very slim compared to those from boxed software or advertising. For Google to continue its impressive profits, it’s going to have to find something more lucrative than cloud office software.

    These slimmer margins also have another effect on the business model as Singh would know well from this days of working at Oracle.

    Oracle, like many of the 1980s and 90s software companies, boasted extraordinary margins. This allowed them to pay huge commissions to salespeople, engineers and executives. A single enterprise sale for an Oracle, IBM or SAP salesdroid could pay for a decade of private school fees or a very nice yacht.

    At Google and its partners the idea of being able to pay off the mortgage with the commissions from a single corporate deal raises a hollow laugh; there simply isn’t the money to pay for armies of hungry salesfolk.

    Those thin margins also mean a change to Google and Microsoft’s business models. Shareholders expecting big profits from cloud services may need to be looking elsewhere.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Business in a time of falling technology costs

    Business in a time of falling technology costs

    Personal Computers cost one thousandth of what they did in 1980 reports Aki Ito in Bloomberg Business.

    For the computer industry that’s been both a blessing and curse; cheap systems have allowed computers to become pervasive but at the same time the collapsing prices have destroyed the business models of those who built their companies upon the industry economics on 1980 or 2000.

    Software has fallen a similar amount with computer programs now costing 7/1000ths of what they did 35 years ago. Again this has dramatically changed the structure of the industry with Google and Amazon taking over from Microsoft and Adobe.

    While the computer industry is the starkest example of the collapse in prices due to technological change, it’s not the only sector being affected – almost every industry is under similar pressures as margins get stripped away.

    Anywhere where middlemen are exploiting market inefficiencies are opportunities for new technologies to destroy the existing business models, Uber are a good example of this with the taxi industry.

    With technological change accelerating in all industries, no business or its managers can assume they are safe from shifting marketplaces or new, unexpected competitors.

     

    Similar posts:

  • Will mobile banking drive the developed world’s economies?

    Will mobile banking drive the developed world’s economies?

    Microsoft founder Bill Gates suggests mobile banking can revolutionise developing nation’s economies says in a guest post for online magazine The Verge.

    “People being able to participate on their phone, no matter where they live, even if they’re in a remote rural village in Tanzania or Kenya, they’ll be able to save small micro-payments,” Gates told The Verge during an interview in New York. “They can participate on the economy through their phone, but also in the fall when it’s time to pay the school fees, they’ve saved the money for the year. That’s transformative for their family.”

    Gates’ piece appeared at the same time French telco Orange announced a partnership with Ecobank to provide mobile payments in several African countries.

    Bringing banking to the masses through mobile phones is one example of how emerging markets can leapfrog the technological and institutional barriers that have given the western world a head start.

    For poor and remote communities, a combination of cheap photovoltaic (PV) cells and cellular base stations mean it’s possible to connect into the global economy without the need of massive government or corporate investment.

    As Gates points out, this has the potential to dramatically change the economies of many emerging markets.

    Similar 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: