Category: Innovation

  • Rescuing retail

    Rescuing retail

    The retail news is bad – consumer spending is dropping and the remaining customers are going online, eBay is taunting the big retailers who in turn are threatening to set up Chinese based online stores.

    Are things really that bad for the bricks and mortar retailer? Are the suburban malls and high street stores doomed?

    Maybe not.

    In New York on the weekend Vic’s Meats, a butcher in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs, won the retail prize at the Interior Design magazine’s Best Of Year awards for their Victor Churchill retail outlet.

    Vic’s Meats show how retailers can succeed in a sector going through fundamental changes.

    The last forty years have been tough for butchers as many of the traditional operators went to the wall as the sector struggled with supermarkets selling cheaper pre-packaged cuts and changing hygiene standards.

    Butchers who moved up the value chain and focused on delivering high quality product survived. That same process is now happening in a similar way in other retail sectors as more efficient, convenient and cheaper providers change their markets.

    At the moment we’re seeing two contradictory trends, a move to commoditised, global markets driven mainly on price and niche markets based around convenience, locality and service. The struggle right now is for established players like Myer, Harvey Norman and local retailers to understand where they fit in this system.

    Vic’s Meats have figured out where they sit in their market and their lessons are valuable for other business owners figuring where their place is in this new retail world.

    You have to be online

    Even if you have no intention to sell online or overseas, your customers are still looking for you online.

    It’s absolutely essential, regardless of what you do, to have a basic web presence. Even existing customers are looking up your details on the web when they forget your phone number and if you aren’t there, they may find your competitor’s.

    We’ve covered previously what the basics of an online presence are. Make sure you have a Google Places account, Facebook page and a basic web site so people can find you.

    You have to be telling your story

    Whether you have the best meat, the freshest doughnuts or the fastest lawn mowing service in town then you need to be loud and you need to proud ­– let the world know about it.

    Your website needs to say why customers should trust you and why it’s worth spending more with you than with the cheaper guy in the next suburb or continent.

    One particular bugbear are bland and anonymous “about us” pages on many business websites which tell nothing about the business or the people behind it.

    Your About Us page should tell the journey of why you were driven to become the best butcher, doughnut seller or lawn mower in your district. Leave the robotic mission statements to the big corporations and celebrate your competitive strengths.

    You won’t win on price

    The online channels don’t have the cost structures of bricks and mortar stores and that’s nothing new as small retailers have had to compete with the big chains’ economies of scale for years.

    So don’t bother. Sell your story, your quality, your passion and your knowledge.

    Be a resource

    Engage with your local market. If there are changes, issues or events that affect your neighbourhood or market, update your site to reflect this and use social media like Twitter updates and Facebook pages to put the message out.

    Vic’s Meats does that well with an informative website, recipes, cooking classes and an iPhone application. All of this builds the story that they are the experts and the people you should go to if you want the right cut of meat.

    This is where Harvey Norman and Myers are failing. Many have of us have stood for half an hour waiting in Myer store to get service from an overworked assistant or have been given poor advice by a badly trained, commission driven teenager in a Harvey Norman store.

    Gerry Harvey and Bernie Brookes have blown the advantages that Harvey Norman and Myer had over the online players and instead cruised on their respective models of offering interest free purchase plans or perpetual discounting.

    Those tactics gave them nearly ten years breathing space while the online retail industry learned their lessons from the dot com bust. That both businesses are now reduced to making empty threats in the hope of scaring the government into wasting millions on a pointless change to customs regulations is an instructive lesson in itself.

    An irony in all of this is that major chains such as Harvey Norman and Myer were part of earlier waves of change which put established retailers out of business. We should give particular thought about those butchers who fell under the market might of Bernie Brookes’ old employer, Woolworths.

    Those businesses died because they couldn’t see, or deal with, the rise of the big category killers like Harvey Norman, Officeworks and Bunnings or with the longer term trends like that of shoppers moving from high streets to suburban shopping malls.

    The jury is out on how many local retailers ­– both big and small– will go to the wall as online shopping gains acceptance, though it’s probably not a good idea to put a bet on those who sit on the sidelines and whinge that the “gummint orta do summint”.

    Do you want to be one of the successes? If so, learn from Vic’s Meats and the other Best of Year award winners and sharpen up what you’re doing both online and in your store.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Why competition is great for Google

    We often talk about competition being good for consumers and, ultimately, businesses. The technology industry is a good case study.

    Microsoft shows how competition forces a business to raise their game; when they won the browser wars by dispatching Netscape early in the Internet era, they let Internet Explorer stagnate until the Mozilla Firefox, Opera and Apple Safari web browsers came along.

    Similarly, they allowed their flagship product Microsoft Office drift once they dominated the productivity software market. The arrival of Google Docs and some other new players forced them to refresh and redesign the Office package.

    Today Google find themselves in the same position – Facebook, Microsoft’s Bing and various other search engines are reminding the leader that their position is not safe.

    The Business Insider website recently took a critical look at Demand Media’s business model, a service that publishes low quality articles that tend to rank high with the aid of clever Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). As a result of Demand’s high rankings on Google searches these articles tend to attract advertisers.

    In a search engine market where Google is the only noteworthy game in town, this situation would suit Google and Demand Media as both would have a nice predictable stream of advertising and neither party would have any great incentive to change things and for a while it appeared that might be the case.

    With the arrival of real competition to Google such as Microsoft Bing and Facebook, all things change as now search engine results matter – the whole reason Google beat out competitors was because their search results were better than anyone else’s – if Google’s results aren’t as good then users will switch.

    So Google’s been changing their algorithm, the formula they use for searches, in order to improve the results of queries on their system. So much so that my fellow Smartcompany blogger, Chris Thomas, accuses them of Attention Deficit Disorder.

    This is good news for Google’s users who now get better quality search results and great news for Google’s advertisers who get better quality pages where potential buyers are likely to stay longer and click more.

    Google though is the biggest winner as the better results they deliver, the more profitable and long lasting their core advertising business will be.

    For Demand Media, things aren’t so good as there’s no shortage of poorly written tripe on the Internet and if they can’t get Google ranking goodness then their business model dies.

    Which may show that in the new economy, bad soap doesn’t necessarily replace good soap.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Failing Fast: Google Wave’s real business lesson

    A key philosophy underlying much of Silicon Valley’s successful companies is the “fail fast” concept where a business releases a rough version of a new idea and asks the world what it thinks. Should people like the idea, it gets developed and if they don’t, it gets dropped and everybody moves on to the next brainwave.

    The “fail fast” philosophy was behind Google Wave’s dropping last week, as CEO Eric Schmidt said at the Techonomy Conference on the day it was announced; “….we release it and see what happens. It works, you announce product, you ship it…”

    Until recently, “failing fast” was restricted to hot shot Internet businesses but as the cost of product development falls due to better collaboration tools, testing methods and global outsourcing, it’s become easier for all businesses to experiment without risking an organisation’s future.

    This is very different from the old style of doing business, a good example of how things used to work was Boeing’s development of the 747 Jumbo Jet which was a $2 billion dollar bet, $14bn in 2010 dollars, on a big lumbering subsonic jet in the mid 1960s when the future of aviation seemed to be with sleek supersonic aircraft like the Concorde.

    While Boeing’s bet paid off, it took 15 years and nearly sent the company broke.

    Most of today’s businesses aren’t locked into 14 billion dollar and 15 year investment cycles as we can test products with simulation tools, computer aided design programs, fast prototyping and oursourcing services like o-desk for labour and alibaba.com for manufacturing without risking the farm.

    For most businesses, it’s not even a matter of spending time and money actually developing ideas, usually it’s something as simple as testing a new idea by buying a domain name and setting up a low cost website on a cheap hosting service for under $200. If the idea flies then you start looking at spending real money on making the product ready for the broader market.

    Failing fast presents a great challenge to the traditional organisation where the slightest failure is a stigma. In the new economy, a risk adverse culture is going to be punished by competitors who accept that not every idea is right for its time and learn lessons rather than punish those associated with the unsuccessful project.

    While this is bad news for large organisations run by risk adverse managers it is one of the great opportunities for nimble and smart companies. If your business is prepared to take small risks, learn from the misses and celebrate the wins then your business could well be on the way to being the next Google.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Does innovation scare customers?

    Read Write Web reports the 2010 American Customer Satisfaction Index found Facebook in the bottom 5% of trusted US companies. The article goes on to quote Larry Freed, CEO of ForSee Results, as saying “it’s clear that while innovation is critical, sometimes consumers prefer evolution to revolution”.

    There’s no doubt Facebook’s many user interface and privacy changes have upset consumers however can this be blamed on “innovation”?

    Perhaps Facebook’s problems were because those “innovations” largely didn’t benefit the site’s users and the few that did were poorly communicated.

    For innovations to be accepted by the market they have to provide some benefit; generally people don’t like change and the old saw “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” applies. If something is working fine, then why make a change that isn’t going to benefit the people who use it?

    An overlooked angle with social media platforms like LinkedIn, MySpace and Facebook is how their business model is more like a free to air commercial TV station where the users, or viewers, are not the customers; the advertisers are.

    So to put Facebook’s recent mistakes in context perhaps we should be looking at how their innovations were aimed at improving things for their customers, the advertisers, but had the unfortunate effect of upsetting users who are the reason advertisers buy space on the site.

    Perhaps Facebook’s changes didn’t upset their customers and, given users have stuck with Facebook despite their fall in reputation, it shows their innovations have actually delivered.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • A question of innovation

    Since the iPad was announced there’s been much talk about how Apple is the world’s most innovative company. Is that true and if so, what lessons does that have for other businesses?

    There’s two schools of thought about what innovation is;  the big, new invention that changes industries, like the light bulb or the Hills hoist, or incremental improvements like the stump jump plow and the wave piercing catamaran. The latter, building a better mousetrap, is what Apple do best.

    When the Apple Mac was released there were hundreds of personal computers, at the time of the iPod’s launch there were thousands of MP3 players in the shops and Apple’s iPad enters a tablet PC market that has been around for a decade. With all of these products, and most notably the iPhone, Apple redefined the market by releasing a better mousetrap.

    The good news is most business don’t need Apple’s fat margins to test ideas. Cheap computers, pervasive broadband, rapid prototyping and social media tools allow you to design and develop new solutions while monitoring how your staff and customers respond to the changes.

    We’re living in a time of great technological change — new products and business methods are overwhelming or about to overwhelm most industries. It’s going to be the innovative companies that survive and prosper in this new era.

    It’s time to start experimenting.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts