Failures in Reliability Lead to Share Loss

We have written several times before about the Customer Buying Hierarchy (i.e. customers buy Function, Reliability, Convenience and Price, in that order).  We have also written, on several occasions, about companies winning and failing customers in a marketplace.  In a stable market, failure of a supplier causes more market share to move than does another competitor’s “win” of market share against its peers.  Most failures occur in Reliability. Recently, two of America’s paragon companies have failed their customers on Reliability and are now struggling to catch up.  Other leaders have had a similar problem and have recovered nicely. 

Macy’s is a clear leader in the department store market.  Over the last several years, Macy’s has purchased and integrated other large department store competitors.  For example, in 2005 Macy’s purchased May Department Stores.  As the company worked to integrate these acquisitions and obtain synergistic savings, their attention swerved from customer service.  The company’s failings were greatest in customer interactions with the company’s sales associates.  Nearly half of customer complaints focused on actions of sales associates. These are failures in Reliability.  A customer expects to be well treated by a department store that charges relatively high prices for its goods.  Macy’s failed to do that. The company’s market share began to drift lower as a result of these failures. 

Now Macys is investing a great deal more money and time into the proper training of its sales associates.  This investment is beginning to pay off.  A recent survey of customer satisfaction indicated that the company was making strides in improving its reputation.  Still, it lags the performance of some of its important rivals.  This is still a Macy’s work-in-progress.

Wal-Mart is another industry paragon who drifted from its Reliability promises.  Wal-Mart committed two notable sins.  First, it removed some products that were important to its core customers.  The company did so in an effort to improve the product mix and the margins a better product mix would bring.  Some of its core customer volume began to drift away.  The company also moved away from its aggressive pricing.  Instead of every day low prices, the company began to promote deals on some products while raising prices on others.  Customers didn’t like that either.  Recently, a survey by a retail consulting firm has found that Target Stores offered prices below those of Wal-Mart.  So, Wal-Mart has created Reliability failures in both product availability in its stores and its promise to have “always low prices, always.”  The company’s market share has also drifted lower. 

Wal-Mart now promises to return to its core values and core customers.  It is bringing back the products it once eliminated in favor of higher margin products.  It is getting more aggressive in pricing once more.  This, too, is a work-in-progress. 

Certainly, these leaders can recover from these miscues. We have seen other leading companies struggle with Reliability and yet recover nicely.  For example, several years ago McDonald’s went through a period of time where it was losing market share.  As the company examined the reasons for this market share loss, it noted that customers began to see its prices as high in the quick service restaurant industry.  In addition, its products in stores had developed a reputation as being about the same as or, in some cases, lower in quality than some of its big competition.  Under the leadership of a CEO well versed in operations, the company returned to its roots by emphasizing its core quality values and aggressive pricing.  Today, McDonald’s is the unquestioned leader in the quick service restaurant industry.  Many of its competitors struggle to keep up with McDonald’s. Most fail to do so.  McDonald’s again has gained share in the industry over the last several years.  McDonald’s success in reversing its Reliability failures suggests that the pathway is open for both Macy’s and Wal-Mart.  They both should be able to enjoy similar success.  The odds are they will.

A Likely End Game to Hostility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

A Very Rare Form of Pricing

Recently, Continental Airlines introduced a new service called “FareLock.” This new service gives travelers three days, or a week, to decide whether to buy a ticket and avoid a fare increase or the risk that the passenger’s flight will sell out. In return, Continental plans to charge a flat fee of $5 for a three day hold and $9 for a one week hold. Continental is offering its passengers a Call. For a fee, the passenger has the right to buy the ticket at today’s price for a few days into the future. This is a very rare form of pricing outside of the securities market.

Every price has at least three components. Most have four. (See “Audio Tip #113: Tools to Change Pricing” on StrategyStreet.com.) The first of these components is the benefit package that the price offers. The second is the basis of charge, that is, how the company quantifies in currency what it charges for a unit of the product. The units can be a package, an individual item, a unit of time, and so forth. The third component is the list price of the product. Virtually all products also have what we call optional components, the fourth component. These optional components may, but do not have to, be a part of the product price. Optional price components include various discounts, fees, coupons and other methods of conveying a change in effective price, either an increase or a decrease, to the customer. A Call is one of the optional components of price. It occurs only rarely.

Here are some other examples:

* Some colleges have used the Call in the form of a fixed tuition price for any student returning for the four years of the student’s education. This pricing mechanism increases the college’s retention rates. (See “Audio Tip #142: Defensive Pricing Guidelines” on StrategyStreet.com.)

* There are also contingent Calls. Waterford Development Corporation was dealing with a difficult real estate market. It offered to have homes re-appraised two years after the date the transaction closed. If, after two years, the price of the home dropped, the company promised to write the buyer a check for up to 15% of the original sales price. With this Call, the customer gained the right to live in the house and yet pay a lower effective price for the house if the market should decline in the next two years. (See “Audio Tip #151: Changing Performance and Price Together” on StrategyStreet.com.)

* A discount broker, in an effort to attract more high-volume traders, offered a Call. This broker charged the customer only a single commission for multiple trades of the same stock on the same side of the market on the same day.

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.

Vanguard vs. Fidelity

We are going to use this blog, and the next one, to speak more about pricing. Over the years, we have learned some surprising things about pricing. For example, in the average market, price moves much less share than most people assume. (See the Perspective, “The Price Segment” on StrategyStreet.com.) In most markets, the true price-driven market share volatility is 15% or less of the current volatile, changing, market share. You might ask how that can be. But the explanation is relatively easy. Most of us buy most of the things we purchase on the basis of a unique Function, better Reliability, or more Convenience, before we even get to Price. Did you buy your last car on the basis of Price? How about those snow skis? Were they the cheapest on the market? Do you stay in the cheapest hotels or drink the cheapest beer? True Price buyers are in the minority. And before these buyers get to Price in the decision sequence, they have satisfied themselves that there is no important difference among competitors on Function, Reliability or Convenience.

Even more surprising to most people is that in a hostile market, one with severe overcapacity and intense price competition, price moves even less share. We have worked in many hostile markets. In all of them, the true price-based volatile market share was less than 5% of the available volatile share. The reason for this phenomenon is that in a true hostile marketplace, virtually all competitors have learned to copy lower prices, or face an immediate loss in market share. (See the Perspective, “Why Price Cuts Don’t Build Share” on StrategyStreet.com.) For an example, look at the airline industry. When one airline offers a price discount, all the other peers of that airline offer the same discount on the same flight to the same locations.

Now I am going to offer what seems to be an exception to these “guidelines” I have just set down. The exception appears to be Vanguard in its competition with Fidelity Investments and the other money managers. This year, Vanguard Group replaced Fidelity as the largest U.S. mutual fund company. Fidelity had held that number one ranking since 1988, when it passed Merrill Lynch. At one time, the Fidelity Magellan fund, while it was run by Peter Lynch, was the world’s largest mutual fund. In 2000, it reached $110 billion under management. Lynch had a phenomenal record, but his successors did not. Today, the Fidelity Magellan fund has less than $30 billion under management. The biggest mutual fund today is the Vanguard 500 Index Fund at $87 billion under management.

The big difference between a managed fund and an index fund should be performance. A managed fund is supposed to earn more than an index fund. Some do, most don’t. So many investors have been migrating to the lower-priced index funds. Stock index funds charge an average of 29 cents per hundred dollars invested. Actively managed funds charge more like 95 cents.

Vanguard has unseated Fidelity by offering low-cost funds. Fidelity offers mostly managed funds. Vanguard is the ensign bearer for index funds. Investors seem to pay more attention to management costs when returns are already low. Over the last ten years, Vanguard has taken in more than $4 in new money to manage for every $1 Fidelity has gained. Almost 80% of the new money coming to Vanguard this year went to index funds. Exchange traded funds, ETFs, are even cheaper than many index funds. Vanguard has over $100 billion in ETF funds. Fidelity has side-stepped that business.

So Vanguard appears to be winning in the market due to pricing. How does that jibe with the guidelines we talked about? The key rule is that a customer does not buy on Price until after the customer has satisfied herself, that there is no important difference to the customer on Function, Reliability or Convenience, so the customer decides on Price. Vanguard has proven to many investors that it is the Functional equivalent of Fidelity, that its returns are Reliable and that it is equally Convenient to purchase, so many customers buy on Price. The price markets here are the index funds and the exchange traded funds. Fidelity needs to offer exchange traded funds to stay in the game. What really is happening is that Fidelity is “failing” on Price while Vanguard beats the other competitors on the basis of Reliability and Convenience.

The Fall of an Industry Leader - Part 1

Blockbuster declared bankruptcy in September of 2010. According to reports, the company was done in by the online service of Netflix and the in-retail store kiosks of Red Box. That is only partly true. The company was done in, first by its failure to recognize and respond to market opportunities when others created them and, second, by its determination to extract higher prices than its performance in the market warranted. Its failure as a company was a long time coming. It started in the late 1990’s. Since 2002, the company has lost more than $4 billion. Its market value fell from $4 billion eight years ago to just $12 million at the time of the bankruptcy.

In this, and the next blog, we are going to look at Blockbuster’s history. We will only touch on highlights, but the highlights explain much of the story.

We will begin by looking at Blockbuster’s product and service offering over the last twenty years. (See “Basic Strategy Guide Step 7” on StrategyStreet.com.) Here are some of the highlights:

* The video rental market grew very quickly throughout the 80s and the early part of the 90s. By 1993, Blockbuster had 600 stores. It was adding a store a day to that total. In doing so, it was squeezing out of the market many small video stores.

* The first video dispensing machines, precursors to the ubiquitous Red Box kiosks, came out in the mid-80s. They were introduced by Group One using a vending machine produced by Diebold. By 1990, there were many of these machines. 70% of them were available 24 hours a day. Each machine had about 400 tapes available. Blockbuster had none of these machines. (Note: after a very late response, Blockbuster Express now has 7000 kiosks, also made by Diebold.)

* In the mid-1990s, Direct Broadcast Satellite offerings of movies began to cut into the Blockbuster demand. To make up for the slowdown in demand, Blockbuster added music, books, software, movie shirts and mugs. All were failures.

* In 1998, Netflix launched its service. The company grew very rapidly, and was introduced to the public stock market in 2002. At the time, Netflix had less than a million customers. Blockbuster had 8,000 stores world-wide. As late as 2002, the CEO of Blockbuster dismissed the Netflix product as a niche offering.

* In 2001, Netflix, though still tiny, had a far more extensive movie selection than the average Blockbuster store. At the time, Netflix offered a choice of 10,000 separate movies, about ten times what the largest Blockbuster store could offer. In addition to offering more choices, Netflix also provided customer and professional movie reviews and a service that predicted what movies subscribers would like based upon the subscriber’s reviews of previous movies. Blockbuster offered none of these additional services.

* Later in 2002, Blockbuster began to test an online offering, but decided not to enter that market. Instead, it offered the Freedom Pass product, which required customers to go to the store to pick up and return their movies. The Freedom Pass offered unlimited movies for $25 a month. Blockbuster had 9,100 world-wide stores. 70% of the U.S. population was within a ten minute drive of one of its stores. At the same time, Netflix offered its unlimited movies, three movies at a time, service for $20 a month.

* By 2002, Netflix could offer overnight service to 50% of its customers and promised to reach 70% of them with that speedy service within a year.

* In 2003, Blockbuster updated its Freedom Pass program. It offered two movies at a time for $20, three movies at a time for $30. It introduced this program in all 5,500 of its U.S. stores. In the meantime, Netflix reached a count of 1 million subscribers by charging $20 a month for three movies at a time. The Netflix price was 33% lower than Blockbuster’s.

* By 2004, Blockbuster was stumbling badly in its earnings. It held back on inventory, so many popular movies were often out, frustrating customers. (See “Video 54: Cost Reduction by Winners vs. Losers in Hostility” on StrategyStreet.com.) During this year, Blockbuster finally enters the online market, six years after Netflix entered.

* During the period of the early 2000s, Hollywood studios began selling DVDs at relatively low prices. At the same time, the cable companies were offering online movie streaming through their cable boxes. Both of these developments reduced the demand for Blockbuster’s products.

* In 2004, Netflix reached 2 million subscribers and was growing at 80% a year.

* By 2005, Blockbuster was becoming desperate for revenue and margin. The company added video games, DVD sales and DVD resales to its product line. Blockbuster’s online business was flourishing with 1 million subscribers. But Netflix had 3 million. Wal-Mart decided to leave the online rental market and directed its customers to the Netflix program.

* In 2008, Blockbuster offered an online streaming service. To access the service, customers had to purchase a T.V. set-top box for $99 and then pay regular movie fees for each movie they watched. Blockbuster claimed that the T.V. set box was free because they offered a credit for 25 movies to anyone purchasing the box. At the same time, Netflix offered its movie streaming service free to its regular subscribers.

* By 2009, Blockbuster was closing stores at a rapid rate, becoming less convenient for many customers. Netflix and Red Box continued growing rapidly. At the time of its bankruptcy, Blockbuster was down to 3,300 U.S. stores, and falling.

What does this story tell us? In the early years, until the early 90s, Blockbuster was a very successful company. It won, streamlined the video rental market and became the unquestioned industry leader. It then became complacent. It ignored the new channels of distribution, including vending machines, online rentals and video streaming. Other people developed and refined the cost structures of those markets. Blockbuster did eventually enter these channels, but by then it was too late to play catch-up.

In the next blog we will look at Blockbuster’s pricing history to see how that contributed to its failure.

P&G Takes Off the Gloves

Last year, Procter & Gamble suffered as consumers shifted their purchases away from P&G’s feature-rich products toward lower cost, and less feature-laden, products. Some consumer research indicates that the majority of consumers believe that the lower cost products are as good as, or better, than the higher cost products in many of these P&G markets. P&G was suffering share losses. (See “Basic Strategy Guide Step 7” on StrategyStreet.com.) Ever sensitive to the will of the consumer, P&G has shifted course, at least temporarily. Where it spent the last several years developing new features and benefits for its products, it now has determined to beat back competition with lower prices.

The price reductions are noticeable, both to the consumer and to the financial analysts. P&G reduced its prices anywhere from 2% to 13% across a broad spectrum of products, including laundry detergent, fabric softeners, sanitary napkins, shampoos and conditioners and batteries. The price reductions have reversed Procter & Gamble’s loss of market share. It is maintaining or gaining market share in the majority of its markets today but analysts and competitors are crying “foul.” These price reductions have taken a significant toll on the relatively rich margins at P&G. Margins on these products have probably fallen between 20% and 30%, so the company’s profits are suffering. P&G’s big competitors have followed the company’s price reduction initiatives so financial analysts are now questioning the wisdom of P&G’s move to reduce prices. One analyst notes that if everyone follows P&G’s price cuts, then no one will be able to maintain profit margins.

The analyst misses the real effect of price reductions and the importance of P&G’s undertaking them today. When research indicates that consumers see little or no benefit to the more expensive over the less expensive products, all branded products in the category have gotten a severe warning shot across their bows. They have to beat back the low-end competitors, especially private label producers. The real enemy for the branded companies is not one another. (See the Perspective, “The Price Segment” on StrategyStreet.com.) The followers among the branded companies will gladly follow the industry leader as the leader raises prices. But they will howl when the leader reduces prices.

The price reductions hurt the near term profits of the branded producers, but they help the long term profits. How can this be? Because the price reductions cause severe margin squeezes and intense suffering among the private label producers. These producers must institute a commensurate price reduction, even though they don’t have the margin structure to sustain such a price reduction. The low-end competitors are then in a double bind. Their prices are falling at the same time that they are losing volume. These low-end competitors, in turn, will cheapen their product and their support for retailers and consumers. As these low-end competitors recede from their positions of relative strength, the leading, branded, companies are able to re-assert their pricing power and gain the benefits of higher prices on higher market shares.

The Kindle as a Razor

Amazon is proving to be a stubborn competitor. Many people thought Amazon would be severely damaged by the market entrance of the Apple iPad. After all, the iPad does many more things than simply provide an eBook reading experience. But, the Kindle is not going away easily. The company claims that it appeals to “serious readers,” which it estimates at about 10% of the population, and Amazon is chasing that 10% avidly.

Amazon is using the Kindle as a Loss Leader. Recently, a company estimated that the cost of the Kindle, that is all its parts and labor, was about $185. Amazon claims that the cost is much higher. This cost was not a great deal of the problem when the Kindle2 sold for $400, about its introductory price. Nor was it a problem when the Kindle sold for $289, the cost of the second version. Now, the new and improved Kindle3 has a price as low as $139, well below the estimated $185 cost. Amazon is taking a significant haircut on the cost of the Kindle in order to populate future customers for its eBooks. The company makes an attractive profit on its eBook sales and uses the Kindle as the razor to its eBook razorblades.

Amazon has also hedged its bet. Kindle eBooks also are readable on the iPad, so we are about to see an interesting contest between a very inexpensive Kindle and the iPad for the eyes of future eBook readers.

This razor and razorblade strategy is common (see StrategyStreet.com/Improve/Pricing/Reduce Prices). Here are some of the other places it has taken place:

* Caterpillar often reduced prices on new equipment in order to assure itself of the replacement parts business.

* The Palm Trio 600 had a list price of $600, but a consumer could buy it for as little as $330 with a phone service contract.

* Nintendo subsidized the sale of its game consoles in order to boost the sales of its game software.

* Restaurants offer free, or inexpensive, appetizers at the bar in order to increase alcohol sales.

* Charles Schwab offered a $400 analysis of a client’s holdings, including two hours worth of in-person advice, in order to increase the odds that it would be able to manage the client’s money for a yearly fee.

These Loss Leader pricing innovations are worthwhile whenever the revenues from the attendant products, which follow the Loss Leader product, are worth considerably more than is the Loss Leader.

Pricing in Easy Industries

Here is an example where relatively small differences in price, in normally easy industries, have a big effect in the market.

PepsiCo owns Lifewater. Over the last year, Lifewater’s sales have risen by 85%, while overall sales of bottled water have fallen by 5%. Coca-Cola owns a Lifewater competitor named Vitaminwater. During the same period, Vitaminwater saw its market share shrink.

PepsiCo has been paying more attention to Lifewater. It redesigned its bottle and introduced a no-calorie version of the drink. It also changed its advertising emphasis.

But pricing has certainly played a role in the marketplace. As the recession began to take hold, PepsiCo shaved four cents off the price of Lifewater (see “Audio Tip #106: How do we Predict Competitor Responses to our Price Moves?”), dropping it to an average of $1.18. Vitaminwater chose the opposite approach. It raised its prices by 4%. This produced a 7% swing in price difference between Vitaminwater and Lifewater. This price change meant Lifewater appealed better to both consumers and the channel of distribution. Lifewater used the lower price to increase its retail presence, especially with Target stores. This created greater Convenience for the Lifewater consumer. Overall, Lifewater’s market share increased by 1.6 share points to 3.8%. (See “Audio Tip #45: The Components of Positive Volatility” on StrategyStreet.com.) Vitaminwater’s share dropped from 14% to 11.4%. (See “Audio Tip #46: The Components of Negative Volatility” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Pricing and price differences are never irrelevant. Customers are loath to pay higher prices for products that otherwise seem Functionally comparable.

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.

How to Fail in a Market You Dominate

The cable T.V. companies are the big dogs in the television industry. So far, no one has been able to unseat them, though they seem to be trying to unseat themselves. The cable industry is losing customers to satellite T.V. and phone companies entering the video market. The rate of these customer losses is significant.

In 2006, the cable T.V. companies controlled nearly 69 million video customers. By 2009, that number had fallen to 63 million. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry leaders are losing share” on StrategyStreet.com.) The problem is both price and service. Many consumers see these cable T.V. companies failing on both Price and Reliability. (See “Video #14: Definition of Reliability” on StrategyStreet.com.)

The cable T.V. companies have responded to the incursions of satellite and phone companies with discounts. Most of these discounts come in the form of bundles of products, including two or three choices among T.V., internet and telephone. Some of the discounts came in the form of free services during a promotional period. Still, the prices for cable T.V. have gone up every year faster than inflation. The discounts slowed, but did not stop, customer defections. Customers felt gouged.

A more troubling failure has come with customer service. We have all heard that power corrupts. Well, the cable T.V. companies had great market power for a long period of time. That power didn’t corrupt them in the moral sense, but certainly caused them to ignore the common tenets of good customer service. They offered service on their terms. Customers could take it or lump it. And customers became resentful.

Of the two failures, one of high prices and the other of Reliability failures with poor customer service, the most troubling is the Reliability failure. People tend not to forget and forgive Reliability failures for a long period of time. General Motors will be living down its reputation for less than stellar automobile quality for a long time. The same fate awaits the cable T.V. companies. (See “Audio Tip #35: How Does a Company "Fail" in a Market?” on StrategyStreet.com.)

How to Become the Industry Leader

Charles Schwab is the clear leader in the online brokerage world. While there have been hiccups in its development from a simple discount broker to a full-fledged online brokerage firm offering a range of products, the company has always maintained its leadership in the retail brokerage business. It focuses on the individual investor and, importantly, on investment advisors who manage retail customer accounts.

As the long time leader in the online brokerage industry, Schwab has emphasized the Customer Buying Hierarchy elements of Reliability and Convenience. Its advertising emphasizes Reliability, especially a personal caring relationship with its customers, for example, with its “talk to Chuck” advertising. The eponymous chairman and his company have consistently emphasized a relationship of trust between Schwab and the investor. (See the Perspective, “Reliability: The Hard Road to Sustainable Advantage” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Over the last few years, Schwab has entered many different product categories. As part of that effort, the company has recently introduced eight branded exchange-traded funds with very low cost management fees and commission-free trading. A couple of years ago, the company brought out a Visa credit card with no annual fee and a 2% cash-back feature. Its effort in entering these product categories has been to become a one-stop-shop for its customers. These are Convenience innovations. The customer has no need to leave Schwab to buy other products.

Schwab has been insightful in the way it manages its products and customer relationships. Two recent statements by Walter Bettinger, the current CEO of Charles Schwab, demonstrate the company’s commitment to Reliability and Convenience. In the first, the CEO acknowledges that the company may have to offer some products that have poor profitability in order to maintain a long term customer relationship. His observation: “We’ve never looked at product by product profitability as the answer to building a business.” A Standard Leader often has to measure profitability at the customer, rather than the product, level. (See the Perspective, “What We Do Know Can Hurt Us” on StrategyStreet.com.) The second statement is equally compelling and counter-intuitive in many companies. He observes: “Most companies are taken down, not by their competitors’ moves, but by their own.” In other words, industry leadership changes because the former leader fails, not because the new leader wins.

Always Low Prices Meets Lower Prices

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

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

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

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

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

Coming Back from the Dead

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

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

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

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

Winning and Failing in a Marketplace

Analysts widely expect that Apple will offer its popular iPhone through Verizon by the end of this year. In anticipation of the loss of its iPhone exclusivity, AT&T is busy upgrading its network in an attempt to retain its current customer base in the face of the prospective Verizon competition. This story provides a useful illustration of how winning and failing works in a marketplace.

We use particular definitions for “winning” and “failing”. A “win” occurs when a company offers something that less than half of the other competitors in the industry can, or will, offer. (See “Audio Tip #34: How Does a Company “Win” in a Market?” on StrategyStreet.com.) A “failure” occurs when an incumbent supplier will not offer its customer a benefit that more than half of the industry competitors can, and will, offer that customer. (See “Audio Tip #35: How Does a Company “Fail” in a Market?” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Both a win and a failure can drive a change in market share. With a win, a company often offers a unique benefit, for example, a new feature for the product user. In fast-growing markets, wins are the drivers of much of the change in market share. In other markets, a failure must occur before market share will move. Once an incumbent supplier has failed its customer in some way, the customer opens its purchasing relationship to other suppliers and shifts some, or all, of the purchases it made from the failing supplier to another supplier. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Customers are adding suppliers because incumbent suppliers failed them” on StrategyStreet.com.) We call this situation, in which a supplier gains market share after an incumbent supplier has failed, a “weak win”. It is a weak win because the supplier who gained share was not able to offer something that the customer felt was a winning benefit. It simply gained its market share only after the incumbent failed.

In the early stages of the smart-phone market, AT&T had exclusive rights to the iPhone. The iPhone proved very popular, especially with consumers. This drove market share to AT&T in the smart-phone market and was a clear win by AT&T.

The iPhone brought some unique problems, however. It overwhelmed AT&T’s network and made a shambles of its capacity forecasting system. The result has been dropped calls and a deteriorating reputation with subscribers. AT&T is now failing some of the subscribers with whom it is the incumbent due to its exclusive offering of the iPhone. Many of these failed subscribers are now ready to open their relationships to another supplier, in this case, Verizon.

Verizon here is likely to be the beneficiary of a weak win situation. Without the iPhone, Verizon could not pull many of AT&T’s subscribers away from it. The Verizon benefits were not great enough to win market share in competition with AT&T’s iPhone. But, once AT&T has failed some of these subscribers and now that Verizon has the iPhone, Verizon can gain share at AT&T’s expense.

Some of the share shift is almost inevitable now. AT&T probably does not have enough time to get its network upgraded by enough to thwart the loss of some portion of its disgruntled subscribers. This is a fluid situation, though. AT&T was caught unawares by the significantly different patterns of cell phone usage among iPhone users. It’s possible that Verizon will be similarly overwhelmed. That should not be the case since Verizon could see AT&T’s problems. “Forewarned is forearmed”. If Verizon does encounter the same quality problems AT&T has had to face, it will not gain all the customers that it might have gained through AT&T’s current failure. But, in the short term, Verizon is bound to gain share from AT&T’s failure problems.

Wal-Mart and the Customer Buying Hierarchy

Recently, Wal-Mart found that it was losing some customers to competitors. After examining the reasons why, the company discovered that some of its customers were leaving because Wal-Mart had eliminated some of the products the customers were used to buying at Wal-Mart. This situation gives us the opportunity to look at the Customer Buying Hierarchy in a retail business.

We use the Customer Buying Hierarchy to analyze a company’s competitive situation and to evaluate its product and service innovation program. Through thousands of customer interviews, we have seen that customers buy in a four part hierarchy: Function, Reliability, Convenience and Price. And customers buy in the order of the hierarchy. They first solve their Function problem. If they have not chosen a supplier, they then move to Reliability and then to Convenience and finally to Price. Most purchase decisions are made well before the average customer gets to Price. That’s hard to believe, but it is certainly the case.

What do these four terms mean? Function refers to the benefits that the user of the product enjoys. In a retail context, Function benefits include the set of products available for sale and the physical layout and amenities offered at the retail location. Reliability refers to the consistency with which the company delivers on its real or implied promises to its customers. A retail customer usually measures Reliability in terms of product stock-outs and customer service in the event that a product the customer buys does not work as promised. If the customer does not see that the retailer accepts returns for defective products, the customer will consider that retailer to have failed on Reliability. Convenience refers to the ease with which a customer may purchase the product. This is an important benefit in retail, and wholesale as well. A retail customer measures Convenience by the ease with which the customer is able to find the product he wants, chose among the various alternative products, and pay for the product. Finally, there is Price. The Price refers to the net cash costs that the customer must pay for the product, after consideration of all extra charges and discounts.

We have found that most companies actually have some customer purchases in each one of the four categories of the Customer Buying Hierarchy. A company like Wal-Mart will have more in Price than will a high-end company like Nordstrom. But even Nordstrom will have a few customers purchasing because of Price, often because of Price on a particular high-end product.

Wal-Mart has found that it was losing share to competitors. It was losing share because it was failing to offer the Function benefits that it had previously offered. To save costs, it withdrew products from its shelves (see the Perspective, “Achieving the Low-Cost Position” on StrategyStreet.com.) Then, some customers found they had to make a separate trip to another retailer to buy those products. It is worth noting that Wal-Mart lost relatively few customers. These customer losses had a relatively small impact on its market share. This tells us that there are probably relatively few customers who go to Wal-Mart primarily due to its Function benefits. None-the-less, Wal-Mart failed at Function and lost share, even though, for the majority of customers, it continued to be a winner on Reliability, Convenience and Price.

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.