Woolworths’ announcement earlier this week they are exiting the Dick Smith Electronics business ends an interesting study in how a business can evolve as their industry changes.

In the thirty years since Dick Smith sold a stake in his business to Woolworths – a few years later they bought out the rest of Dick’s equity – the electronics retail business has changed immensely.

At the beginning of the 1980s, the CB radio boom that had fuelled the growth of stores like Dick Smith Electronics was coming to an end, as was the hobbyist industry which supplied those building their own computers and other electronic devices.

In the US, the hobbyist industry included people like Paul Allen and Bill Gates – who founded Microsoft – along with Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, the founders of Apple Computers. Both of these companies had a lot to do with the growth of the DSE business later.

While those two industries were fading at the time Woolies bought the chain, the availability of consumer electronics was taking off as Video Cassette Recorders, car hi-fi and, later, CD players started entering the market.

At the time these were high margin items so the transition from a hobbyist store to consumer electronics chain was a lucrative move for Woolworths – something helped by Dick Smith’s penchant for publicity even though he was no longer with the store.

Eventually the steam ran out of the early wave of consumer electronics but in the mid 1990s the PC revolution took off which allowed Dick Smith Electronics to diversify again.

As personal computers were taking off, so too did the next wave of consumer technology, particularly in mobile phones, games and big screen TVs which initially had big, fat margins.

Over time, these margins began to fade as prices dropped but for Woolworths this wasn’t a problem as the beginning of the 2000s saw an explosion of easy consumer credit, allowing stores to move more products to willing consumers.

Very quickly, the consumer electronics industry became more like the low margin, high volume FMCG – Fast Moving Consumer Goods – sector that is Woolworths’ core business.

The global financial crisis heralded the end of the credit boom and now cautious, credit shy householders meant consumer electronics were no longer fast moving.

Dick Smith Electronics aren’t the only chain affected by this, Harvey Norman are suffering the same way and in the United States Best Buy and Radio Shack are in desperate straits for the same reasons.

Making things tougher for Australian retailers are store rents that are among the highest in the world. Woolworths’ decision to shut down a third of the Dick Smith outlets is a wise move as many of those stores probably have lease renewals pending.

Woolworths has done well from Dick Smith Electronics over a quarter century as the consumer electronics industry has evolved. Their story is a great example of how a business can adapt in a changing sector.

Hopefully Woolies will find a motivated buyer – one hopes not one of the clueless private equity asset strippers that have destroyed so many other retail icons in recent years.

Perhaps we’ll see a buyer who can steer the business well into the phase of consumer electronics retailing with some innovative and fresh thinking that the Australian retail sector needs right now.

“What immediate measures can be taken to protect jobs?” – French President Nicolas Sarkozy

“We want to be countries that made cars” – Kim Carr, Australian Minister for Manufacturing

Around the world the forces of protectionism are stirring to shield fading industries, businesses and fortunes from economic reality.

The most immediate target in this battle are the new industries that threaten the old.

It’s no coincidence US lawmakers want to introduce laws that will cripple the Internet in order to favour music distributors, that the US and New Zealand governments work together to shut down a cloud sharing service or that failing Australian retailers call on their government to change tax rules in order to prop up their fading sales.

The old industries appear to have the advantage; they are rich, they have political power and – most importantly for politicians – they employ lots of voters.

We shouldn’t under estimate just how far the managers and owners of the challenged industries will go to protect their failing business models, unwanted product lines and outdated work methods, which isn’t surprising as their wealth and status is built upon them.

Eventually they will lose, just as the luddites fighting the loom mills and the lords fighting the railway lines did.

The question for society and individuals is do we want to be part of yesterday’s fading industries or part of tomorrow’s economy.

We need to let our political leaders know where we’d our societies to go before they make the wrong choices.

While much of the commentary on the article has – correctly – focused on how US manufacturing move to China is destroying the economic bases of the American working and middle classes, there’s also another serious consequence of the story; the destruction of the US supply chain.

The story itself emphasised this;

In part, Asia was attractive because the semiskilled workers there were cheaper. But that wasn’t driving Apple. For technology companies, the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of companies.

While wage costs are important, far more critical are the surrounding supply chains. Without those, even if you want to manufacture in the US or anywhere else you’ll struggle to find suppliers and skilled labour.

The amazing thing with the United States is the world’s most powerful economy has managed to dismantle most of their supply chains that took a century to develop inside twenty years whil China has built up most of theirs since they joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001.

For the United States economy, the effects are more subtle and dramatic than they first appear. The accompanying video to their story illustrates how the multiplier effect, the number of jobs created in the wider economy for each industry worker is as much 4.7 for a manufacturing job, while a service sector worker is less than 1.

That means less employment and less wealth.

For the US, and most the Western world, we were able to avoid the effects of becoming less wealthy over the last decade by spending big on credit cards. Homes that would have been out of reach to the average American – or Australian, Brit or Irishman – were kept accessible by easy, cheap credit.

As that credit dries up with the end of the Twentieth Century debt supercycle, the economic basis of this model is eroding.

For most of us in the Western, developed world it means we are going to become poorer. Chinese and Indian workers might catch up with our living standards, but that standard will be at a lower level that we anticipated a decade or two ago.

The most interesting consequence of the New York Times’ story is what happens to the managerial classes?

Right now they appear to be riding high as their companies’ profits increase and they award themselves trips to the Paris Ritz and receive 50 million dollar payouts when caught cheating on their expenses.

Over time though this cannot continue as the senior managers themselves have become major cost centres which will eventually have to be reduced.

Indeed Apple, the leader in the outsourcing trend, is unique among US companies in that it had a driven, visionary leader and doesn’t have a bloated, self indulgent cohort of bureaucrats managing the business.

With every stage of the deskilling of America and the offshoring of supply chains, there’s been the belief that “it could happen to me” to various groups of workers – we’re now seeing the same process happen in white collar professions like the law are subcontracted to Indian and Philipino service providers.

Senior managers should have no illusions the same will happen to them as the search for cost savings runs out of targets in the rest of organisations.

The biggest problem though is that loss of supply chains and industry knowledge. The question is, can you rebuild that capacity in decade in the way China did?

Supply company image courtesy of Stock Xchange and Andy McMillan.

In his landmark post, Mark looked at the major issues he’s covered on his blog over the last few year and one stands out as the biggest – the payoff for newsagency owners when they sell their businesses.

The failure of many newsagents to manage their businesses for day to day profit. Too many newsagents expect their pay day when they sell and do not realise that their pay day is today, tomorrow and next week … and that this determines what they will receive when they sell.

For Australian newsagencies the news is bad; their established industry is struggling in the face of technological change and regulatory changes – both of which are other points Mark raises – but more importantly the buying and selling businesses in all sectors is undergoing a fundamental economic shift.

The underlying idea is that these businesses are what Steve Blank calls “lifestyle businesses”; proprietors buy them to provide an income for their families.

For these “lifestyle businesses” to have a resale value another family is has to raise the funds to purchase the enterprise.

Therein lies the problem, most purchases of businesses are financed by bank loans secured against property.

Late baby boomers and Generation Xers – those born between 1955 and 1970 – are the obvious buyers of these businesses and they don’t have access to the same equity as their parents.

The situation is even worse for those generations following whose high education debts mean an even later entry into the property market and even less equity available should they want to buy these businesses.

For sellers, this means is buyers can’t pay the prices retiring business owners need as their nest egg to support them through twenty or thirty years of bowling or travelling in their later years.

This inter generational mismatch isn’t just restricted to Australian newsagents; it’s a problem around the Western world for business owners whose exit strategy involves selling the business as a going concern for a substantial amount.

As we reach the end of the late 20th Century credit boom, the money isn’t there for people to pay the sort of sums required by existing local business owners to retire in comfort. Even if the banks were prepared to lend the sum required, the buyer’s underlying assets can’t secure the loans and, most importantly, the cashflows aren’t there.

In an Australian newsagent context much of the cashflow has changed because of deregulation and new competition but on the bigger scale changing consumption patterns at the end of the 20th Century debt binge coupled with aging populations and restricted credit are changing the economics of family owned, small local businesses.

For the current owners of these small businesses, it means the pay day has to be today as it won’t be there tomorrow.

The danger is how many will follow the example of the large corporations who find themselves in a similar situation and respond by excessively cutting costs or chronically under-investing which is what has crippled big store retailing across the US, Australia and the UK.

Mark’s constantly pointed out that Australian newsagents have to reinvent themselves, as he celebrates seven years of blogging and 10,000th blog post it’s probably worthwhile considering how many, like the rest of us, will be working in our businesses far longer than we originally expected.

“Hopefully this story finds a way to circulate out to the wider audience of government officials and old money elites who have good intentions of wanting to make their city a beacon for entrepreneurship.” Writes Sarah. “Hopefully it reaches them before they get bamboozled into giving the wrong people money to make it happen.”

For 19 months I was one of those government officials and saw those good intentions up close while developing what became the Digital Sydney project, that bamboozlement is real and a lot of money does go to the wrong people.

Sarah’s points are well made, Silicon Valley wasn’t built quickly with its roots based in the 1930s electronic industry and the 1960s developments in semiconductors – all underpinned by massive US defence spending from World War II onwards.

In many ways Silicon Valley was a happy and prosperous accident where various economic, political and technological forces came together without any planning. Neither the Californian or US Governments decreed they would make the region an entrepreneurial hotbed and sent out legions of public servants armed with subsidies and incentives to build a global business centre.

This is the mistake governments – and a lot of entrepreneurs or business leaders – make when they talk about “building the next Silicon Valley”; they assume that tax free zones, incentive schemes and subsidies are going to attract the investors and inventors necessary to build the next entrepreneurial hotspot.

For governments, the results are discouraging; usually ending in failed incubators and accelerator programs all conceived by public servants who, with the best will in the world, don’t have the skills, incentives or decades long timelines to make these schemes work.

At worst, we end up with the corporate welfare model that sees governments and communities exploited like the tragic story of New London, Connecticut, where the local government spent $160 million and cleared an entire suburb for drug company Pfizer to establish their research headquarters, which they closed a few years later and left a waste dump behind.

While the New London story is one of the worst examples, this sort of corporate welfare is the standard role for most government economic agencies. The department I worked for gave subsidies to supermarket chains to open distribution centres and stores that they were going to build anyway.

One of the notable things with development agencies and the provincial politicians who oversee them is how they are easy victims for the economic messiah – it could be a pharmaceutical giant like in New London, a property developer promising Sydney will become a financial hub or a US venture capital guru flying in and promising Santiago will be the next San Francisco.

The truth is there are no short cuts; building a technology centre like Silicon Valley, a financial hub like London or a manufacturing cluster like Italy’s Leather Triangle take decades, some luck and little intervention by government agencies or outside messiahs.

Silicon Valley and most other successful industry centres are the result of a happy intersection of economics and history. The best governments can do is create the stable financial, tax and legal frameworks that let inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs build new industries.

All government support isn’t bad – Silicon Valley benefited directly and indirectly from US military and space program spending – well thought out, long term programs that help new businesses and technologies grow being the most effective.

Like a parent with a baby, the we can do is create the right environment and hope for the best. Interfering rarely works well.

Newton’s famous quote is one of the things that jumps out on reading the opening of Jeff Jarvis’ Private Parts, is how we live in an era of pretty shells that catch our attention and obsess some of us.

While we play with those pretty shells, we ignore much of what is happening around us. Those glittering social media and cloud computing tools are fun to play with, but what do they really mean?

The winners from the early stages of the industrial revolution were people like Josian Wedgwood and Robert Stephenson who saw how to apply the inventions of the time to create new products and markets, later they were followed by people like Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford who developed the industries of the 20th Century.

Right now, we’re making shiny trinkets out of our technology tools, Business Week’s It’s Always Sunny in Silicon Valley makes this case well and Eric Schmidt’s bubble quotation above comes from that.

We see lots of applications for finding coffee roasters, sharing music files and plugging into the social media platform of the day; all of which are the concerns of middle class white people trying to maintain last century’s consumer society.

Somehow we’re missing the bigger picture, but gee those sea shells are pretty.

80 years on, Business Insider looked at those predictions and few interesting things stood out that show us how, even when we are right, things don’t turn out the way we expect.

Sir Arthur Keith – a doctor, scientist and prodigious writer who was one of the pioneers in popularising science – correctly forecast that medicine would become increasing specialised, predicting “I tremble when I think what its (The New York Times’) readers will find on their doorsteps every Sunday morning.”

Those very advances have contributed to the slimming down of the New York Times and the that many readers don’t collect it from their doorstep each morning, threatening the very future of the organisation.

William Ogburn was the prominent sociologist of the day, and predicted “Humanity’s most versatile servant will be the electron tube” and that “labor displacement will proceed even to automatic factories.” All of which was true.

The “electron tube” – or vacuum tube – is an interesting allusion to the prevailing technology of the day. Vacuum tubes were changing the world with the first wave of electronics and digitalisation.

Morse Code’s system of dots and dashes could be replaced with Zeros and Ones that allowed the technologies to be applied to radio sets, machinery and telephones.

The real benefits of these technologies had to wait until the vacuum tube was replaced with the transistor in the 1970s. Transistors were even more portable and as integrated circuit and manufacturing processes evolve, we saw “Moore’s Law” develop where computer power doubles every eighteen months.

Both William Obburn and Sir Arthur Keith were proved right, but not quite in the way anyone could have foreseen at the time.

Which shows how fraught predictions are; even if we are correct how things turn out might not be quite what we expect. It’s worthwhile considering this when we look at how trends and innovations may affect our businesses.

The Business Insider article on the original predictions is worth reading, along with its sister article on how the world will look in 2050.

Futurist Ross Dawson certainly thinks so, last year predicting US newspapers won’t exist as we know them by 2017 with them being replaced by digital platforms like the web, iPad and Kindle.

The problem for the media industry is how to fund news gathering in a digital environment. Newspapers are dying because advertisers have moved online, so Google now makes $30 billion a quarter on the income the local paper has lost in classifieds and display advertising.

For web surfers, this is also a problem as much of what appears on the net — in blogs, Facebook, on Twitter and circulated around message boards — comes from newspapers and largely subsidized by their rapidly eroding print revenues. Take out the traditional media, and many of the authoritative online sources disappear.

Much of the free web content we’re seeing is a transition effect as we evolve to paid online models, something that is going to be driven by advertisers following consumers’ eyeballs to the net.

For the publishers who don’t go broke in the meantime, this will probably save them in whatever form they evolve into.

Cutting costs to survive the current lean period is essential for newspapers, the tragedy is many are following other industries in cutting the very areas that give them their competitive advantage while keeping antiquated and expensive management who hang on to failed strategies.

Poor management is probably a bigger threat to the news empires, as it is for many other industries.

The damage done by poor business leadership is far greater than the cost of outsized management salary packages and entitlements. Until shareholders address the number, cost and suitability of the managers charged with running their investments, the future for these organisations is bleak .

Local journalism is going to change as we start seeing old media’s economies of scale being replaced by cheaper technology that allows local people to reclaim their news and community stories.

They will be doing this through blogs and social media while using their mobile phones and cheap cameras to capture and document local news.

For the local newspapers and media outlets who understand and harness their community, they’ll remain valued local commercial citizens; for those who see their readers as a mass of dumb consumers, they’ll be lucky to last the decade.

A hundred years ago this year the iconic Australian horse coach company Cobb & Co went into its first bankruptcy as it declined from being the dominant transport service of rural Australia.

Cobb & Co was founded in 1854 by four young Americans in the Victorian gold rush and grew around the expansion of Australia’s rural farming and mining industries. By 1900 the company had 9,000 horses travelling 31,000km (20,000 miles) every week.

By 1924 Cobb & Co was gone. Displaced by the motor car and restrictive state government rules designed to protect their railways.

Many businesses, including the management of Cobb & Co, thought the motor car was a fad. No doubt many at the time also thought electricity was dangerous and unnecessary.

Business worked fine as it was when stagecoaches carried the mail and bullock carts carted the crops, steam engines were fine to power the farms and businesses while the telegraph was just fine for those times when a three month letter to your customers or creditors in London or New York wasn’t quick enough.

All those businesses went broke. They didn’t go broke fast, it was a slow process until one day owners realised it was all over and then the end came surprisingly quickly.

That’s where many of us our today – cloud computing might be the latest buzzword, social media might be a distraction for coffee addled children of the TV generation and the global market might be just a way to dump cheap goods and services on gullible consumers – but markets and societies are changing, just as they did a hundred years ago.

Sure, your business doesn’t need fast Internet. Business is fine.

Stage coach image courtesy of Velda Christensen at http://www.novapages.com/

One of the problems the project has is the inability of NBNCo, the company established to build and run the network, to articulate the benefits and scope of the project.

Last Friday night “John from Condobolin” grilled the Gadget Guy, Peter Blasina, about the project. John’s questions, and Pete’s answers, which can be found at 35 minutes into his program, illustrates the confusion the surrounds NBN and the failure of the project’s supporters to explain the benefits.

So how should proponents of the National Broadband Network – people like me who believe that high speed broadband are the freeways and railways of the 21^st Century – respond to questions. Let’s answer John’s questions from last Friday.

Lightning might affect fibre networks

John’s first question was about lightning affecting the NBN, commenting when Pete confirmed electrical storms would affect the network that “it’s no better than the existing service.”

Sadly all infrastructure is affected by weather – a freeway is just as affected by fog as a dirt road, perhaps even more so, but it doesn’t mean you don’t build a highway because of that. The same applies for the NBN.

Interestingly the wireless and satellite alternatives proposed to fibre optic cable are even more susceptible to electrical storms, which perversely makes a better argument for running a fibre optic network.

I don’t need any NBN

“I have got quite good reception in Condobolin and I don’t need any NBN, I can assure you” was John’s next big statement.

That’s nice for John that he’s happy with what he has – the rest of us should be so lucky.

For many of his neighbours and those in the surrounding district, particularly those dealing with remote suppliers and overseas markets, reliable and fast communications are essential.

Now is good enough

A farmer doesn’t need broadband for selling into America, he’s able to do that today, was the crux of John’s next comment after he and Pete had an exchange about rolling broadband out to remote locations.

It’s true that farmers can do a lot with today’s satellite and ADSL connections, then again they were able to ship exports in the days of bullock carts and sailing ships. We could extend that argument against railway lines, roads, containers and bulk carriers.

Once upon a time some guy argued against the wheel. Today’s technology has been good enough has always been the argument of those who don’t see the benefits of new tools; we’re talking about tomorrow’s markets and society, not today’s.

Broadband is all about fibre

“You’re talking about satellite dishes and things like that, not NBN.”

The National Broadband Network isn’t just about fibre; fibre optic cables makes up the network’s core and bulk of connections, but wireless and satellite are essential in order to make sure the entire nation has access to the network.

Unfortunately the nonsense argument that technology improvements in wireless will render fibre optics redundant has been allowed to take hold by self-interested politicians and sections of the media pushing a narrow agenda.

Wireless, satellite, fibre optic and other cable technologies are all part of the mix, the real argument is on the proportions of that combination and the consequences to the government’s budget.

Spotting the clueless

As an aside, the cable versus wireless argument is a good yardstick for measuring the knowledge of anyone joining the NBN debate.

Someone clueless arguing against the project says investment in fibre optic cable is unnecessary as it’s speed and data capacities will be one day superseded by those of Wireless networks.

This betrays a failure to grasp the inherent advantage of having a dedicated cable connection to your property as opposed to sharing a wireless base station with hundreds, if not thousands, of others.

Equally anyone pro-NBN who says that fibre is faster because it travels at the speed of light is equally clueless as wireless, copper wire and even smoke signals also travel at – or close to – the speed of light.

Games and videos

“Is this only to watch videos and DVDs?” was John’s last question.

Well, does Condobolin have a video store? A quick Google search shows it does, along with local and satellite TV stations. So the residents of Condobolin are just keen as the rest of us to watch the tube.

Increasingly our viewing habits are moving online and fast broadband is necessary to deliver that. John may be happy to exclude his town from being able to do that, but my guess is plenty of his neighbours would like to have that option.

What’s more, many of those farmers, processors, trucking companies and other service providers in the Condobolin region will need those video facilities for tele-conferencing with suppliers, customers and training companies.

Building for the future

Video conferencing isn’t the only application for what we consider today to be high speed networks, these are going to change society and business in the same way the motor car changed us in the 20^th Century and railways and telegraph in the 19^th.

Australia made a mess of the railways and the roads, in both areas we’re still playing catch up. The National Broadband Network is an opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the last hundred years and get the 21^st Century right.

Unfortunately, the objectives of building a better nation are being lost in a fog of disinformation, political opportunism and corporate incompetence. We can do better than this.