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.

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.

Cost Reduction by Redesigning the Product

Over the last several years, we have studied many examples of cost reduction initiatives to improve productivity and create economies of scale. In simplest terms, there are four actions that improve productivity and economies of scale. First, reduce the rate of cost you pay for an input. Second, reduce the inputs that do not produce output. Third, reduce unique activities or components in products and processes by redesigning the products and processes. Fourth, spread fixed cost activities over new product output. The cellular telephone carriers are introducing measures to reduce their costs by redesigning the product.

The wireless carriers use cellular towers to broadcast their signals. The cellular product design offers signals traveling long distances, primarily for voice and for relatively low data speeds. A cellular tower is expensive but capable of sending a signal for several miles.

This cellular technology worked well until the evolution of the smart phone. The growth of the smart phone has put very high demands on the cellular tower infrastructure because of the heavy data usage it brings to the market. Since 2010, data has taken over the majority of network traffic from voice communications. Now the carriers and, in particular, AT&T with its Apple iPhones, is having difficulty keeping up with the growth in demand.

AT&T today and, likely a few others in the future, has found a potential innovative solution, adding Wi Fi access points. These Wi Fi access points are ideal for heavy data traffic sent at high speeds over relatively short distances. Wi Fi access points transmit signals over a few hundred feet. The Wi Fi access points are smaller, easier and cheaper to install than are cellular towers. This low-cost approach appears to make sense in areas with high density of users. AT&T has placed them in New York’s Time Square and Rockefeller Center, in downtown Charlotte, North Carolina, in neighborhoods surrounding Chicago’s Wrigley Field and in San Francisco’s Embarcadero Center.

But there are some drawbacks to Wi Fi access points. Sometimes, a user has to take several steps to connect to a Wi Fi access point. Signals from the Wi Fi access points may interfere with one another, if signals come from multiple networks. Some smart phones do not have Wi Fi capability. These disadvantages have, so far, held back Verizon Wireless’s adoption of this apparently low-cost approach to providing service.

AT&T is leading this cost-saving innovation experiment. Their network strains force it to be creative and experimental. AT&T saves costs by redesigning the product itself using a less expensive technology with some shortcomings. If the AT&T experiment proves both cost effective and acceptable to cellular customers, every other wireless carrier will be forced to adopt it. And since a Wi Fi access point is largely a fixed cost, the wireless carriers with the highest density of membership within the Wi Fi area will have the lowest cost per unit. In most areas of the country that is likely to be either Verizon or AT&T. They will end up getting a unit cost advantage over their smaller competitors…if this works.

Costs - The Problem with Weak Constraints

Here are two random observations of the results that any manager can expect to face when there is little to no constraint on the level of costs in an organization.

The first comes from the Heritage Foundation. This foundation analyzed the percentage of jobs gained or lost since January of 2008 through July 2010, a time of recession. The foundation measured job growth in the federal government, state government, local government and the private sector. The private sector was under extreme constraints as revenues flattened or shrank. This sector lost 6.8% of its jobs. Local government was under pressure from the fall-off in property tax receipts. This sector lost a little less than 1% of its jobs. State governments suffered from falling income tax revenues as the recession flattened consumers and commercial tax payers. It lost one tenth of one percent of its jobs. Then there is the federal government, who operated without constraints by creating debt. In just the two and a half year period, total federal government employment increased by 10%. Shocking.

The second observation is also a great source of concern. This data tracks the performance of public schools, K through 12, from 1970 to 2010, forty difficult years. Voters of all kinds have tended to support public education. This support shows up in both spending on the public school sector and in its employment. Since 1970, the real spending, that is after adjusting for inflation, on public K through 12 education has increased by 150%. (See “Audio Tip 195: Economies of Scale and Their Measurement” on StrategyStreet.com.) The total employment has increased by about 100%.

Did we get any more for that additional spending? Enrollment increased by about 5%, after having fallen for the first twenty years of the measures. So, productivity, as measured by employment divided by enrollment, declined a great deal. But perhaps there was more benefit in the quality of the education? It turns out that hasn’t happened either. The scores for science, math and reading have not moved at all, despite the increase in spending.

In both of these examples, we seem to be spending without accountability. (See “Audio Tip 198: Diseconomies of Scale” on StrategyStreet.com.) As much as you can criticize the budgeting system of most businesses, results like these are highly unlikely to occur over a period of time in business systems because there would be quick accountability with this kind of loss in productivity. If that accountability did not come from within the business then, surely, competition would call the profligate business to account.

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?

Green Shoots and Attitudes and Jobs

Here is something that may surprise you. We are now gaining manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Manufacturing employment has fallen every year since 1998, until 2010. Since the beginning of 2010, there has been a 1.6% gain in manufacturing jobs. That’s twice the pace of the growth in other private sector jobs. The unemployment rate for the manufacturing has improved from 13% in December of 2009 to 9.5% in August of 2010. That’s a better performance than that of the overall labor force.

These gains have come primarily in four industries: automobiles, fabricated metals, primary metals and machinery. These industries have all been losing jobs for several years. What is behind the change? Here is a significant indicator. Recently, the United Autoworkers Union has crafted an agreement with General Motors to encourage GM to invest money to assemble a low-priced sub-compact car in the U.S., with unionized labor.

This will be a first. All other domestic and foreign manufacturers have produced their sub-compact cars offshore. GM’s sub-compact, the Aveo, came from South Korea. Ford’s Fiesta came from Mexico. Chrysler and Fiat are planning to manufacture the Fiat 500 in Mexico. The Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris are imported from outside the United States.

This new agreement is truly ground-breaking. Under the terms of the agreement, GM will pay 60% of the sub-compact plant’s 1550 workers a wage of $28 an hour. The other 40% of the plant’s employees will make $14 an hour. By GM’s calculations, this would enable the company to build a sub-compact at a profit in the U.S.

This new agreement may, in fact, reduce the average wage rate to competitive levels. Before GM’s bankruptcy, the average GM worker earned over $70 an hour in wages and benefits. After bankruptcy, that rate of cost fell to about $57 an hour…good, but not good enough to compete profitably. (See “Audio Tip #163: Introduction to Step 25 of the Basic Strategy Guide” on StrategyStreet.com.) Toyota has average labor costs of about $50 an hour. The Toyota workers are not unionized. This new UAW agreement with GM should make the new sub-compact plant competitive with the cost that Toyota incurs in the U.S.

A change in attitude at the UAW is behind this job-creating agreement. A senior UAW official explained that this agreement was the result of some very difficult decisions the union had to make in order to safeguard jobs. He further explained that the UAW developed a new understanding of the realities of the 21st century global auto industry while living through the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry is reducing costs aggressively” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Three cheers for the UAW/GM agreement. Let’s hope that it creates jobs and profits.

Apple's Future in Smart Phones - Part II

Apple is the clear leader in today’s consumer smart phone market. Research in Motion leads the commercial market. I am going to make the case that a few years from now, they will have a single digit market share. They will turn into a Performance Leader, a small high-priced competitor in the market. (See “Video #24: Price Point Specialists in Hostility” on StrategyStreet.com.) This position will be similar to the one Apple holds today in the personal computer market. In Part I of this blog, we described the evolution of Apple in the personal computer market. Apple today produces a marvelous personal computer. It appears that Apple is following the same map in the smart phone market as it followed in personal computers.

Apple owns both the hardware and the software in its smart phones. And it keeps both exclusive to Apple. It had early mover advantage so it garnered virtually all of the apps that people cared to develop for its smart phone platform. But a new competitor has emerged in the Android operating system. Android fills the same role as Microsoft did in the personal computer industry. Microsoft was cheap and available for many hardware platforms. The PC attracted the most app developers. Android is cheap and attractive to app developers. On the other hand, Apple has made life difficult for app developers by forcing them to jump through hoops in order to gain approval to offer apps on the Apple iPhone platform. Today, Apple has something north of 200,000 apps. Android has 70,000 apps. But, as one analyst noted, every app that a number of people are likely to want to use today is already available for both the Android and the iTouch. Apple may have more apps, but most of the apps exclusive to Apple appeal to narrow niches.

Now let’s play forward the next few years. (See “Audio Tip #32: Introduction to Step 7 of the Basic Strategy Guide” on StrategyStreet.com.) Motorola, HTC, LG and Samsung are among the many companies producing Android-based phones. The Android market is growing quickly. It will grow even more quickly as the prices of the Android handsets fall under the pressure of competition in the smart phone hardware market among some big, capable companies. Within a year, the app developers will write new apps, first for the Android platform and second for the Apple iPhone or other smart phone platform. Several years from now, the intense competition in the hardware market will reduce the cost of an Android smart phone low enough to remove a good deal of the profit that Apple now enjoys with the iPhone. (See “Audio Tip #102: When is Price Likely to Go Down?” on StrategyStreet.com.) As the Android smart phone producers continually add the features and capability to make their phones unique for consumers, the Android phones will be nearly as capable as, if not the equal of, the Apple iPhone. And, the Android phones will be much cheaper. Apple will be pushed into a Performance Leader position, where it offers high-priced feature-rich phones and garners a share of the market likely to be in single digits. This will not happen overnight. The smart phone market is still in its infancy. But check back in three to four years.

It will be interesting to see whether this competitive pattern holds in the tablet computer market as well.

Apple's Future in Smart Phones - Part I

Apple is the clear leader in today’s consumer smart phone market. Research in Motion leads the commercial market. I am going to make the case that a few years from now, they will have a single digit market share. They will turn into a Performance Leader, a small high-priced competitor in the market. This position will be similar to the one Apple holds today in the personal computer market. It appears that Apple is following the same pathway it followed in the personal computer market. Perhaps a bit of history is helpful here.

The business model of Apple differed from that of the PC. Apple was not the first personal computer, but it was, by far, the best. And, it got paid for being the best. Apple really created the mass market for personal computers. It had a huge percentage of the marketplace by the time 1981 rolled around and IBM introduced the PC. Apple controlled both the hardware and the software for its personal computer products. On the PC side, Microsoft’s Windows controlled the software, while a large number of companies became hardware producers for the Windows operating system. In the early years of the personal computer, the hardware was far more expensive than the software.

The PC market had a great deal more competition…and cost/price reductions. Apple prevented any other hardware producer from copying its products. There was at least one company who tried, Franklin Computer. But Apple killed them off in the mid-1980s. From that point on, there were no clone producers of Apple machines. The picture was very different on the IBM/Microsoft side. IBM found itself facing many competitors. Most of those competitors we called “clones.” Dell was one of those clones. This large number of hardware competitors reduced the cost of hardware drastically during the late 80s and through the 90s. (See “Audio Tip #196: Why Economies of Scales Exist” on StrategyStreet.com.) The source of much of the cost of the hardware for a personal computer shifted to the Intel or AMD chips embedded in the hardware. Still, AMD constantly challenged Intel, so Intel had to reduce its prices in order to maintain its very high market shares in chips. All of this intense competition reduced the cost of hardware until today the software costs as much as the hardware. Competition forced hardware components and prices down to such an extent that the PC platform had significant price advantages over the Macintosh/Apple platform. Apple was pushed into a high-cost/high-priced hardware position.

The competition in software was much less pronounced. It has only been in the last few years that Microsoft has had to respond to lower cost competition from Linux and Google. These lower cost competitors have had an impact on Microsoft’s prices, but nothing like the impact that the hardware competition had in reducing the price of hardware. The mass market followed the lower priced PC market. Apple today produces a marvelous machine. It has rabid and loyal fans. It also has high prices and a single digit share of the personal computer market. Were it not for the genius of Steve Jobs and his cohorts at Apple inventing new products with higher margins, Apple would be struggling today, much as it was before Steve Jobs returned to the company. It wouldn’t make a lot of money in the personal computer industry because the industry Standard Leaders, the PC producers, are so cost effective, and so much lower in price, than is Apple.

In Part II, we will see how this same pattern is playing out in the smart phone market.

Dis-Economies of Scale

McKinsey research has found that only 10% of cost reduction programs sustain their results after three years. The problem seems to be overhead. Companies have exploited manufacturing efficiencies to reduce the cost of goods sold as a percentage of revenues by nearly 3% over the past decade. On the other hand, sales, general and administrative costs have remained about the same. The performance of sales, general and administrative SG&A costs is an example of dis-economies of scale.

A few definitions are in order. Economies of scale is the phenomenon where unit costs decline as the number of units sold increases. (See “Audio Tip #195: Economies of Scale and Their Measurement” on StrategyStreet.com) This happens because part of the cost structure is fixed, so it grows at a fraction of the rate of growth of the unit volume the company sells. Dis-economies of scale occur where units of costs increase at a rate that is greater than the increase in the units of output. (See “Audio Tip #198: Dis-Economies of Scale” on StrategyStreet.com) In other words, there appear to be no significant fixed costs in the company’s cost structure when dis-economies of scale occur. At the other end of the cost spectrum, you see super-economies of scale. Super-economies occur with costs decline, even as the number of units sold increases. (See “Audio Tip #199: Super-Economies of Scale” on StrategyStreet.com) Usually the super-economies occur due to changes in technology, when the company replaces many employees with technology capital investments.

Now let’s return to the problem of SG&A costs. In 1998, the SG&A costs for the S&P 500 companies were roughly 22% of sales. By 2008, SG&A costs still commanded 22% of the sales dollar. During those ten years, the physical units of output the S&P 500 companies produced certainly increased. On the other hand, the SG&A costs remained the same as a percentage of sales. Are none of the SG&A costs fixed? If there were some fixed costs in SG&A, the companies should have been able to increase the units sold without a proportional increase in numbers of people in the SG&A functions, creating economies of sale. But they did not produce economies of scale as measured as a percentage of revenue. What happened then? Either the number of people employed in the SG&A functions grew with unit sales or the companies paid the average SG&A employee at a higher rate than sales grew. In either case, you have dis-economies of scale operating in SG&A.

Over the years, we have been involved in many cost reduction efforts. We have seen that it is hard to sustain the results of a cost reduction effort over a long period of time. The McKinsey study serves as ample testimony to this fact. What may be helpful is to tie physical units of costs, for example numbers of full time equivalent employees, to physical measures of output, such as customer orders. If the ratio of physical units of cost to physical units of output goes down, the company has an excellent chance of creating economies of scale.

Defending the Low Cost Position

The last couple of years have been very tough on the hotel industry. Now, some of the mainline hotel companies are starting to recover, but the high-end hotels continue their prolonged suffering. A typical example are the Four Seasons hotels. Last year the occupancy rate at the chain’s hotels was below 60% and revenue per available room, a key measure of sales, fell 26%. There are 82 Four Seasons hotels. At least 12 of them reputedly are near the breaking point.

The Four Seasons Company no longer owns any of its 82 branded hotels. It, like most of the hotel chains, sold off its hotels in the 80s to companies and investors who had more willingness and ability to carry high levels of leverage on the hotel properties. The Four Seasons, and most other hotel chains today, manage their brands but don’t own them.

The hotel brands tightly control the quality of their hotels through their management agreements. The management company receives a management fee of a percentage of the branded hotels’ revenues and also gets a percentage of the hotels’ profits. The hotel investor gets the use of the brand name and must conform to the rules as written in the management agreements. This arrangement allows for a disconnect between the interest of the hotel property owners and the hotel brand owners. The property owners may wish to find cost shortcuts that the brand owners abhor because the cost savings sully the brand name.

The founder of Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts watches carefully over the brand he created. Isadore Sharp is the founder and Chief Executive of Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts. He started with his first hotel in 1961. He built the company into the chain it is today by providing top notch service to its affluent guests. In the past, the company has weathered market downturns as relatively minor bumps in the road. This downturn has proven to be different. In this downturn, several property owners have petitioned the brand management company to reduce costs, sometimes at the guests’ expense. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry is reducing costs aggressively” on StrategyStreet.com.) Mr. Sharp will have little of it.

Mr. Sharp, who remains CEO of the company and 10% owner of Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, agreed to some cost savings that have relatively little impact on the guest. Hotels may now outsource their laundry. They may simplify menus in the restaurants and even close a restaurant on slow nights on those hotels that have multiple restaurants. Some hotels may discontinue stocking fresh flowers in the lobbies as long as they replace those fresh flowers with sculptures or ornate vases. The property owners may also combine management positions and cross-train employees to work in multiple departments. Mr. Sharp believes that a guest will not see these kinds of cost savings in their visits to a Four Seasons Hotel.

But he refuses to go along with other cuts proposed by some property owners. The property owners may not combine the concierge desk with the check-in duties on the graveyard shift. Mr. Sharp insists that hotel employees continue to turn down guest bed covers each evening. He also refused a request to end room service during the middle of the night. All of these changes a guest would notice. (See “Video #46: The Place of Cost Management in Hostility” on StrategyStreet.com.)

These decisions by Mr. Sharp tell us a lot about why he has been so successful in his career. He keeps his attention focused on the quality of his guest experience, despite the short-term cost of continuing that form of Reliability. Profits may dip in the near-term, but he believes they will hold up in the long-term as customers return for the consistent quality of high level services they associate with the Four Seasons brand.

Mr. Sharp is protecting the ultimate low-cost position. We have found in our work and research in many industries that the low-cost position in a market is the ownership of a satisfied customer relationship. A company that owns a satisfied customer will not lose that customer to any other competitor unless that competitor can offer a similar product at a discount that begins at 15% and usually is more. We have not seen any market where peer competitors have cost structures that vary from one another by as much as 15%. Hence, the ownership of a satisfied customer relationship is the equivalent of having a 15% of revenue cost advantage on your peer competitors.