Does the Withdrawal of Capacity Help?

As industry prices fall, and companies’ fortunes decline with the resultant squeeze on their margins, some companies, especially the leaders, seek to withdraw capacity from the market.  The leading companies expect the capacity withdrawal to do two things: redress the imbalance between capacity and demand; and raise prices to more attractive levels because of this better balance.  In practice, the withdrawal of capacity often fails to achieve either of these objectives.

Whenever a leader in an industry reduces its capacity to force price increases, it must consider how competitors will respond.  In many, if not most, cases low-cost competitors expand their capacity to make up for the withdrawal of capacity by the industry leaders.  The end result often is even more capacity available in a marketplace and the same or lower prices available for the industry leaders.

After several quarters of improving profits, the airline industry is again slipping into hostile market conditions as rising fuel prices reduce margins and force higher prices.  Higher prices limit demand growth.  In response to the margin squeeze these tougher times bring to the industry, the industry leaders are restricting the growth in their capacity and, in some cases, reducing the capacity they offer in the domestic U.S. market.  The problem is that several of the industry followers are not going along.

United Continental Holdings and AMR Corporation’s American Airlines have both posted losses for the most recent quarter.  Both of these industry leaders plan to reduce their domestic capacity as a result.  They will be reducing seats available flying into and out of selected domestic markets. 

The pattern of leaders reducing capacity and followers adding it seems to be holding in the current airline industry.  Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways and Alaska Air Group derive most of their revenues in the domestic U.S. market.  Each of these companies reported profits in the most recent quarter.  This profitability of the three follower airline competitors indicates that their costs are lower than are the costs of the two legacy airlines that have reported losses, United Continental and American Airlines.  Southwest plans to increase its capacity by 5% to 6% in 2011.  JetBlue plans to add 6% to 8% this year, while Alaska Air plans to grow its capacity by 9%. 

The industry followers are able to add capacity in the face of capacity withdrawal by their larger industry-leading competitors because they have these lower costs.  The lower costs enable the follower companies to make a profit while their larger competitors suffer losses.  In the long run, the only way that the industry-leading competitors will be able to stop the expansion of these follower competitors will be to match or beat their lower cost structures

The Mobile Phone Industry and Customer Retention

The mobile phone industry’s growth has slowed.  It is now operating more like a stable, moderate to slow growth market.  This is particularly true in Europe.  To face the challenge of slower growth in the industry, European mobile operators are turning to customer retention, but they are careful of the customers they seek to retain. 

The Europeans have observed that less than 20% of an operator’s customers generate to 80% of the operator’s total revenue.  This pattern repeats itself in many industries.  When we have seen these patterns in other industries, we have also noted that less than 10% of the total customers generate an astounding 50% of total revenues.  These are the really important customers in an industry. 

A company must retain its key customers.  In the mobile phone industry, as in most industries, the largest 20% of the industry’s customers are likely to be what we would call Core customers for the industry’s larger competitors.  A Core customer allows supplier company to earn at least the cost of capital through a business cycle.  The retention of these core customers is of paramount importance to long term company success. It costs a great deal more to find a new customer than to retain and build the relationship with a customer you already have.  In the European mobile phone industry, carriers have found that it costs ten times more to acquire a customer than to retain one. 

The industry has found another important phenomenon associated with customer defection.  Recent research has told it that defection is a social phenomenon.  If defecting customers leave an operator, they usually are not quiet about it.  They tell their friends.  In turn, some of their friends defect as well.  So, the loss of a Core customer to an operator will often bring with it the loss of several other Core customers. 

The mobile phone operators in Europe are working on retention by focusing particularly on those Core customers most likely to defect.  These operators have analyzed the value of their customers and have assigned a rating to each customer.  When a customer calls a call center, the information about the customer, including his rating, is readily displayed on the service representative’s screen.  This customer specific information enables the service representative to respond with different value offers, depending on the importance of the customer.  Most of these offers reflect lower prices for a potential defector.

But the industry is responding to potential defections with more than simple price reductions.  Some companies are developing personal calling rates and plans tailored to individual Core customer habits.  One European company instituted this individual approach and cut its percentage of customers defecting each year in half, from 20% to 10%. 

The industry has found another important phenomenon associated with customer churn.  Recent research has told it that defection is a social phenomenon.  If defecting customers leave an operator, they usually are not quiet about it.  They tell their friends.  In turn, some of their friends defect as well.  So, the loss of a core customer to an operator will often bring with it the loss of several other core customers. 

Customer retention is an important, strategic management imperative, even in fast growing markets

Nestlé’s Cost Reduction in the Coffee Business

Nestle is the world-wide leader in the coffee business. They offer coffees at virtually all price points. They invented instant coffee in the 1930s. After the buffets of the commodity markets over the last few years, the company has created a global push to reduce its costs and to increase the quantity and quality of the coffee it buys.




We have found four generic approaches to reducing costs.



• First, reduce the rate of cost of a cost input.

• Second, reduce the cost inputs that do not produce output.

• Third, reduce unique activities and components in processes and the product

• Fourth, spread fixed cost activities over additional product output



Nestle is using the first three of these approaches in its world-wide investment in cost management.



First, Nestle redesigned part of the process. Its scientists developed a new generation of Robusta and Arabica coffee plants for Mexico. The Robusta beans are relatively inexpensive and make up the bulk of the beans in instant coffee. The Arabica beans are more expensive, harder to grow and go to the higher end coffees. Today, Nestle has planted 100 thousand coffee trees in Mexico using its newly designed coffee trees. Once this experiment is complete, the company plans to distribute 220 million plants to coffee growers world-wide over the next ten years.



The use of these new plants will enable Nestle to reduce its rate of cost for the beans it buys. The new plant design increases yields so it eliminates some inputs that do not produce the output of coffee beans. Many long-term coffee farmers are using older trees, which yield fewer beans and lower quality beans. Many of these farmers are leaving the industry since they cannot compete. This magnifies the commodity price problem Nestle faces. Nestle’s new trees fit the region’s climate. They resist disease and allow for larger and easier harvests. These trees will make coffee beans more consistently and predictably available. Nestle will give these trees to the farmers without asking for a firm long-term contract or ownership of any part of the farm. But it should be obvious that Nestle will engender a great deal of farmer loyalty with this program.



Nestle also expects to reduce the rate of cost it pays for its beans with two other cost reduction initiatives. It will offer farming and investing advice to up to ten thousand farmers world-wide. As these farmers become more efficient, Nestle’s costs will drop. In addition, Nestle will also increase the amount of coffee it buys directly from the nearly 170 thousand growers who produce its coffees.



This kind of foresight and innovation suggests why Nestle commands its market leadership.

Cable T.V. and Customer Retention

Recently, I decided to test the waters for a less expensive television experience. I have been a loyal cable subscriber for thirty-five years, but friends have told me that other systems, especially satellite, are cheaper. I went online to DirectTV.com to check their packages. We have been spending about $112 a month. The equivalent package from DirectTV appeared to be about $81 a month. I was shocked at the size of the price difference. DirectTV was more than 25% less expensive than Comcast, my cable supplier.




Given the size of these price differences, I did some investigation in what is happening in the market. Today there are four potential television service suppliers: cable, telephone companies, such as AT&T and Verizon, satellite and internet companies, such as Netflix and Hulu. The cable companies command 60% of the market. Phone companies have less than 15% of the market. The satellite firms, including DirectTV and Dish, control most of the rest. The internet firms are still small, though they may become larger in the future. Over the years, the cable companies have held a high price umbrella over the satellite companies. Now the phone companies are getting under this umbrella as well. The cable companies lost two million subscribers last year. The phone companies picked up most of that loss, while the satellite firms picked up a bit. The combination of the phone and satellite companies took virtually all the growth there was in the market.



Customer retention is a big deal. Even in fast-growing markets, you would like to be able to retain your customers when competitors seek them out. The cable companies have sought to retain customers by emphasizing more services to higher spending customers. These customers tend to be less price-sensitive. It appears that the cable companies are going to have to alter their courses. They simply can not afford to let their competitors take away their market share. Eventually, the competition will be as big and as strong as they are. They will lose the market leverage that a leader enjoys. For examples see GM in autos, IBM in the PC market and U.S. Steel in the steel market.



The T.V. market is speaking in clear tones. The phone and satellite companies offer a better value proposition. The cable companies have to listen soon.

Cable T.V. and Customer Retention

Recently, I decided to test the waters for a less expensive television experience. I have been a loyal cable subscriber for thirty-five years, but friends have told me that other systems, especially satellite, are cheaper. I went online to DirectTV.com to check their packages. We have been spending about $112 a month. The equivalent package from DirectTV appeared to be about $81 a month. I was shocked at the size of the price difference. DirectTV was more than 25% less expensive than Comcast, my cable supplier.

Given the size of these price differences, I did some investigation in what is happening in the market. Today there are four potential television service suppliers: cable, telephone companies, such as AT&T and Verizon, satellite and internet companies, such as Netflix and Hulu. The cable companies command 60% of the market. Phone companies have less than 15% of the market. The satellite firms, including DirectTV and Dish, control most of the rest. The internet firms are still small, though they may become larger in the future. Over the years, the cable companies have held a high price umbrella over the satellite companies. Now the phone companies are getting under this umbrella as well. The cable companies lost two million subscribers last year. The phone companies picked up most of that loss, while the satellite firms picked up a bit. The combination of the phone and satellite companies took virtually all the growth there was in the market.


Customer retention is a big deal. Even in fast-growing markets, you would like to be able to retain your customers when competitors seek them out. The cable companies have sought to retain customers by emphasizing more services to higher spending customers. These customers tend to be less price-sensitive. It appears that the cable companies are going to have to alter their courses. They simply can not afford to let their competitors take away their market share. Eventually, the competition will be as big and as strong as they are. They will lose the market leverage that a leader enjoys. For examples see GM in autos, IBM in the PC market and U.S. Steel in the steel market.


The T.V. market is speaking in clear tones. The phone and satellite companies offer a better value proposition. The cable companies have to listen soon.

Amazon's Blockbuster Innovation

In 2005, Amazon introduced its Prime Free Shipping program. This yearly subscription program promised free two-day shipping on any purchase the subscriber made from Amazon. Five years later, 13% of Amazon’s 130 million active users are Prime members. More significantly, 20% of the subscribers who purchased products from Amazon in the last twelve months are Prime subscribers. These Prime subscribers purchase two to three times as much as non-Prime subscribers over the course of a year. This Performance innovation removes an impediment to purchasing on Amazon. In fact, it increases the odds greatly that online purchases will be made on Amazon rather than on a competitive site. This has been a blockbuster innovation for Amazon. The innovation holds a special appeal to the larger customers in the market. The Prime subscribers may also offer Amazon an entry into a business that it has longed to gain, for several years, subscription video rentals. It appears that Amazon will introduce a streaming video product for its Prime subscribers. This new product will not cost the Prime subscribers any more than their normal subscription. Netflix’s Watch Instantly service cost about $96 a year so Amazon may have a price advantage on Netflix. Of course, Convenience and Price are only important provided Amazon offers equivalent Function, that is, streaming video content. We don’t know about that yet. Still, Amazon has proven to be an innovative company who can find ways to build a business in non-traditional ways. It continues to grab market share in the retail business.

Whirlpool and Electrolux Blink

The home appliance market has been a difficult place to compete during several periods over the last thirty years. It is tough again today. Sales of large appliances have fallen steadily since 2007. Competition is intensifying with the pressure of the South Korean competitors, LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics, on Whirlpool Corp and Electrolux AB. Whirlpool and Electrolux are suffering from rising costs for steel, copper, plastics and other raw materials. To offset these cost increases, the two companies plan price increases of 8% to 10% in the spring.

The problem: the Koreans aren’t playing ball. The two South Korean firms are pricing aggressively and have been doing so since Thanksgiving 2010.

The South Koreans are formidable competitors. At one time, LG was known as Lucky Goldstar, a seller of low-end, cheaply made, products. Today, it has a much better brand name and sells quality products. Samsung does as well. It is a leader in the large screen TV market. The products that the South Korean companies are pricing aggressively are not the low-end products. They are the mainstream, heart-of-the-market, products.

The domestic U.S. market is slow growing. So is the market in the rest of the world. The North American market is growing 2% to 3% a year. Europe is growing 2% to 4%, while Latin American and Asia grow in the 5% to 10% range. Large appliance companies will have no trouble supplying all the capacity the market needs at these demand growth rates. The industry is likely to have excess capacity for the foreseeable future.

If the two Western competitors institute their price increases without the two South Korean companies in a lock-step march, they will be in a Leader’s Trap. A Leader’s Trap occurs when one or more of the leading companies in an industry hold its prices high in the mistaken belief that customers will stay loyal despite the lower prices of competition. Leader’s Traps rarely end well. Either the Western competitors will lose market share or they will ultimately rescind their price premiums.

These four giant large appliance competitors are peers of one another. The only way to stop the Koreans from discounting against the Western competitors is to have a cost structure that scares them out of the discounts. The discounting competitors have to see that their discounts will only cost them margins because the other peer competitors in the market will match their low prices since they have equally low cost structures.

News Corp Responds to the Market for “Free”

The newspaper industry has faced a mighty challenge over the last few years. There is so much “free” content to complete with them. Newspaper revenue continues to plummet. Internet users are reluctant to pay for content. All the free content, supported by advertising revenue, has decimated the newspaper industry. The industry’s cousin, the magazine industry, is not far behind.

This trend can’t continue forever. Already, many people are asking themselves how much they can trust the information on the internet. The need for Reliability drives the demand for Snopes.com. How many “free” web sites can earn enough from advertising to pay all their bills? An effective industry answer to “free” may be forthcoming in the News Corp online newspaper called “The Daily.” The Daily will cover general news, sports, arts and opinion in a format dedicated to the Apple iPad. In addition to the written content, the product will carry high definition video and 360 degree photos. The same product will be available in a few months for the Android-based tablet computers.

The Daily will sell for $.99 a week, or $39.99 a year, a very low price compared to newspapers. With this model, the product receives revenues both from the subscribers and from advertisers. Subscribers have the Reliability benefit of knowing that the content producer cares about facts, accuracy and readable writing style. Advertisers pay for eyeballs that follow a Reliable product.

The Daily is what we call a Next Leader product. This is a product that offers much better than industry standard performance for a low price to a specific subset of industry customers. The Next Leader can offer the very low price because it has a much lower cost structure than is typical in the industry. There are two basic types of Next Leaders. The first are Reformer products. This type of Next Leader product reduces the benefits for the user (usually Function benefits) while increasing the benefits for the buyer (usually Reliability and Convenience benefits) compared to the industry Standard Leader product. The second of the two types of Next Leader products are Transformer products. These products increase the benefits of the user but offer, at least initially, fewer benefits to the buyer than the Standard Leader product offers. The Daily is a Reformer product. It offers the Convenience of formatting fit for a tablet computer so it provides easier access for a segment of the industry’s customers. Its low cost structure results from its elimination of printing presses and distribution costs.

If this new tablet-based product offers a quality read, it will hasten the day when virtually every newspaper and magazine is offered first online and only secondarily in hard copy. The online versions will come at a fraction of the cost of the hard copy versions. Readership is certain to grow.

The Advent of the F-commerce Evolution

Don’t look now, but we are entering the world of F-commerce. What is that, those of you older than thirty will ask? F-commerce is selling through a Facebook page.

The trend is early yet, but likely to turn into a stampede. JC Penney and 1-800-Flowers.com both have established full E-commerce stores within their Facebook page. The stores include check-out and other features you typically find on an E-commerce web site. Facebook claims that twenty-five of the largest retail sites are already integrated with Facebook, as are seventeen of the twenty-five fastest growing retail sites.

Think of Facebook as a virtual mall. There are all kinds of people wandering around there, talking to one another. Facebook offers a nice opportunity for a company to interact with customers and allow them to bring their friends into the conversation to evaluate styles and colors and so forth. If a company integrates its storefront with the Facebook page, its Facebook “friends” will never have to leave the virtual mall in order to purchase. This is an important product innovation.

Product innovations reduce customers’ effective costs in one of three ways: add information about the product and how it is to be used, reduce the resources the customer must use with the product, or improve the customer’s experience with the product.

This innovation improves the customer’s experience with the product by increasing the customer’s sense of security in using the product. It allows the customer to get her friends’ opinions on what she is purchasing. Secondarily, the Facebook store reduces the customer’s resources used with the product by reducing the time the customer must spend in using the product. The innovation reduces the steps the customer must take to make a purchase and it places the company’s product closer to the customer’s location.

This is going to be a train to the destination of millions of customers. Every mainstream retailer has to get on board.

The Japanese Pay the Price

The figures are in for U.S. auto sales in 2010. The biggest winners in percentage growth were Hyundai, at 24%, and Ford at 20%. Toyota lost .4% and Honda grew a mediocre 7%. The Japanese struggled in 2010.

Earlier we wrote a blog about Ford’s ascendency and Toyota’s problems (see Blog HERE). Toyota is paying the price for failing its customers. Honda appears to be getting painted with the “failure” brush, though I doubt its punishment is deserved.

I am actually using the word “fail” to mean something specific here. A company fails its customers when it is unable or unwilling to do something that at least half of its competitors can, or will, do for customers. Toyota’s troubles with accelerators, floor mats, and so forth, received extensive media coverage. This coverage clearly has had a negative impact on Toyota this year.

Toyota’s struggles illustrate the win and fail dynamic. In our terms, a “win” occurs when a company is able to do something that the majority of its competitors either can not or will not do. Wins account for a good deal of market share growth in a fast-growing market, but are less important in more mature markets. In a more mature Stable market and, especially, in all Hostile markets, failure moves a significant amount of market share.

Here is what this means. The decision to change a supplier is really two decisions. The first is the decision to leave a current supplier and the second is the decision on which new supplier to take on in your relationship. In the average Stable and Hostile marketplace, more market share moves on failure than on wins. This means that before an established customer will change suppliers, its current incumbent supplier must “fail” the relationship in some way. This failure, then, opens up the customer’s relationship to competition among other potential suppliers. Whichever supplier gains this customer’s volume really did so only after the incumbent failed. We call this gain a “weak win.” The “weak win” would not have happened on a straight-up comparison of performance and price of the new supplier versus the old. The gain only happened after the incumbent clearly failed the customer and then opened the relationship to someone new.

Toyota’s failure was largely a failure of Reliability. It clearly lost share. The companies that gained this share from Toyota, Ford and Hyundai among them, enjoyed some degree of a “weak win” in the domestic automobile market. They may have “won” market share as well, but my guess is that most of their share gains from Toyota fell to them from Toyota’s “failure.”

Apple Gets Crossways with App Developers

Recently, Apple rejected a digital book application from Sony. The disagreement here is over how and when Apple collects for its services. Apple is playing a dangerous game.

In theory, Apple has the right to insist, under its terms for developers, that any app, which offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, offer the ability for customers to purchase within the app at the same time.

Here is the rub. In its application, Sony sends customers to its own web site where they complete the purchase of a book. By routing the customers to its own web site, Sony is able to avoid a payment of 30% of revenues to Apple.

Others, including Amazon, with its Kindle, and Barnes & Noble, with its Nook, have been able to sell e-books by sending users to the companys’ own web sites. Apple simply was not enforcing its policy requiring developers to use its in-app purchasing feature to buy new content.

A 30% charge on revenues is a high price to pay Apple. Apple may be setting itself up for future loss of market share by enforcing this policy. If the Android platform does not put the same requirement on its app developers, the developers will have a strong incentive to avoid the 30% charge by encouraging customers to purchase using an Android device rather than an Apple device. Alternatively, the application developers may charge a higher price for purchases through Apple.

Apple’s unique strength has been its superior list of available applications. Apple’s enforcement of this requirement to purchase inside the app so that Apple can collect 30% of the revenues puts at risk its major advantage. Apple needs to compromise here by charging a lower price or no price at all. After all, it already makes high profits on its hardware and software product combination. It also makes profits on many of the downloaded apps. The application developers are customers too. Why make their life difficult? Does the benefit Apple provides a seller justify 30% of revenues? Sounds pretty rich.

Direct Edge: A Transformer Next Leader Product

A Next Leader competitor is in an extremely fortunate position. A Next Leader is a competitor or product that offers much better than industry standard performance for a low price to a specific subset of industry customers. While offering better benefits to some customers, it may reduce benefits for others. But all Next Leaders offer low prices. The Next Leader can do this because it has a very low cost structure. (See “Video #22: Definition of Next Leaders” on StrategyStreet.com.) Next Leaders do not appear in many industries. When they do appear, they can change an industry, whether the industry is in manufacturing, retail or service. For example, Toys R Us invented the Toy Retailing Category Killer, a Next Leader product. Home Depot has done much the same in hardware retailing. Other Next Leaders include the early Apple personal computer, Intuit personal financial management software, Jiffy Lube in auto services and Domino’s Pizza.

We have studied many Next Leader competitors. Our study has suggested there are two kinds of Next Leaders products: Reformers and Transformers. A Reformer product is a type of Next Leader that reduces the benefits for the user while increasing benefits for the buyer, compared to the industry’s Standard Leader product. Jiffy Lube and Domino’s Pizza would both be Reformer Next Leader competitors. The second type of Next Leader competitor, Transformer products and companies, increase the benefits for the user of the product but offers, at least initially, fewer buyer benefits than the Standard Leader product. Toys R Us and Home Depot are two examples of Transformer Next Leader competitors.

Direct Edge is an example of a Transformer competitor. It offers its customers very fast securities trading on virtually any platform, from computers to smart phones. It is a young electronic stock exchange and it is having a big impact on securities trading. Its first noticeable impact is in market share. As recently as five years ago, the New York Stock Exchange accounted for 70% or more of the trading in the stocks listed on its exchange. Today, the stock exchange handles 36% of those trades. (See “Audio Tip #85: Evaluate the Company's Success in Penetrating each Price Point in the Market” on StrategyStreet.com.) Twelve other public exchanges, several electronic trading platforms and many “dark pools” command the rest of the market share in NYSE listed stocks.

Direct Edge came into existence during 2010. Several brokerage firms and other financial players formed Direct Edge to offer a counter veiling power to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. Direct Edge now owns 10% of stock trading in the United States.

Direct Edge is not only big and fast-growing, but inexpensive as well. It has ready access to the share trading of its brokerage house and hedge fund owners. It operates many banks of state-of-the-art computers in warehouse-type facilities in New Jersey rather than in more-expensive New York. And, despite its size, it has fewer than one hundred employees.

The evolution of these non-traditional exchanges has resulted in declining trading costs and much faster trading times for all customers. Next Leaders do that.

The iPhone Versus the iPhone

After nearly four years, AT&T has lost its exclusivity on Apple’s iPhone. It has been a great run. Now AT&T faces the formidable competition of Verizon, who started offering the iPhone in February of 2011. Market shares are about to shift. Let’s look at how they might change.

Market shares among established customers shift for one of two reasons. (See Audio Tip #40: The Components of Market Share Change" on StrategyStreet.com.) First, a competitor may “win” market share by offering a benefit that more than half of the market suppliers do not offer. On the other hand, market share may shift away from a competitor if it “fails” its customer relationship and opens that relationship to other competitors. A company “fails” a customer relationship when it refuses, or is unable, to offer something that half the other competitors in the market can or will offer.

AT&T garnered much of its share gain over the last four years with a “win.” That “win” was due to its exclusive offering of the Apple iPhone. While it won business with the iPhone, it developed a reputation for problems in the quality of its services. iPhone users tended to overwhelm the AT&T network and cause interruptions and dropped phone calls. AT&T’s customer service has been suspect as well. Still, its market share has grown with the iPhone, primarily at the expense of the smaller carriers. Its market share growth due to the exclusive on the iPhone offset its “failures” in its network and customer service.

Now Verizon enters with its own version of the iPhone. Today, any customer who wants an iPhone can choose either the largest competitor in the market, Verizon, or the second largest competitor, AT&T as his or her carrier. So, Verizon can “win” market share against the smaller competitors as well. These competitors, such as Sprint, Virgin Mobile and others like them, do not offer the iPhone and are unlikely to do so soon.

Verizon should also be able to gain share at the expense of AT&T. Here’s how. iPhone-using customers who are dissatisfied with their current service with AT&T now have a viable, high quality competitor offering an equivalent service with the same phone. Some of these customers will leave AT&T because they perceive that AT&T’s services are not up to the standard of the other competitors, especially Verizon’s, and migrate to Verizon. This is a phenomenon we call “flight to quality.” This “flight to quality” is also an example of a “weak win,” where a competitor gains share only after an incumbent supplier has “failed” the customer relationship.

This “flight to quality” is unlikely to be dramatic. A company can “win” share quickly with a unique Function. On the other hand, a “flight to quality” usually brings share gains in dribs and drabs. It produces share gains slowly, over time, because of inertia in the customer relationships. This inertia allows AT&T time to get its house in order before it suffers a great deal of customer immigration. (See Video #36: Probable Priorities for Innovation in Hostile Markets on StrategyStreet.com.)

Best Buy in a Leader's Trap

Few industry leaders believe their prices are too high. Often, they are right. They are usually less right in a market where prices fall. Consider GM in automobiles and IBM in personal computers in the past. At one time or another, most industry leaders will get caught in a Leader’s Trap, where they assume that customers will stay loyal to their products because the low-end products do not enjoy their quality and reputation. This assumption rarely, if ever, holds. Best Buy has been in a Leader’s Trap and its assumptions won’t hold this time either.

Through the third quarter of 2009, Best Buy was gaining market share in flat panel TVs and personal computers. However, in the most recent quarter of 2010, the company lost over 1% of its market share in televisions and computers to competitors who were discounting. (See the Perspective, “The Two Best Consultants in the World” on StrategyStreet.com.) Now, if it were just a simple low-end, low value competitor, Best Buy might not worry. But their discounting competition was Wal-Mart and Amazon. By any definition, these companies would count as peers of Best Buy in the television and personal computer retail market.

In the recent quarter, Best Buy emphasized high technology, and high margined, TV and personal computer products. Customers did not follow along. Best Buy noted that it had faced tough competition from off brand televisions at lower price points.

Best Buy could have offered private label products to compete with low-end, off brand, competitors. Its store brands include Dynex and Insignia. The company decided not to emphasize these lower-priced products in their promotions because they have low profit margins. Best Buy “failed” its customer by refusing to offer something that at least half the other competitors could and would offer. (See “Audio Tip #35: How Does a Company “Fail” in a Market?” on StrategyStreet.com.) Nor did competition “win” the customers who switched. Amazon and Wal-Mart simply took what Best Buy allowed them to take. (See “Audio Tip #34: How Does a Company “Win” in a Market?” on StrategyStreet.com.)

The result: Best Buy missed its targets and saw its stock price fall by 15%. The company lost market share to peer competitors. And its sales and profits fell in televisions and personal computers. Competitors gained strength.

Best Buy is a fine company with capable management. It won’t stay down for long. You may expect to see them leave the Leader’s Trap very soon.

Google at Risk

Google continues to dominate the search market. It commands about two-thirds of all the searches done on the internet. Its next closest rival is Microsoft’s Bing which, at 28% market share, includes its integration with Yahoo’s site. (See “Audio Tip #9: Introduction to Step 3 of the Basic Strategy Guide” on StrategyStreet.com.) Google’s dominance in this market has brought with it a disproportionate share of the spending on paid advertising. Google may be putting that premium position at risk.

Google has been investing heavily in developing its local search capability. It hopes to gain even more advertising dollars by making this investment. Now the problem. Some companies, who also specialize in local marketing have begun complaining that Google discriminates against their sites in favor of Google’s own local search results. This is a very dangerous development for Google. It risks its Reliability reputation.

Google’s competitors have had a difficult time gaining market share against Google. As competitors develop new Functions, Google simply copies them. Internet searchers have had little reason to shift from Google to other competitors, including Bing. In our terms, Google’s competitors are not able to take market share away from Google by “winning.” (See “Audio Tip #32: Introduction to Step 7 of the Basic Strategy Guide”) They have not been able to do anything unique that causes a substantial portion of customers to shift their searches to Google. Rather, most of the market share that shifts in this market today comes as the result of a “failure.” Google must fail to meet its searcher’s expectations in order for Bing and the other competitors to have a significant opportunity to gain market share.

Google may be creating this opportunity by risking a failure in Reliability. A searcher has to know that Google will provide the most relevant results. If Google offers up its own less relevant results ahead of other web sites’ more relevant results, Google will lose market share. (See “Audio Tip #72: Reliability Failures Among Outstanding Companies” on StrategyStreet.com.) Google’s actions in promoting its own results over more relevant results are equivalent to a retailer offering a customer a lower quality product over a higher quality product simply because the retailer makes more money with the lower quality product. After a while, customers catch on and defect to other retailers. A failure in Reliability is particularly troublesome because trust is so hard to rebuild.

A Price Leader Market and Competitor

In StrategyStreet terms, a competitor or product that offers below industry standard performance for a very low price is a Price Leader. Price Leaders contrast with the typical industry leaders who set standards for the industry, called Standard Leaders in our terms. The competitors or products at the higher end of the market are called Performance Leaders.

The Price Leader’s product has fewer benefits than Standard Leader products. Because the Price Leaders are able to save costs, their product prices average 25% to 50% below the Standard Leader’s price. Because their products do offer less than the Standard Leader product, Price Leaders, as a group, have relatively small market shares, usually less than 15% of industry sales. (See the Perspective, “Why Do Leaders Lead?” on StrategyStreet.com.)

We have analyzed several hundred Price Leaders and found that we could group them into two types, Predators and Strippers. Predators offer the user of the product Functions similar to those of the Standard Leader products but less Reliability because they sell brand names that are unknown. They offer the user equivalent benefits but the purchaser fewer benefits. Strippers offer fewer benefits to both the user and the purchaser of the product. The printer ink industry offers good examples of our Price Leader findings. The total printer ink industry has sales of nearly $22 billion a year. Something just below $3 billion of this is owned by Price Leader competitors, who refill or remanufacture ink cartridges. These Price Leaders, as a group, have 13.5% of the total market.

Most of these Price Leader competitors are Strippers. (See the Perspective, “Attention K-Mart Copiers” on StrategyStreet.com.) Customers who buy their products are often dissatisfied. In fact, only about half of the customers who try the Price Leader product are satisfied with it.

One of these Price Leader competitors, Cartridge World, is in the Predator category of Price Leader competitors. Cartridge World is a leader in the cartridge refill and remanufacturing industry. As a general rule, the company prices its laser cartridges at 25% off of the cost of a new brand named cartridge. Its ink jet cartridges come with discounts of 30% compared to a new brand named cartridge. Its Function benefits are the same as the Standard Leader products. It offers less Reliability due to its unknown brand name. But, Cartridge World puts a 100% guarantee on its products and offers relatively high levels of customer service. As a result, the company is experiencing growth rates of 20% per annum, while its competitors grow at a much slower pace.

Sometimes Smaller is Better

Retailers suffered through the last two years with low or declining sales as typical consumers struggled with an economy in the doldrums. Some of these retailers experimented with cost cutting and discovered an innovation for customers.

As retail demand fell, some retailers decided to reduce the size of their stores and cut their inventories to fit the smaller market they were facing. One company, Anchor Blue, put in temporary walls and cut its selling space in half. This certainly saved them money. It also provided a big surprise. Anchor Blue found that its foot traffic rose by 7% and sales increased by 23% after the remodel.

As other stores had the same experience, bigger chains began their own small-is-beautiful experiments. Bloomingdales and Nike are both trying smaller stores. Retailers are reducing their inventories by removing the slower moving items. These changes enable their customers to find, choose and pay for their products faster. In other words, the smaller stores are a Convenience innovation that customers seem to like.

We seem to be reaching a limit in the retail world. For the last generation, retailers grew by increasing Functions in ever-larger stores. (See the Perspective, “When to Compete on Features” on StrategyStreet.com.) They added categories and assortments to increase customer choices. These Function innovations demanded more space. More choices and space added to the time customers had to spend at a store. The Convenience innovation of the smaller stores suggests that customers have reached saturation points with the larger stores offering more choices. Sometimes smaller is better. (See the Perspective, “Is Bigger Really Better?” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Abercrombie - Recovering in a Falling Price Environment

Nearly two years ago, we began a series of blogs about Abercrombie & Fitch (See Blogs HERE, HERE and HERE). Abercrombie & Fitch had been in a Leader’s Trap, where the company held prices high despite the onslaught of discounting competitors, including Aeropostale and American Eagle Outfitters. (See “Audio Tip #119: A Price Umbrella” on StrategyStreet.com.) The discounting competitors gained share while Abercrombie & Fitch lost it, sometimes in handfuls. In fact, all throughout 2008 and 2009, sales at stores opened at least a year declined.

We predicted in the original blog that Abercrombie would have to come out of its Leader’s Trap and discount its prices to keep its competitors at bay. (See “Audio Tip #118: The Leader’s Trap” on StrategyStreet.com.) In the spring of 2009, the company did begin discounting its prices to stop its share loss. These discounts gradually brought business back to the stores so that stores opened at least a year began to see sales increase rather than decrease during 2010. In fact, the company has found that, while it cut its prices by 10% or more, it still generated higher sales because the growth of unit volume made up for the price cuts.

The company was judicious in the way it went about reducing its prices. It discounted its prices in the United States to narrow the price gaps it had with its competition. On the other hand, it held its premium price position in its overseas markets. Prices for the same item of clothing are 30% to 50% higher in London and Tokyo stores than they are in the U.S. Abercrombie & Fitch’s international customers can not take advantage of the low U.S. prices because they can not reach the U.S. domestic internet sites of the company. Instead, international buyers searching on the internet for the company’s online stores are automatically redirected to their local company web sites of Abercrombie & Fitch.

We liken the task of pricing in a falling price environment to a game of darts. In the game of darts, the circular dart board is broken into several pie-shaped areas. The players must aim for a particular area that changes with each turn. Within each of these areas on the dart board, the more narrowly the player can target his dart, the more points he accumulates on the turn. Of course, the dart is the vehicle to hit the target area with precision. In pricing, the target area is a segment of customers. These segments reflect particular competitive situations the company faces rather than needs of the customers themselves. The darts are the components of price that the company can use to hit the target segment with precision. These price components include the set of benefits in the product, the basis of charge for the product, the list price of the product and several optional components of the price. The combination of the segment and the component of price the company uses to hit the segment limits the scope of the price reduction to those customers who absolutely require it. This precision pricing reduces the impact of the price reduction on the company’s margins. (See Improve/Pricing on StrategyStreet.com.)

Abercrombie reduced U.S. prices to meet U.S. competition. It did so by reducing some list prices and introducing new, lower priced, products to compete in the U.S. market. Overseas, however, it held its prices high because competitive conditions allowed it to do so.

Now we will wait to see whether Abercrombie regains the market share it lost to its discounting competitors in 2008 and 2009.

A Fast Growing Market Begins Developing Reliability and Convenience Innovations

In a fast growing market, new Functions and lower Price drive more share gains than do Reliability and Convenience (see Customer Buying Hierarchy descriptions on StrategyStreet.com in the Perspective, “How Customers Buy” and in “Video 25: Short Explanation of Customer Buying Hierarchy”). After awhile, though, market growth begins to slow and Function innovations become less important than innovations in Reliability and Convenience. We can see this developing in the wireless applications market.

This market has been on a tear for the last few years. Recently, Amazon announced that it was planning to enter the market for phone applications by creating an online store selling apps for smart phones running Google’s Android software. Amazon will then compete with Google’s web site offering apps that work on the Android system.

Amazon’s entrance shows developments in both Reliability and Convenience. Amazon offers Reliability innovations in at least two ways. First, Amazon encourages the reviews from its customers of the products it sells. These customer reviews are important sources of Reliability information about a product. Second, Amazon insists that any app it sells will not sell for a lower price anywhere else. This Reliability innovation assures a customer that Amazon will have prices that are competitive with anyone.

Amazon also brings great Convenience to this market. There are so many apps today that the market is becoming chaotic. Amazon will organize these applications in ways that fit with its customer base. Amazon has a long history of doing this very thing with other products. Just as importantly, Amazon already has a working payment arrangement with millions of customers. It is particularly adept at the “one click” payment system, which enables a customer to pay for purchases very quickly.

Amazon’s entry is a good example of a natural evolution in a fast growing market.

I Guess it Takes Bankruptcy...

In our previous blog (see Here), we described the resuscitation of the comatose manufacturing employment due to renewed flexibility in many union shops, such as GM. I guess it takes bankruptcy to get attitudes to change. Look at American Airlines, for an example.

Over the last several years, its big airline competitors have been getting bigger. United and Continental combined, as did Delta and Northwest. U.S. Airways merged and Southwest has just purchased Air Tran. Through it all, American stood largely on the sidelines.

Most of the other competitors had a real advantage. They went through bankruptcy. Of course, Southwest did not, but the other legacy carriers did. What those airlines and their workforces learned in bankruptcy created a lower cost and more flexible set of work rules for these airlines. Now American Airlines is beginning to pay the price for its competition with lower cost airlines.

American is clearly a high-cost airline. Its 2010 cost to fly a seat mile is 12.76 cents. This is the highest among the six largest carriers. Predictably, its pretax margins for the first half of the year were negative, while its peers produced positive operating earnings.

The problem American faces is primarily due to high labor costs. This may surprise you since several of the unions agreed to give-backs in 2003. Further, the American Airlines pilots claimed to be working at 1993 hourly rates. In short, all the unions working at American seem to be up in arms in frustration over their lack of economic progress.

The problem is less the rate of pay for the workforce than it is the work rules. American is at the bottom on industry measures of productivity because of restrictive work rules. Does that sound like the American automobile industry’s problem before the recent spate of bankruptcies?

Still, the unions are up in arms. Despite long term negotiations, the company has reached little in the way of agreements. Some unions are now threatening a strike. Let’s see. Take a high cost airline that is losing market share, increase its costs and scare away its future passengers with a threat of a strike. That sounds like a prescription to insure the future of an airline and the jobs that go with it, doesn’t it?