Wednesday, January 30, 2008

WHERE THE WORLD'S WEALTH IS STORED?


Gold
The Federal Reserve Bank Of New York
New York, N.Y., U.S.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds the prize as the world's biggest known stockpile of bullion, some 550,000 glistening bars of the stuff, buried deep into the bedrock of lower Manhattan. Just 2% to 5% of it is owned by the U.S. government; the rest is owned by foreign countries. That's $203.3 billion worth of gold in a single place.

Silver
JPMorgan Bank
London, U.K.
JPMorgan bank keeps 155 million ounces of silver for Barclays Bank, to back its IShares silver electronically traded fund, which debuted in 2006.

Diamonds
De Beers Headquarters
London, U.K.
De Beers holds 40% of the world's market share in diamonds. But don't imagine the company's Charterhouse Street headquarters has vaults ankle-deep in sparkle. At any given time only "a few weeks" of supply are stocked there, a spokesman says, with an estimated value around $5 billion, according to press reports. In March, Botswana will become the new king of the diamond trade, when De Beers and the Botswana government unveil an $80 million state-of-the art sorting facility there.

Emeralds
Muzo, Colombia
Colombia dominates the emerald market, and Victor Carranza dominates Colombia's emerald business. His territory includes the Muzo region, near Bogata. He is credited with stopping drug cartels from trying to take over the emerald mines during the 1980s, but more recently ran into trouble himself when he was arrested in 1998 and charged with organizing death squads. He was released from prison in 2002.

Rubies
Myanmar And Chataburi, Thailand
About 90% of the world's rubies come from Myanmar, the subject of considerable controversy these days. Last year, there were widespread calls for boycotts of government auctions of raw gems. U.S. first lady Laura Bush said buying the gems supports the "repressive" government of Myanmar, which, last October, resorted to a violent suppression of protests by monks and students. Once plucked from the ground, most rubies are sent to Chataburi, Thailand, to be cut

Sapphires
Sri Lanka And Madagascar
Sapphires are mined in Sri Lanka and Madagascar, but, like rubies, are sent to Thailand, and increasingly, to Hong Kong, for cutting.

Platinum
Various Sites
Unlike the other metals, platinum is spoken for almost before it leaves the ground. The mines are mostly in South Africa. Platinum, which trades at about $1,600 an ounce, is in high demand by manufacturers of flat screen televisions, iPods and other consumer electronics, and makers of catalytic converters. In Europe, it's also used in diesel fuel production.

Monday, January 28, 2008

BEST BRANDS 2007


Brand Name
1Coca-Cola
2Microsoft
3IBM.
4GE.
5Nokia
6Toyota
7Intel
8McDonald's
9Disney Walt Disney
10Mercedes-Benz
11Citi Citigroup
12Hewlett-Packard.
13BMW
14Marlboro
15American Express
16Gillette
17Louis Vuitton
18Cisco
19Honda
20Google

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Hot companies in America


Forbes announced their 10th year of selecting the 400 Best Big Companies in America. Top companies in terms of revenue are given below.
1.Bank of America- $19970m
2.Chevron-$17585m
3.JP Morgan Chase-$16920m
4.Microsoft-$14876m
5.Toyota Motor-$13927m
6.Berkshire Hathway-$13852m
7.AT&T-$10753m
8.Procter Z& Gamble-$10721m
9.Johnson & Johnson-$10370m
10.Wells Fargo-$8987m
11.GlaxoSmithkline-$8296m
12.Cisco Systems-$7930m
13.Hewlwtt-Packard-$7264m
14.Metlife-$7062m
15.Philips Electronics-$6816m
16.Intel-$6206m
17.PepsiCo-$6180m

Sunday, January 20, 2008

What Consumers' Wants in the Future?


The consumer needs are indeed changing and the way they behave in the future will be different from what we are used to as an industry today. The key areas the retailers and manufactures has to look into and the consumer expect are:

1.Shopper Dialogue:
Establish and maintain a true two-way dialogue with individual consumers.
Improve your face to the shopper – both in physical stores and online.
Take advantage of emerging technologies.
2Information Sharing:
Be transparent in your information management.
Manage consumer information (personal profiles) effectively.
3.Synchronized Production:
Personalize the offerings – and be able to deliver.
4.Integrated Logistics/ Home Delivery:
Extend the distribution chain to the consumer’s home.
Consider new integrated approaches for streamlining neighborhood services.
5.Sustainability:
Address sustainability in a serious manner – and communicating about it.
6.Company Culture and Behavioral Changes:
Being open to new ways of working – driven by consumers.

Friday, January 18, 2008

MEASURING INNOVATION


Better measurement practices will yield more better, which can translate into a significantly higher return on innovation spending.
According to a report by BCG one of the best ways to think about what does and doesn’t need to be measured is through the lens of the cash curve. The cash curve is a depiction of the cumulative cash investments and returns for an innovation over time, from idea generation through to the point when the product or service is removed from the market.
The curve makes explicit four factors that affect the success of an innovation and its ability to generate a return. Those factors are
1.Start-up costs or prelaunch investment:
a)The number of full-time staff involved
b)Operating expenses
c)Capital expenditures
2.Speed or time to market:
a)Actual time to market
b)Time to key checkpoints
c)Actual versus planned full-time-employee hours
3.Scale:
a)Actual versus planned volume produced.
b)Actual versus planned product availability
c)Actual versus planned distribution.
4.Support costs:
a)Cannibalization of existing products in the portfolio
b) Pricing actions
c) Marketing and promotional activities

Viewing the measurement efforts through the lens of the curve, in combination with the frame work of inputs, process and outputs will enable the company to develop measurement systems that capture the data executives need in order to manage the innovation process more profitably.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES PHARMA/BIOTECH/HEALTHCARE


1.Pfizer
2.Genentech
3.Merck
4.Amgen
5.Johnson & Johnson
6.GlaxoSmithKline
7.Novartis
8.Eli Lilly
9.Roche
10.Bristol-Myers Squibb

MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES--FINANCIAL SERVICES


1.Citigroup
2.Goldman Sachs
3.Bank of America
4.ING Group
5.Fidelity Investments
6.HSBC
7.Charles Schwab
8.American Express
9.JP Morgan Chase
10.Merrill Lynch

MOST INNOVATIVE TECHNOLGY COMPANIES


TECHNOLOGY/TELECOM
1.Apple
2.Goggle
3.Microsoft
4.Cisco systems
5.AT&T
6.Nokia
7.Verizon
8.IBM
9.Intel
10.Motorola

Friday, January 11, 2008

Bank on Lean Advantage


The imprint of operations on a bank’s performance is hard to overstate-and extends well beyond the back office. Although the word operations implies something mechanical, perhaps impersonal-such activities and processes have a profound impact on customer satisfaction and retention. In the late 1970’s, for example, Toyota began reengineering operations to deliver not only huge cost efficiencies but also a superior customer experience, which led to an enviable strategic advantage.
The BCG has used similar approach in financial services, they identified four phases,
1.Understand the drivers of customer value: Defining the optimal customer experience and the sources of customer value.
2.Define the target operating model: Review the operating model as a whole to determine how to transform end-to-end processes and deliver customer value.
3.Implement cell-based transformation: Segment the organization into cells to ensure that change occurs systematically and in manageable increments.
4.Pursue continuous improvement: Following the initial transformation, keep the cells in tact to continue finding ways to improve operations

Eight business technology trends to watch


A number of new and emerging technologies, many aimed at enhancing the way Internet is used, promise to change how companies innovate, managers make decisions, and business lower costs, tap talent, or realize new business opportunities.
Although technology always promises benefits, actually gaining them requires a good understanding of its real business implications and of the concomitant managerial changes. The trends fall within three broad areas of business activity: managerial relations, managing capital and assets, and leveraging information in new ways.
According to Mckinsey report the eight business technology trends to watch are:
1.Distributing co creation
2.Using consumers as innovators.
3.Tapping into a world of talent.
4.Extracting more value from interactions.
5.Expanding frontiers of automation.
6.Unbundling production from delivery.
7.Putting science in Management
8.Making businesses from information.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

The Logistical Challenges of Doing Business in India


India has long been a fertile ground for sourcing highly skilled IT and engineering services, but it’s estimated that manufacturing and retailing is the next boom.Fueled by a rising young, highly-educated, middle-class population, India’s economic boom is not expected to slow in the near future.
Currently, India sits atop the global retail opportunity index as the greatest underserved market in the world. This has significant opportunities for companies waiting to sell in this market. India’s retail industry, the 9th largest globally and valued at $330 billion, is mostly divided among 12 million 'mom-and-pop’ stores. But as the consumer market grows and demand for more luxury items increases, global leaders are hoping the planned $1 trillion in new investments in mall retail space, logistics infrastructure, and distribution capability will open opportunities to create organized retailing—multi-branded hypermarkets and mall-style shopping experiences.
Logistics’ Infrastructure Will Slow India’s Progress:
1.Insufficient channels: India is a diverse market, with 28 different states and many languages. Companies accustomed to national distribution agreements will find those opportunities virtually non-existent.
2.Limited physical infrastructure: These national highways account for less than 2 percent of the total road network, but carry 40 percent of the traffic. This is one reason the average speed in India is 20 miles per hour, compared to the West’s 60 miles per hour.
3.Over-burdened ports: Over-burdened ports:India has a long coastline, but its port system isn’t well utilized. 180 minor ports go virtually unutilized.. Even within its large ports, India can’t support 6,000 TEU containerships, which make up 25 percent of today’s shipping volume.
4.Disorganized trucking operations: Two-thirds of fleets have less than five vehicles, making it difficult for shippers to manage the plethora of carriers required to handle shipment volumes.
5.Limited technology basis: Firms don’t use technology to plan, execute or communicate logistics operations

Measuring the immeasurable


The rise of the "intangible economy" shows no sign of abating. Traditionally, companies have been valued on the strength of their financial and tangible assets, but the elements of business which drive real value in today's economy are R&D, innovation, customer relationships, staff motivation, loyalty and intellectual know-how. The question is, how do you measure something defined as intangible?
The Standard and Poor's method:
One of the most effective mechanisms for representing non-numerical data is the Standard and Poor's method, which has been used successfully in over 200 organizations. It uses a very simple but effective scale to express non-tangible value. The scale ranges from a score of AAA (maximum score), AA, A, BBB etc., to the lowest score of D for a category of measurement. The key to using this scale successfully is to ensure that the lowest levels of data are captured correctly through analysis and questionnaires, so the data feeds upward into a justifiable final rating.
This scoring method facilitates not just the provision of "health and vitality" measures of a business, but is also ideal for inter-departmental comparisons or for merger and acquisition decisions. In addition to measuring intangibles in this way, most companies will also want to measure business risk. The same principles can be applied using a scale of R (minimal risk) to RRR (maximum risk). Again, the final scoring is generated from the data collected through analysis and targeted questionnaires.

Defining 2.0


Terms To Know
It’s easier to show than tell, so here’s a quick rundown of nine 2.0 terms along with a representative link.
1. Blogs: Interactive online journal or commentary on one or many topics (see http://forums.industryweek.com).
2. Collective intelligence: any system that attempts to tap the expertise of a group. Examples include Dell’s Idea storm “crowd sourcing project” and the research connection site www.yourencore.com.
3. Mashups: aggregations of content from different online sources to create a new application or service. See a Google map mashup of the IW Best Plants 2006 winners at www.industryweek.com/iwbestplantsmashup.
4. Podcasts: audio or video recordings available over the Internet, such as the IFS Radio Network, available at http://ifsradionetwork.na.ifsworld.com.
5. RS (Really Simple Syndication): a method of pushing internet content to subscribers. Subscribe to the IW RS news feed for up-to-the-minute manufacturing information at www.industryweek.com/rss.
6. Social networking: online communities that allow members to learn about each others’ skills, talents, knowledge, etc. Some companies use internal systems to help identify experts, or use external networks, such as www.LinkedIn.com for recruiting.
7. Web services: systems that automatically communicate to pass information or conduct transactions over the Internet, such as online inventory updates or the free Goggle Apps software-as-a-service office suite.
8. Web widgets: scripted online tools that present an easily accessible way of viewing and performing independent tasks on one Web page (visit www.pageflakes.com).
9. Wikis: systems that allow users to add and edit content for collaborative publishing. Visit www.socialtext.com/ wikinomics to view the continually evolving last chapter of this bestselling book.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Popular business Strategies


Here are few examples of firms’, popular business strategies that have pursued them:
•Grow larger (General Electric, AHERF).
•Downsize (Avon, Sara Lee).
•Diversify into new markets (Wal-Mart, PepsiCo).
•Dominate a niche (Starbucks, Jiffy Lube).
•Outsource the production process (Nike, IKEA).
•Integrate the production process (Armani, Tiffany).
•Become the cost leader, even if quality is sacrificed (Kia, Motel 6).
•Become the quality leader, even if costs increase (BMW, Four Seasons Hotels, Samsung).
•Drive rivals from the market (Philip Morris, Microsoft).
•Cooperate with rivals (Philip Morris, Soy).
•Be an innovator (Intel, Philips Electronics).
•Be an imitator (Microsoft, Dell Computer).

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

How to win emerging consumer markets


What must global consumer businesses do in emerging countries that is radically different? How should consumer goods multinationals target the right markets? What sort of business model is needed for emerging markets, and how does it differ from the model to which multinationals are accustomed? What strategies and organizations work most effectively in countries such as Indonesia, Brazil, India and China?
The most important lessons for what it takes to build a large and profitable presence in emerging markets can be summarized in five rules:
1. Reach the masses: Manage affordability
Structuring their product lines for the emerging-market consumer requires that multinationals challenge their product development process and investments.Reaching the masses frequently means that consumer goods companies need to rethink their product lines with a sharp eye on the price/performance equation. In India, Unilever was ambushed by a local detergent maker, Nirma, that captured a substantial portion of the market with a low-cost alternative to Unilever's premium brands.
2. Be ubiquitous: Invest in distribution
Distribution is one of the most challenging problems for consumer-products businesses in emerging markets. While supermarket and hypermarket retailers are increasingly present in major capital cities, consumers living on the peripheries of these cities and in the countryside continue to purchase the large majority of goods through local shops.
Interestingly, despite the limited financial means of the emerging market consumer, branding could well be more important in these markets than it is in markets such as the United States or Western Europe. In part, this is due to the aspirational attraction that strong brands have for lower-income consumers, particularly in "badge" categories.
4. Play to win: Pick your fights well
Multinationals must play to win in the emerging markets. Too many companies fool around in the high end of these markets and remain timid about investment. Rather than shielding these companies from losses, this flag-planting strategy only exacerbates them.
5. Be local: Foster emerging-market entrepreneurs
The extreme volatility and unconventional business methods in emerging markets require different management skills than are needed in mature, Western markets. For emerging market managers, raging inflation, currency swings, new taxes, continually changing business regulations and interest-rate instability are all part of the normal macroeconomic environment.

Threats to growth in china


Executives see a variety of social, economical, and environmental threats to china’s continued growth and development. They economic and social issues are far more important than environmental ones.
For instance, though 63 percent of the respondents cite pollution as a threat to the growth, when asked to weigh it against economic and social issues, 80 percent choose a treat other than pollution as the most significant.
Across all issues, pollution is the only health or environmental issue among the top five. The other issue poses the greatest threat to China’s continued growth and development:
1. Rising income inequality
2. Poor enforcement of commercial laws and regulations
3. Shortage of qualified talent
4. Aging population
5. Official corruption
6. Weak financial institutions.

The story of slice


Slice is a carbonated soft-drink that was introduced by Pepsi-cola as both a sugared product and a diet product. It would have recommended as slice be a die only? The reason for this recommendation is to better position slice as fitness and a health product.
The diet-only strategy also would have ignored the sugar element, which represents 80 percent of the market. So the slice was introduced as a two-way planner. It’s done well but in our opinion not as well as it could have done as a pure diet product only.
As things turned out, the diet segment of the drink market is growing at the expense of the sugared versions. Currently 27 percent of all the cokes sold, for example, are of the diet variety. With slice, as you might expect, the variety outsells the sugar version. By focusing on the diet version only, we believe that the product would have an even higher market share. The advertising would have been better focused on fitness and health.
“Slice add the fruit juice and subtracts the calories”, for example. Individual products do it always ”Follow the market”, in spite of the fact that sugared products represent 73 percent of the Cola market, the diet version of the caffeine free cola outsells the sugared version more than four to one.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Sensex


The size of the worldwide 'bond market' is estimated at $45 trillion. The size of the 'stock market' is estimated at about $51 trillion.
Outstanding Shares:
Stock currently held by investors, including restricted shares owned by the company's officers and insiders, as well as those held by the public. Shares that have been repurchased by the company are not considered outstanding stock.
Also referred to as "issued and outstanding" if all repurchased shares have been retired.
This number is shown on a company's balance sheet under the heading "Capital Stock" and is more important than the authorized shares or float. It is used to calculate many metrics, including market capitalization and earnings per share (EPS).
Float:
The total number of shares publicly owned and available for trading. The float is calculated by subtracting restricted shares from outstanding shares.
Sensex:
The index is calculated based on a free-float capitalization method when weighting the effect of a company on the index. This is a variation of the market cap method, but instead of using a company's outstanding shares it uses its float, or shares that are readily available for trading. The free-float method, therefore, does not include restricted stocks, such as those held by company insiders that can't be readily sold.
To find the free-float capitalization of a company, first find its market cap (number of outstanding shares x share price) then multiply its free-float factor. The free-float factor is determined by the percentage of floated shares to outstanding. For example, if a company has a float of 10 million shares and outstanding shares of 12 million, the percent of float to outstanding is 83%. A company with an 83% free float falls in the 80-85% free-float factor, or 0.85, which is then multiplied by its market cap (e.g., $120 million (12 million shares x .$10/share) x 0.85 = $102 million free-float capitalization).

Sunday, January 6, 2008

A Look at the U.S. Auto Industry


Early history of automobile manufacturing:
It did not start in Detroit:
– First auto manufacturing company, Duryea Motor
Wagon Company of Springfield, MA, in 1895
– As many as 3,000 firms organized to produce autos
– More than half of these clustered in Northeast
– Most never entered into commercial production
– Like the Internet boom of the 1990s?
1904 Census revealed Michigan to be
center of production for 42% of all cars, up
to 51% 5 years later
Why Michigan?
– Southeastern Michigan was already a center for
machine shops specializing in gasoline engines (which
quickly became dominant engine)
, Southeastern Michigan also a center for carriage
makers with experience building chassis
Southeastern Michigan was well endowed with wealthy
entrepreneurs looking to invest fortunes made in the
copper, iron, and lumber industries
– Henry Ford’s first two automotive ventures collapsed,
but he was still able to obtain financing for his third
venture
– Ford’s failed second venture was renamed Cadillac,
went on to become an important component of General
Motors
• Ford’s early dominance:
– Ford’s (3rd) company, founded in 1903, took national
sales leadership in 1906 with 8,700 cars (twice as many
as second-place Cadillac)
– Unlike competitors, who focused on small-scale
production of “high-end” cars, Ford focused narrowly
on maximizing sales of low-priced cars through
productivity improvements, lowering prices as
production-improvements and economies of scale
lowered coststechnology rather than higher dividends
– Ford dominated auto sales until 1920s, was the
principal contributor to Detroit’s dominance
Ford’s early dominance
– Introduced the moving assembly line and Model T in
1908-1909
– Cost of Model T declined from 7 months of a Ford
assembly line worker’s wages in 1908 to less than 3
months in 1916
– This brought millions of middle-class families into the
market for autos
– By 1920, half the cars in the world were Model T
Fords!
– Product diversity, options strictly limited by Ford to
maximize standardization, production efficiency.
(“You can have any color car you want, so long as it’s
black.”)
GM’s marketing counter-revolution
– General Motors founded in by William Durant in 1908,
acquired several other auto companies and the
marketing genius of Alfred Sloan
– Formed GMAC in 1919 to help new car buyers finance
purchases
– Created a differentiated product line of comfortable,
stylish, easily operated cars; introduced annual model
changes
• Self-starter
• Other significant technological improvements
– Facilitated a more active used car market to encourage
buyers to “trade up” for newer models
GM’s marketing counter-revolution
– Ford had continued too long with an increasingly
“stale” technology
– Ford was forced to shut down production, drastically
re-tool as GM grabbed market share during the “roaring
20s”
– Fueled by booming economy, consumer credit, stock
market wealth, demand for autos soared – U.S. had 1
car for 5 people, a ratio not exceeded until the 1950s
– Ford caught up with GM in market share just as the
stock market crashed
The Great Depression
– Sales of automobiles collapsed 1930-32, rebounded
slowly
– GM recovered, exceeded late 1920s sales levels by end of the 1930s
– Ford continued to languish under the increasingly
erratic leadership of Henry Ford, who was quite
unhinged by the end of the decade
– Ford would have gone bankrupt without WWII
• World War II
– Military procurement contracts increased demand
– Most of the auto industry in Europe, Japan effectively
bombed out of existence
– Technological improvements made during the war were
applied to postwar auto production
• Better automatic transmissions
• Functional power steering and brakes
• V-8 engines
• Air conditioning
The Fat Years, 1950-1967
– Smaller producers went bankrupt or exited auto
production (Kaiser, Studebaker, Packard, Nash,
Hudson) leaving three large domestic manufacturers
– Imports were less than 10 percent of sales (U.S. gas
prices, driving conditions quite different from those in
Europe or Japan)
– Despite rapidly rising wage costs, industry profitability
remained substantially above the profit rate for all U.S.
manufacturing
– Evidence of monopoly profits: the 1955 Price War
– U.S. companies
• The Japanese invasion
– German imports of 1950s, 1960s never accounted for
much of the market
– Imports of Japanese cars soared after the second oil
shock
– Japanese firms had quality, price advantages which
devastated U.S. industry profits, sales
– Big 3 forced to retool, rush new, smaller models into
production
– Chrysler slid into bankruptcy, Ford and UAW
petitioned government for import relief
• The auto industry in the 1980s
– Expansion of Japanese production overseas
– Luxury sedan market increasingly dominated
by European, Japanese brands
– U.S. industry pioneered, dominated increasingly
popular “light truck” market segment
• Minivans
• Sport Utility Vehicles
• Vans
• Trucks
The Global Auto Industry in 2000
• Mergers and Consolidations, 1999-2000
– $38 billion merger of Daimler-Benz, Chrysler
– VW acquires Rolls Royce plants, products; BMW
acquires Rolls Royce name
– Renault partially acquires Nissan
– Ford acquires Volvo
– Ford consolidates hold on Mazda
– GM, Ford bid for Daewoo Motors
– Follows up on other prominent mergers


– Ford plowed large percentage of profits into innovative

The China Price


THERE ARE THREE FEARED WORDS in the developed markets, and now they are beginning to rattle nerves in India, too. The China Price. When buyers utter those words, he’s asking you to cut the prices as much as 40 percent, since that likely to be the difference between our prices and that of the Chinese supplier. And it doesn’t matter what we manufacture-it could be chemicals, silk, auto, components, toys, or footwear. The China Price is the new reality that every manufacturer based outside of the Middle Kingdom must grapple with everyday.

“IDEAS ARE NEW CURRENCY IN CORPORATE WORLD”


“IDEAS ARE NEW CURRENCY IN CORPORATE WORLD”.The computer industry is a good example for the power of a concept. For the first time in its life, IBM has competitors that are giving it trouble in the office market. DEC has become especially troublesome with its “ single operating system” approach to selling mini computer. At the other end of the scale, Apple has began to make progress with a concept” Desktop publishing”. This idea captured the imagination of many users.
If you were a marketing manager at IBM, what would you do about this new found competition?
Well, so far it has pursed the better product, better-sales-effort, break through advertising approach to regain control of a market it had dominated.
No, one does the more-is-more approach better than IBM.
It introduced not one, not two, but a whole new generation of Pc’s, the personal system. It also started to advertise not one, not two, but five different mid-range computer systems.
It dramatically beefed up its sales force, sending thousands more salesperson into the field. Even its CEO, John Akers, got into the act as he met with customer groups, promising them IBM would listen better to their suggestions and complaints.
Not to be outdone, IBM and folks checked in some breakthrough advertising. Charlie Chaplin was shown the door and was replaced by not one, but the entire cast from M.A.S.H including Alan Alda.
So, far all this effort hasn’t slowed DEC or Apple down one bit as they continue to show important gains in the office market.
And IBM’s introduction of “Personal Publishing” appears to have gone all but unnoticed as companies continue to purchase Apple’s “Desktop Publishing”, in a big way.
But, first IBM has to recognize the nature of the battle. From the very outset, the computer was have been a battle of ideas and concepts.
IBM first introduced the concept of “Data processing”, with mainframe computer. DEC countered the big computer idea with the concept of a “mini computer” that allowed us to do “Office processing”, Apple then rode the concept of the “Personal computer”, for the home and school. IBM laid claim to the “office”, personal computer.
Other players built businesses around concepts. Many did well with “word processing”, Cray prospered with “super computers”. Tandem took off with its “Dual Processing” systems.
Each of the big winners has one thing in common:
“THEY HAVE AN IDEA OR CONCEPT TO WIDE”.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Why Outsourcing Is In

Earlier this year, IBM entered into a $5 billion manufacturing outsourcing arrangement with the Sanmina-SCI Corporation, an electronics contract manufacturer. Straightforward financial reasons justify the outsourcing — but, more important, the agreement supports overall business strategy at both companies. The deal also offers an archetype of a broader trend: strategic operations outsourcing.
In the past, outsourcing focused on tactical, nonessential activities such as payroll processing or manned security stations. But the focus is shifting. Strategic operations outsourcing encompasses core activities — such as manufacturing or logistics — that could substantially affect a business if not performed well. The best companies pursue it through a critical reevaluation of their positions along industry value chains, aiming to improve financials in mature businesses. When multiple companies in or around an industry come to the same strategic conclusion, a reinforcing cycle of strategic outsourcing can initiate a fundamental restructuring of entire industries. Understanding the motivations that drive strategic outsourcing and the appropriate way to apply it positions your company to drive such restructuring in the industry, rather than merely react to it.
Why do companies outsource? Over the last decade, the reasons have shifted as strategic needs have evolved. Think of the motivations as six overlapping waves that reflect emerging strategic priorities:
Factor cost advantage
• Superior competency
• Asset transfer
• Utilization improvement
• Economy of scale
• Business risk mitigation

Not Every Customer Is Created Equal


As a service company, you're obviously continually looking for more and more clients to serve. After all, attracting clients is how most companies grow. But when you say, I want more clients," you really mean, "I want more profitable clients."
Anybody can attract clients, but a company that is going to build a history of growth is going to be one that attracts profitable clients. As you know, not every client is going to be profitable, and as a result not all customers are created equal.
Think about it in this stripped-down fashion. If you spend $200 to get a new homeowner in your area to call you for a service call, but that service call only generates $80 of revenue for you, you've lost money. Even if that service call generated $200 for you, you'd wind up losing money when the costs of the call are taken into account.
So, who are the profitable clients and how do you attract them?
When you think about attracting profitable clients, the secret is that you've probably already got mem. The most profitable clients for your business will always be your loyal clients.
Most of the marketing that companies employ today is focused on attracting the highly sought-after new customer. The competition for new customers is high and the cost is even higher. Do you know what your acquisition cost for a new customer is? If you haven't figured it out in awhile, the figure might shock you.
Attracting those new clients is important because it's the first step to creating a loyal client. But taking that customer relationship into the realm of loyalty requires you to shift some of your focus and marketing dollars away from that hunt for new clients.
Focusing on retaining loyal clients will produce tremendous rewards for your company because over their lifetime, loyal customers will be much more profitable for you, and creating a team of loyal clients who consistently buy from you is the best way to achieve profitability for the future.
That extended profitability is just one of the benefits of loyal clients.
Here are a few other reasons why you may want to refocus your marketing strategy on retaining your best clients:
Marketing Savings. If you focus more of your energy on retaining your clients and servicing them at a high level, you'll need fewer new clients to keep your team busy. That means you can lower the amount you spend going after those new clients.
Higher Marketing ROI. Since your loyal clients know and trust you, every dollar that you spend on them will have a much higher return than a dollar you spend on attracting a new client that may only use you once.
More Trust Means More Options. That trust in your company means that loyal clients will trust your technicians more while they are there in the house. Increased trust means they'll put more stock in the recommendations your team gives them for improving their home and comfort.
Referral Sources. If a client likes and trusts you, there is a much higher probability that they'll tell someone else about you. Not only does that give you great word of mouth advertising, it can generate some immediate referrals.
Repeat Business. When your company is slow and you need calls, you can turn to your loyal client list. Offer them a special deal on a product that may interest them. Since they know your company and you know what needs their home may have, you can tailor an offer specifically to them.
Reduced Price Sensitivity. Every business owner worries about raising their prices, but the truly loyal clients don't buy from you based on price. Other factors like trust, likeability, and service rank much higher. So when the time comes for you to raise your prices to keep pace, you won't have to worry about these loyal clients jumping ship.
Employees' Benefits. When your clients like your company from the start, each call will be easier for your technicians. They may even build a relationship with that client where they are requested each time by name. When your team sees the same customers again and again, they'll develop a comfort level that will make every call more enjoyable. That boosted morale will help you retain even more clients!
As we approach the end of the year and the time comes to make your marketing budget for 2008, take a second look at where you're placing those marketing dollars. You'll get a much higher return if you point a few more of them toward retaining the clients you've fought so hard to win

VistaPrint's Marketing Plan a Lesson To All


VistaPrint has flourished on an international scale in large part due to its simple business plan. It aims to be a leading online supplier of high-quality graphic design services and customized printed products to small businesses and consumers.
The plan is working as more than 10 million small businesses and consumers have used VistaPrint for printed products ranging from business cards and brochures to letterhead.
While its marketing plan sounds simple, executing it on such a scale is anything but. VistaPrint receives an average of more than 22,000 orders per day, ships to customers in more than 120 countries, and employs more than 1,000 people worldwide.
"The biggest challenge facing printers is differentiating their product so they are not competing solely on price," said Trynka Shineman, who joined VistaPrint in 2004, and is responsible for customer retention and growing the lifetime value of its customer base.
Are you wondering how much of your total budget should be devoted to marketing? VistaPrint's advertising spending in a recent quarter was $14.7 million, or 20 percent of revenue. "Companies should spend on marketing where marketing has proven to be effective and try to allocate an additional budget for ongoing testing," advised Ms. Shineman.
Similarly, while deciding on a precise amount of time to maximize your marketing efforts will forever be a subject of debate, Ms. Shineman offered the following: "The time spent on marketing should be relative to the company's size and the success of its marketing programs. As with budget, the more time and energy you focus on testing and improving your marketing campaigns, the better the results."
The most successful printers know who their target customer is and what they want. The ability to regularly find such niches, provide superior service while developing new ones, and invest in the latest technology will almost always serve as a recipe for success

FaceBook


The world has Facebook fever.Launched just three years ago by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook has become the "it" company of the tech world. An entire industry has sprouted up around the site seemingly overnight, as everyone from software wizards to marketing honchos rush to figure out how to make money from a user base that has ballooned to 41 million. In May, Facebook opened its software platform to applications from outside developers, preempting every major Web 2.0 competitor. Inside the eye of the Facebook maelstrom, in the company's three-building headquarters in Palo Alto, the mood is calm. The staff size has increased by 50% in the past six months. Facebook's strategy is already part Microsoft and part Google. Like Microsoft, Zuckerberg and his team are trying to build a communications platform (in Facebook's case, a socially based one) upon which other functions can be layered. Like Google, Facebook is dedicated to serving its users first, adhering to a deeply felt philosophy of openness.

Stock market Tips


VERY IMPORTANT RULE
Rule 1: dont lose money
Rule 2: dont forget Rule 1
--Warren.E.buffet



How to earn in Bullish Indian stock market.

1. Always remember this is your hard earned money not anyone’s. So you have to take care of it and be cautious at every level, if you are taking calls from processionals then also.

2. Always follow Indian stock market.

3. When market falls, don't panic, when market zooming don't be overjoyed as you can earn and loose both ways around.

4. If market goes up you first buy and then sell and if Indian stock market goes down, you first short and then buy.

5. Never hesitate to ask for professional’s advice

Some useful tips, which transformed me from a Novice to a Professional Trader:
1. Never ever convert the Intraday losing positions to Delivery.

2. Never ever Exit the trade in the assumption or fear of the Stop being hit.

3. Never ever hold the trade once the stop is hit.

4. Never ever Buy/Sell because it’s cheap/expensive.

5. Never ever increase your trading size unless your capital doubles.

6. Never ever exit your winning trade in a hurry, ride it till the market throws you out of the trade by

7. Never ever over trade and wait for the next low risk entry.


Technical Analysis....
Basic Principles

Technical Analysis is based on these three basic principles:

#1 - Price Discounts Everything

Technical analysts believe that the current price fully reflects all information. Because all information is already reflected in the price, it represents the fair value, and should form the basis for analysis. After all, the market price reflects the sum knowledge of all participants, including traders, and …

Stock Market Technical analysis utilizes the information captured by the price to interpret what the market is saying with the purpose of forming a view on the future.

#2 - Prices Move in Trends

Technical analysts or chartists believe that profits can be made by following the trends. In other words if the price has risen, they expect it to continue rising; if the price has fallen, they expect it to continue falling. However, most technicians also acknowledge that there are periods when prices do not trend.

#3- History Repeats Itself

Technical analysts believe that investors en masse repeat their behavior and they assume that there is useful information hidden within price histories; that it is a way of analyzing the past actions of people in a particular market as reflected by their actual transactions.

Marketing Segments

Marketing’s basic mission is to create a difference between a company’s offering and that of its competitors on an attribute important to customers. To create differentiation, marketers use segmentation, targeting, and positioning, or STP. Market segmentation is the process of dividing the market into homogeneous groups of customers who respond similarly to a particular marketing mix of the four Ps—product, price, place, and promotion—the essential tactical tools for positioning the firm’s offer to the targeted segment. Not surprisingly, any marketing practitioner can comfortably converse in terms of market segments, target markets, and positioning.

Market segments: Divided by the four P’s:
Let us start by examining how marketers have traditionally conceptualized market segments and used them in practice. Conceptually, marketers begin by identifying market segments, then selecting the appropriate segment to target, finally positioning the company’s offer within the targeted segments using four P’s.
Market segmentation
Customers within any market rarely have similar needs and expectations. To uncover the various segments into which customers fall, the segmentation process identifies variables that will maximize the differences between the segments while simultaneously minimizing the differences within each segment. Creative segmentation help a company get closer to its customers by developing the appropriate differential marketing mix for each segment.
The ultimate segmentation scheme from the customer’s perspective is mass customization, where each customer is a distinct segment. A popular example of mass customization is Dell computers. Dell has the ability to configure each of its personal computers in response to an individual customer’s needs. For many other companies, the adoption of flexible production systems, quick-response supply chains, and shorter product development cycles has resulted in a relatively low cost of variety, enabling these companies get closer to the ideal of mass customization. Competitive pressures also forcing companies in this direction. However, most companies still must trade off between the company’s logic, where economics of scale push for larger and larger segments, and customer logic, which drives companies toward recognizing the unique needs of the individual customers.
The variables on which segmentation can occur are potentially numerous. In this sense segmentation is an art. It is lens through which to view the population of customers in an industry. Marketers must be continuously segmented and re-segmented to arrive at a scheme that delivers actionable segments. Actionable share three characteristics:
1. Distinctiveness: that is different segments respond differently to the marketing mix;
2. Identity : the ability to reasonably profile which customers fall within which segment;
3. Adequate size: so that development of tailored marketing programs for individual segments is economically viable for the firm.
Segmentation variables can be broadly classified into two categories:
1. Identifier: It begins by segmenting the market based on who the customers are, in the hope that the resulting segments behave differently in response to marketing mix variables. This is called a priori segmentation.
2. Response: The variables used to divide the market on the basis of how the customers behave, and then hopes that the resulting segments differ enough in terms of customer profile to enable identification. This is called as post hoc segmentation.
In practice, managers need both prior and post hoc processes to fine tune their understanding of market segments. Unfortunately, many firms frequently rely too heavily on a priori segmentation variables.

Targeting:
Targeting or target market selection is the process of deciding which market the company should actively pursue to generate sales. Firms choose between adopting undifferentiated, differentiated, or concentrated targeting strategies.

Undifferentiated: It attempts to target all customers with the same marketing mix. The most famous example is Henry ford’s alleged 1908 declaration about the Ford
Model T: “You can paint it any color, as long as it is black”. While this seems like an anathema to the marketing concept, there are conditions under which it is appropriate. If standardization lowers the cost of delivering the value proportion to unprecedented levels and opens up the industry to large numbers of new customers, then an undifferentiated strategy can be powerful.
A differentiated strategy: It simultaneously targets several market segments, each with a marketing mix. For example, ford motor company today has a portfolio of brands, including Astron Martin, Ford Jaguar, and Land Rover to attack various segments in the automobile market.
Finally,
A concentrated strategy: selects one segment and concentrates on serving it, as Porsche has historically done with its over-forty, male, college graduate; with income over $ 200,000 per annum segment. However, Porsche sub-segments using psychographics: Top guns are driven, ambitious types who expect to be noticed and care about power and control; Elitists are old money blue blooded who consider a car to be the transportation, not extension of one’s personality, no matter how expensive; Fantasists are Walter Mitty types who escape their cars and feel guilty about owning one; Proud patrons consider ownership an end itself; and Bon Vivants are worldly jetsetters and thrill seekers whose car heighten the excitement in their already Passionate lives.

Positioning:
Positioning is about developing a unique selling proposition (USP) for the target segment. A company’s USB should be both unique, that is, differentiated from other competitors, as well as selling, that is, appealing to the target customers. It is the reason that the firm exists in the market place and why consumers would miss the company if it ceased operations. A well articulated USP should be capable of being briefly communicated by competing the sentence: “ You should buy my product or service because…,” in completing this sentence, the answer should be driven by customer benefits, not product features. The inability in so results in either a price negotiation with the customer or a loss of the sale.
Volkswagen in the united states targeted a younger, more educated, more affluent demographic, and an adventurous, confident psychographic of customers who enjoy driving and even disobey speed limits. It positioned itself rationally as “affordable and German engineered “ and emotionally as “ different driving experience more connected to the road and the world”. Compared to Nissan, Honda , Toyota, customers perceive VW to be more drivable, more substantial, more individual, and more spirited. Compared to BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volvo, VW is more approachable, more likable, better value, and more human. The Point: Companies must be very specific in terms of their indented positioning or USP if they are to have any hope of being able to stand out among the clutter of choices confronting customers.


Strategic Segments:
Divided by the Three Vs
Market and service segments such as the above, which only require changes in the marketing mix, can be distinguished from strategic segments. Strategic segments are those segments that require distinct value networks, rather than just changes in the marketing mix. For example, Midas caters to the strategic segment that wants “fast mechanical repair” in the auto repair business, as opposed to the “guaranteed repair” offered by factory-authorized car dealers, “specialty repair” offered by the independent workshops, “heavy-duty accidental repair” performed by body shops, or the “do-it-yourself repair” for the automobile enthusiast. Each Marketing as Strategy of these strategic segments is associated with a unique set of key success factors. The identification of strategic segments helps the business unit manager determine which value network to deploy. If a company wishes to serve two different strategic segments, then it must develop two unique value networks. Instead of simply aligning the four Ps, as is the case with market segments, serving different strategic segments requires the alignment of other functions such as R&D or operations. As a result, instead of the four Ps, marketers find it more appropriate to think in terms of the three Vs—valued customer, value proposition, and value network.
Let us use the airline industry to illustrate in greater depth the concept of strategic segments and the three Vs model. In Europe, the leading low-cost airline is easyJet, which is modeled after Southwest Airlines in the United States. EasyJet has seen extraordinary success since November 1995, when it offered to fly travelers from London to Glasgow for a one-way fare of £29 with the slogan: “Fly to Scotland for the price of a pair of jeans!” Under the colorful leadership of its founder Stelios Haji-Ioannou (who prefers to be addressed by his first name only), easyJet has become a thorn in the sides of the traditional European Flag Carriers such as British Airways, Air France, KLM, and Swiss. Comparing the Flag Carriers and easyJet on the three Vs highlights the power of strategic segments.
Valued Customer—Who to Serve?
On the first V—valued customer, or who to serve—the traditional Flag Carriers like KLM and Swiss target everyone; however, their most valued customers are business travelers. In contrast to business travelers who pay from other people’s pockets, easyJet targets those customers who pay from their own pockets. While these tend to be predominantly leisure travelers, there are business people such as entrepreneurs and small business owners who also pay from their own pockets. Altogether, this is a large From Market Segments to Strategic Segments segment in Europe and one that was unhappy with the industry offerings until low-cost airlines such as easyJet and Ryanair emerged. These two segments are strategic segments because serving them effectively requires distinct value networks, rather than simply a differentiation of the marketing mix.
Value Proposition—What to Offer?
Value proposition, or what to offer to the valued customers, reveals stark differences between the two segments. Business travelers, whose bills are paid by their companies, are demanding, both in terms of services, such as seat comfort and business class, as well as freebies, such as free newspapers, meals, and frequent flyer miles. More legitimately, they also need seat selection, travel agents, and a worldwide network to save time, make seamless connections, and have the flexibility to change flights to accommodate their hectic schedules.
In contrast, while leisure travelers may enjoy the above services, when given the choice, they will forgo all of them for a lower price. Four questions developed by Professors Kim and Mauborgne provide a framework for understanding the creation of easyJet’s value proposition, and should be addressed by every company.

1. Which attributes that our industry takes for granted should be eliminated? This question forces companies to reflect on whether each of the attributes offered creates value for their valued customers. EasyJet’s conclusion was that free meals and travel agents could be eliminated. Instead, it sells snacks on the plane and 95 percent of its seats are sold through the Internet, while the remaining 5 percent are processed through their call center.
2. Which attributes should be reduced to below industry standards? This question pushes companies to consider whether the industry has overdesigned its products and services for their valued customers. EasyJet concluded . That it could reduce flexibility in flight changes and seat selection offered to passengers. All fares at easyJet are nonrefundable. However, if another flight is available, passengers may change flights by paying a penalty of £10 per leg plus the difference in fares between the two flights. Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. At check-in, passengers get a group boarding number tag, such as 1–25 or 26–50, so that they will arrive early for a good seat. Then, when boarding is announced for the passengers’ group tag, they take any available seat, thereby accelerating the boarding process. At other airlines, aircraft often wait for passengers with pre assigned seats who lack incentive to board quickly.
3. Which attributes should be increased to above industry standards? This question presses companies to understand the compromises that the industry currently forces its customers to make. For example, compared to the rest of the industry, easyJet strives for lower prices, greater punctuality, and a younger fleet of airplanes.
4. Which new attributes should be created that the industry has never offered? This question forces companies to think about what new sources of value creation exist within the industry. On this dimension, easyJet decided to offer only one-way fares, refunds if there is a delay of four hours or more, and ticket less travel. The value proposition of easyJet can be graphically contrasted with that of the Flag Carriers using a tool called the value, the Flag Carriers are superior to easyJet on almost every dimension. But consider the attributes that are most important to air travelers. First, they want to reach their destination safely. The low price of easy- Jet raises particular concern in this respect. How can easyJet make safety, which is an intangible benefit, tangible? New planes are the obvious answer. Second, they want to arrive on time. By offering refunds if the plane is more than four hours late, which is rather difficult for the short hauls that key operate on, easyJet makes punctuality a perceived benefit. Along with these two benefits, it offers low prices and in return asks its customers to trade off all other attributes that they may get from a full-service airline. It has stripped the value proposition to its bare bones, beating the competition only on the absolutely necessary dimensions of the value proposition for its valued customers.

Value Network—How to Deliver?

On the third V—value network, or how to deliver the value proposition to the valued customer—easyJet has systematically redefined each component to deliver low prices at a profit. It achieves distribution savings of about 20 to 25 percent over other full-service carriers by not using travel agents, encouraging Internet sales, not participating in industry reservation systems such as Sabre, and not issuing paper tickets. Ten percent of its budget is spent on marketing, but it gets a much bigger bang for its buck by having in-your-face, attention-grabbing, opportunistic advertising that generates loads of free publicity. In addition, through the use of a sophisticated yield management tool it can maximize the revenues for each flight based on dynamic matching of supply and demand. As demand for a flight goes up, prices increase, and vice versa.

While the transformations in the marketing and distribution components are important, much of the savings in its value network is generated through radically streamlined operations). EasyJet’s operations are optimized for low costs through fast turnaround (the amount of time the plane is on the ground between flights) and greater utilization of airplanes. The exclusive use of a single type of airplane, the Boeing 737, reduces spare parts inventory, as well as training costs for pilots and maintenance personnel. It increases flexibility in interchanging planes, strengthens bargaining power with the vendor, and makes the yield management system easier to operate since the configuration
of each plane is identical. The elimination of the kitchen and business class enables it to fit 149 seats on a Boeing 737 compared to 109 for the competition. The lack of reassigned seating increases punctuality and turnaround time.

Reinventing the Value Network. At a more abstract level, there are five cost principles behind the construction of easyJet’s value network:
1. Avoid fixed costs whenever possible. For example, there are no secretaries in the organization. Even the CEO, Ray Webster, must open his own e-mails!
2. If there are any fixed costs, make them work harder than the rest of the industry. For example, easyJet planes are in the air for 11 hours a day, compared with the 6.5-hour average for the industry.
3. Eliminate generally accepted variable costs whenever it makes sense, such as travel agents.
4. Keep any variable costs to a minimum, such as airport fees.
5. Examine whether variable cost factors associated with services can be converted into revenue generators, as easyJet has done by selling snacks on the plane.

While perhaps not as applicable as they are for easyJet, these are principles that all firms could adopt.

Differentiate Deeply Based on the Value Network
Much of the competitive advantage of each type of company lies in distinct value networks. British Airways may try to offer easyJet’s low fares, but it will never make a profit doing so. So it launched GO, a low-price subsidiary, to compete with easyJet and Ryanair. However, when GO was part of British Airways (BA), the temptation was to constantly seek synergies in the value chain. Because these two airlines were serving different strategic segments requiring divergent value networks, any attempt to exploit synergies hurt both subsidiaries. The so-called synergies, or shared portions of the value network, were neither optimized for the low costs necessary for GO, nor the full service necessary for BA. As a result, BA divested GO and let it try to survive as an independent firm until easyJet eventually acquired it. In contrast, if one is serving two market segments, then much of the value network may be shared.

Firms need to align the three Vs. One cannot serve easyJet’s valued customers with the easyJet value proposition and have the value network of the traditional full-service airline company. The margins would simply be too small to generate a profit. Alternatively, one could not offer the full-service value proposition of the traditional airline with the value network of easyJet. The customer expectations with respect to service would never be met. When developing the three Vs, a company should ask:
(1) To what extent does our marketing concept differ from others in the industry?
(2) To what extent do elements of our marketing concept mutually reinforce each other?
Unlike decisions to serve new market segments, entering a new strategic segment requires a new value network, and is thus a major decision for the company often requiring the approval of the board of directors. For example, KLM operated its low-cost
carrier, Buzz, as a separate subsidiary and even looked for outside investors to help fund the expansion of Buzz. Yet, because there were no synergies between KLM and Buzz, Buzz was ultimately sold to Ryanair, despite the fact that low-cost air travel is the fastest growing and only profitable segment in the European airline industry.
Explore Different Value Network Options for Unique Segments
Many companies are struggling with the question of where to slice the value network to serve different segments. Consider the major food companies such as Danone, Nestlé, and Unilever, which sell famous branded products like Danone yogurt, Nescafe coffee, and Magnum ice cream through retailers. The increasing power of retailers combined with time-starved, affluent consumers has eroded grocery sales of branded products from 52 percent to 33 percent of the total consumer spending on food from 1982 to 1990 in the United Kingdom. On one hand, private labels pushed by powerful retailers have ncreased their share from 33 percent to 46 percent. On the other hand, time- mpoverished consumers with greater disposable income have helped increase the share of eating out from 15 percent to 21 percent.

In response to these consumer patterns, the multinational food companies have begun manufacturing private labels for major retailers as well as launching into the food service business by developing products and packaging specifically targeting hotels, restaurants, and cafeterias. As food companies try to serve the consumer segments that buy private labels or eat out, the issue of value network segregation is constantly raised.
Within these companies, the executives responsible for managing food service often complain that their business has completely different research and development needs and does not receive adequate attention from the firm, despite being the highgrowth sector in the company. They argue that the food service business is a strategic segment requiring a unique value network. Other executives in the same companies argue that the food service business is a market segment that can be managed effectively in combination with the branded products business. Their perspective is that each should have a dedicated sales force and unique packaging, but R&D and manufacturing should be shared between the two. As this example demonstrates, there is a continuum between strategic and market segments.
Drive Marketing Innovation Using the Three Vs
Marketing innovation can be conceptualized using the three Vs model by asking three questions:


1. Are there customers who are either unhappy with all of the industry’s offerings or are not being served at all?
Through posing this question, one can find tremendous opportunities to exploit. Think of all the HIVpositive people in Africa. The value networks of the major multinational pharmaceutical firms by sophisticated R&D, expensive insurance reimbursement– driven pricing practices, high marketing costs, and large profit margins—will never be able to generate a solution for them. Instead, these patients are waiting for a visionary to develop an “easyJet” value network that will deliver effective treatment to them. Or consider Progressive Insurance’s successful focus on high-risk individuals whom no other insurance company will cover.

2. Can we offer a value proposition that delivers dramatically higher benefits or lower prices, compared with others in the industry?
Virgin’s ability to pamper its passengers with massages and manicures is an example of a strategy driven by higher benefits. Or consider Zara’s strategy of copying catwalk fashions and offering them to customers faster and cheaper than the designers themselves can bring them to the market. The value curves are a clever way of clearly differentiating one’s value proposition. A graphic value curve is hard to fudge, forcing one to confront whether, and where, the firm’s value proposition is truly differentiated.
3. Can we radically redefine the value network for the industry with much lower costs? Dell in the personal computer business, Formula 1 in the hotel industry, and IKEA in furniture retailing are diverse examples of companies that have achieved this.

The four value proposition questions presented previously and the three questions above help conceptualize opportunities for marketing innovation in the industry. And using the three Vs to generate innovation clarifies that innovation is not the exclusive territory of technical R&D and product development people. Rather, marketers and strategists can contribute to innovation by discovering underserved or unhappy segments, offering new value curves, and reinventing industry value networks.
Exploit the Three Vs–Related Growth Opportunities
By combining the three marketing innovation questions from the previous section with an in-depth understanding of a company’s three Vs model, the company’s strategic growth map can be developed. Understanding where customers are not being served helps determine which markets and industries the firm should operate in or “who to serve.” Clarity in the winning formula and economic logic create the potential to offer dramatically different value propositions and help determine “what to offer.” Finally, the value network, or “how to deliver,” explicates the timing (when to move into which markets) and vehicles (how to get there) that will help enable the firm’s growth moves
Stelios Haji-Ioannou has innovated and diversified into at least two new businesses since starting easyJet. EasyInternetcafé is the first chain of large Internet cafés in the world.These cafés, open twenty-four hours a day and located all over Europe (as well as one in New York), allow consumers to surf the Internet on flat screens using high-speed connections for about £1 an hour. EasyCar is an Internet-reservation-only rental car company, which offered, at least initially, Mercedes A-class vehicles exclusively, for a price as low as £9 per day.
Of course, Stelios has incorporated many of the ideas from easyJet into his two new businesses by constantly asking: What are our core competences (things we know), strategic assets (things we own), and core processes (things we do)? The core competence of easyGroup is redefining the value chain of an industry at a significantly lower cost. Its strategic asset is the “easy” brand as a consumer champion. Its core process is yield management–based pricing systems. All of these are unique to the company, create value for the consumer, and can be transferred to other businesses. They are the platforms for exploiting growth and diversification opportunities.




Checklist for Marketers
On the Three Vs

Valued Customer

• Who are our valued customers?

• Are there customers who are unhappy with all the current offerings of the industry?

• Are there customers who have a need but are not being currently served by the industry?

• Are we trying to reach customers who are unaware that they need our product? If so, how are we going to create the need?

• Who is the user? The buyer? The influencer? The payer? What are the preferred criteria of each and their power in the buying decision?

• Is the target segment large enough to meet our sales objectives?

• What is the growth rate of the target segment?

Value Proposition

• What are the core needs we are trying to address with our value proposition?

• Does the value proposition fit the needs of our valued customers?

• What benefits are we actually delivering to the customers?

• Is our value proposition differentiated from the competitors or are we positioning in a crowded space?

• Are our value proposition claims reinforced by underlying product and service features?

• Are we positioning on attributes that we can defend againstcompetitive attacks?

• Are we positioning on too many benefits to be credible?

Value Network
• Can we serve the valued customers with the value proposition at a profit?

• Do we have the necessary capabilities to deliver the value proposition? If not, could we acquire or partner with them?

• Would serving the valued customers have negative consequences on our existing customers or businesses? If so, how are we going to control for this?

• Which high-cost or low-value-added activities could be eliminated, reduced, or outsourced in our value network?

• Where are the advantages of scale in our value network? Can we maintain scale while not losing flexibility?

• How different is our value network from the rest of the industry?

• What is our break-even point? Could we lower it by slightly varying the value network?

Challenges in Indian Auto industry

Competing in Global Industries:
Challenges for India:
Over the last decade, India’s manufacturing sector has changed
dramatically and emerged as the key to meeting the ambitious
nine percent growth target in the Tenth Five Year Plan.
Manufacturing is the logical engine to provide employment
growth in India, because the work force in the organized
sector—a core engine for growth—is currently only eight
percent.
The challenges are significant. There are numerous constraints
to growth, and India has its work cut out as it makes the
transition from being an attractive labor pool to a global
manufacturing power. Foremost among these are a paucity
of natural resources and highly skilled manpower, and an
ineffi cient regulatory mechanism. Beyond this, there is a
shortage of faculty in higher technological institutions, which
constrains India’s ability to fi ll the skilled manpower void.
High interest and tax rates are another problem, contributing
to a risk of losing employment and investment through fl ight
of capital. There is a need for low taxes, tight fi scal policy, and
monetary stability.
How, specifi cally, can India improve its competitiveness? There
are several priorities:
1. Infrastructure in various sectors: Urban infrastructure—
including power, telecommunications, ports, roads and
civil aviation, and legal infrastructure—demands attention.
This is not the sole responsibility of government: there
is a notion in the public mind that everything is the
government’s responsibility, but it is essential to encourage
the public and the government to think in terms of private
and public partnership. Some needs are quite specifi c and
urgent. For biotechnology, for example, common testing
facilities are crucial.
2. Market framework regulatory environment: India
must ensure fair competition and better access to markets,
conduct trade negotiations to provide a level playing
fi eld for domestic manufacturers, and reexamine the
regulatory accountability, rationalization and simplifi cation
of regulatory procedures. And the patent system requires
reform.
3. Cost competitiveness and domestic demand:
Reduction of import duties and domestic indirect taxes
enhanced World Trade Organization compatibility, export
incentives, facilitation and simplifi cation of FDI and, fi nally,
lower interest rates and labor reform could have a positive
effect on India’s manufacturing costs and domestic
demand.
4. Educational system and skill training: Quality improvement in vocational and higher technical education is particularly necessary. The severe shortage of faculty in higher educational facilities must be addressed.
5. Innovation and technology: Industry must create more opportunities for “chance to meet the prepared mind,” according to Professor Ananth. While it is important that we prepare minds, it is equally important that there should
be more exposure to the industry. Companies should invest at least two percent of their turnover on R&D. Right now it is under one quarter of one percent.
6. Benchmarking, for each sub-sector: Companies must assess technology in order to eliminate substandard technology imports. Consumers have to be educated about quality.
7. Small and Medium Enterprises and the Public Sector:
“The small-scale sector in India has been very vulnerable,” Prof. Ananth said. “In the last few years, there has been an awakening and the interest rates changed, but even now it is very vulnerable. We need to do something about it because, per unit of investment, the employment is much higher in the small scale sector. There is need for greater venture financing and possibly use of the cluster approach to development.” The top people in the private sector have often served in public sector enterprises for many years. The public sector is not able to retain them simply because of its inflexible and low salary structure. It is time, according to Prof. Ananth, that the government empowered the public sector to be able to retain its talent. These are some of the key policy initiatives required to make the manufacturing sector not only more competitive, but also responsive to the needs of the other sectors of the economy. For India, quite a lot depends on the future trajectory of manufacturing. With the right interventions now, the potential will be immense.
Competing in Global Manufacturing: Benchmarking
Indian Industry
In pursuing profi table growth, manufacturing organizations
worldwide create ever more complex supply chains, as well as
manufacturing, and distribution systems. These complexities
arise when companies attempt to reduce costs by reducing
their work force or by moving production, sourcing or
engineering, and when they pursue new markets and new
products.
These complexities create challenges around optimization,
innovation, collaboration, fl exibility and risk management.
Research shows that only a small minority of the companies
has overcome these paradoxes and they achieve signifi cantly
higher levels of profi ts and growth. The key to success, despite
operating in highly complex global supply chains, is their ability
to develop and synchronize activities and major processes
across the extended value chain.
Indian manufacturing companies are often overlooked as a
competitive force in the global manufacturing arena. Typically,
India is perceived as having great strength in technology
skills, so that the debate on outsourcing to India is focused
on technology. However, the present, preliminary research
shows that industry capabilities in areas such as product
innovation, manufacturing quality, and process innovation are
driving the performance of Indian manufacturing companies.
In fact, Indian manufacturers participating in the Deloitte
Global Benchmark Survey (which to date covers more than
800 manufacturing companies and business units around
the world) are outperforming their counterparts around the
world in terms of gross profi ts (EBIT) and sales growth. With
respect to operational capabilities, Indian manufacturers on
average have made greater inroads in key areas, such as quality
management, than the rest of the world.
Yet, this analysis also suggests that there are a number of key
areas that Indian manufacturers need to address to set an
agenda for growth that matches the great promise of Indian
industrial development:
• Lack of investment into R&D prevents many Indian
manufacturers from taking a lead in their sectors in global
competition.
• Lack of fi nancial capacity to build the production and
distribution capabilities needed to sustain double-digit
annual growth rates.
• Lack of scale in crucial areas of production, distribution,
and marketing/sales—key capabilities needed to effi ciently
access nation-wide and global markets.
• Lack of capabilities and investment in technology and
infrastructure to support rapidly growing domestic and
international business.
• High cost of funding expansion and working capital.
• Lack of managerial talent with international exposure in
the manufacturing sector to pursue international expansion
opportunities.
While the challenges are many, our preliminary global
benchmark research suggests that Indian manufacturers are in
a position to blaze a new trail for growth in both domestic and
international markets.

Economics and Indian Expansion:Lessons from the Automotive
Industry:
There is much to cheer about in regard to the growth in the
manufacturing sector in India, but also an historical context
that suggests loftier aspirations. When one starts to look at
what India’s aspirations ought to be, it is important to view this
in the context of history. Several centuries ago, India and China
dominated the world’s manufacturing output. From 1800 to
1900, the Western world’s share of the world’s manufacturing
output went from 25 percent to well over 75 percent—literally
in one century. Today, India accounts for only 1.7 percent of
world GDP. There is no reason why, for a country of India’s size
and population, India cannot aspire for a larger share of global
GDP and global manufacturing output.
A robust domestic market, with stable consumption trends
for two-wheel, passenger and commercial vehicles, is a key
to growing scale and gaining competitiveness. However, the
current ownership of vehicles per capita in India is one of the
lowest. Historical trends show an increase in auto ownership
as country per capita GDP increases, and there is reason for
optimism in India’s case. The BRIC report postulates that over
the next few decades India’s rate of GDP growth is bound
to exceed the other BRIC countries—namely Brazil, Russia
and China. The logical conclusion is that, if the GDP growth
continues in India, and it is stable and sustainable over a period
of time, manufacturing output represented by the vehicle
output or penetration is bound to grow. The bottom line is
that there is good reason to expect strong potential for home
market automobile demand as living standards rise in India.
The Indian market has evolved as a more natural economicmodel. Most passenger car sales in India are to private
individuals and private owners. Most are made through access
to money from fi nancing, or loans. Given that 85 percent of
these sales are fi nanced through loans, it indicates a widely
available economic structure for buyer behavior. In contrast,
in China, 85 percent of the cars sold are cash transactions,
indicating that loan availability is extremely poor. This
observation has caused analysts to forecast that the auto sector
will grow in India over the next decade. Demand crossed a
million units last year, and the expectation is that by the end of
this decade, demand should be well in excess of 1.6 million.
In a sense, both countries, India and China, are proceeding
along an inevitable curve in terms of vehicle ownership and per
capita income. Currently, India appears to be lagging China by
about 5-7 years. Compared to India’s passenger car sales of
one million units, China’s demand is at 3.5 million.
In fact, India will need to overcome several factors to surpass
China when it comes to manufacturing competitiveness. A
detailed analysis of manufactured products of India and China,
commissioned by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII),
points to the specifi cs underlying the main issue—which is
that there is an advantage in China to the tune of about 23
percent. That number encompasses factors ranging from
HR, energy costs, cost of the no-exit policy and engineering
capability.
The auto policy enacted in China—a single-minded document
aimed at fostering the creation of large multinationals in
the auto sector—has played a large part in making Chinese
industries competitive and has enabled them to fl ourish in the
last few years. In India, by contrast, one of the biggest sources
of the cost disadvantage facing Indian companies is the burden
of cascading cumulative taxes and duties; together, these
account for more than 18 percent of India’s cost disadvantage.
Thus, while manufacturing in India is getting competitive, there
remains a long way to go in terms addressing the kinds of
change and the pace China is setting.

Technology Medal Honors America's Pioneers

Converting the discoveries of science into products for the international marketplace is a key element in the United States' effort to improve its trade balance. The National Medal of Technology honors the daring people who do that.

President Bush dubbed them "our true pioneers." Commerce Secretary Barbara Hackman Franklin called them "America's technology heroes." Newspapers, business publications, and trade journals across the country have heralded the outstanding accomplishments and contributions of these 75 men and women and three companies.

They are the recipients of our nation's highest honor for technological achievement, the National Medal of Technology. Since the first awards in 1885, the medal has been presented by the President to the nation's top technologists for their success in moving technology from the mind to the marketplace. Their discoveries have kept America on the forefront of technological innovation and their efforts have created millions of jobs, established new industries, saved millions of lives, and improved the way we live and work.

Dr. Robert M. White, Under Secretary for Technology, stated: "Coming over 25 years after the National Medal of Science, the establishment of the National Medal of Technology coincided with an increased understanding of the need to more effectively commercialize technology to improve American industrial competitiveness.

"Technology has traditionally taken a back seat to science in this country," says Assistant Commerce Secretary Deborah L. Wince-Smith, who oversees the technology medal program. "In recent years, however, it has become apparent that we also need to support those daring people who convert scientific findings into commercialized products for the international marketplace."

G. Steve Burrill, a founding board member and key participant in the Foundation's first technology symposium held in conjunction with the 1992 medal award ceremonies, stated that "technology commercialization is a critical factor solving the world's environmental, food/agriculture production, quality of life, and health care problems." Other Foundation board members are C. Gordon Bell, S. A. Duzan, Immunex; Paul E. Frelman, Syntex; Robert W. Galvin, Motorola; Martin S. Gerstel, Alza Corp.; John Mayo, AT&T Bell Labs; Gordon Moore, Intel; David Pall, Pall Corp.; G. Kirk Raab, Genentech; and James L. Vincent, Biogen.

In its brief history, the medal has come to represent a "hall of fame" for technical excellence, recognizing some of the keenest minds in the country. Kenneth Iverson, Bob Galvin, David Packard, Steven Jobs--their names read like a "who's who" of technology superstars. Their many innovations include the digital computer, magnetic recording, the cardiac pacemaker, the integrated circuit, the microprocessor, the RISC chip, the bar code, polyester, and recombinant DNA technology.

These winners carry forward a great American legacy of technological leadership. This year's crop of Technology Medal recipients is no exception. From medicine to information technology, from petroleum to polyester, from communications to pharmaceuticals and quality--this year's winners have made enormous contributions to our daily lives and to our nation's economic competitiveness.

The medal itself symbolizes this spirit of technological wizardry, says Mico Kaufman, the Massachusetts artist who designed the medal. On the right side of the medal is the face of a man with his hand outstretched. A diffuse ray of light strikes the hand and is reflected as a denser, more concentrated beam. "Technology has produced magic in recent years," Kaufman says, explaining that the diffuse light symbolizes the input of data and knowledge, while the dense beam, transformed by the technologist, is "the result, the end product, which is much greater than the input."

The medal also has captured the imagination of several industry leaders. Last year, a private sector Foundation for the National Technology Medal was established under the driving force of Dr. George Rathmann, chief executive officer of ICOS Corporation. In cooperation with the Commerce Department, the foundation's mission is to support the activities of the medal program and to assist in increasing national awareness of the vital role that technology plays in our economy. In the long run, though, perhaps the most important purpose of the National Medal of Technology is to provide role models and inspiration for America's future scientists and technologists.

"We must pique the inquisitive nature and innate curiosity of children and provide a human face to technology role models to be admired, respected, and emulated. Our children must be prepared for the workforce of tomorrow, equipped to understand and use the technological tools available to them," said Secretary Franklin at this year's medal dinner. "Let us hope that we can kindle their imaginations and help guide them to follow their dreams in the footsteps of Edison, Bell, the Wright Brothers, and those we honor with the National Medal of Technology. "

On June 23, President Bush presented the 1992 National Medal of Technology to seven technologists and one company.

* WILLIAM H. GATES III, Microsoft Corporation

For his early vision of universal computing at home and in the office; for his technical and business management skills in creating a worldwide technology company; and for his contribution to the development of the personal computer industry.

* JOSEPH M. JURAN, Juran Institute

For his lifetime work of providing the key principles and methods by which enterprises manage the quality of their products and processes, enhancing their ability to compete in the global marketplace.

* W. LINCOLN HAWKINS, AT&T Bell Labs

For his invention and contribution to the commercialization of long-lived plastic coatings for communications cable that has saved billions of dollars for telephone companies around the world; and for his leadership in encouraging minorities to pursue science and engineering careers.

* CHARLES D. KELMAN

For his innovations in cataract surgical technology resulting in reduced rehabilitation time for millions of Americans, significant cost savings, and the creation of a new industry.

* MERCK 7 CO., INC.

For sustained innovation focusing on the discovery, development, and worldwide commercialization of superior human and animal health products while maintaining proper concern for the environment.

* DELBERT H. MEYER, Amoco Chemical Company

For his discovery of the process for making purified terephthalic acid (PTA), the key building block in the production of polyester, which resulted in greatly accelerated growth of polyester products.

* PAUL B. WEISS, University of Pennsylvania, formerly with Mobil Corporation

For his basic discoveries and management in the field of zeolite catalysis, in conjunction with his colleagues at Mobil Corporation, leading to chemical and petroleum technologies now producing products valued at billions of dollars per year.

* N. JOSEPH WOODLAND, IBM

For his invention and contribution to the commercialization of bar code technology which improved productivity in every industrial sector and gave rise to the bar code industry.

CRITERIA FOR NOMINATION

WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE NATIONAL MEDAL OF TECHNOLOGY? Eligibility extends to any U.S. citizen, to as many as four citizens as a group, or to any U.S.-owned company.

HOW ARE THE RECIPIENTS SELECTED? The Secretary of Commerce appoints members of the National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee, which reviews nominations. This committee recommends the most outstanding nominees to the Secretary's steering committee. The Secretary then forwards the final recommendation to the President for approval.

WHAT ARE THE SELECTION CRITERIA? Nominations are accepted in two areas:

1. PROMOTION OF TECHNOLOGY

Individuals or companies whose vision, skill, persistence, and/or entrepreneurship has resulted in a competitive advantage for the United States in domestic or foreign markets, in environmental protection improvements, or in health care and safety refinements are eligible. Nominations submitted for the promotion of technology are judged, generally, on the impact of the contribution on the economy, environment, or social well-being of the United States. Nominations for the promotion of technology may be made in any of four categories: technology transfer from public organizations, promotion of advanced manufacturing, technology management, general product and process innovations.

2. PROMOTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MANPOWER

Nominations are judged on the impact of the contribution towards strengthening a technologically competent workforce.

HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MAKING A NOMINATION? Nominations for the 1993 medals are currently being accepted through Oct. 30, 1992. Contact Dr. Paul Braden, Program Manager, Room 4418, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, tel. (202) 377-5572.

PAST TECHNOLOGY AWARD WINNERS

1991 RCIPIENTS

Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr., Bechtel Group, Inc. C. Gordon Bell, Stardent Computers Geoffrey Boothroyd, University of Rhode Island Peter Dewhurst, University of Rhode Island John Cocke, International Business Machines Corporation Carl Djerassi, Stanford University James J. Duderstadt, University of Michigan Robert W. Galvin, Motorola, Inc. Grace Murray Hopper, U.S. Navy (Ret)., Digital Equipment Corp. F> Kenneth Iverson, Nucor, Inc. Frederick M. Jones, Thermo King, a subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Corp. The Pegasus Team, David W. Thompson, Antonio L. Elias, David S. Hollingsworth, Robert R. Lovell, Orbital Sciences Corporation and Hercules, Inc. Charles E. Reed, General Electric Company John Paul Stapp, U.S. Force (Ret.)/SPace Center

1990 RECIPIENTS

John V. Atanasoff, Iowa State University (Retired) Marvin Camras, Illinois Institute of Technology The Du Pony Company, Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., COB and CEO Donald N. Frey, Northwestern University Fred W. Garry, General Electric Corporation Wilson Greatbatch, Wilson Greatbatch, Inc. Jack St. Clair Kilby, Jack Kilby Company John S. Mayo, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Inc. Gordon E. Moore, Intel Corporation David B. Pall, Pall Corporation Chauncy Starr, Electric Power Research Institute

1989 RECIPIENTS

Herbert W. Boyer, University of California in San Fransisco Stanley N. Cohen, Stahford University Medical Center Helen Edwards, Richard A. Lundy, J. Richie Orr, and Alvin Tollestrup, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Robert R. Everitt, The MITRE Corporation Jay W. Forrester, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1988 RECIPIENTS

John L. Atwood, Rockwell International Corporation Arnold O. Beckman, Beckman Instruments and Smith Kline Beckman Corporation Paul M. Cook, Raychem Corporation Robert H. Dennard, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Harold E. Edgerton, EG&G Corporation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Clarence L. (Kelly) Johnson, Lockheed Corporation Edwin H. Land, Polaroid Corporation and The Rowland Institute for Science David Packard, Hewlett-Packard Company Raymond Damadian, FONAR Corporation Paul C. Lauterbur, University of Illinois

1987 RECIPIENTS

Joseph V. Charyk, Communications Sattelite Corporation W. Edwards Deming, Private Consultant John E. Franz, Monsanto Corporation Robert N. Noyce, Intel Corporation

1986 RECIPIENTS

Bernard Gordon, Analogic Corporation Reynold B. Johnson, International Business Machines Corporation William C. Norris, Control Data Corporation Frank N. Piasecki, Piasecki Aircraft Corporation Stanley D. Stookey, Corning Glass Works Francis Versnyder, United Technologies Corporation

1985 RECIPIENTS

Frederick P. Brookes, Jr., Erich Bloch, and Bob O. Evans, International Business Machines Corporation Steven P. Jobs and Stephen Wozniak, Apple Computer, Inc. Marvin M. Johnson, Phillips Petroleum Company Ralph Landau, Halcon-Scientific Design Group John T. Parsons and Frank L. Stulen, John T. PArsons Company Harold A. Rosen and Allen E. Puckett, Hughes Aircraft Company Joseph F. Sutter, Boeing DCommercial Airplane Company AT&T Bell Laboratories, Inc., Ian M. Ross, President