Category: Investment

A website can’t save a dying business

Online tools can’t fix an organisation’s structural problems

The last week has seen some interesting changes in the local online business community.

Embattled department store David Jones’ announced they are following Harvey Norman into an “omni channel strategy”.

Harvey Norman chief executive in turn appeared on national television to state the “internet drives no sales.”

In the political field, it was reported the Australian Labor Party are looking at using Blue State Digital tools to counter voter and member apathy.

Each one in it’s own way illustrates how organisations can be distracted by shiny new technology while ignoring much deeper problems.

In the case of David Jones, the department store ignored their core competencies and tried to ape their down market competitors in milking the financial services cow.

This worked fine while they could offer 24 and 36 month interest free deals and as soon as their partners American Express started charging a monthly “Administration Fee” that business evaporated.

One of DJ’s down market competitors is Harvey Norman, co-founder Gerry Harvey has spent his life building a fortune based upon providing cheap credit to consumers.

It was always going to be a mistake for DJs to compete with Harvey’s as Gerry is far better at the business than the well connected, genteel board of David Jones and their snappily dressed friends in the store’s executive suite.

Worse for DJs, the whole strategy alienated their core markets and while management focused on financial services customers went elsewhere to find the quality goods and services that the upmarket department store should be providing.

For both though, the financial services business model is now fading as the 20th Century debt supercycle comes to an end; consumers no longer want to load up on “buy now, pay later” schemes.

So all the talk of “omni-channel strategies” really doesn’t address the underlying weaknesses in both business.

This disconnect with reality is true in politics as well where the ALP is reported to be considering using the Red State Digital tools that Barak Obama used so well in his 2008 US Presidential campaign.

While the tools are impressive, they don’t address the problem that the electorate – and the member bases of the major political parties – have become rightly disillusioned and disconnected from the political processes that exclude everyone except an increasingly smaller circle of cronies and insiders.

The only good thing that will come of using US political communications tools in the spectacular eruption the first time one of the ALP’s factional warlords encounters a grass roots online campaign like The Great Schlep.

Heck, the resulting furore might even see some of the apparatchiks distracted from partying and whoring on their union credit cards for a day or two.

All the frivolity aside, the reality for the Australian Labor Party, David Jones and Harvey Norman is their problems are far deeper than a well designed website and impeccably executed social media strategy can fix. These organisations need major rethinks about how and why they exist.

It doesn’t matter how much money you throw at the web or how effective your social media strategy is – if the foundations of a business are shaky then a nice “omni-channel strategy” aren’t going to fix things.

For some of organisations, a failure to embrace the online world may be one of the causes for their problems, for many though there are far more basic issues they need to address.

Similar posts:

Should we be subsidising industries?

Can we pick winners in a globalised world?

The 2012 UK “austerity” budget has one bright side with big tax breaks of the games and television industries.

Meanwhile down under, the Australian government is about to announce more massive subsidies to the local motor industry.

While protecting jobs and trying to help struggling industries is admirable, we should ask if the cost to the taxpayer and economy is worthwhile.

Squeaky wheels

“The industry has lobbied for such changes for several years” says the BBC report on the UK budget and this is one of the problems with industry specific support; that it’s the ones who complain the loudest who get the assistance.

Often the companies and industries lobbying for subsidies spend too much management time and resources duchessing ministers, public servants and key media “opinion makers” than actually listening to their customers.

The fact they have staff dedicated to lobbying efforts in itself shows where their investment priorities lie. It isn’t in building better products or delivering what their customers want.

Missing voices

It’s often lamented that the high growth and small business communities don’t receive support, this is because they are running and building their businesses rather than shmoozing journalists, public servants and politicians.

Industry support programs often end up helping established insiders or those with a talent for filling in government grant applications rather than those who genuinely need help.

The Australian film industry is a good example of this where talented film makers struggle to attract funding from government agencies while a generation of well connected, experienced form fillers keep churning out subsidised movies that no-one wants to see.

Behind the times

One of the problems with government picking industry winners is they are often well behind the times with support going to mature or fading industries; both the Australian and UK announcements illustrate this.

The UK games announcement is at least ten years behind the times; strategic investment in the games and TV industry a decade or two ago may have been a wise move, today it’s just supporting another mature sector that is struggling to adjust.

At least though the UK’s policies are somewhere near the 21st Century, the massive Australian support for the failed motor industry shows Canberra’s politicians are mired in an era somewhere Henry and Edsel Ford.

It’s worth noting one of the first moves of the incoming Australian Labor government in 2007 was to axe the Commercial Ready program that was designed to help commercialise new technologies and innovations yet motor industry support dwarf any savings from abandoning this scheme.

The investment problem

In most countries the real problem to building jobs and industries is investment. Both the UK and Australia illustrate this with their domestic investment being largely directed at the housing industries.

The two countries have taxation and social security policies that favour over-investment in property. In Australia the problem is exacerbated by a retirement saving scheme that directs domestic savings to index hugging fund managers.

Australia’s sinking of money into an industry that have been struggling for nearly forty years and currently suffering massive worldwide oversupply is one of many damning indictments on the country’s political classes squandering of the current resources boom.

Making things worse, massive subsidies to uncompetitive industries already distorts a twisted economy.

Real economic reform that encourages investment in research, development, training, innovation and entrepreneurs is tough and means losses for many in those vocal, dying industries.

For the average politician a feel good announcement giving a bucket of money to a noisy group is a much better short term investment.

The challenge, and opportunity, in the democratic world is to make the politicians aware that the economy has moved on from the times of John Major in Britain or Bob Menzies in Australia.

It may well be that industries do need, and deserve, government support although we need far more scrutiny and justification from our political leader of why certain groups get help while others do without.

Similar posts:

Insanely profitable

Apple change the game again with some major ramifications

Apple’s announcement that they will start paying dividends to shareholders changes a number of things in Apple’s business model and those of many other businesses.

The sheer size of Apple’s cash reserves also illustrate how profitable the outsourced manufacturing model is as well the contradictary nature of special pleading by affluent corporations.

Moving a cash mountain

Not only is Apple’s business insanely profitable, but sales are growing exponentially. In the company’s conference call, CEO Tim Cook reported that 37 million iPhones sold last quarter and 55 million iPads sold in the last two years.

Apple’s CFO Peter Oppenheimer pointed out the company’s cash reserves increased $31 billion in 2011 and 2012 is on track for a similar result in 2012, leaving them plenty of money for investment along with a “warchest for strategic opportunities”.

Paying a dividend

The reluctance to pay dividends has been a feature of the US corporate for the last few decades and Apple are certainly not alone in not distributing their profits to shareholders.

Companies like Microsoft, Google and Oracle -even Yahoo! once upon a time – have been just as profitable as Apple and their efforts to shrink their cash mountains has had some perverse effect.

Many of these companies have squandered suprpluses on poorly thoughtout and badly executed buyouts of smaller businesses, this urge to avoid returning money to owner has been one of the drivers of the Silicon Valley VC Greater Fool model.

Another result of fat profits is the rise of flabby, overstaffed management ranks at some of these companies. Although this certainly isn’t the case at Apple where Steve Jobs ran a very lean machine.

The retail model

Unlike their major tech competitors Apple is a manufacturing and retail business as well. In 2012, 40 new stores are planned around the world.

This vertical control of their markets, from the beginings of the supply chain  to “owning” the end customer is anathema to modern MBA thinking and probably the area that gives them the greatest competitive advantage over their hardware competitors.

Justifying Mike Daisy

In some ways this announcement justfies Mike Dasy’s discredited criticisms about Apple’s Chinese suppliers.

The reason for manufacturing these goods in places like China, India or Vietnam is the vastly cheaper cost of doing business, not just in labour rates but in reduced environmental and safety standards.

Plenty of brand name clothing, footware and fashion accessory companies make similar massive profits to Apple with their ten, twenty and sometimes hundred fold markups on their products.

Repatriating profits

One of the big changes of Apple repatriating money is that is undercuts the special pleading by these extremely profitable companies that they should have a US tax holiday so they can repatriate their riches.

It’s now clear these companies can easily afford to pay the taxes of their home countries and it’s time they started to, along with returning dividends to their shareholders.

Once again Apple have changed the way others do business, how these changes affect the way we invest and governments treat companies is going to be one of the most interesting developments over the next decade.

Similar posts:

Milking the dead cow

How Sensis killed itself and the lessons for Australian business

Many big Australian businesses seem untouchable as they dominate their markets to degree almost unknown in most other developed countries. As the story of Sensis shows, Australia’s big duopolies may not be as strong as they appear.

The last few months have been tough for Sensis; revenues last year fell nearly 25%, the once strong business was folded into the latest incarnation of Telstra Digital Media and now the CEO Bruce Akhurst has departed after seven years.

What could have been a dynamic business is now shriveling away, what went wrong?

Milking the revenue cow

Bruce did a good job of keeping revenue coming in during a period that the then owners, the Federal government, wanted to maximise the book value of Telstra before its sale.

Year upon year Sensis could be relied upon to squeeze more money out of the businesses advertising in it.

Management were focused on extracting revenue from the existing client base rather than responding to the obvious threat from online search.

Expensive distractions

When senior management decided to respond to the online world, they were sucked into unnecessary and expensive distractions; the most notable being the 2005 launch of Sensis Search where the then Telstra CEO – the disastrous Sol Trujillo – famously sneered “Google Schmoogle”.

Three years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, Sensis admitted defeat. By then the small business advertisers who were the life blood of the directory market had woken up to the reality their customers weren’t using the Yellow Pages anymore. Sensis had missed the boat.

Clunky processes

Whenever I spoke to small businesses about Sensis through the 2000s there was the same complaint, “I don’t have time to deal with their sales people, just let me tick a box on a web page or send a fax!”

Purchasing space was difficult for customers, their 1950s Willy Loman sales model should have been automated in the 1990s and never was.

Instead Sensis was locked into a high cost sales model and added friction for advertisers which they shouldn’t need, not only were they expensive but they actually made it difficult for their customers to place orders.

Should Sensis have been sold?

At its peak in 2005, Sensis was valued at between 8 and 10 billion dollars as a stand alone company.

Many, including myself, believe that breaking Sensis away would have been the best result given Telstra were at the time focused on protecting their fixed line copper wire monopoly and the directories business was not getting the management attention or capital investment it needed.

History shows though that we might be wrong.

Commander Communications was spun off from Telstra in 2000 and like Sensis had inherited an almost monopoly position in the small business communications market.

By 2007 Commander was out of business thanks to a combination of incompetence, management greed and an inability to recognise the changing communications marketplace.

The Australian disease

Commander’s biggest problem was it saw its customers as cash cows, just as Sensis did. This exposes a much deeper problem in Australian industry and management culture.

Over the last thirty years Australian government policies have seen duopolies develop in almost every key sector of the economy.

All of these duopolies share the same “customer as a milk cow” philosophy which, along with the rampaging Australian dollar, has dragged Australia into being a high cost economy.

The banking industry, while not a duopoly for the moment, is an even more debilitating example of the cash cow syndrome where small business has been crippled by excessive interest rates and fees – particularly since the 2008 crisis.

Sensis’ demise is systemic of a culture that fixates on extracting maximum revenue from customers; concepts like innovation, R&D or adapting to market trends don’t have a role in this mentality.

Milking cows is a fine business, but sometimes you have to think about the health of the herd.

Similar posts:

Investing in the future

Investment is not a cost

UK supermarket chain Tesco announced it intends to create 20,ooo new job over the next two years through “significant investment in customer service, refreshing existing stores and opening new ones”.

That word – investment – is the key to business growth. Not whining about the internet stealing jobs or begging the government to bail out failed industries and their managements.

Investment is more than just buying a shiny new machine, it’s also research, development, training and educating a business’ management, staff, suppliers and customers.

Too many businesses and governments are locked into the the 1980s mindset that investments, along with things like customer service, are a cost that that has to be driven down.

Driving down costs was profitable for many managers through the 1990s and early 2000s, in fact we could argue this was one of the big drivers of corporate profits and productivity through that period.

While some of those costs were undoubtedly unnecessary and deserved, it’s now clear that many governments and businesses ran down investment as well.

Today we’re seeing the results of that; crumbling infrastructure, skills shortages and businesses that can’t compete in a changing global economy.

What we invest in our businesses – be it time or money is essential to its long term success. Only the biggest companies in the most protected industries can survive for a while without investment.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Is the problem in the cockpit?

Who is in control anyway?

In the Daily Reckoning newsletter editor Callum Newman uses Malcolm Gladwell’s description of power relationships to draw a parallel between Korean pilots crashing planes into mountains and the economy, pointing out our politicians are like distracted, doomed aviators ignoring the obvious features they about to collide with.

Is that fair though? In a plane the passengers are strapped in their seats and have to take their the pilots in trust, in real life we have control — all of our actions affect the vehicle that is our economy.

Unlike a plane we can jump out and do our own thing, we can refuse to buy one good or service and we can set up a business for ourselves when we see a market that isn’t being serviced.

Where the analogy does work though is our politicians – and many business leaders – aren’t paying attention to major demographic and economic shifts.

The question is “why?” Most of these people aren’t stupid and they have access to better information than most of us, which is one of the reasons they are in power.

Perhaps it’s because we don’t want to hear the truth; that our assumptions about what the state will provide and how our economy is developing are flawed.

In many ways, particularly in a modern Western democracy, our politician are mirrors of ourselves. They tell is what they think we’d like to hear.

The problem isn’t in the cockpit, it’s back at the boarding gate where we’re more worried whether we’ll get a packet of nuts than whether we should agree to embark on a rough journey to a destination we don’t expect.

Similar posts:

Book review: Endgame by John Mauldin

Life after the debt supercycle.

“There are no good choices – only bad ones” could sum up John Mauldin and Jonathan Tepper’s Endgame which looks at how our economies will evolve the end of the late 20th Century debt “supercycle” that has driven the world economy for the last fifty years.

Endgame examines the choices that confront governments, societies, businesses and investors as the world economy adapts to the realities of the West’s aging populations and excessive debt levels.

Much of Endgame relies on This Time Is Different by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff which the examined eight centuries of financial crises. While Reinhart’s and Rogoff’s conclusions are that speculative bubbles driven by debt almost always result in a banking crisis and painful economic restructure, each episode does have unique characteristics.

In each case governments have three basic choices; reforming spending which is rare and maybe impossible given the debt levels in many nations, inflating debts away as Western governments have done since WWII or through outright defaults which have been associated with less developed nations.

As we see with the convulsions the European Union is currently going through and the massive support given to banks around the world since the 2008 banking crisis, the default option is the one which governments will avoid at all costs.

While the bulk of the book concentrates on the US, John does dedicate several chapters to the how the debt endgame will play out in other nations including Japan –“a bug in search of a windshield” – the UK, Eastern Europe and Australia, where he finds a massive property bubble that he believes could be the most spectacular endgame scenario of all.

The clear lesson from Endgame is the post World War II social compact of working taxpayers supporting the aged, the sick and unemployed is over and was only propped up the illusion of wealth generated by loose credit and financial engineering throughout the 1980s, 90s and early 2000s.

Some are hoping the Chinese economy can provide the global demand that was provided by US consumers. While Endgame doesn’t specifically look at this aspect, it’s unlikely China’s economy can do this.

With consumers and governments now exhausted by debt and at the limits of what they can spend, the assumptions that have driven the economy along with our investment and consumption patterns of the last fifty years no hold true.

Endgame is primarily a book for investors and John Mauldin’s emphasis is on where the safest investments will be in at the end of the debt supercycle. His view is it depends on whether governments choose to eliminate their national debts through deflation or inflation.

For business owners, wage earners and retirees this is an important question too and Endgame describes what the consequences for everyone are under either scenario.

The message of Endgame isn’t overwhelming negative; John Mauldin also looks at where the opportunities will lie after the credit endgame plays out. “We don’t know where the jobs will come from, but they will come” is another theme of the book.

Whether you’re an investor or a business affected by the changing economy or building those businesses of the future, this is an important book for understanding the changing economic world in which we live.

Similar posts: