Category: Australia

Refocusing on Asia

Australian business are looking again at Asian markets.

One of the interesting things about Australian society and business in the last twenty years is how the nation seems to have turned away from Asia.

In the 1980s and early 90s, the country was focused on exporting services and building long term relationships in sectors ranging from Malaysian construction, Thai diary farming and legal services in China.

Twenty years later, Australian businesses and government seem to have given up with the consensus among industry and political leaders now being that all the nation can export is raw minerals, bulk agricultural goods with a sprinkling of third rate educational services.

Globally focused Australian businesses – particularly those in the startup sector – look to Silicon Valley for funding, inspiration and markets. Only a minority are looking North to Asia rather than across the Pacific.

ViDM – Ventures in Digital Media – is one of those businesses and CEO Willie Pang of the Sydney based advertising technology startup believes the time is to seize opportunities in growing Asian markets rather than concentrating on Silicon Valley financing and exits.

“Focus on building a great business. If you have a great business someone will buy you,” says Willie.

The opportunity ViDM sees is in advertising trading platforms bringing together publishers and advertisers across the digital, print and broadcasting channels. Willie expects this market to be worth eight billion dollars across Asia within five years.

Many of those opportunities in the Asian market are in business-to-business markets such as advertising platforms which is another difference to the largely consumer focused Silicon Valley model.

For Australian business, Willie doesn’t see funding as being an issue with money being available for smaller startups and mature companies.

Like in Silicon Valley the real problem lies for business in the middle stages of their development where they are too big for angels and smaller funds but not interesting for the bigger investors. That grey zone lies between two and ten million dollars.

For the companies that do raise the funds and go hunting in Asian markets, the rewards can be great. Not only do this economies have great growth rates, the diversities of Asian countries mean there are different opportunities lying in each nation or even provinces.

Right now, US businesses are focussed domestically or just on a narrow range of opportunities catering to affluent Chinese consumers in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

Willie sees that as another opportunity, while US and European companies are distracted it’s a good time to be entering the Asian markets. But that window of opportunity won’t last forever.

“We’ll either play in that space or the Americans will do it” says Willie.

The opportunity is open to us. Will we grab it?

Similar posts:

Can Singapore become a global VC centre?

Singapore’s SingTel has an interesting way of dealing with competitive threats in a new market.

While Silicon Valley grabs most of the headlines about cool new businesses Singapore has been quietly building its own position in the global venture capital industry.

SingTel, the city state’s main telco operator, setup their own venture capital fund in 2010 with Singtel Innovate investing between S$100,000 and thirty million in various ventures.

The strategy from SingTel, which is closely aligned with Singapore’s government, is a very canny one – it allows the telco to move beyond being a “dumb pipe” just providing the phone network and fits into the nation state’s aim to be one of the centres in an increasingly Asian centred global finance system.

Yesterday SingTel launched a new Australian startup venture, the Optus Innov8 Seed fund which offers investments of up to A$250,000 in new start up businesses in return for equity or other stakes.

To identify the right investments SingTel are partnering with various start up groups and incubators in Sydney and Melbourne which is an interesting way to filter out unsuitable businesses.

Being funded by a telco, the Optus Innov8 program is naturally focused on the technologies that are going to help their business in an evolving market, the areas they are currently looking at are mobility solutions and digital convergence.

For Singtel and Optus this is a long term investment as equity stakes in new technologies will position the business well as their industry evolves and margins come under pressure in their core telco market.

To businesses looking for investments, the Innov8 program is a welcome addition to the funding landscape but Singtel also offer access to Asian markets with operations in India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Edgar Hardless, the CEO of SingTel Innov8 says “if you’re looking at going into the Indian market, we can help with introductions. Same with any of our other markets”.

Those introductions are useful but probably more important is the market intelligence that a partner like SingTel can bring on board. Understanding foreign business conditions is a great advantage for a foreign venture.

Asian markets can be tough, particularly for Australians who have been bought up with a US centric view of the world, but there are plenty of success stories. There is a successful group of entrepreneurs catering to the massive Indonesian market while companies like Dealize have moved their head office to Hong Kong.

Dealize was part of the Pollenizer incubator which is one of Innov8’s partners. At the launch, Phil Morle of Pollenizer pointed out that his business has set up a Singapore office to take advantage of the favorable investment conditions there.

While Innov8’s program is relatively small, it’s a much needed addition to Australia’s start up and venture capital scene and will help some new businesses in the app and mobile space.

Hopefully a few other corporations are looking at SingTel’s lead and thinking how they can tap into these new industries that may disrupt their own.

For Singapore, the city state has always had a number of advantages for the finance industry. By expending into new financing new sectors they are securing their own future in the 21st Century.

Similar posts:

Australia – the Noah’s Ark of business

Cosy duopolies leave the Australian business community exposed to a changing world.

During a week of big business news, the buyout of another boutique brewery by a big corporation was barely noticed, but Lion Nathan’s takeover of the Little Creatures brewery illustrates the duopoly problem that is crippling Australian business.

A few days after that deal was announced, rumours that Business Spectator – which the above link takes you to – would be taken over by News Limited started circulating. These turned out to be true.

In both cases, existing duopoly players bought out small competitors, a process that’s been going on since Australia decided industry duopolies were necessary to protect the nation’s managerial classes, and these takeovers kill genuine innovation and stymie new thinking.

For those duopolies the definition of success is grabbing a few percent of market share off each other while using their market powers to screw down supplier costs.

A good of example of this is the retail duopoly, the farmers and producers get screwed while the supermarket chains engage in price wars driven by truly awful advertising campaigns.

Un-imaginative, un-original and plain un-inspiring. Any smart young kid wanting to get ahead in the retail industries knows they have to look overseas for job opportunities or inspiration.

Therein lies the real problem with Australia’s duopoly business culture – it triggers a brain drain as comfortable managements block any innovative new thinking as being too hard or just unnecessary.

In the media duopoly, telecoms analyst Paul Budde illustrated the problem in his account on trying to convince Fairfax of where the media industry was heading in a connected economy.

Fairfax’s management didn’t get it and didn’t care – today they still don’t get but they care deeply as their business model crumbles.

It’s not just future managers that are looking overseas for opportunity, the customers are well.

The duopoly model that evolved in Australia over the last thirty years depended upon the tyranny of distance to act as an effective trade wall. The Internet has demolished that wall for most industries.

Almost every Australian duopoly is living on borrowed time. If, like the proprietors of Business Spectator or Little Creatures, your business plan relies on selling out to a local duopolist then you’d better move quick.

Similar posts:

Fairfax of the Future

Can an iconic media company be saved?

The embattled board of Fairfax has announced major changes to the way they publish their newspapers. Is it too little, too late for this iconic media organisation?

As the board of Fairfax struggles with poor performance and angry demands from prominent shareholders, the company has announced a change of focus and a reduction in their printing capacity.

In a presentation given by the Chief Executive Greg Hywood, the company’s management goes through the scope and logic of their changes which are mainly around their distribution networks.

Rethinking print

The clearest message from the presentation is that readers have moved online with over three-quarters of readers now accessing the Age and Sydney Morning Herald digitally.

While there are still substantial print revenues in their metro division, around $500 million dollars a year right now, it’s clear Fairfax has to reduce printing and distribution costs.

Cutting the Chullora and Tullamarine printing plants makes sense given Fairfax has regional capacity just outside both Melbourne and Sydney.

Shrinking the SMH and Age to a “compact” size – tabloid being the word that dare not speak its name – will get shrieks of outrage from those wedded to the broadsheet concept, but really doesn’t make much difference to the online readership that represent the future.

Digital first

Fairfax’s “digital first” strategy where online publication take precedence over the print editions will be detailed in a few weeks, this tis a change that should have happened years ago.

Despite the wringing of ink stained hands by journalists who grew up in the era of hot metal printing presses, the news industry has been digital for over a quarter century. In fact the two printing plants now being closed were the digital successors to the old presses on Sydney’s Broadway and Melbourne’s Spencer Street.

That Fairfax’s management is only realising newspapers are just another distribution medium illustrates how late they are to understanding the changes which have happened in the last twenty years.

Using terms like “Digital First” only indicates an obsession with distribution methods rather than the product itself.

Content above all

Fairfax’s product is the news content which is still a valuable commodity – almost everything driving the Australian news cycle comes out of the metropolitan print media.

What appears in the Sydney Morning Herald, Age, Daily Telegraph or Herald Sun drives most of the day’s radio, television and social media coverage in their cities. It shouldn’t be under estimated how powerful both publications are and it is why Gina Rinehart wants a stake in Fairfax.

That value could see paywalls work for Fairfax, but content has to be worth paying for if readers are going to reluctantly open their wallets.

A product worth paying for?

Having a product worth paying for is where the real challenge lies for Fairfax.

Right now much of the content sucks – there’s too much syndication which can be sourced elsewhere, for instance most of the technology section has article that appeared two days earlier on Techmeme or Mashable.

In domestic sections like politics and property the bulk of the “journalism” is repeating other peoples’ agendas rather than reporting facts or driving debate. Much of what Fairfax’s Canberra correspondents report are anonymous briefings from “party figures” while the property section regurgitates the latest spin from real estate agents and property developers.

Over in travel and food, those sections now largely consist of barely rehashed media releases and it’s no accident readers are fleeing those sections to more relevant, and honest, food and travel blogs.

All of these sections have to be revamped if Fairfax is to survive. This will need new editors and probably wholesale staff changes.

A relevant future

The future for Fairfax is being relevant to the communities it serves. Already newspapers are irrelevant and increasingly 1970s style journalism is being ignored.

Late last week the Prime Minister met with a group a bloggers in an attempt to soften her image with key women’s groups.

Despite the sneering of the Fairfax Canberra correspondents, that meeting at Kirribilli House illustrates how media is changing – to politicians, readers and advertisers the old newspapers and their journalists are no longer relevant.

Hopefully Fairfax’s board can ensure the company stays relevant and survives – the Australian media sector is dominated by too few voices as it is and losing one of the biggest players would be a disaster.

Similar posts:

Looking at the wrong curve

Times have changed, have we?

“We don’t understand it, there’s a property shortage but prices are going down,” bleats the property expert in a recent interview.

Property booms are always excused with claims of “shortages”. The US, Ireland and the UK in recent years property markets all collapsed despite business and political leaders claiming there was a “property shortage”.

The shortage meme happens because the property spruikers, economists and finance writers focus on the wrong curve – they look at the supply curve and assume prices are going up because there isn’t enough property to go around.

What drives speculative booms is easy credit – demand driven by access to money drives speculation, not supply shortages.

Australia’s long term property boom which started in the late 1960s and went onto steroids in the late 1990s has been driven by access to credit. Banks were prepared to lend to property buyers, who were increasingly speculators, and government policies favoured those speculating on property over investing or building businesses.

The crisis of 2008 was the end of the easy credit era and the Australian property speculation boom is over. For the policy makers, politicians and economists the basis of the 1980s corporatist ideology is crumbling around them.

No ideologue lets go of their beliefs easily – that’s why Western governments who bought into the corporatist worldview are pumping trillions of dollars into supporting zombie banks and releasing constant stimulus packages to prop up the property market.

Like the communists of the 1970s, today’s corporatists are looking at choosing the statistics that suit their ideological views.

To support their beliefs they look at the wrong curve and then wonder why the world isn’t working as they thought it would.

Times have changed. Have you?

Similar posts:

Could Australia follow the Greek path?

Is Australia really different from Greece?

Business Spectator’s Robert Gottliebsen today describes how Australia has caught the Greek disease of low productivity and an overvalued currency.

This is interesting as just last week Robert was bleating on behalf of Australia’s middle class welfare state.

Australia’s productivity has stagnated over the last 15 years, but unlike Greece the ten years before that was a period of massive reform to both employment practices and government spending.

The structure of the Australian economy is very different, not least in its openness, to that of Greece.

What’s more Australia has a floating currency which will eventually correct itself unlike the Euro that Greece finds itself trapped in.

That’s not to say Australians won’t be hurt when that currency correction happens. The failure of the nation’s political, business and media elites in failing to recognise and plan for this is an indictment on all of them – including Robert Gottliebsen.

Australia’s real similarity with Greece is the entitlement culture that both nations have developed.

Over those last 15 years of poor productivity growth, Australia has seen a massive explosion of middle class welfare under the Howard Liberal government which has been institutionalised by the subsequent Rudd and Gillard Labor governments.

Today middle class Australians believe they have a right to generous government benefits subsidising their superannuation, school fees and self funded retirements.

For all the sneering of Australian triumphalists about Greek hairdressers getting lavish government benefits, Australia isn’t far behind Greece in believing these entitlements are a birthright.

A middle class entitlement culture is the real similarity between Australia and Greece. It’s unsustainable in every country that harbours these illusions.

Unlike Greece, Australia doesn’t have sugar daddies in Brussels, Paris and Berlin desperate to prop up the illusion of the European Union. Australia is own its own when the consequences of magic pudding economics become apparent.

Australia’s day of reckoning may arrive much quicker than that of Greece. Then we’ll see the test of how Australians and their politicians are different from our Greek friends.

Similar posts:

Television rights and clouds

The challenge technology brings to information hoarders.

The Australian Federal Court today handed down their appeal decision in the latest twist in the Optus TV Now copyright case where the National Rugby League claimed the telco’s online recording service breaches the sporting body’s copyright.

Reversing their colleagues earlier decision, the judges found the TV Now service does breach the League’s copyright.

The Court’s reasoning is because the service plays a part in creating a recording the copies cannot be considered an individual’s personal copy to be watched at a later time – therefore they aren’t protected under the personal use provisions of the Copyright Act.

It’s going to be interesting to see where the line is drawn that a computer program or cloud service is infringing copyright.

Could be that copying a video of a football game to Dropbox, Google Drive or Evernote is a copyright breach by those services?

Perhaps online back up services like Carbonite or iCloud could infringe copyright as they automate the copying process?

Even if Optus doesn’t appeal the case to the Australian High Court, the decision will almost eventually tested there by someone else.

Many of the spokespeople – along with and their apologists in the sports and business media – have argued this is about the law falling behind technology.

The court covered this in paragraphs 18 to 25 of the judgement linked above and the judges are quite clear the law was written to be technology neutral.

Calls now to “reform” copyright law in light of the TV Now and AFACT – iiNet cases to “bring the law up to technology” are disingenuous.

While there’s no doubt legislation could be tweaked, there’s the real threat any “reforms” driven by the pleading of the copyright industries and their tame journalist friends will result in more restrictions and damage the take up of modern technologies.

One can’t blame the rights holders for trying to maximise their income, they have to feed the remorseless hungry beast that is modern professional sport – although one wishes they didn’t keep bleating “think of the children” to justify their actions.

We’ve previously seen how sports organisations have felt threatened by every new technology and the profits these new tools have delivered them.

The latest wave of change is no different, although the glory days of sports rights may be another symptom of a changing economy and 1980s thinking.

Hopefully the sports organisations and rights holders won’t be allowed to kill the potential of the these technologies before new business models are allowed to evolve.

Similar posts: