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.

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.

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.

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.

Finding a Home for Orphaned Products

The pharmaceutical industry has taken steps in the last few years to reduce the cost of bringing a new drug to market. Pfizer has developed a novel approach.

We have analyzed several thousand cost reduction efforts. Each of these efforts, in one way or another, seeks to improve the productivity of costs by improving the amount of Output that a given quantity of Input can produce. We have found four basic approaches to improving this productivity: 1) reduce the rate of cost for the Input; 2) reduce Inputs not producing Output; 3) reduce unique activities in processes and products; and 4) spread fixed cost activities over new Output. (See StrategyStreet.com/Improve/Costs/Directions)

The pharmaceutical industry has used these approaches to reduce the cost and risk of developing new medications. For example, some companies have signed agreements with scientists overseas to develop new products (example #1 above). Others have used contract research organizations (example #1 above). Many have established joint ventures with competitors to spread the risk of developing new drugs (example #4 above).

Pfizer has developed a new organizational unit to use the second approach, reduce Inputs not producing Output. The company set this unit up in 2007 and named it Indications Discovery Unit. This organization enlists outsiders for help in finding uses for compounds that Pfizer had in development but that seemed to have no market potential. In a recent iteration, Pfizer agreed to pay $22.5 million over five years to researchers at the medical school of Washington University in St. Louis. Pfizer will give these researchers access to 500 molecules that otherwise would languish. These molecules were approved for a different use, were developed for a separate indication or they failed during testing for another use. This cost management innovation enables Pfizer to find new uses for work-in-process inventory that otherwise might have been written off.

Mobile Hears Big Footsteps

A short while ago, we wrote a blog about Radio Shack’s rebranding itself (See Blog HERE) as primarily a mobile product carrier. At the time, we predicted that Radio Shack would have a difficult time competing on Function with Best Buy. Though, it would be more Convenient than the average Best Buy. (See “Video #26: Example of the Customer Buying Hierarchy at Work” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Best Buy is ramping up its mobile product investment now. The company has created 80 stand-alone mobile stores from a standing start in 2006. It may add as many as 100 new shops this year. In addition to these stand-alone shops, BestBuy Mobile operates as a separate store within all 1,000 of Best Buy full-sized stores.

The company has set itself up to be able to catch the mobile wave without committing itself to high costs over the long term. The BestBuy Mobile stand-alone stores average 1500 square feet of footprint. The stores within the regular Best Buy stores are only 600 square feet. These stores compare with an average of 40,000 square feet for a regular Best Buy store. (See “Audio Tip #188: The Efficiency of the Input” on StrategyStreet.com.) The small footprint allows the company to offer fast-growing products in Convenient mall locations near consumers, especially women consumers. In a few years, when growth slows, the company can withdraw from these small locations at relatively little cost and fold the mobile business back into its large regular stores.

BestBuy Mobile looks to be the Function leader in this market. It offers ninety different handsets and service plans from nine carriers. They offer products that work on the networks run by all four major wireless carriers: AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile USA.

BestBuy Mobile offers clear advantages over the stores run by the wireless carriers. Their prices are lower. Pricing is also clear and easy, with no mail-in rebates. And the company promises that the customer will leave the store knowing exactly how to use their phone in what the company brands as its “Walk Out Working” product promise. This promise is both a Reliability and Convenience benefit.

Everyone else in the industry must be hearing Best Buy’s big footsteps.

Who Are Those Guys?

Whenever an industry finds itself in the enviable position of having freedom in pricing, it usually finds that competition emerges out of the woodwork, from the least expected places. In many cases, the companies in these industries don’t conceive of new competition really having much of a chance to emerge. If they do see competition, they usually dismiss that competition as incapable of offering real competition.

Microsoft dominates the PC software market. It is likely to do so for many years to come. But Linux and Google have emerged to be a thorn in Microsoft’s side. Both of these alternatives have small market shares. However, both are able to limit Microsoft’s pricing power in some of its markets, especially governmental markets. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry leaders are losing share” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Healthcare pricing seems to be out of anyone’s control today. Maybe ObamaCare will fix that, though that is hard to see when, overnight, we increased demand without increasing any supply. It is more likely that healthcare will continue; indeed, even accelerate. But there is an emergent competitor: medical tourism. Ten years ago, few of us would have considered going to a foreign country to undergo an important medical procedure. As recently as 2007, more than 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for a medical procedure. That market is growing at better than 15% a year. And as medical tourism grows, so too will the skills and capabilities resident at the medical facilities these tourists visit. They will become stronger competitors. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Competition is expanding with the appearance of discounters” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Higher education is another area where school participants seem to have virtually unlimited pricing power. Along with that power has come a boom in for-profit college and university alternatives. These for-profit institutions are still a small factor in the market, but they are growing very rapidly. Now DeVry University and the University of Phoenix are unlikely to challenge the Ivy League any time soon. But, eventually, they will put the breaks on the pricing freedom in many of the lesser known public and private institutions.

Creating Economies of Scale in the Auto Industry

The German automakers are under some pressure. They need to have a small car in their product line-up in order to respond both to consumers’ growing preferences for smaller cars and to government pressures to reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions. BMW has answered with its One series. Volkswagen has taken a 20% stake in Japan’s Suzuki Motor Corporation, which is a small car specialist. Mercedes Benz has decided to go an alliance route.

Recently, Daimler, the maker of Mercedes Benz automobiles, announced an alliance with Nissan and Renault to create a common line of small cars. The companies will also share engines and work together to create small commercial vans. To do this, Nissan and Renault will invest about $1.6 billion in Daimler who, in turn, will invest about $1.6 billion in Nissan and Renault. These investments will have a good pay-off. The two sides of the alliance estimate that they will each save about $2.7 billion in costs over the coming five years. This alliance creates new economies of scale for each side by increasing their productivity, as measured by units of input costs over units of output product. (See “Audio Tip #187: The Components of Productivity” on StrategyStreet.com.) In this case, they improve productivity by spreading fixed cost activity such as design of new products over more sales output.

In analyzing several thousand cost reduction approaches, which companies have employed over the last twenty-five years, we have seen two basic approaches to the task of increasing the output over which fixed costs investments are used. First, the company may acquire a similar organization to spread fixed costs over more units of sales. Second, the company may form an alliance of some kind to spread these fixed costs over more sales output. This small car alliance is an example of the second approach. In turn, we have identified three ways that companies pursue this second approach of spreading fixed cost. First, the companies may use their fixed cost with competitors who employ outsourcing. Second, the companies may combine fixed cost with competitors into separate businesses. Third, the company may use its fixed cost with new customer segments by turning some of their cost centers into profit centers. This small car alliance is an example of the second of these techniques, combining fixed costs with competitors into separate businesses.

Other examples where companies have employed this cost management approach include Sony and Sharp partnering in the flat panel TV business two years ago. Sony invested in Sharp’s plant to make LCDs. This gave Sony the option of buying the panels for its TVs while Sharp reduced the investment burden for panel production. In another example, General Mills and Land O’Lakes combined their distribution networks, improving their scale economies. In this later case, the companies were not direct competitors as are the companies in the small auto alliance.

You may find many more cost management concepts and examples in StrategyStreet.com/Improve/Costs.

Meeting a Challenge from Below

Boeing and Airbus have an interesting problem. These two companies had been sparring back and forth for several years in the large plane market. The industry’s largest customers, such as United and Republic Airways Holdings, are among the most important customers for the large planes and thus for Boeing and Airbus.

Recently, though, a new set of challengers has entered the lists. The two most important of these challengers are Canada’s Bombardier, Inc. and Brazil’s Embraer. These new challengers are much smaller companies. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Demand continues to grow but margins are low and new entrants are taking share” on StrategyStreet.com.) They also build smaller airliners with shorter ranges than Boeing’s 737 and Airbus’ A320. Normally, these smaller competitors would sell to the industry’s smaller regional airlines.

These new competitors, though, have offered something new and attractive. The new companies are each offering a 150 seat jetliner with 15% better fuel economy compared to current 737s and A320s. Now customers, including United and Republic, are demanding that Boeing and Airbus produce a plane with an equivalent savings.

But this is a problem for the leaders. After years of jostling back and forth for market share and industry leadership, the industry leaders’ margins on airliner sales are low, even though there are only two competitors fighting this price war. (See the Perspective, “What Ends Hostility?” on StrategyStreet.com.) Last year, Boeing had an operating profit of about 3% on $68 billion in sales. The price wars have indeed been tough. Furthermore, the company has only $2 billion in equity to support $62 billion in total assets. Things aren’t quite as bad as that may sound because about $11 billion of those assets are cash and equivalents. Still, the company’s margin for safety is relatively thin.

Now you can understand how Embraer and Bombardier were able to come up with new, cheaper, technology in the small jetliner market. They have been earning better profits selling to regional airlines. Both Boeing and Airbus had hoped to wait several more years before updating their small airliners, but the customers won’t stand for it. Instead, both of the larger companies seemed poised to improve the fuel economy of their 737s and A320s by changing the engine configuration as a way of updating and improving the jetliner’s efficiencies. This should close part of the 15% fuel economy gap, but not all of it.

It appears that the industry’s smaller, lower-end, competitors are in for a few good years. The industry leaders simply don’t have the resources to stop them in the near term. We’ll see something similar in the next blog, though the reasons for the success of the lower-end competitor is less in resources and more in will.

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.

Can the Small Survive?

After months of back and forth, Kraft Foods has now reached a firm agreement to buy Cadbury. This may be a good thing for Kraft. Warren Buffett demurs due to the price. The jury is out. However, this merger may not be good for some of the other competitors in the industry. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry is consolidating through mergers and acquisitions” on StrategyStreet.com.) In particular, some industry observers are pointing to the precarious position of Hershey. They note that Hershey will be a very small competitor in the global confectionary business. That may be, but I would not be so fast to write off Hershey’s chances of survival. Often the smaller firms are more profitable than the largest firms in the industry.

A few years ago, we analyzed 240 industries that had five or more competitors reporting line of business sales of at least $50 million. (See the Perspective, “Is Bigger Really Better” on StrategyStreet.com.) In each of these industries, we studied the top four competitors measured in sales. We evaluated their market shares and their returns, looking for the benefits of natural economies of scale.

We calculated the percentage of time that a company ranked first in market share was also the leader in pre-tax return on assets. Pure chance would have seen the industry’s market share leader lead in returns 25% of the time. We found some economies of scale at work. In all of the 240 industries, we saw that the industry market share leader led the industry in returns on assets 29% of the time, only 4% more than random chance.

Surprisingly, the distant followers can sometimes be powerful competitors. In our study, the competitor ranking fourth in market share led its industry in returns 23% of the time, only 2% less than the 25% random chance.

So, Hershey is far from dead on arrival. This is not to argue that Hershey has an easy time of it. Quite the contrary. But it can survive, and even thrive, even in a more competitive confectionary market. (See the Perspective, “Rare Mettle: Gold and Silver Strategies to Succeed in Hostile Markets” on StrategyStreet.com.) To do so, though, it will have to be quite astute in its choice of product benefits and in its management of its smaller-than-average cost structure.

The Ostrich Syndrom

In 1960, the city of Chicago built McCormick Place. This facility was the first convention building built specifically to hold very large national conventions. McCormick Place put Chicago, as a convention center, on the map, where it stayed as one of the top convention destinations for the last fifty years. Now clouds gather on the horizon. Several large conventions have cancelled their Chicago venue and switched to other cities, like Las Vegas or Orlando. They site Chicago’s high cost and complex labor work rules. (See “Video #9: Overcapacity and How it Develops” on StrategyStreet.com.)

The economy has jarred the convention business in 2009. Nationally, the business was down 3%. Chicago is off by a great deal more. Its revenues have fallen 18%, while attendance at its conventions has fallen 23%. Chicago is hemorrhaging market share.

In other hostile industries, we have often found that a company gets ample warning of its deteriorating costs and price position. We see that again with McCormick Place (see “Video #3: Predicting the Direction of Margins” on StrategyStreet.com). For several years now exhibitors have been complaining about high costs and tough union work rules in Chicago. Chicago ignored them.

Now the rout is on. One big show cancelled its Chicago convention and moved to Orlando. This show annually brought 75,000 people to Chicago for its convention. This convention argues that it will save $20 million in its move to Orlando. How soon do you suppose they will reconsider Chicago?

Labor leaders in Chicago don’t see the problem as resting with them. They argue that they have lowered their hourly rates and offered greater work rule flexibility three times in the last fifteen years. But customers see it differently. (See “Video #26: Example of the Customer Buying Hierarchy at Work” on StrategyStreet.com.) You can’t argue with customers who are able to compare apples to apples. Costs are simply too high. The primary reason seems to be work rules. Those will either change or Chicago and McCormick Place will continue to lose market share.

The convention industry is one where high costs and high prices translate relatively quickly into a loss of market share. Other industries take more time. It took the domestic automobile industry nearly twenty years to lose half of its market share to less expensive foreign competitors, including foreign competitors with domestic manufacturing facilities. Neither management nor labor can force customers to subsidize costs that are higher than those of competitors. Many domestic industries have learned this lesson. How has it escaped the labor leaders at McCormick Place?

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.

A Pyrrhic Victory?

Wal-Mart stores and Costco Wholesale are disrupting markets again. The market they are disrupting today is the grocery industry. In truth, they have been disrupting the grocery industry for the last several years, to the point that Wal-Mart is now the largest grocery store company in the country. These two competitors drain their competition of their life blood by using low prices. The recession, along with the pressure applied by Wal-Mart and Costco, has reduced the consumer pricing index for food by nearly 3% over the last year.

So, what is an industry leader to do when faced with the Wal-Mart challenge? Kroger answered right away. The company reduced its prices along with those of Wal-Mart. (See “Audio Tip #180: The Real Low-Cost Competitor” on StrategyStreet.com.) The result is that Kroger expanded its market share. This growth in market share came at the expense of other industry leaders, such as Safeway and Supervalu, who did not cut their prices as deeply. (See the Symptom & Implication “As large competitors match low prices, other competitors face difficulties” on StrategyStreet.com.)

There is a rub, of course. Kroger’s margins declined in the face of the price deflation. Predictably, Wall Street pummeled Kroger’s stock.

Wall Street is wrong here. In the long term, the increase in Kroger’s size will enable it to reduce its cost structure compared to that of its smaller rivals. The easiest way to reduce a cost structure is when the company’s sales aren’t growing and you can find opportunities to improve the productivity of the cost structure by increasing efficiency and effectiveness. (See “Audio Tip #196: Why Economies of Scale Exist” on StrategyStreet.com.) It is much harder to reduce costs when the business is shrinking. In a shrinking business, company morale tends to be bad and companies almost inevitably cut muscle as well as fat.

A growing business will also allow Kroger to fine tune its value proposition in the face of the Wal-Mart price challenge. The customer buys Function, Reliability and Convenience before Price. Kroger’s ability to tailor its offerings for a broad swath of customers, and its local presence, are powerful advantages, even in the face of a competitor with lower prices. (See “Video #56: Design to Value as an Approach to Cost Management” on StrategyStreet.com.) Kroger is right.

Digits Save Lives...and Costs by Improving Effectiveness

Part 2

Some hospitals, along with some health insurance companies, are using video technology to connect patients in outlying areas with specialists in urban centers. This video technology connects local and regional hospitals to large urban medical centers where most medical specialists practice medicine.

These video hook-ups provide information for both the specialist doctor and the patient. The specialist doctor has the benefit of a high definition video, both televisions and cameras, along with internet connected medical equipment and a nurse at the patient’s side to carry out instructions. The patient sees the specialist doctor on a video in the room.

The costs of these video systems have been declining. The typical system costs between $30,000 and $50,000. Thirty-five hundred hospitals now employ the system. These systems have a unit growth rate of 15% a year. They are about to become mainstream.

This innovation for both specialist doctors and patients offer us some good examples of cost reduction techniques.

We have examined several thousand examples of cost reduction efforts. There are four basic approaches to reducing costs:

*Reduce the rate of costs you pay for people, purchases and capital
*Reduce the costs that are not contributing to output because they are wasted or idle
*Redesign the product or the process to reduce components and activities
*Use fixed costs with more customers

The latter two of these four basic approaches to reducing costs improve the effectiveness of a cost structure by reducing the number of activities required for the completion of an Output. We call these activities Intermediate Cost Drivers (ICDs). (See “Audio Tip #189: The Effectiveness of the ICD” on StrategyStreet.com.) Effectiveness measures the ratio of ICDs to Output (ICD ÷ Output = Effectiveness).

A company improves the effectiveness of its cost structure by reducing activities, that is, ICDs. It reduces these activities by redesigning the product, or the process, the company uses to produce the product.

The company may redesign the product by reducing activities or components that make up the current product. The company may do this by reducing:

Performance standards which enables the company to eliminate activities
Components that are part of the current product

There are also several cost reduction alternatives available to the company who wishes to redesign the process to reduce activities. The company may use one of these recurring patterns of process cost reduction techniques:

- Shift the activity to others with no payment for their assistance
- Automate an activity
- Reduce the movement involved in the process
- Reduce errors the process produces
- Standardize activities
- Accept risk of lower revenues or higher costs
- Eliminate activities with low value to the customer

This new video technology improves Effectiveness with a redesign of the product. The video technology allows the patient to use an alternative form of a key component, the attending doctor. Since the specialist is at a distance, the patient does not receive the same quality of experience as he would if the specialist were physically present. The specialist doctor may be at a distance. But the specialist is more qualified than is any doctor at the patient’s location.

The process is more effective as well. The technology reduces the movement of patients. It substitutes the costs of the video technology for the costs of transportation by ambulance from the outlying locations to the urban centers. Perhaps more importantly, the process also reduces errors in the system by allowing an expert to diagnose the ailment and prescribe more immediate and more effective treatment.

The fourth basic approach to reducing cost improves a cost structure’s effectiveness by using fixed costs with more customers. These fixed costs, and their activities, become a lower proportion of the value of the final Output. (See “Audio Tip #196: Why Economies of Scale Exist” on StrategyStreet.com.) We have found two recurrent patterns to spread fixed costs activities over more customer Output:

- Acquire a similar organization and eliminate overlapping fixed costs
- Use the current fixed costs with new customer groups

The article on video technology did not offer an example of this fourth cost reduction approach. However, we can easily imagine how a hospital might employ this approach. First, the hospital system might acquire additional outlying locations and incorporate the video technology with these newly acquired hospitals as well. Alternatively, the hospital system, who already uses the video technology, might offer its technology to unrelated hospitals in similar locations near the company’s hospitals. The company would then benefit from the revenues these competing hospitals might provide and, in turn, use these revenues to reduce the effective costs it incurs for its video technology.

Of course, these are just a few of the cost reduction concepts we have observed. To date we have found more than 300 of these concepts of cost reduction. You may see more of them in the Improve/Costs section of StrategyStreet.

Digits Save Lives...and Costs by Improving Efficiency

Some hospitals, along with some health insurance companies, are using video technology to connect patients in outlying areas with specialists in urban centers. This video technology connects local and regional hospitals to large urban medical centers where most medical specialists practice medicine.

These video hook-ups provide information for both the specialist doctor and the patient. The specialist doctor has the benefit of a high definition video, both televisions and cameras, along with internet connected medical equipment and a nurse at the patient’s side to carry out instructions. The patient sees the specialist doctor on a video screen in the room.

The costs of these video systems have been declining. The typical system costs between $30,000 and $50,000. Thirty-five hundred hospitals now employ the system. These systems have a unit growth rate of 15% a year. They are about to become mainstream.

This innovation for both specialist doctors and patients offer us some good examples of cost reduction techniques.

We have examined several thousand examples of cost reduction efforts. There are four basic approaches to reducing costs:

* Reduce the rate of costs you pay for people, purchases and capital
* Reduce the costs that are not contributing to output because they are wasted or idle
* Redesign the product or the process to reduce components and activities
* Use fixed costs with more customers

The first two of these four basic cost reduction techniques improve the Efficiency of a cost Input. Efficiency measures the amount of Input required to produce an Output (Input ÷ Output = Efficiency). (See “Audio Tip #188: The Efficiency of the Input” on StrategyStreet.com.) For example, the number of labor hours required to produce a completed customer transaction.

If you reduce the rate of cost you pay for an Input, such as People, you reduce the effective number of people required to produce the Output. An employee making $20 an hour is effectively half of an employee who makes $40 an hour.

In our analyses of cost reduction techniques, we have seen seven major approaches to reducing the rate of cost:

-Purchase in larger quantities
-Reduce the quality of the Input
-Change the components of the rate of cost
-Use subsidies offered by third parties
-Request the supplier to lower its price
-Change the source of supply to a less expensive supplier
-Bring some activities in-house in order to achieve a lower rate of cost

The video technology reduces the rate of cost in the hospital system. It helps the hospital reduce the quality of the Input used in treating the patient without hurting the patient. This reduction in quality is not meant to be pejorative. Rather, it focuses high-cost activities on high-cost people by shifting lower value activities done by high cost people to lower cost people. It reduces the rate of People costs by separating tasks into high and low cost activities. Once the low and high cost activities are separated, lower cost people can do some activities previously done by high cost people. With the urban hospital specialist in charge, a nurse can now do more of the onsite work previously done by higher paid internists. The technology also offers the system the opportunity to lower the rate of cost it pays for square footage at its medical centers. The medical facilities in outlying areas have a lower cost per square foot than do those in urban centers. The outlying location is not as convenient to many patients, so its price per square foot is lower. The video technology overcomes the problem of distance.

The hospital may increase the Efficiency of its Inputs by reducing the proportion of Inputs that are not producing any Outputs. Inputs, such as People, are unproductive when they are sick or idle. If the hospital can find ways to reduce sickness or idle time, the same number of People Inputs will produce more Output. The efficiency of the Input rises as the number of People required per customer transaction falls.

In our research into the techniques that companies use to reduce the costs that are wasted or idle, we have identified several recurring patterns. The company may:

-Assist the Inputs, such as People, in increasing its efficiency
-Shift demand to use otherwise unproductive resources
-Improve the accuracy of the forecast it uses to plan work
-Use short term sources to meet peak demand
-Speed the process to reduce otherwise avoidable wait times

The video technology reduces unproductive or wasted resources. This technology speeds the process for the patient and the local attending physician. Diagnosis occurs more quickly due to the fast access to the distant specialist. All the parties involved at the outlying hospital spend less time waiting for a proper diagnosis.

Of course, these are just a few of the cost reduction concepts we have observed. To date we have found more than 300 of these concepts of cost reduction. You may see more of them in the Improve/Costs section of StrategyStreet.com.

In our next blog, we will discuss how video technology might reduce the hospital’s cost structure by using the latter two of the four basic approaches to reducing costs.

The Tables Have Turned

Just a few years ago, Dell Computer was the darling of the PC industry. Hewlett-Packard was an also-ran. Today the tables have turned. Over the last year, Hewlett-Packard’s market share has jumped from 18.5% to 20% of the global PC shipments. Dell’s market share has fallen from 15.7% to 13.7%. The change in market share is customers saying that HP offers a better value proposition. (See the Perspective, “The Two Best Consultants in the World” on StrategyStreet.com.)

HP has strenuously reduced its costs at the same time it has gained market share. HP, at one time, was in the middle of the PC pack in costs. Today, its PC operating margin is 4.6%, better than Dell’s operating margin. The superior cost performance of HP is the competitors acknowledging that HP has a lower overall cost.

HP has gained much of its market in the retail side of the business, especially with lower-end products. Most Standard Leaders don’t like lower-end products because they offer low margins and not much reputation (see StrategyStreet/Diagnose/Products and Services/Innovation for Customer Cost Reduction/Price Point Bias).

HP is gaining some of its new market share with very low pricing, a characteristic that used to belong to Dell. Wal-Mart’s recent experience with HP is indicative of the company’s current aggressiveness. Wal-Mart wanted to sell a personal computer for less than the price of the hot Netbook products. Netbooks are mini laptops costing less than $500. Wal-Mart did the consumer research to produce specifications for the proposed full-sized laptop product and passed those to some PC companies. Several responded positively. Dell offered a product for just under $400. Toshiba and Acer offered a product priced just below $350. HP beat all the competitors, though, with a $298 machine.

Dell is allowing Hewlett-Packard to take market share with its low prices because it sees little profit in the low-priced machines. But there is a problem here. HP has already proven itself capable of using its large size to streamline logistics and extract lower purchases of costs from its suppliers. It has smartly redesigned its products to reduce their costs. How is it, then, that Dell, or anyone else, believes that they will be better off by ceding market share to Hewlett-Packard on the basis of low prices? Will Hewlett-Packard become weaker? Will the PC companies losing share become stronger? This is another example of companies in a Leader’s Trap.

The China Plan for Purchases

China has adopted an interesting plan to reduce the rate of cost it pays for the metals and ores it purchases.

China is a big consumer of stainless steel. It needs nickel to produce this stainless steel. While it has some mines of its own, it needs to import nearly a quarter of its total needs. To fill part of these needs and to give itself some leverage against the largest suppliers of nickel, China has begun forming alliances with the smaller nickel companies. In some cases, China has made an investment in the smaller miner. In other cases, China has guaranteed to take a certain amount of these miners’ production at a fixed price. These alliances have helped the small miners avoid the worst of the repercussions of limited availability of credit in the current economy.

China is trying something similar in the iron ore market. The top three iron ore producers, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Vale control about 70% of the iron ore transported by sea. China has been unable to break the unified pricing approach of these big three suppliers, so it went around them. Recently, it made an agreement with a small iron ore producer, Fortescue Metals, to purchase iron ore at a 3% discount to the international price being charged by the big three. In return, Fortescue will get up to $6 billion in financing from the Chinese to put to the expansion of its business (See Video #40: Price Shaver on StrategyStreet.com).

In both these arrangements, China is trying to make a small supplier a lever against a very large supplier to drive down the price. This usually does not work, for two reasons. The first is performance. A smaller suppler simply can not provide for most of the needs of a Very Large customer, such as China. Small suppliers usually can compete only in a limited geographic market and with a limited product range. The second reason is one of cost. Commodity markets are extremely competitive. Scale counts for a lot. Economies of scale rule! (See Audio Tip #195: Economies of Scale and Their Measurement on StrategyStreet.com) The smaller competitors will not have the same economies of scale as the larger competitors. The discounts that the smaller competitor must give up in order to secure the business of the Very Large customer more often than not serve to weaken the ability of the smaller competitor to perform to the same level as the largest competitors in the market.

I think China will find that if it wants to break the strangle hold of the largest suppliers in the market place, it will have to convince one of the largest suppliers, rather than one of the smallest, to discount for it.