Tag: markets

How the movies beat disruption

With the movie industry’s Academy Awards taking place last night, albeit not without mishaps, it’s worth reflecting on how Hollywood has defended itself against a range of disruptions.

With the movie industry’s Academy Awards taking place last night, albeit not without mishaps, it’s worth reflecting on how Hollywood has defended itself against a range of disruptions over the last century.

From when the first movie was shown by the Lumiere brothers in Paris just after Christmas 1895, cinema has been both a disruptive force and one that’s been subject to its own challenges.

The immediate effect of the new technology was an explosion of new businesses, trades and techniques not dissimilar to the first dot com boom of the early days of the web as the traditional theatre industry was displaced by movie theatres.

As the  technology evolved, the movie industry itself was subject to disruption as sound was developed – ending the careers of many silent film stars – followed by colour both of which allowed new techniques and markets to developed.

Then came television and, it would have seemed, the end of the movie industry. Although that didn’t happen and it’s instructive how the industry reacted to the challenge.

In a 2007 paper, academics Barak Orbach and Liran Einav showed the movie industry’s evolution starting just after the introduction of talkies in 1927.

The shift to sound drove the movie industry to its all time heights prior to the Great Depression, however the economic downturn hit the film business hard – something to consider when people talk about the ‘lipstick effect’ -however steady growth returned through the 1930s and until the end of World War II.

Following the war, economic change and the arrival of television were tough for the movie business as attendances fell dramatically until stabilising in the late 1960s. Interestingly, the price of movie tickets went up dramatically shortly before the decline tapered off.

The graph finishes at 2002, at the end of the first internet boom and it’s notable the early days of the web, or the rise of Pay-TV in the 1970s and the Video Cassette Recorder in the 1980s had little effect on the industry’s attendance figures.

Despite those new technologies, the movie industry managed to attract audiences despite the plethora of entertainment options on offer at home.

Much of this was due to technological change with advances in computer generated graphics and recording techniques giving film makers far more creative scope while the roll out of multiplex cinema complexes allowed patrons far greater choice in movies.

Fifteen years later the effects of technology are still telling. In 2002, the average American was buying five movie tickets a year, according to the 2016 Motion Picture Association of America’s annual report this had fallen to 3.8, no doubt partly due to the success of Netflix.

However the film industry has still remained lucrative, partly through developing alternative streams of income like product licensing and international sales – China is by far the US industry’s biggest market and non-North American sales are growing by 21%. At the consumer level, movie houses increasingly make their money from concession sales and add-ons like premium seating.

So the answers to the movie industry’s success in staying profitable in the face of disruptive technologies seems to be in adopting new tech, diversifying income streams and globalising their product – although a bit of legislative protection in extending copyright probably helps.

The lessons though from a century of disruption though are clear, how well the movie industry responds to continuing disruption from the likes of streaming services like Amazon Prime, Netflix and their Chinese equivalents remains to be seen.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Voice technology and the generosity wars

In the upcoming voice technology wars, the most open and generous player could be the winner

The winner of the upcoming fight over voice technologies will come down to who is the most open and provides the best utility believes Tad Toulis, VP for design at smart speaker manufacturer Sonos.

A struggle is looming between the different voice systems believes Tad Toulis, VP of Design at smart speaker manufacturer Sonos.

We were speaking at Sonos’ Santa Barbara office the day after Google launched its Google Home voice activated hub to compete with Amazon’s and Apple’s Siri systems.

“There’s a little bit of syntax difference with every device we use, so we’re about to re-enter this environment where we have competing formats.” states Toulis, hinting at the days of competing network types operating systems and file types.

For Sonos, that fight between formats is an opportunity believes Toulis. “Sonos was very early into this space, so much so that it’s had a few lives. The original proposition was a way to get people who were into music to have access to their digital music and enliven their home with that music.”

“At a certain point in that arc, that category started to shrink a little bit and streaming started to emerge. Now streaming has become mainstream and we’re facing another cycle.”

Generous systems

Voice though is a social thing and that changes how we interact with devices Toulis believes, “we want to talk out loud in generous way to a generous system.”

“What people want is a supportive, powerful experience that creates good options day to day,” says Toulis. “The technology is fast approaching a tipping point where it’s very human centric.”

“The promise is to figure who can do that in the most natural way so you’re not thinking about the syntax and more about the experience.”

Finding a place at the table

Like most smaller players in the marketplace, Toulis sees Sonos as being a nuetral intermediary between with the various technology empires.

“Sonos offers a place in that conversation. We also approach it in a different way because it’s not one of our businesses, it is our business.”

“I assume we’ll do what we’ve done with the music services. We’ve always believed that we do well when there are many players.”

Winning the voice wars

When asked who is likely to win the voice wars, Toulis is quite rightly guarded, “what I’ve seen over my career in technology is what wins is what works for people, it’s not always the best technologies that win. What wins is the technology value proposition, here’s a need that hasn’t been satisfied and here’s a way of doing it that is sticky.”

“The one that creates the solution with the least resistance will win,” says Toulis. “The best solutions are usually pretty obvious. The problem is you have a bunch of specialists looking at it, they can’t see how obvious it is because they are looking past the target. They’re either very close up.”

While Toulis’ view is attractive, the risk for companies like Sonos is the technology empires find their business models aren’t suited to being open or generous and controlling access to their services is more compelling for their managers and shareholders.

Hopefully open web and data will prove to be the market’s driving forces and certainly Ted Toulis’ and Sonos’ views are what users would prefer, the giants though may not prove to be so generous.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

McDonalds and its shifting market

Global fast food giant McDonalds is in a bind as markets, society and production methods move against its business

“No business or brand has a divine right to succeed,” said McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook last May.

As McDonalds’ management desperately try to adapt to a changed marketplace, Bloomberg Business spoke to some of those bearing the greatest risks – the fast food chain’s franchisees.

The expansion of menu items and the shift to more custom produced burgers is creating problems for franchisees and store managers as equipment and procedures designed for simpler times struggles with varying demands.

McDonalds is in a terrible bind as the company faces a society-wide shift in consumption that leaves its business model stranded at the same time that the market is wanting more customised products.

The latter is an aspect that many businesses whose success and profitability is based on mass production are now facing as customised products become easier and cheaper to produce.

While McDonalds isn’t likely to go out of business soon, the broader trends aren’t running in its favour. That’s bad news for both the company and its franchisees.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Small business in the future workforce

An evolving workforce means changing markets, something that businesses have to pay attention to

While the discussion of the workforce of the future focuses, quite rightly, on the role of workers how employers and businesses fit into a changed economy is important as well.

For businesses, the future of work affects not just the staff they employ but also the markets they cater for as those workers are also their customers. This is even truer for small businesses catering for local markets.

The Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA) report issued last week describes some of those shifts in the economy and they are as important to businesses as workers.

Where the money is

The key thing from the report is that some communities are going to be more seriously affected by automation than others. The map of Australia that accompanied the CEDA report showing the likelihood of jobs being lost in across the nation underscores that imbalance.

australia-likelihood-of-losing-jobs-to-automation

In those areas expecting large disclocation, business is about to get tougher as workers find their skills are no longer valuable in the face of automation.

Similarly, if local industries are becoming more automated then businesses servicing those industries are also going to need the skills to meet their customers’ more advanced needs.

Consumer facing risks

So small businesses in those districts of great disruption have to consider their markets; if they are consumer facing then their customer base could be shrinking while if they cater to other businesses then capital investment and finding skills in the new technologies are going to be required.

Even there, the picture is cloudy as upstream industries will be affected. A town that serves as an agricultural centre, for example, will see smarter farms using less labor.

In that town, those businesses servicing other businesses that serve local consumers will see their market getting thinner while those servicing the smarter farms and processors will need to buy new equipment and find workers with the skills to operate it.

This isn’t a new phenomenon, it describes what’s happened to rural communities around the developed world as farming became industrialised through the Twentieth Century and the process is continuing as combines become self driving and automation replaces a lot of tasks currently done by labourers or manually operated machines.

Challenging the commuter belt

The question though is not just for rural enterprises, it applies for businesses everywhere as the workforce changes. It may well be the areas affected the most are commuter belt suburbs where white collar workers are displaced by artificial intelligence and algorithms creating problems for the local economy that’s based on services the needs of those middle class households.

It’s difficult to say for sure and that’s why the CEDA measures are based upon probability. For business owners and managers though, they’ll need to watch shifts in their marketplaces closely and watch for the opportunities that will undoubtedly arise from a changing economy.

Similar posts:

Feeling the currents

Customer service means listening to clients, we have the tools to do it.

Internet and marketing everyman Seth Godin makes an interesting point on his blog post Silencing The Bell Doesn’t Put Out The Fire.

Seth’s point is that satisfying vocal complainers doesn’t address underlying problems in the business and cites the Dell Hell saga of Jeff Jarvis as an example of where load complaints were a symptom of a much deeper issue within the business.

For Dell, this had been the choice to focus on the low value, high volume market segments. To compete there it meant cheap components and selling to comparatively uneducated, price sensitive consumers.

Compounding that decision was Dell’s decision to partly address the inevitable cost pressures they had put themselves under by outsourcing their support lines to truly dire, lowest price providers.

As a consequence of abandoning its service culture, Dell rapidly gained a reputation as being unreliable and unhelpful. One only has to look at the Dell Hell comments on Jeff’s original posts to see how damaged Dell’s name was.

I encountered Dell’s shocking support during that period first hand in PC Rescue, one customer asked me to troubleshoot her Dell PDA after their support line had reduced her to tears.

Very quickly I discovered why, the installation software supplied by Dell didn’t work properly – testing was obviously another victim of budget cuts – and the tech support people were working with an early version.

We managed to fix the problem without the “help” of Dell’s helpdesk and the client swore never again to buy Dell. She’s now a happy Apple customer who is a happy to pay a slightly higher sticker price for a better product and service.

The real concern was that during this period Dell’s management were oblivious to the problems they were suffering in the marketplace, they were meeting their KPIs and appeared to be growing sales while the business itself was about to go over a cliff.

Dell’s management could have recognised this had they chosen to, the company had plenty of market intelligence, customers surveys and their support logs to tell them they had a problem. It wasn’t in their interests to do so.

Today every business has those tools to monitor what customers are saying about them. Google Alerts, Facebook and – if you’re in hospitality – Tripadvisor, Yelp or Eatability.

With social media it’s easy for the bad message to get out; it’s also easy for management or owners to watch out for problems.

Dell only survived the Dell Hell experience because they were big and well capitalised, no smaller business could have survived similar damage done to their reputation.

Smaller businesses don’t have the luxury of ignoring their customers until the screams become too loud.

Similar posts:

The business of denial

Denying market realities is rarely a good business move

Denial is a powerful sedative, it allows us to trundle dozily along a well worn patch oblivious to the reality our comfortable world has changed.

Last week’s claim that youth is fed up with the iPhone by Nokia’s Niels Munksgaard – who has the wonderful title of Director of Portfolio, Product Marketing & Sales – is a great example of how far and how long denial can continue while there’s still money to pay executive bonuses.

Canada’s beleaguered Research In Motion, manufacturers of the Blackberry phone, showed the same delusions when they released their Playbook tablet computer with the declaration Amateur Hour Is Over.

The only amateur hour was in the hubristic minds of RIM’s marketing team.

While profits keep flowing big organisation can afford delusions – Google can indulge their social media fantasies while the Adwords rivers of gold continue to flow ever faster and Microsoft can continue to indulge their delusions while their Windows and Office products remain immensely profitable.

Microsoft’s “droidrage” campaign, designed to embarrass Google’s Android mobile phone platform, is part of that delusion; for Microsoft’s campaign to work they have to prove there is a widespread Android malware problem, show their system isn’t prone to the same flaws and – most importantly – have enough product on the market to sell to those disillusioned Google customers.

Such a negative campaign has many fallacies – it assumes there are widespread security problems in Android, that Microsoft will pick up disaffected Google customers and there are enough Microsoft based products to grab those sales.

Probably Microsoft’s biggest problem is the assumption that customers actually care about that stuff – for years Windows dominated its market despite being riddled with computer with security holes and malware.

Microsoft succeeded because their competition was delusional; the best example being WordPerfect claiming graphic systems like Windows were a fad at a time when an inferior Microsoft Word was gobbling up their markets.

By the time WordPerfect realised their error and released a truly dreadful WordPerfect for Windows it was all too late, like a stagecoach company realising the motorcar is here to stay.

The problem for businesses in denial is that reality eventually does bite; plenty of people in the newspaper industry believed their advertising based model was secure and profitable – indeed many of the cosseted managers in that sector still believe it is – which now leaves them struggling in a changed world they thought they could ignore.

Denial among incumbents is a great opportunity for newer, more flexible players; for years mobile phone and tablet computer manufacturers were in denial about the usuability of their product – Apple proved them wrong and now commands the most profitable chunks of those markets.

Being the village blacksmith or a buggy whip maker was a good business to be in at the beginning of the 20th Century. Thirty years later those block boys and saddlemakers who hadn’t made the jump found themselves out of work.

It’s going to be interesting to see will be this century’s buggy whip manufacturers.

Similar posts:

Fading markets, falling margins

Are we fast enough to recognise when our business is changing?

“They don’t pay for us to go to trade shows anymore,” lamented a journalist at a recent industry PR event. The era of international trips and freebies is over for most technology journalists and its passing is mourned by many of them.

Media junkets, industry conferences in exotic locations and management retreats to exclusive resorts are what businesses with fat profits can afford. Most of the tech industry is past that point as most of the sector becomes commoditised.

Slowly, vendors come to understand what a commoditised market means as Acer have with their announcement they will stop selling cheap systems while others, like Apple, have managed to avoid that trap entirely.

As technology changes, cheaper manufacturing locations appear and consumer preferences change many businesses will find their markets change. Some will identify those changes early and change course while others will wonder what has happened to their fat margins and why they can’t afford management, client or media trips to the Pacific or the South of France anymore.

That’s good for consumers, but a terrible thing for those managers who are little better than corporate bureaucrats and their friends in the media.

Interestingly, it’s the jobsworths and the overfed incumbents who are the slowest to recognise when their businesses are changing which is why there’s so much opportunity for smaller, smarter enterprises.

Similar posts: