Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Tag: china

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:
March 28, 2012
On becoming a Captive Business
I’ve been writing a lot recently about the risks of businesses aligning their interests too closely with one or another platform, last weekend The China Law Blog discussed the opposite – being a captive customer.

The term “captive customer” is new to me but it’s a familiar concept; in the IT industry most of us found ourselves hostage to Microsoft’s whims at one time or another and it wasn’t a good place to be.

Many smaller businesses and consultants fall for the trap of having just one big customer which their income becomes dependent upon.

While Dan’s point on The China Law Blog is about manufacturing, this risk is becoming even more pressing on the web where there’s a tendency to be captured by one platform or another.

Sometimes entire industries are captured – the Search Engine Optimisation sector is wholly dependent upon whatever Google chooses to with their search algorithm. To make things worse, no SEO expert knows exactly how Google’s equations actually work.

We’re seeing the mass media being captured in a number of ways – by granting licenses to Facebook, one suspects unwittingly, or developing content for Apple’s iPad.

For startups depending upon cloud services or single payment platforms like PayPal there are serious risks as we saw with the co-ordinated takedown of Wikileaks.

In nature, the animal or plant that depends on one source of food or habitat is at risk from even small changes in their environment. Be careful you aren’t a business dodo.

Similar posts:
February 14, 2012
Misunderstanding Chinese growth
When I first visited China in the late 1980s, I was amused at all the adverts for Rolex watches and Luis Vuitton handbags lining Shanghai’s Bund and the streets of Guanzhou; “how many Chinese can afford these goods?” I asked.

The response was usually along the lines of there are a billion Chinese and if only one percent can afford these products then that’s a huge market.

Over the years since we’ve seen consumer brands pour into China only to find the markets for Western style consumer goods aren’t what they expected. Many have left with their tails between their legs.

The New York Times looked at this in their weekend story “Come On China, Buy our Stuff.”

What many misunderstand is that while there are some millions of well heeled Chinese who can afford a Rolex, the vast majority simply cannot afford a Western style consumer lifestyle.

The average Chinese income in 2010 was $4,270 per person according to the World Bank. For the United States, average income was over ten times China’s at $47,000. The average across the Europe Union is just over $32,000. India’s was only $1,330.

So any business selling into the PRC expecting to find a consumer society like those of Northern Europe, Japan, the United States or Australia’s is in for a disappointing experience. Chinese households have neither the income or access to the credit lines that drove the Western consumerist societies over the last thirty years.

For economists hoping that Chinese and Indian workers can pick up the world economy’s slack by becoming consumers on a level similar to European and US workers, they are deluded; this is at least a generation away.

According to the Nation Master web site, the US had a similar average income to what China’s current levels in 1900. While there are clearly some differences in measures, we can say today’s Chinese workers are – in wealth terms – around a century behind their US colleagues.

It may take a century for Chinese workers to catch up with Europe and North America, but it won’t happen as quickly as businesses and economists hope.

Those hoping China will take up the slack left from the excesses of the 20th Century credit boom are going to have to look for a plan B. It may be up to the rest of us to find what’s going to drive the world economy for the next twenty years.

Similar posts:
January 27, 2012
Losing the supply chain
The New York Times’ weekend feature on Why Apple Manufacture iPhones in China focused on the underlying reasons why manufacturing has become concentrated in the PRC.

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.

Similar posts:
January 24, 2012