A Likely End Game to Hostility

The hard disk drive business has been a lousy place to compete for nearly twenty-five years.  It has been the graveyard of many competitors.  Twenty years ago, there were eighty disk drive manufacturers.  By the mid-90s, there were only fifteen.  By 2001, there were eight, and today it appears there are only four.  But the fact that we are at four competitors, especially the size of the leading competitors, means that the industry is likely to come out of its recurring bouts of overcapacity and hostility. 

As 2011 began, there were five hard disk drive manufacturers.  Western Digital led the market with a 31% market share, followed closely by Seagate with a 29% market share.  Hitachi enjoyed an 18% market share, while Samsung and Toshiba shared the remaining 22% of the market.  Recently, Western Digital agreed to purchase Hitachi.  This acquisition would bring Western Digital’s potential market share to 49%.  The top two of the remaining four competitors would then have a potential market share of 78%.  The top three would have more than 85% of the market. 

Hitachi was not just any other competitor in the market.  It had a well deserved reputation for being the most aggressive price discounter in the market.  Hitachi was the major reason that pricing stayed under pressure in the hard disk market.  Western Digital’s acquisition removed the major discounter.

In the past, acquisitions among the hard disk drive manufacturers brought somewhat better margins to the remaining players, but not as much market share as the acquisition would suggest.  The reason was customers rotating other strong suppliers into their relationships to maintain low prices.  With only four players left, and a dominant leader in the market, there is little purpose for the three followers to discount against Western Digital.  A discounter might pick up some temporary share in a market saturated with “last look” arrangements, but it might face a very aggressive pricing response by one or both of the remaining leaders in the market.  No, rather than discount, the economics for all the players would argue for firm industry pricing.  That is the most likely outcome of this acquisition.

Over the years, we have studied many industries in overcapacity.  Overcapacity produces a hostile market, where returns are low and price competition remains intense.  These kinds of markets end in one of two ways, either demand picks up and sops up the industry’s overcapacity, or the industry consolidates to the point where the top four competitors control 85% or more of the industry’s volume.  The remaining players then demur from competitive price discounts. The majority of industries see demand growth pull them out of hostile conditions.

There is one potential fly in this hard disk ointment.  Computer tablets and other portable devices don’t use hard disk drives.  Instead, they use NAND flash drives.  These are solid state drives.  They are more expensive than hard disks, have a much smaller form factor and are generally more reliable.  Samsung, Toshiba and SanDisk are the leaders in this market.  It could happen that Samsung and Toshiba, two of the four remaining hard disk drive suppliers, use low prices in the hard disk market to create customers for their more expensive flash drives.  It is more likely, however, that these two companies, who are distant followers in the hard disk market, would prefer to see higher prices for hard disks.  These higher prices on a competitive product would help some customers in the market transfer alliance to flash drives.

This acquisition should be a good deal for the remaining four hard disk players.  While some analysts have argued that the hard disk drive market will slowly die under the pressure of the growth in the applications of flash drives, industry observers still see an 8% per annum unit growth for this market over the next five years.  That unit growth should come with better margins for the remaining players.

Nokia Makes a Bet in the Smart Phone Market

Nokia has a big problem in the smart phone market. It has to do something to change its outlook. It just made a bet with the choice of its pathway to the future.

Nokia produces both the hardware and the operating system for smart phones. Its hardware is the handset and its software is either the Symbian or MeeGo operating systems. The company uses the Symbian software with its less advanced smart phones and the MeeGo system for the more advanced and more expensive phones.

Nokia is losing market share rapidly, especially to phones using Google’s Android operating system. Over the last year, the Symbian operating system’s market share fell from 45% to 37% of the market. In the meantime, Android has garnered 25% of the market, up from less than 4% a year ago. Nokia developed the MeeGo system to counter the flowing tide to both the Android and the Apple operating platforms. These platforms from Apple and Android have nearly shut Nokia out of the high end smart phone business in the U.S.

Nokia has decided against adopting the Android operating system for its phones. It is afraid that the adoption of Android would leave it competing in an increasingly less attractive hardware market, while the profits go to the operating software manufacturers. Nokia is undoubtedly right here. (See Video #3: Predicting the Direction of Margins” on StrategyStreet.com.) The question is, can they catch up fast enough?

Nokia is working hard to get the MeeGo system up to speed for developers. Today, the developers feel that the MeeGo operating system is in its early stages. It is attractive, though, because this operating system supports a number of different products that consumers use, including tablets, televisions and phones. And Nokia has acquired and developed software, called QT, that enables software developers to write an application once and have it work on a number of hardware products.

Nokia has time to get this right. The smart phone market is still a high-end, Performance Leader, product. It will take time for the mass market to adopt the smart phones and their operating systems. Nokia has a large base of customers using its phones and operating systems. Most of these customers would prefer not to leave a supplier they have come to know and like. If Nokia can pull its act together quickly, it can be a strong performer. And, certainly, there will be room for three operating systems in this market. In fact, if Nokia does well, it could still end up the long term leader, a position it has owned in the cell phone market for the last several years. Failing that, it has a reasonable chance to beat out the Apple operating system over the longer term. To accomplish this, Nokia must develop and use its superior economies of scale to price its products aggressively to take share again. (See Video #53: Productivity and Economies of Scale in Hostility” on StrategyStreet.com.)

But, there is a lingering question. Why not hedge the bet by developing Android phones as well? They could maintain good economies of scale and keep handset profits if their software bet fails.

Microsoft Phone 7 - A Long Row to Hoe

Recently, Microsoft introduced Windows Phone 7 Mobile software. This is all new software that Microsoft hopes will stop its slide in market share. It is going to have tough sledding.

Until this introduction, Microsoft’s market share in the mobile software business was dropping off a cliff. The company was one of the early entrants into the market. In 2004, it owned 22% of the market. By 2009, its share was down to 9%. Today it is about 5%. Microsoft was quickly fading away. But maybe the new software can help.

For a bit of perspective, we have to explain that there are five separate players involved in this marketplace: the operating system developers, the phone manufacturers, the wireless carriers, the software application developers and the ultimate users. Each of these entities are in separate businesses and represent separate competition. Microsoft plays in the market exclusively as an operating system developer. That’s what Windows Phone 7 is. The Google Android system is another stand-alone mobile operating software platform. So has been Hewlett Packard’s Palm mobile operating software. Three other competitors offer their operating software only in combination with their handset hardware. These include Nokia, with the Symbian operating system, Research In Motion’s Blackberry products and Apple’s iPhones.

The market share ranking today among those competitors in total operating software starts with Nokia’s Symbian, followed by Android, then Blackberry and Apple. Each of these has a market share that are multiples of Microsoft’s current share. Microsoft is fifth, followed by Palm and others.

The new Windows Phone 7 software is a wholly new product. It is completely different than the previous Microsoft mobile software. So different, in fact, that none of the thousands of applications written for the previous Microsoft software will work with Windows Phone 7. The company must start from scratch with applications.

Consumers love applications and make many of their buying decisions on the basis of these applications. (See the Perspective, “When to Compete on Features” on StrategyStreet.com.) Today, Apple has about 250,000 applications, followed by Android with about 70,000. The differences between the two are probably much less than these numbers would indicate because most of the popular applications are available on both platforms. You can see this in the marginal purchases. Android garners more of the current new purchases than does Apple. So, for all practical purposes, Apple no longer owns a significant application lead on Android.

Windows Phone 7 faces a real hurdle with applications. In some ways, it offers a few benefits over the Android and Apple operating systems. For example, it works off of “tiles” that enable a user to get information somewhat faster than in the Android and Apple software. It works easily with Microsoft Office software and it enables gamers to connect to online games easily. These are modest innovations at best, and likely to be followed by others quickly. For example, Motorola already produces software for its phones that pretty much duplicates Microsoft’s “tiles.” Apps are the big problem.

If you are an applications developer, Microsoft would likely be far down your list of the companies for whom you would write new application software for a smart phone. Android and Apple would lead the pack. Nokia, Research In Motion and others offer more current customers than Microsoft but pose difficulties for developers. Microsoft would fall below all these firms. Microsoft has to solve this problem quickly.

Application developers are also likely to be leery of Microsoft and its continued presence in the market. Not only has the company lost share, but it introduced a software platform called Kin in the spring of 2010 aimed at young people, between 12 and 20. This product did not stay in the market even two months. So developers are likely to hold fire on their application development for the Windows Phone 7 platform until they are relatively sure that the product will succeed.

Microsoft is backing its Windows Phone 7 introduction with a $100 million advertising program emphasizing the ease with which a user can get to the information most important to the customer. This seems to me to miss the mark. This advertising investment is a Convenience innovation that advises the customer why the Microsoft system is faster and, therefore, better. (See “Video 15: Definition of Convenience” on StrategyStreet.com.) But it seems that most of the smart phone purchases today are the result of other current users’ recommendations and demonstrations. This is a Reliability innovation. These current users are apt to emphasize the Function benefits of their phones rather than the speed of access to information.

Microsoft might have spent this money differently. It is already paying some developers to create applications for its platform. My guess is that their $100 million might have been much better spent paying for applications, where Microsoft is likely to fail on the basis of lack of Functions rather than paying for the Convenience innovation of advertising.

A Pricing Scheme Guaranteed to Fail

There is a new gift card brokerage product coming to the online market. It’s called CardWoo.com. This company buys your unwanted gift cards at a discount. You mail in your card and they will send you a check for it. The amount of the check, as a percentage of the card value, is not stated in their online information. You, then, have fourteen days to decide whether to accept the check or send it back and get your gift card back.

The problem comes on the other side of the deal. CardWoo then takes the cards it buys and resells them online. The problem is their discount. Most of these cards have face values of $10 to $75. The majority seem to fall in the $25 to $50 range. The discounts CardWoo offers the purchaser of the card range anywhere from 0% (why would anyone do that?) to 5%. 5% of $50, the higher end of most of the cards, comes to all of $2.50. This discount is far too small to really attract many customers. (See “Audio Tip #143: Offensive Pricing Guidelines” on StrategyStreet.com.)

We have looked at more than 800 examples of discounted products. The median discount offered in a marketplace is 25%. 75% of discounts are 10% or more. CardWoo’s discounts are far too low to attract a mass audience. (See “Audio Tip #137: Price Shavers and Their Pricng” on StrategyStreet.com.)

The Decline of an Industry Leader

In a tough, highly competitive market place, the avoidance of Failure and a company’s reputation for Reliability are critical to long term success. (See “Video #14: Definition of Reliability” on StrategyStreet.com.) Dell is an example.

For years, Dell was the paragon for the personal computer industry. It had good computers with a build-to-order business model that took in cash before the company had to pay suppliers. Its low-cost business model involved maintenance of low inventories and tight control of its suppliers. Then the wheels came off.

From 2003 to 2007, Dell shipped a number of its mainline personal computers with serious flaws. The facts have come out recently in court documents in a suit filed by a customer against Dell claiming that these faulty computers cost the customer a good deal of money. It seems this customer was not alone.

Dell’s problems showed up because a supplier shipped it bad capacitors. An Asian company, Nichicon, produced bad capacitors, which Dell included in its motherboards on nearly 12 million computers shipped to customers from May 2003 to July 2005. A study of these computers suggested that these capacitors would cause problems in Dell computers 97% of the time, if the computer were used over a three year period.

Dell did not handle this situation well. It placed cost control ahead of customer welfare. (See the Perspective, “Cutting the Right Cost” on StrategyStreet.com.) In some cases, it replaced bad motherboards with other bad motherboards. In other cases, customer service and sales employees went out of their way to conceal these problems. Dell told some of its customers that the customers were at fault for the failing computers because they had over taxed the machines. Nor did Dell recall the faulty computers. Instead, it left it up to the customer to make a complaint before it took action. In the meantime, customers suffered the costs of losing information when their computers failed to function properly. Dell failed its customers and ravaged its Reliability reputation.

Dell is no longer the paragon of the personal computer industry. That mantle now rests on the shoulders of HP and, perhaps, Acer. Dell’s market share has fallen off. In a tough marketplace, the Failure of an incumbent supplier is the cause of most market share shifts in the industry. If an incumbent Fails the customer by refusing to do something that other people can and will do, it will lose market share. Another critical aspect of a company operating in a very tough market is Reliability. The customer has to trust that the company’s products will work, and if they do not work, they will be fixed promptly. Dell at one time had a good Reliability reputation. It gained share on the back of that good reputation. The company has badly frayed that reputation and its failures have caused its loss of market share. (See “Audio Tip #36: The Importance of Customer Retention in Hostility” on StrategyStreet.com.) These failures account, in part, for the share gained of Hewlett Packard.

What Happens When Giants Rumble

Over the last few years, Allstate Corporation, the big insurer of homes and automobiles, has concentrated its management efforts on producing industry-leading profitability. Profits have increased but the stock price has gone nowhere. And Allstate is losing market share.

Part of this market share loss is due to higher pricing than its key competitors. A look at market share changes suggests this fact. Both Geico and Progressive, who are known for aggressive pricing, have gained market share. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Large competitors are maintaining price levels as smaller competitors discount” on StrategyStreet.com.) Allstate’s market share has fallen, as have the shares of the smaller property and casualty insurers. The leader in the industry, State Farm, has gained market share.

Allstate is now altering course. The company’s top management has stated a goal to become the number one property and casualty insurer within the next ten years. At a minimum, this means Allstate’s market share must rise from today’s 10.5% in automobile insurance premiums to State Farm’s 18.6% market share, tough to do in a market growing only 3% a year. Allstate’s first priority is to stem the loss of current customers and then to find a way to develop programs that will enable them to gain market share. (See “Audio Tip #40: The Components of Market Share Change” on StrategyStreet.com.) A substantial part of these initiatives will involve more aggressive pricing.

This new pricing posture has begun to emerge. In Illinois, Allstate’s home state, the company recently offered a 5% discount to Geico customers who would switch to Allstate. In addition, the company is offering a one time bonus to customers who will agree to buy directly from its web site.

These are opening salvos in a price war. Price discounting begun by the second ranked competitor in the industry is going to effect every other competitor. Prices are going down, margins are going down and no one can avoid the battle. (See the Symptom & Implication, “As large competitors match low prices, other competitors face difficulties” on StrategyStreet.com.) As long as State Farm avoids the Leader’s Trap, the competitors who are likely to suffer most will be the industry’s smaller players. These companies will suffer mightily in a price war. They manage cost structures that do not enjoy the economies of scale of their much larger competitors.

These smaller competitors are likely to begin to fail in the marketplace. As they do, they may become acquisition candidates for Allstate. Acquisitions may, indeed, be a profitable route toward Allstate’s market share goal.

More Steel Capacity. Why?

China’s Anshan Iron and Steel Group has announced plans to invest in up to five new steel mills along with a U.S. domestic partner. The last time I looked, the U.S. was swimming in excess steel capacity. So why would this company enter the U.S. to add to an already over-supplied market? This is a political decision, not an economic one. Though, politics will obviously translate into dollars and cents eventually.

Anshan is partnering with Steel Development Company, a U.S. corporation, to invest $175 million in an initial “micro-mill” in Mississippi. Despite its cost, this is really a small investment. (See “Audio Tip #196: Why Economies of Scale Exist” on StrategyStreet.com.) The capacity of the mill is 300,000 metric tons. This mill will make reinforced metal bar. It adds relatively little to total capacity. The U.S. rebar market has 8 to 10 million short tons of capacity in the U.S. Nor does the new capacity add much to Anshan’s total capacity. Its total capacity in China totals 25 million metric tons.

This is a political investment. The U.S. government is under pressure from U.S. steelworkers. They charge that China competes unfairly in the steel industry. This investment is a partial response to that political problem.

We’ve seen this before. In the 1970s, I worked on a study to determine where a major Japanese electronics manufacturer should establish its first U.S. manufacturing facility. That new U.S. facility was not going to be a lower cost facility than those the company already had in Japan. But it would short-circuit arguments that the Japanese company was dumping its electronic products on the U.S. market. The Japanese automobile manufacturers, notably Honda and Toyota, did the same thing at roughly the same time. Over time, the Japanese auto plants were able to supply the domestic market economically. The domestic plants of the Japanese automakers, of course, have been operating under the cost umbrella held up by the United Autoworkers’ union wage rates and work rules. The U.S. steel industry has a lower union cost umbrella, so we are unlikely to see big foreign investments bringing a lot of new capacity to the U.S. steel industry. That is, we won’t see much more than is needed for political expediency. (See the Perspective, “Must the Cycle Start Again?” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Always Low Prices Meets Lower Prices

Wal-Mart has come to dominate the grocery industry by offering wide product choices and low prices in their 2700 super centers. The company today is the biggest of the industry’s Standard Leaders. (See “Audio Tip #181: Using Physical Measures to Control Costs” on StrategyStreet.com.) And because the company has a well earned reputation for low prices, it found new customers during the last recession.

But underneath the new customer growth it found that some of their Core customers had migrated even further down on the food chain to discounting competitors, such as Save-A-Lot and Aldi stores. These companies offer even lower prices. They are able to offer these lower prices because they are Strippers. These are low-end, Price Leader (see “Audio Tip #83: Price Leader Products and Companies”), competitors who strip benefits from the product offering in order to achieve a low cost structure and consequent very low prices, which attract price-sensitive customers.

Save-A-Lot and Aldi compete with similar business models. They offer from 1400 to 1800 items, which is a small fraction of the offerings in a typical supermarket. The vast majority of their products are private labeled. The stores themselves are small, 15,000 to 17,000 square feet, and the store displays and amenities are spartan. Still, these retailers are growing relatively rapidly in the U.S. Wal-Mart feels like it needs to respond to their growth.

Wal-Mart does offer smaller stores. Their Neighborhood Markets concept are grocery stores in small towns and suburbs. But these are larger formats, averaging 42,000 square feet. The company’s small store format, called Marketside, has a 15,000 square foot footprint but has achieved relatively little presence so far. The Marketside business model has yet to develop any vibrancy.

Can Wal-Mart succeed at the very low end of the marketplace? I wouldn’t bet against them. They have succeeded in Mexico by offering seven separate store formats to meet the needs of consumers at various budget levels.

Coming Back from the Dead

RadioShack Corporation has re-imagined itself as a major seller of smart phones. In an effort to get past its old and dowdy image, it has rebranded itself as “The Shack.” Today, it devotes about half of its relatively small stores’ shelf space to smart phones. It offers phones for most of the major carriers, as well as the Apple iPhone. This re-imaging seems to be helping the company. Its sales and stock price are on the rise.

Competition is getting tougher, however. The leader in electronic superstores, Best Buy, offers smart phones both in its main stores and in its fast-growing small stores, Best Buy Mobile, which sell only phones and phone equipment. Wal-Mart Stores is also a leader in electronics retailing. Wal-Mart is expanding into the fast-growing mobile phone business as well.

Let’s use the Customer Buying Hierarchy to guess at how this market might develop. Without a lot of deep research into the industry, I would guess that Best Buy will emerge as the Function leader. (See “Video #13: Definition of Function” on StrategyStreet.com.) It will offer more phones and more informed advice than will its competitors. The Shack is a Convenience player. They won’t have the Function choices of Best Buy but, with their 6500 locations, they will be a very Convenient buy for many consumers. (See “Video #15: Definition of Convenience” on StrategyStreet.com.) Wal-Mart’s strength will be both Convenience and Price. It offers Convenience in the sense that it offers smart phones, along with many other items that customers will buy much more frequently than they buy a smart phone. Primarily, Wal-Mart will offer low prices. (See “Video #10: Industry Consolidation and Recycling of Capacity” on StrategyStreet.com.) It is unlikely that anyone will compete seriously with them on pricing.

The smart phone market is a fast-growing market. Most of these markets see market shares shift due to Function and Price innovations. These are areas of real strength for Best Buy and Wal-Mart. Convenience will usually be a less important benefit in the movement of market share in these kinds of markets.

Convenience and Reliability Innovations in a Fast-Growing Market

In a rapidly growing market, one growing faster than 15% a year in units, Function innovations tend to dominate market share movement. That is, Function innovations move more market share, on average, than do innovations in Reliability and Convenience. Often, the second major driver of market share movement in a fast-growing market is Price. Low prices and low-end competition often expand the market and cause significant market share shifts at the same time.

That is not to say that there aren’t Reliability and Convenience innovations. There are. The electronic reader market offers illustrations of these innovations. Barnes & Noble has an electronic reader called the Nook. This electronic reader is lagging in the market today, especially against the Amazon Kindle and the Apple iPad. To build awareness for its Nook product, Barnes & Noble has returned to T.V. advertising for the first time in several years. It wants to distinguish itself in the babble of noise from the many emerging eReaders and Tablets.

Advertising is both a Convenience and a Reliability innovation. It’s a Convenience innovation in that it helps the customer think of the product and know where to look for it. (See “Audio Tip #92: How Do We Add Knowledge to the Customer?” on StrategyStreet.com.) Advertising is also often a Reliability innovation because advertised products have stronger brand names and the aura of Reliability among consumers in a market. So advertising for Barnes & Noble should help the Nook gain some traction in the market. Will it be enough to overcome its laggard status? Probably not, due to its limited Function benefits in the form of attractive book titles. (See “Audio Tip #64: The Objectives of a Performance Improvement Program” on StrategyStreet.com.)

The leader in the market, Amazon’s Kindle, is also innovating its product in the form of Convenience. In the past, Amazon sold the Kindle only through its Amazon.com web site. This policy was in keeping with Amazon’s effort to get consumers of all products to purchase online, rather than through bricks-and-mortar retailers. Amazon has thought the better of this policy, though, with the advent of the Apple iPad. In part as a response to the availability of the iPad in Apple’s stores, Amazon has allowed Target to begin offering the Kindle at Target stores. Offering the product at Target is primarily a Convenience innovation. A customer can pick up the product faster at a Target store than by ordering online. In some ways, it is also a Reliability innovation. The customers can hold the product in their hands and see how the product works. Primarily, though, this is a Convenience innovation. Its main benefit for Amazon will be to prevent some loss of customer market share to a more Convenient iPad product. (See “Audio Tip #93: How Do We Reduce the Resources Used With Our Product?” on StrategyStreet.com.)

A Tale of Colorblindness Lost

The farm equipment industry is well known for the colors on the equipment of its major suppliers. Deere’s equipment is green, Caterpillar’s is yellow, and New Holland sports a blue color. Normally, customers are very loyal to the “colors” in the industry. This year, however, some customers are losing their green colorblindness. This loss of customer loyalty is coming as a result of a difficult trade-off Deere had to make. This loss of colorblindness also illustrates the way market share moves in many markets.

As the economy collapsed, taking the farm equipment industry with it, Deere had to make some tough choices. Its forecast for the industry’s loss of damage called for it to shrink its inventories radically, and it has done that exceedingly well. Its inventories, as a percentage of the last twelve months of sales, are, by far, the lowest among the industry’s largest suppliers. This inventory reduction, in part, came as Deere borrowed a page from Dell’s success in the personal computer market. Deere is attempting to become a build-to-order company in order to keep working capital investments low and manufacturing economies high.

However, a bump in the road has arisen. The market for farm equipment came back stronger than Deere’s forecasts. As a result, customers who order today will not receive their farm equipment in time for their harvest seasons. In fact, equipment will not arrive for a few months after the harvest. So, some erstwhile “true green” loyal customers are migrating to competing suppliers. Caterpillar, New Holland and others are the beneficiaries of this market share movement.

This illustrates one of the two ways that market share moves in a market. (See “Audio Tip #29: Positive vs. Negative Volatility” on StrategyStreet.com.) In one way, which we call a “win”, a supplier in the industry does something that most of the other industry competitors either will nor, or can not do, and wins market share at the expense of its competitors. (See “Audio Tip #34: How Does a Company “Win” in a Market?”) In the second mode of market share movement, which we call a “failure”, a supplier who is an incumbent in a customer relationship either can not, or will not, do something that at least half the other competitors in the market can, and will, do. (See “Audio Tip 35: How Does a Company “Fail” in a Market?”)

In most markets, failures move more market share than do wins. Competitor offerings are close enough to one another that most customers will not change suppliers readily. It is difficult to “win.” On the other hand, it is much easier to “fail” in a customer relationship. You can fail to offer a new Function; allow your Reliability reputation to erode; you can stretch out the order cycle time on the customer and fail in Convenience; or you can hold prices high and fail in Price.

Deere has a two-fold “failure” in this marketplace. It is failing its end users because it stretched out its order cycle time. Deere failed on Convenience for the end users. A more important failure, though, has occurred with its channels of distribution. Deere is failing its channels in Reliability. It does not have product when they have a market. Of the two failures, the Reliability failure is the more important. Over the years, we have seen many markets where customers will take on a secondary role supplier in order to ensure that they never are short of product when they need it. (See “Audio Tip #12: Supplier Roles and the Customer Buying Hierarchy” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Deere succeeded in beating its major competitors in managing the profit decline over the last year. Their better profit management was the result of its aggressive cost management. On the other hand, its cost management is now causing it to lose market share due to failures of Convenience and Reliability. In the long run, Deere’s profit calculus is likely to work against them.

Another Quieter Challenge from Below

The majority of citizens go to banks for credit cards, loans and other day-to-day financial transactions. Over the last few years, the banks have easily pushed through significant fee increases in all of their services because most people deal only with one bank and are unlikely to want to go to the trouble to change banks to get lower prices. The result is that lower prices aren’t offered, at least not to the average citizen. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry has been able to preserve margins by increasing prices” on StrategyStreet.com.)

There is an exception, though. That exception is Wal-Mart. After carefully dismantling the economics of variety stores, jewelry stores and grocery stores, Wal-Mart is now beginning to stalk the financial industry. They will be successful here because the financial industry is highly unlikely to have the will to compete with Wal-Mart where it chooses to serve customers.

So, where does it choose to serve its customers? At the lower end of the market, of course. Twenty-five percent of U.S. households are unbanked. The bigger banks are not interested in these customers because they will not, or cannot, pay significant fees on financial services. But Wal-Mart wants these customers. Wal-Mart cashes work and government checks, offers prepaid Visa debit cards, and provides money transfer and bill payment services…all services that are highly profitable to the typical bank.

And the business is growing very rapidly. (See the Symptom & Implication, “New entrants are growing much faster than the market” on StrategyStreet.com.) Recently, Wal-Mart opened its one thousandth money center. Each of these money centers is located inside a regular Wal-Mart. The company has also announced plans to grow the money centers by 50% over the next year. Once those additional 500 money centers are open, there will be an average of one money center for every two Wal-Marts in the U.S. This current group of money centers do an average of four million transactions a week, and are a very profitable part of Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart has not had an easy time of getting into this business. They have tried several times to obtain a bank charter. Such a charter would allow them to take deposits and lend money. The last effort the company made to obtain a bank charter was in 2007. But the banking establishment pressured the government to block Wal-Mart’s application.

The banking establishment has to watch out for these Wal-Mart guys. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Competitors are changing features of the product” on StrategyStreet.com.) Their approach to all businesses is to streamline, simplify, eliminate excess and lower prices. The company’s commitment to increase its money centers by 50% on a decent-sized base within a year is an eloquent testimony that Wal-Mart’s approach works in financial services. They will be a major force.

An Update on Cutting Capacity to Raise Prices

Several months ago, we wrote a blog (See Blog Here) that noted the capacity reductions in the airline industry. In particular, the large legacy airlines were reducing their capacity in order to raise industry pricing. At the time, this effort was showing relatively little help with industry pricing.

As part of this original blog, we noted that there was a problem with the withdrawal of capacity in order to force prices up. The problem is expansion of capacity by low cost competitors. We explained that we had seen many cases in other industries where industry leaders reduced capacity to force industry prices up, only to be stymied by the addition of capacity by low-cost competitors.

Well, some new numbers have shown that the same thing is happening in the airline industry. AirFinancials.com has measured the change in domestic capacity of the airline industry between 2003 and 2009. The four largest legacy carriers, Delta, American, United and U.S. Airways, reduced their available seat miles, the best measure of domestic capacity, by 85 billion miles, a 21% average reduction. However, during the same period of time, low-cost competitors, including Southwest, JetBlue, AirTran and four other smaller carriers, added 84 billion available seat miles to their capacity. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Foreign competitors are expanding with low prices” on StrateyStreet.com.) So the legacies reduced capacity by 85 billion and the smaller, low-cost carriers, added 84 billion. The industry’s total capacity dropped by 1 billion available seat miles, far less than demand has fallen over the last year. Price competition and low industry returns continue.

The legacy carriers are shrinking away their network and scale advantages to the low-cost carriers. The low-cost carriers are more than happy to replace the capacity that the legacy carriers drop. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Some competitors are using growth to reduce their costs” on StrategyStreet.com.) Bad news for the legacy carriers.

To Bundle or Not to Bundle, That is the Question

For years, the cable industry has bundled its channels into tiers. They create “buy-throughs” which require a customer to purchase more than one tier to get to a particular channel the customer may want. For example, if the customer would like to have a channel in the second tier, the customer must also purchase the first tier along with the second tier bundle, of course, at a higher price.

Customers generally dislike this mode of pricing because they get many channels that they do not watch. The Wall Street Journal reports that Nielsen estimates that households watch an average of 18 channels out of the 130 they receive. So customers are paying for a lot of channels that are of little or no use to them.

This cable pricing approach to bundling is unusual. In the vast majority of cases, bundling is a tactic a company might use to reduce the impact of a falling price environment. With bundling, a company may sell more product, though at a lower price per unit of sale. The greater amount of product sold in the individual transaction, however, helps to preserve the company’s margins, even as prices fall.

There are two major types of bundling. The first type bundles several units of the same product into a package. For example, the airline Cape Air ran a program selling ticket books of ten one-way flights at discounted prices on its flights around Cape Cod and a few other destinations.

In the other type of bundling, a company would create a package of related products. As the recession hit the restaurant industry, Starbucks began offering breakfast deals in which a consumer could get a combination of an oatmeal and a latte or of a breakfast sandwich and a coffee for $3.95.

The cable industry has used the bundles to make the consumer feel like he is not paying a great deal for any one cable channel. The cable companies themselves are largely monopolies in their local areas. They have the freedom to raise their prices faster than inflation, and have done so for a number of years, using this bundled product approach.

Will this approach last for the long term future? That’s hard to say. (See “Video #3: Predicting the Direction of Margins" on StrategyStreet.com.) Certainly prices have gotten very high today. The cable companies have raised the price umbrella over new competition. Consumers would like to find lower prices and media producers are always looking for new channels of distribution. Increasingly, the internet is becoming an answer for both of these players. New services are arising that allow consumers to pick and choose individual programs to watch on the internet, or even on an internet equipped television. (See the Symptom and Implication, “Large competitors are maintaining price levels as smaller competitors discount” on StrategyStreet.com.) That is a real threat to the cable company’s bundled pricing stance.

Acquisitions to Gain Product Capability

There are three primary reasons to make an acquisition. First, the acquirer may use the acquisition to reduce its cost by consolidating and reducing the total cost of overlapping cost functions. Second, the acquirer may seek to gain a new set of customers. And, third, the acquirer may be seeking a product capability which it does not have. In general, we believe that a successful acquisition will meet at least two out of these three criteria.

Recently, both Apple and Google have made important acquisitions. (See “Audio Tip #104: Where is the “Profit” in Expansion?” on StrategyStreet.com.) Both of these acquisitions have the bonus of acquiring a product capability that the company needs. Google acquired AdMob, a company which places ads on mobile web sites and applications. This is a very fast-growing market. Apple, shortly afterwards, followed suit by acquiring Quattro Wireless, a smaller competitor of AdMob. Google needs this acquisition in order to extend its advertising expertise into the mobile market. Apple needs its acquisition in order to make some revenues on the many free apps that run on its iPhones.

Which of the two companies is likely to be more successful in its acquisition? (See “Audio Tip #200: Using Acquisitions to Create Economies of Scale” on StrategyStreet.com.) Apple should certainly be able to generate revenue relatively quickly because there are so many free apps already out for the iPhone, which run on an advertising business model where the app is free to the consumer. On the other hand, Apple’s culture is hardware oriented. The company may have difficulties in dealing in a largely service-oriented market.

That won’t be Google’s problem. It already lives in the advertising world. In addition, AdMob is a much larger company than is Quattro. Google is likely to have acquired a new product capability with a lower cost structure than its Apple/Quattro Wireless competitor.

Make Them Wait

Three of the largest book publishers have decided to delay the release of their most popular new books to the e-Book market. This is unlikely to be a successful experiment. But another experiment from a fourth publisher offers promise.

E-Book readers, from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Sony, among others, are some of this years hottest Christmas gifts. These e-Book readers are more than doubling last year’s unit sales. They are pulling the e-Book book sales with them.

The problem, of course, is money. An e-Book sells for about $10. The most popular hard cover books sell for $25 to $27. There’s the rub. The book publishers get about half of that $27 hard cover price. So you can imagine these publishers are less than excited about the opportunity in the retail price of an e-Book at $10, even if they would get all of that $10, which they won’t. (See “Audio Tip #88: Questions to Determine Your Response to a Low-end Competitor” on StrategyStreet.com.)

So, to try to hold the $27 hard cover market, three major publishing houses have announced delays in allowing their most popular titles to go to the electronic book publication market. HarperCollins Publishers, Hachette Book Group and Simon and Schuster plan to delay a few of the books that carry their highest expectations for profit. The delays will last from four to six months. These delays roughly match the time that the paperback version of a title follows the hard cover version.

On the one hand, these titles are unique Function innovations. Some readers will pay the higher price in order to be first in line to read the new publications. But there are many other unique books. The delays announced so far will cover less than 150 of the total 2000 new book titles issued each year.

The e-Book format is less costly and much more user-friendly. The e-Book is a much less expensive product to produce and deliver. Its digital format allows companies to distribute their product over the internet and to the e-Book readers by wireless connections. The e-Book reader can carry more than 1500 books. The user, then, can carry many books in the space of one paperback. This technology is not going to shrink nor pass away, no matter what publishers decide to do with their most popular new book titles. The cost of book publishing is simply going to plummet. But the revenues available to the industry over time should increase dramatically as new customers enter the market.

This e-Book market is an entirely new market. The e-Book offers opportunities to do things never before possible with hard cover books. The digital format allows companies to provide “special features” that enhance the attractiveness of the e-Book. These special features could include such benefits as interviews with the author, in-person video reviews by some of the country’s best book reviewers and videos of the geographic settings in the book, among others. There will be a lot of these new features (See “Audio Tip #29: Positive vs. Negative Volatility” on StrategyStreet.com). These new features, along with the much lower prices charged, will bring a whole new set of e-Book customers into the marketplace. Many of these new customers are not candidates for the $27 hard cover product. They will be happy buyers of the e-Book at $10 with its enhanced features.

A fourth member of the major book publishers, Macmillan, has developed a more creative and more promising approach. This approach envisions the release of an e-Book version of its best sellers on the same day as the hard cover book hits the shelves. The company envisions a “special edition” of the e-Book. This special edition will cost the same as the hard cover book and will be on the market for only 90 days. The special edition will include author interviews and reading guides, along with other material. At the end of 90 days, the special edition will discontinue and the company will issue the standard e-Book format at the lower standard e-Book price.

The publishing industry will fail at its delay experiment. They would be better off embracing the new technology, with its potential for extra Functions and ease-of-use, and then spending the next few years reducing the scale of the paper-based cost structure they carry today. My guess is that a hybrid version of the Macmillan experiment will eventually emerge. Under this hybrid version, all of the most popular books will be available in e-Book format, along with many function enhancements, like those in the Macmillan special edition, for a price a few dollars above the standard e-Book price, but at least 25% below the hard cover price. This approach ensures a much better value proposition for the e-Book customer, builds the e-Book market, and should allow the industry to make an attractive profit at the lower price, due to the much lower cost of production and distribution. Over time, the higher price of the most popular e-Books would gradually fall to the price of the standard e-Book in the market place so that the publisher may reap the rewards from customers willing to wait for a lower price on a good product.

Fewer Customers? Cut Capacity

For a year now the economy has weighed down passenger airline traffic. The industry expects a 4% reduction in passenger volume for 2009’s Thanksgiving season compared to the previous year. And, as demand has fallen, so have prices. Ticket prices this year are down 13% compared to 2008, so the industry is getting hit twice: by a fall-off in passenger seat miles flown, and by falling prices per seat mile. (See the Symptom & Implication “Demand in the industry is falling” on StrategyStreet.com.)

The airline industry thought it had an answer to this developing problem: cutting capacity. The industry has reduced capacity by 6.9% this year in the expectation that the industry could improve its efficiency and raise prices. (See “Audio Tip #116: The Withdrawal of Capacity to Raise Prices” on StrategyStreet.com.)

So, why haven’t prices risen? There are two possible answers. The first is that the industry has panicked and is offering lower prices to keep demand from falling any further than it already has. This answer is certainly in keeping with the industry’s previous practices. But there is a more subtle and more problematic answer as well, and that is that the smaller industry carriers are adding capacity faster than the industry leaders are reducing it.

Over the years we have witnessed many cases where industry leaders would reduce their capacity in order to constrain supply and force industry prices to rise. Time and again industry followers have stymied these initiatives. These followers insist on adding capacity, even as the industry leaders withdraw it. The result is the same, or more capacity, and continued low or falling prices.

To some extent, this addition of capacity by follower competitors is predictable (see “Audio Tip #106: How do we Predict Competitor Responses to our Price Moves?” on StrategyStreet.com). These smaller competitors already added capacity in the face of low industry pricing. They have even more incentive to add capacity as industry prices rise.

The Wrong Customer

CVS Caremark is struggling. The Caremark side, which is a pharmacy-benefit manager, is bleeding losses and major customers. The company picked the wrong customers.

CVS is one of the country’s premier retail drug store chains. The company has grown through acquisitions over the last several years. On the retail drugstore side, these acquisitions have been a great success. Not so, on the pharmacy benefit side. (See the Perspective, “Buying Share, Not Sand” on StrategyStreet.com.)

A couple of years ago, CVS beat out Express Scripts, a competing pharmacy-benefit manager, to win Caremark. The other competitors in pharmacy-benefit management are independent companies, focused strictly on the wholesaling of drugs to large companies and institutions.

CVS has trodden another path. As a retail druggist at heart, CVS developed innovations aimed at the retail, rather than the wholesale customer. For example, the company offers the Maintenance Choice plan that lets pharmacy-benefit management patients pick up 90 day prescriptions in its drug stores at the same low price they would pay through the mail. Of course, this helps CVS sell more products through its drug store chain. It does not, however, help the wholesale customer who makes the pharmacy-benefit management buying decision. (See “Video #34: Types of Product Innovations That Reduce Customer Costs” on StrategyStreet.com.) But there is even a downside for the retail customer, the employee of the wholesale customers. These retail customers must use a CVS drugstore to fill their prescriptions or see their drug co-pays rise to 50% rather than 25%. Hear loud protests off-stage.

Trouble started early in this acquisition. The wholesale customers have been unhappy for some time. In fact, last year CVS offered lower prices to more than half of its pharmacy-benefit management customers in order to keep them from defecting. A few other clients simply left,
discouraged by the fact that CVS seemed to be focused more on the retail, than on the wholesale, customers.

Of course, the Medco’s and Express Script’s are delighted to be picking up such easy share from the failures of CVS Caremark. (See “Audio Tip #35: How Does a Company “Fail” in a Market?” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Microsoft is Leaving Money on the Table

Every few years, Microsoft introduces a new version of its very popular Office product. The last version was Office 2007. The next will be Office 2010. As often happens with technology upgrade innovations, the new versions sometimes do not offer enough additional benefits to justify all the customers of the old version spending on the upgrade. Office 2003 attracted 60% of the existing Office customers when it came out. Current expectations are for Office 2007 to attract somewhere between 50% and 55% of existing Office users to upgrade. So, somewhere between 40% and 45% of the current Microsoft Office market will not upgrade to the next version.

That is a problem for Microsoft. The company introduces its Office products in a bundled package. The product improvements and upgrades come in packages that contain most of the Office products, with the exception of the Access product. For the most part, Microsoft does not sell the improvements to the Office products as separate, stand-alone products.

Other companies have sensed an opportunity in this Microsoft approach. They have introduced add-on products that give old versions of Office some of the features of current and future Microsoft Office products without the full cost of upgrading. Some of these products include Xobni, DockVerse, Gist and Xiant. Basic versions of some of these products are free, while premium versions come at a modest cost.

These add-on products are low-end competitors. They are examples of Stripper products, one of the four major types of low-end competitors (see the Perspective “Turmoil Below: Confronting Low-End Competition” on StrategyStreet.com). Microsoft is ignoring the success of these small Stripper competitors.

It seems there should be a better path for Microsoft. The company might introduce its own stand-alone version of these products and match their pricing. This move would forestall the growth these Stripper companies enjoy today and provide Microsoft with additional revenues from the 40% of its current customer base who will not upgrade to the new Office 2010 product. If the customers like the Microsoft products as stand-alone add-ons, they may be more likely to upgrade to the new Office 2010 when it comes out.

Aside from the fact that Microsoft is leaving money on the table (see the Perspective “Failure Shifts Shifts More Share than Success” on StrategyStreet.com), it is generally a bad idea to ignore low-end competition that is entering your market.

Fish or Fowl?

The internet has given birth to another retail concept. A new set of retail start-ups specialize in discounted designer apparel. These web site based companies include Gilt.com, RueLaLa.com and HauteLook.com. These companies offer “private sales” to customers on a membership list. Each day the companies send an email offering “members only” sales on expensive designer goods. These goods are discounted heavily and are a year old, but these sites have been very popular. They are growing at a rate of over 20% a year. (See the Symptom & Implication “Small discounting competitors have gained a market toehold” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Now an industry leader is offering a challenge to these web-only discounters. Saks tested an online “private event” in October. This 36 hour sale invited customers, who received emails from Saks, to purchase designer goods at prices 50% below the suggested retail price. The company plans another similar online sale this month. The goods for sale are off season or specially made for the event.

The Saks model needs some significant tweaking before it can really compete with the “private sale” online discounters. First it has to establish a separate brand for this product. Not many designers are going to want to sell products through Saks at such significant discounts when their products sell at full price during the season. Customers can learn to simply wait for the “private sale” online event. As a corollary, Saks will have to do something to protect the brand name of the designer, perhaps by removing labels. A change in name and labeling would then enable Saks to use the “private sale” online events to liquidate excess inventory.

Since the online “private sale” discounters offer additional products daily, it is unlikely that the new Saks “private sale” online product will compete directly with the discounting on-line specialists (see “Audio Tip #17: The Heart of the Market” on StrategyStreet.com). The Saks initiative is much more likely to be an end-of-season service to benefit some of its loyal customers.