Sounds + Food 'n' Retail

The world of business, I think, has a certain illogical—the "human element"—shell around it, but centres around the concept of supply and demand. How you create a business where demand is high, how to you make sure that you have sufficient supply and/or not too much supply. You can see this play out in a number of places, e.g. on the web you have scaling issues, when your service proves to popular (e.g. Twitter), or you have the case of the million+ blogs that are collecting dust, because no-one ever reads them, or because the blogger was unable to gather enough interesting supply.

In restaurants, or food-places, you also see this play out. A couple of months ago, I was going to write about take-out, how some businesses embrace and others avoid it, and why. I think the reason is, at least in part, to control supply. If you control supply, then you can focus on quality and charge a higher price. You also become an artist/creator, rather than a factory.

How do you limit supply? Two ways, I think. Mainly it's the physical space; by limiting the number of seats in your venue, you ensure that a certain quota is set (of course, the question is also whether that quota is met, which comes from quality inspiring demand). By investing in quality-ingredients, you not only limit your budget, but also your production-capacity, and it forces you to limit supply. That's a little vague, I know, I haven't worked it out 100%.

The other way, is to have an increased level of supply. How do take-out and fast-food places do it? By standardising as much as possible. Whether it's the ingredients, which are mainly starch-based (burgers, pizza, noodles, etc.) and cheap, the production-facility (often just an oven, a grill, or a big wok), or a standardised customer-space (from seats stapled to the floor, to waiting-lines, to a website/phone nr.). All of which enables you to deliver mass quickly.

I was thinking about this today after watching "Iron Man," which is one big Burger King (and US-army) commercial, and getting a cheese burger afterwards. Burger King was packed and, ironically, slow. The "waiting in line" method doesn't seem to work that well when you have 50+ people waiting, and a limited space behind the counter to deliver burgers and stuff. People on both sides were bumping into each other constantly, and I actually had to wait over 5 mins, even though I was second in line.

On some level, I like to think that technology can solve a little bit of this problem. If you look at Zara and H&M, which I wrote about last week, both are very advanced in this area, in order to optimise and speed up their production, logistics, and merchandising. Of course, that's on a back-office level, and that's not the same as the front-office, where customers interact with a business. No one wants to be confronted with a screen to do the ordering, but sometimes I wonder if people wouldn't be happier just pressing some buttons in a fast food joint, rather than waiting in line. Of course that would mean more seats, as more people would sit down, and more staff, as someone will have to bring that food to the table.

In the end, it probably comes down to experimentation and constant improvement. That said, apart from the computers that cashiers operate, and quicker food-preparation, not much has changed in the last 50 years for the people doing the actual eating.

The picture is courtesy of lightningspeed.net.

Take a look at this quote, which I posted a few days ago:

"There should be a rule: before helping the environment in one market, we should be required to think through the impacts on other markets." (source: Freakonomics blog).

Or, to put it differently, every action has a (sometimes equal) reaction (I think the traditional phrasing ignores the human element). The idea that everything is interconnected is both fun to right-brained generalists like me (not a compliment), and scary at the same time. The global economy is very complex and, I would say, impossible to regulate.

There's a couple of things going on the world, which I'm sure everyone is aware of. There's a number of wars, there's the weakened dollar, there's some kind of housing-related recession going on, there's a shortage of oil, our planet is perceived as suffering and currently being saved (I hope), there's India and China, the rise of the Anglo-Saxon system, etc. etc.

And some of the biggest problems facing the food-industry (depending where you are in the chain), are rising food-prices, which relates to that oil-shortage (both in terms of pricing, but also because of alternative fuels using farm-products), the rise of India and China, and some other factors; and the costs of keeping green, which has largely been inspired by companies like Wal-Mart, but also by the (exaggerated) need for global diversity by customers (which the food-industry is also partially to blame for).

The solutions vary, and are, so far, very defensive in their nature. For the cost of going green, most pollution comes from transport and the solution is to either use the most eco-friendly way to go: on land, by train, across water, by ship; or to go local—which companies like Marqt seem to focus on, but which also comes with the pitfall of seasonal shortage.

For rising food-prices, again one solution is to go local, to save on transport and have some control over how farmers work, and be able to charge higher prices to the rising local-conscious consumer. But a bigger solution is for more food-production to happen (much of it currently goes to India & China, or to biofuels), and possibly from smaller farmers. The problem here is that it will take time (some estimate decades) for smaller farmers to get ready.

Both are definitely big picture-problems, and will take time to solve. One thing, I'm personally looking at, are micro-lending sites like Kiva.org, which put you into contact with local farmers, allowing you to help them out in your own way. From a Venture Voice interview with one of the founders, I understand that some of these investments happen within the context of a community, where each member keeps watch over the other's use and repayment of the funds, in order to ensure a good outcome, and so loans will continue to come in. But, while I think it's well worth the effort, this is still a small-picture solution to a much larger problem.

The way it looks right now, the solutions have to be planned in the long-term and on a large scale. There is definitely space in the farming-segment for more production to happen. In the mean time, food-prices will continue rise, as will the price of educating consumers to make more responsible choices. I like Tesco's approach in labelling the origins of their food and allowing people to make more carbon-friendly (locally focussed) decisions. But that doesn't solve the problem for farmers in remote areas of course.

Sigh, if you just got a headache, I sympathise, as I just got one too.

Further reading:

• NYTimes: Environmental Cost of Shipping Groceries Around the World
• Economist: The new face of hunger
• Buzzfeed: Food Hoarding

The picture is courtesy of ABC News.

I took part in a "flirting in business" workshop last night, pretty fun and insightful. It tried to explain the fundamentals of communications to us—around 50 professionals, students, work-seeking-people, etc., both shy and outgoing, all with their own qualities and questions—and I took a lot home from it, including a book by the presenter.

So, apparently a "flirty" conversation has three main components:

• giving attention;
• showing curiosity;
• showing trust.

An exercise to meet a stranger and asking them the name of a parent, illustrated the latter quite well, as I don't trust many people with the name of my mother. ;)

Several things, like conditioning, fear, and ego stand in the way of change, and the only way to get around it, is to acknowledge the feeling as it happens and know that you have a choice. Good to know! Apparently, a conditioned change—one that lasts—can happen quite quickly, you have to practice it around 15 separate times for it to become internalised.

A round of answers were given concerning what people pay attention to during a first meet, the infamous first impression: it ranged from dry hands (which you can't do anything about), tone of voice, general looks, and, most importantly, the smile, as that overcomes a lot.

It was also interesting to hear that only 7% of the message that we get from people is verbal, and the rest is sensory. That explains why I often don't listen and go on instinct, I guess… :)

Did I take anything big back from that meeting? Not really, except that it's really not that hard to sell yourself, as long as you have a certain awareness of what's going on in your head and what matters to other people.

An interesting quote from the Economist this week. Particularly, because I personally suffer from it, and imagine a lot of other people & businesses do too.

Mr. Fellows [CEO of Callaway golfing equipment] believes that the "fundamental principles of running a company don't change just because the product category is different." In his view, Callaway's problems stemmed from the fact that it saw itself as a golf business, not as a consumer-goods company. He resolved to focus on "what the consumer wants, not our own feelings about what the game of golf should be."

It doesn't matter if you're the CEO of a company, an investor, a sales-person, a blogger, etc., I think everyone has an idea of what they want and what customers should want. But what it really comes down to is the latter.

Face Value, my favourite section in the Economist, every week.

The picture is courtesy of digitalfreak.net

I just discovered a new podcast called "Big Ideas" (iTunes-link), a series of lectures on anything from the impact of urbanisation on musical tastes, to designing menus for restaurants. Oh, and it's Canadian. Not that that's bad, but some parts of the lecture covered local conditions.

John Schneeberger starts his lecture (dated March 1, 2008) off with the basics of menu-design, namely that they should reflect three things:

• What you stand for? Aka. what kind of food do you like to work with?
• What demographics are you targeting? Income, religious issues, etc.
• What are the current trends? And are they for real or just a fad?

Generally, when running a restaurant, you have to understand three things:

• Customer-decisions are always a trade-off between price and quality
• Traditionally, dishes consist of three components: protein, starch, and vegetables.
• What we understand as taste, actually comes from three sources: fat, salt, and sugar.

Any more "avant-garde" food-entrepreneur will have to face these three as a challenge at some point.

Schneeberger discussed three booming trends, vegetarianism, organic food, and local produce, and mentioned a number of challenges related to these.

Vegetarian cooking
The thing to understand about this, is that it's generally cheaper. Schneeberger mentioned a 1:10 ratio when you compare the cost of producing vegetables to the cost of growing a cow. And while it's a booming trend, the industry, somewhat mis-guidedly, still often focusses on trying to replicate the taste of meat, which is impossible (think veggie-burgers, etc.).

Instead, they should be thinking about nutritional value— vegetarian food has been correlated with lower health-problems and is for that reason often recommended by doctors. The problem with these types of diets is of course that they are low in those qualities we would traditionally associate with taste: fat, salt, and sugar.

To create dishes that people actually enjoy, restaurants have to look globally, e.g. Asia, where more exotic vegetable components can bring some needed flavour to these dishes. I think he mentioned seaweed, but also stinky tofu (see pic), which is a type of fermented tofu and one of the few ways to naturally bring flavour to that type of protein.

The implication is that vegetarian food requires a significant amount of specialisation and is often hard to combine with meat-cooking.

Another complication arises from vegan (no dairy, honey, animal-derived products) versus lacto-ovo (incl. dairy, honey, animal-derived) cooking. The first makes it very hard to create a (traditionally) tasty dish. The second, lacto-ovo, allows for more flexibility, through the use of ingredients like eggs, which not only provide extra protein, but also bring a lot of flexibility to the kitchen. You can, for instance, make foam out if it, which would enable the creation of deserts & soups, etc.

Organic cooking
First of all (and I'm not sure if this is just restricted to Canada), an organic food label refers to the production method, not necessarily the quality and taste. Since organic food is more expensive, and taste is not guaranteed, you have to wonder if your clientele is willing to pay extra for that service (remember the trade-off between price & quality!).

The big selling-point here is the information about the product. People like to know how their food was produced; it has a certain value to know that there are no chemicals or genetically modified components in what you are eating. But again, that must be a value that is clearly advertised and which may not be important to every type of demographic.

Local produce
The advantage for the restaurant is that they can form better relationships with their suppliers, it's also cleaner in terms of carbon footprint (less transport), and it also has some marketing value to a certain demographic.

The disadvantage is that supply cannot be guaranteed during all seasons. Schneeberger mentioned something called a "100 mile diet" for instance, but restaurants catering to that need will probably have problems in the winter.

Thoughts
Overall, a pretty insightful lecture of the more exotic (and trendy) type of cooking and its trade-offs.

These types of specialisation are still pretty niche, require significant resources in terms of tools, know-how, and supplier-relations. But, if executed well, a niche can be extremely profitable.

I thought that it was interesting that all the traditional means of cooking, the ingredients and the taste-makers, were pretty incompatible with these newer trends. As such, you are essentially climbing up a hill, trying to educate the mass-market. At the same time, good execution, together with differentiation from the norm, seems like a formula for success.

I took this title from a report on the future of Dutch supermarkets (English pdf). It identifies a number challenges to come, one of which is "stomach share," which is apparently a big deal because of the following three factors:

• Population decline: which translates into less consumers buying food
• Increased longevity: and older people have a lower caloric intake
• Increased awareness of health-issues: which also translates to a lower caloric intake.

The market is shrinking, people are spending less of their income on food, which will have have consequences on the channel (supermarket), the sales concept, and the value chain. And it will affect those players negatively that cannot leverage these four factors for optimum positioning.



What the authors are seeing is that players from the bottom of the market (the discounters) are moving upwards, by broadening their assortment of goods, and players from the top of the market (luxury-stores) are moving downwards, by improving their prices. A number of underlying things are going on here: luxury-stores can become cheaper by improving the efficiency of their stores and sourcing cheaper brands. And discounters can increase their offering through their relationship with suppliers.

Following HBS-quote, from an article entitled "Finding success in the middle of the market", sheds some light how Tesco does it:

A company controls midfield by fielding a complete product line that includes backs and forwards. In its supermarkets, Tesco, the successful UK retailer, offers consumers three options—good, better and best—in most high turnover product categories. In addition, Tesco doesn't just sell groceries through one-size-fits-all supermarkets. Recognizing the need to shape as well as respond to an increasingly segmented market, Tesco reaches its consumers through at least seven different store formats, from convenient Tesco Express outlets at one end of the spectrum to full assortment hypermarkets at the other. But, within all its stores, Tesco implements the same merchandising principles: Better, Simpler, Cheaper.

Can you guess who the loser is yet? Well, according to both the report and much data on the net, the losers are the new, innovative concepts, that may offer certain values to consumers on an ethical or health level, but are not able to reap the same advantages as more established players are.

That is also the answer why so many organic companies are being bought up by fmcg-companies. There's an interesting overview here; but if you want to follow one in real-time, check out this Inc. magazine blog run by Honest Tea, which has recently given away 40% of their company to Coca-Cola.

Of course that is only part of the answer. Consumers are not just focussed on price. And, while consumer-awareness of the global situation and their own health is clearly growing, that's not the whole answer either. People's lives are becoming ever more complex and convenience is a big selling point these days.

It's those companies that can combine a high level of consumer-responsiveness, together with assortment and price, that will capture the hearts of consumers. But I guess what is out, is the solo single-product-serving player in the market, purely focussed on softer advantages like "ethics," and forgetting that consumers still(!) have limited disposable income for their food-expenses, as well a limited time to engage in these activities.

These next few weeks, my posting-rhythm will slow down due to personal issues, sorry about that. It does however feed into this topic here.

Premise: A couple of things happened these last few days, which I think are noteworthy. The Zuckerberg-interview on SXSW got slaughtered by the twitter-crowd (though there's a human behind every trigger), and which is an example of a BAD interview. There's Steve Balmer, who came across as both human (sympathetic) and capable, an example of a GOOD interview. And there's John Battelle, who wrote two good posts on that every business is a media-business and every business should find a way to engage with its customers.

It's all about PR of course, and somehow some people got it into their head that social media—blogs, social networks, web-sms (my term for Twitter, Pounce, Jaiku,etc.)—is a good way to relate to the public. The problem, if I may call it that, is that these are two-way conversations between people that are essentially observers: users + media. And that, as the Zuckerberg-interview shows, when users + media get angry, they get ANGRY. Now, you could argue, bad publicity is still publicity, I just consider it disruptive.

Business, in my opinion, is two things: a machine that produces output, and engineers that seek to optimise the machine and increase its output. Arguably, user-feedback is useful for tweaking the machine to perform better, and optimally get more users to purchase its output. And outward PR (marketing) also means that more people are aware of your great machine and want the output. Ah, machine-analogies, gotta love them.

Just like the life-cycle-model of a product, which evolves from slow to strong growth, to maturity, and ultimately decline, our machine is very susceptible to tweaking at the early stages, can produce extra output, etc., but ultimately reaches a saturation-point. The same, I believe applies to user-feedback and marketing. The return on investment levels off after a while.

You have the PR, which is the interviews and other kinds of marketing, and there's the user-feedback, which should be restricted to the product-level. And, aside from the life-cycle-model, there is general a limit to the value of both. You don't want a mob disrupting your interviews, no matter how bad they go. You don't want a mob disrupting your business, period, unless you're developing something like a nuclear weapon.

What I'm essentially arguing against is that companies should be 100% social. They should be social enough in order to improve their products and let the people know about them. Should they engage in a two-way conversation? Only if it's directly product-related or your business is bad for the environment (arguably a government-issue), should you engage and customers should vote with their wallets. Note that I'm referring to business-PR here; individuals can blog about whatever they want, if you ask me.

There will always be the "backroom-talk," the social-media people who have opinions on anything, from using Plaxo-scripts to milk Facebook-data, to 17+ ways on how you should (not) run your start-up. And there will always be "Skynet"—the realm of the machines—which have to keep running because social media will not put that food on your table, the farmer will.

This somewhat-cynical article will NOT be mirror-posted on Tech IT Easy tomorrow

When I first wrote this post this afternoon, it was really long. After cutting it a little it's still really long. Sorry about that.

A lot of people I know from uni are into this thing called New Business Development (NBD). It makes sense, since it's the title of a course we studied together and it was absolutely the best course I've had in my life. Around 60 hours of hell per week for 2-3 months, but one hell of a ride too.

NBD is a necessary mechanism for when your core-business is stagnating. Let's say you have a good high-volume business, but competition is hammering you with low prices. If you can find a new business opportunity that allows you to make money differently, preferably at high margins, it's a good business opportunity. If it's synergetic with your core-focus, then it's an excellent business opportunity. Three small examples I stumbled across these last few days come to mind.

1. Bookstore + café. Verdict: logical
Buying books is a luxury. They serve no real purpose (unless you want them to) and are generally aimed at price-insensitive people. It is also a fairly slow sale. You are selling information, people are swamped with information, and it takes them time to make a decision. Sometimes… not always. I think time + the amount spent on an item also correlates positively, up to a limit.

That combines well with a café. The luxury-aspect allows you to charge more in cafés as well, meaning higher profit margins. Cafés lead people to relax and spend more time in bookstores, meaning they will likely purchase more books too. Combining the high traffic of price-insensitive consumers together with high profit margins and you have a good business. Also, it's a great way to compete against online-retailers, who are not able to add the atmospheric value.

2. Fruit-vendor + fruit-shake stand. Verdict: logical
Fruit is generally a low-margin product. The fruit-vendor in question sells 5 KG of Spanish oranges for €2. You can charge more for fruit-shakes; To the consumer, they taste good, represent health, and require very little in work (all emotional values = higher price-insensitivity). The fruit-retailer sells an orange fruit-shake of 0.5 litres for €2.50. Assuming that's about 1 KG of Spanish oranges, that's quite a lot more profit than €0.40 would give you. But of course there are other considerations.

The fruit-vendor is located right in the centre of Rotterdam on the busiest street. Likely the cost of renting a place is expensive, so is the added cost of producing the shake. The fruit-vendor also competes with a fruit and vegetable market, located a few hundred metres away, and a supermarket, 50 metres away. And his new business competes with other fruit-shake stands. What makes this combination work?

The higher profit margins for convenience-fruit-products, combined with high volume of people passing by is good. It also persuades investors to loan the money for the fruit-shake machinery, which they would probably not do for a low-margin business in a less favourable location. There's a lot of efficiency also; fruit is sourced from the same suppliers, so are packaging-materials, and the retail-space acts as a warehouse. Because fruit is cheap and the retailer has a large selection, he can charge lower prices than the competition and offer more variety. And he enjoys high profit margins even if the volume of fruit-purchases is lower because of the price-competition from the (super-)markets.

3. A eurostore + scooters. Verdict: illogical
This case is a little more complex and contextual. A year ago a eurostore, which is like a dollarstore—a shop offering a great variety of goods at low prices—started offering scooters alongside their regular products. They quickly abandoned the experiment and I have a theory why.

Likely this deal came out of partnership with scooter-retailer/-importer. The eurostore was in a good location with lots of traffic (good for the scooters) and the scooters would give it much higher margins than their regular products. Seems like a win-win.

Consumption of "euro-"goods is different from that of scooters, however. With the first, people expect stuff to break and don't come asking for a warranty. They just buy another. Buying a scooter or anything over a certain amount is very different. People expect extensive information, they may want a test-drive, they certainly want a warranty, and after-sale support.

Since the eurostore is what it is, a store with low margins, this kind of service is out of its realm. It ends up referring customers to the actual scooter-retailer, and very likely the purchase happens there also. Unless you have a contract that specifies this eventuality, gone is the alluring profit-margin. And that, as they say, is that.

Final thoughts
High traffic of goods is a good basis for new business development. It means you have a customer-base to which you can try and sell other products and services, hopefully at a good margin. Location and demographics are important also. Both the book- and the fruit-retailer were well-located and had access to a good demographic, allowing them to sell at high margins and high volume. The eurostore was only well-located. Synergies are vital. For the bookstore it was consumption-pattern and price-insensitivity; for the fruit-vendor it was offering essentially the same product in different packaging; for the eurostore there was little, or rather, none.

Isn't new business development fun? And was my analysis correct?

As some readers may know, I've both read and commented on Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point, and found it an interesting book to think about the nature of communities and how certain individuals or groups of them are more influential in passing on ideas than others. That said, while I believe that such "influencers" exist, also from personal experience, I know fairly little about the science of it.

Similarly, Duncan Watts a research scientist at Columbia, working at Yahoo, questioned that principle, asserting that news travels fast, through whatever type of individual. I have no doubt that Yahoo has amassed vast amount of data on what source of del.icio.us bookmarks receive the most clicks, etc., and that the nature of the internet allows even the lowest of the lowest content-provider or -mediator (e.g. yours truly) to lead people to news.

A recent HBR-article gave me some insight into the complexities for companies to measure the value of such referential actions, something they call Customer Referral Value (CRV). It is calculated by estimating the number of successful referrals made by a customer, but differentiating between new customers that came because of his/her referral, and those that would have come anyway. It's a fairly complex formula and requires some extensive market-research, but you can find a good overview in the HBR-article.

This is opposed to a customer's lifetime value (CLV), the traditional way of measuring the value of customers, which looks at the amount that the customer's purchases contribute to the companies operating margin, less the marketing costs to him or her, and projected over a certain period of time.

Using this methodology, the authors of the article measured both the CLV and the CRV of 9,900 customers at a telecom-company and came up with following results:



I added the totals myself, because I thought those would also be interesting. What you can see here is that those with the highest CLV also presented the highest total value to the business, though CRV added considerable value also. What's also interesting is how these are distributed. The high value shoppers added relatively little in referential value, and only in the medium-levels do we see a high amount of CRV.

Through three one-year marketing-campaigns aimed at the high shoppers with low referential value, the medium CLVs with high CRVs, and the low of both, the company tried to stimulate the customers with lower values in either segment to do more, either by spending more or by referring more. The result was a 15.4 return on investment on the marketing-campaign, meaning that for each dollar spent on marketing to customers, $15.4 was gained in revenue.

Clearly, I could say more about how the authors went about it to make these kinds of gains in both CLV and CRV, however that's why this nice article was written about it and I encourage people to check it out if they're interested.

Are there implications for the Gladwell vs. Watts fight? In my opinion, either could be right. What Gladwell has merely done is open our eyes a little towards this whole viral marketing-thing, though certainly some companies were already busy with it. And what Watts is pointing out is that there is great value in building on top of existing networks, something I'm sure the telecom-company benefited from also. The greater lesson here is to look beyond the CLV of a customer, though that already brings a high value to companies, and focus on methods of stimulating word of mouth in innovative ways. How that is achieved depends on the type of business and the networks that it can use to communicate with its customers. Certainly, Milner cheese, which I wrote about a few weeks ago, offers one possible answer. Update: and so does the recent marketing-move by Etsy on Twitter.

This article is mirror-posted on Tech IT Easy.

Let's face it, even with nature knocking on our door, some accountant will still ask what this whole thing is going to cost. Science, facts, morality… it's not enough. I compare it to smoking; even though everyone knows smoking kills, it took pressure—social, governmental, commercial—for people to quit. And the same applies to businesses going green.

Without further ado, here's five pressures that make the business-case for companies to change.

1. Governmental pressure - let's ignore for a fact that government is the one keeping its finger on the pulse of scientific research, social, business, and technological trends. But what is hard to ignore is that the government is actively pushing businesses to change, either by punishing the wrong-doers, by subsidising clean practices and technologies, or by providing new infrastructures around these new rules, allowing for businesses to dispose of their waste in better ways and use alternative, cleaner energy-sources.

2. Consumer pressure - like with smoking, not all consumers have been following the new green "religion" quite as passionately. That said, there are the early adopters, the geeks, the pressure-groups, that are insisting on businesses changing their ways. And those businesses are themselves customers to their suppliers and are doing the same thing to them.

3. Business climate pressure - apart from the above, two things will strongly pressure businesses to change: costs and competition. The rising cost of fuel, electricity, and water, etc., as well as the cost of disposing their waste, is a good incentive to implement technologies that help conserve energy and produce less waste. Similarly, as competition will do the same, businesses are forced to respond.

4. Knowledge-carriers - with the amount of scientific research being produced everyday, it was only a matter of time before methodologies would be developed to help businesses become greener. Since this is still a specialised activity, both commercial parties (consultants) and governmental institutions are there to advise companies on how to change.

5. New technologies - new inventions are constantly being brought to the market, that help businesses conserve energy or get it from alternative sources. Think: technology to monitor and regulate energy-use, water-conserving toilets, more efficient lights, green roofs, etc.

Anything I missed?

In a way, you can't blame businesses for resisting. There have been lot's of change-initiatives these last decades—from ERP to joint ventures—which have produced questionable, if not disastrous results. For change to happen, it must be driven by strategy first, because doing business is like doing war. There is a high price for failure and no one will be congratulating the loser.

But what is certain, is that eventually there will be no more choice. Those that are slow to react will do so at the cost of an unsympathetic government, of the competition racing ahead, and of customers dropping their support.

This article is mirror-posted on tech IT easy, where there's also an interesting discussion going on. Why do people end up going green?

One of the stories, I covered last week in my links, uncovered an interesting statistic. Only about 3% of retail sales in the US happens online. I don't think these stats are at all coincidental. While I see a bright future ahead for the online retail of media-products, I find that what the internet cannot provide, is the "closeness," that is sometimes needed for evaluating certain types of goods, like food and clothing. I have commented on this before, implicitly, with a post on the web as a third place, and about the lack of cohesion that Facebook provides.

At the same time, as The New Yorker story reports, what the internet has changed is how we shop; it is much easier to research and comparison-shop than it was before the internet-days. A survey by Accenture found that ca. 66% of those surveyed compared products online, and another study showed that the internet played a significant role with ca. 75% of electronics purchases.

IInnovate has an interesting podcast interview with Scott Dunlap, CEO of NearbyNow, which has come up with an interesting way to exploit the informational advantages of the internet and mash that with the qualities of physical shopping. Following short video shows how their service works:



Clearly technology has evolved a lot in the last few years, making this possible. NearbyNow works via the web and via mobile. I'm not sure if they are using any location-tracking & matching services, but certainly they are heading in that direction. On the retailers' side, there is plenty of technology that makes this possible also. Electronic inventory and point of sale systems allow both for the checking of stock-levels and for consumers to reserve items to be picked up and tried on at a later date.

One issue that entered my mind, is that of efficiency. The way NearbyNow operates is through malls in the US, most of which are, as I found out, owned by 6 major companies across the nation. US's scale-economies win again! In Europe, the situation appears a little different. Culturally, linguistically, technologically, and legally, it is a much more fragmented market, with far fewer malls also, and that may make it difficult for a unified service like this to operate as efficiently as it would in the US.

There is also the issue of too much transparency, which is worrying to some retailers, and addressed in the podcast-interview. But what does seem certain is that this is exactly the type of service that consumers value, and as such one that any consumer-centric business should encourage.

Will a service like this ever replace shopping in its entirety? No, I'm essentially betting my future that there are plenty of qualities *real* environments will continue to offer over virtual ones. But there is no reason, none at all, to try to integrate the good qualities that the web does possess—information at your fingertips—as elegantly and effectively as possible into those experiences.

It is time for those links again! This time, we'll be discussing the economics of Apple's physical stores, how Walmart is enforcing RFID, how retailers are trying to trick people to buy more expensive things, how people perceive fun in games, and 10 ultra-geeky home-cinemas.

As usual, my bookmarks can be found here, and the previously covered links, here. Enjoy!

Link 1: Why is Apple saturating (US) cities with retail stores? is a question that Choire Sicha asks on Kottke.org, and lead me to this profit & cost breakdown of Apple's retail stores at Seeking Alpha (see pic below). It does appear it's all about the money, though hard it remains to read Apple's mind 100%. In related news, OObject lists all the items needed to build an Apple store.



Link 2: Is RFID economically feasible? I'm planning to dedicate at least 1-2 posts on RFID on this blog in the future, as I've essentially been following its development since the early coverage on Slashdot. This story on InformationWeek discusses the pressure that Walmart, certainly the biggest champion for RFID in the retail-arena, is putting on its suppliers to finally add RFID into their logistics-chain. As far as I remember, the latter have been complaining about the unfair balance of cost that RFID causes, shifting most of them onto suppliers. I assume, however, that these chips and pallets are reusable.

Link 3: What makes games fun? Lightspeed Venture Partners has an interesting blog, which mostly discusses the business and principles behind digital games. I follow it because games are fun, and if you can understand the source-code of fun, you can replicate it elsewhere. In that spirit, then, it links to an interesting white paper trying to map out what exactly goes on in gamers' heads while playing games. Part 1 is also very much worth a read.

Link 4: A buyer's christmas? The New Yorker digs into consumers' buying behaviour. Interesting is, that people use the net most often to find info, not to buy, but can use that info inside stores (we'll still need ubiquitous internet for it to be shoppers' utopia, however). Equally interesting is, that if a store has two microwaves, consumers will usually buy the cheaper one. With three products, however, they will usually by the mid-priced one. There's still room for trickery, I guess…

Link 5: 10 stunning ultra-geeky home cinemas. In the spirit of my previous post on cinemas & luxury, I thought that this link would be fitting. The Star Trek-themed one is a little too geeky for me, but the Titanic one (no. 6) looks awesome. I'm still doubtful about whether it's about the design or about the movie, but I can't deny that people put a lot of work into designing these.

I'm writing today's post mostly as a way to relax me. I've been in a bit of a panic these last few days because my main machine, my trustworthy mac, is giving me kernel panics and I'm in the middle of a project. It's not a nice feeling, and any repairs, I've been informed, are bound to take 10 days. So, blogging to relax, yes, but don't expect regular ones, especially considering this machine can "explode" at any time.

NYTimes recently wrote about a strategy employed by US cinemas to draw in more people. I quote:

"Reserved seating, plush rocking chairs and made-to-order food make Mr. Redford’s Sundance Kabuki theater feel more like a restaurant than a traditional cinema. It also has a 50-foot-high lobby with live bamboo, a glass atrium and reclaimed wood walls. Here, a night at the movies is less about enduring the hordes at the mall and more about feeling pampered."

According to the article, big US-chains are building such upscale cinemas to draw people back into the experience.

While I am a big fan of the cinema-experience and actually worked at exactly such a venue, years ago, as a cocktail-mixing barkeeper, I think there are several reasons why such a strategy won't work.

The nature of movie-viewing (1): regardless of how luxurious a place like that is, you'll still have to sit in a dark room and won't actively notice the luxury or people around you, except for before and after the movie. The reason why people like dining in luxury-restaurants is because of the luxury, yes, but also because you share it with a group of people. In cinemas, luxury is not an emotional draw.

The nature of cinemas: cinemas are still very much in a mind-frame of providing experience of the masses. That manifests itself in a McDonalds' mentality of serving guests standardised services, having a lot of seat-rotation, cleaning big rooms (badly) in less than 10 mins, etc. It's a lot of little things, but they add up to a reputation for mediocrity, and people really just come to view the movie and be with their friends.

The nature of movie-viewing (2): YouTube, the internet, modern lifestyles, etc. have created different viewing-patterns, and there is a much greater focus towards viewing media in bursts. I think that the cinema-industry thinks that it is competing with some kind of emulated experience at home, but I don't think that's generally the case. So what are cinemas competing with and should they compete with it?

Luxury is not mass: Cinemas need masses of people coming in, and luxury cinemas actually only aim to address the (imagined!) needs of a few. In my opinion, it is not a customer-focussed strategy, and is for that reason alone bound to fail.

What should cinemas do?
Now, I'm not all against a certain level of luxury. I like comfortable seats as much as the next guy and I'd love a good cocktail every once in a while. But I think standards should be upgraded throughout the cinema, all the way down to the lowest seats, and that everyone should have the option to get a cocktail (if they have the budget).

There's two main selling-points for cinemas, I think, and those are timing and technology. They are still the first to air a film (ignoring piracy), which will hopefully not change. So, for blockbusters, cinemas reign is pretty much guaranteed.

Apart from blockbusters, there's something special about seeing indie movies in cinemas, which I include into timing. I'll never forget watching "Howl's moving castle" in the cinema, it was a magical experience, one that I could never have at home.

As far as technology is concerned, admittedly we are in an age where big screens and high-def visuals and sounds are becoming commoditised, though no one is as yet planning to install a 50 ft. screen in their house, afaik. I do think that cinema-technolgy should be upgraded, all the way to the point of the IMAX-experience.

Admittedly, there are some problems with 3D-tech. It increases the cost of producing a film and won't translate well to home-viewing (I think). But my point is that cinemas should keep differentiating themselves technologically.

People is a third selling-point, though I think that unless you like going with 8+ people to the cinema, you will be able to emulate that at home.

As far as luxury is concerned, again the basics should be present, and cinemas have to make money, but cinemas would become a lot more popular if they kept the price of seats down, increased the quality of service, and charged what they charged for luxuries. The one thing that I can't stress enough is staying a leader in technology (video & audio) as that is truly where the emotional draw for cinemas comes from.

But maybe I'm wrong!? Feel free to let me know in the comments.

Just some finishing up on the IKEA-book. Following graph describes the structure of IKEA's business, as far as I understand it.

1: Stores - The way the company expands horizontally, is through a tightly controlled franchising system. This both saves costs and minimises international risks.
2: Sales & service - the company is tightly integrates its sales- and service-operations with customers, the latter taking over 80% of the work (and loving it). Huge cost-savings, also benefiting customers.
3: Supply, manufacturing, design - The company is equally well-integrated back up the value chain, with suppliers, manufacturing, and design, and has—since the 90s—been expanding its operations in that direction. Some cost-savings by introducing savings up the logistics-chain, and more flexibility in manufacturing.
4: Management structure - non-public virtual entity that licenses the IKEA brand and is able to offset international tax-differences by being located in Belgium/the Netherlands and changing the terms of licensing-agreement as needed.

You can draw your own conclusions from that, together with what I've written before.

Things that stuck out from the book included:

• Ingvar Kamprad, the founder, who has both a trader's mentality and is at the same time a community-person;


• Sweden, IKEA's country of origin, whose restrictive tax policies actually resulted in pushing the business to become a global company;


• IKEA's cost-philosophy, which is very frugal and part of the company-culture, and also transmitted to the supply side and to customers. Some problems retaining top-employees as wages are not competitive;


• Its franchising-system, which somewhat surprised me, can be explained by the scientific way in which IKEA's operations has been built up. The more rational, the "easier" (a relative term) to replicate. It's also in line with the business's rapid global expansion and its drive to push down costs;


• It's a private company, which makes it less visible and (relatively) less accountable to the public.


• Its vertical integration with suppliers and customers, enabling it to quickly respond to new trends and problems, as well as introduce higher cost-savings than its competition.

All in all, a very interesting company, and actually very similar to eBay in some ways, I think.

P.S. I'll be taking a few days off, to recharge some creative energy.

Man, I collected so many links, that I'll probably have to write three updates to cover the most important ones. We've got a lot of ground to cover, so let's get started. You can find my previous coverage on interesting links from the web, here, and my continuous stream of bookmarks, here.

Link 1: On Magnetbox - Correlating cool with tech - With pictures like the one below, my work on this blog is really done. Interesting is the rise of computers vs. dance & hip-hop music (both of which are hugely benefiting from the cost-savings made possible by PC-based studios. (A note: low industry-barriers = high chance of suckage!). Also note the fall of art, after the colour TV was introduced. Kottke also made some comments about it.

(Click on picture to magnify)
Link 2: On BuzzFeed - Touch-Screen Ordering - BuzzFeed presents us with some stories about automatised ordering. There are both advantages and disadvantages, I think. Good is that it minimises errors in ordering and can interface well with back-office operations, such as ordering new supplies. It might also fit with the individualistic preference for self-service, I wrote about before. The disadvantage is the cost and the margins of error that information systems bring (I still shudder at the thought of the LAS disaster (pdf)) + the lack of the human factor. Martin Kunzelnick (German) links to some videos of Microsoft's Surface in a restaurant-environment.

Link 3: On Lightspeed Venture Partners - It is no accident that Typhoid Mary was a woman - Although it's a horrible-horrible title, and perhaps an obvious point, I've been coming across many stories about the social qualities that women possess, making them better at PR, marketing, sales, relationship-building. Something to keep in mind for any people-based business.

Link 4: On Reuters - Pizza Hut rolls out nationwide mobile ordering - A news-item (finally), and I'll probably delve into this topic sometime in the future. Arguably, Pizza Hut has been pursuing a different strategy from pretty much 98% of the pizza-restaurants out there. I'm sure that there is considerably brand-loyalty towards Pizza Hut, which will give it an advantage over delivering pizza-franchises, HOWEVER, it will probably be competing on price, which the franchise has not done so far. I'm not sure how that will affect their brand at all, but it's something to keep an eye on.

Link 5: On WSJ - Who's Buying the Bookstore? - arguably, there are few retail-outlets that evoke such an emotional response as bookstores. I find them comforting, and very similar to churches, in the way that it really is expected of you to be silent while browsing (on a side-note, I discussed a link of Dutch bookstore being opened in a church before). It's also a symbol of a community, as WSJ points out. Well, with competitive pressures from Amazon et al., these types of stores are clearly disappearing, or changing into hybrid monsters, which smaller stores can no longer compete with. WSJ points out a phenomenon related to that community-spirit, which is very touching. Capitalism isn't everything, particularly in places that target the softer pleasures in life. I'll have to reflect more on this, as I'm very attracted to these types of stores, and would love to set one up myself.

That's it, for this week. I'll see how I'll catch up on the rest of my links, but this went great (took 20 mins), and I always enjoy re-reading my bookmarks. I hope you do too.

I'm currently working on a wrap-up of what I wrote about in months 3-6. It's usually a monthly tradition (see months 1 & 2), but this one is extra long and taking me some time. Apologies for the silence this has been causing this week.

One of the things, I'm working on is a work in progress, a map of the food-industry. Step 1 is to identify the individual segments, which, I should note, are probably transferable to a great number of industries. Future iterations will include identifying specific companies in each segment, as well as sub-segments, and specific segment-pains also.

• Segment 1 - the production of raw materials: This can involve anything from growing coffee-beans, to potatoes, to rubber and trees (later used for packaging). Some vertical integration with segment 2 and perhaps 3.


• Segment 2 - the production of consumer-goods: The activities here involve sourcing raw materials and producing them into goods, ready for retail. From my understanding, there are a number of super-producers (Unilever, P&G, etc.) and more specialised ones. Some vertical integration with other segments, plenty of horizontal integration also.


• Segment 3 - retail: A diversified segment, consisting of super-markets, specialised stores, and hybrids (which combine retail with other services like music, etc.). Some vertical integration occurring, with e.g. private labels, and large franchises like McDonalds & Starbucks that communicate directly with segment 1.


• Segment 4 - consumers: too diversified for me to summarise at this stage. What I do note is that the reach of customers is increasing up the value chain: organics, enviromentalism, etc. are all signs of this.


• Sub-segments - marketing & logistics: It has been my observation that the degree that these are externalised depends on the resources available within and the complexities of the tasks. What I also noticed is that it's the supplier, not the buyer, that takes care of these things. And finally, that it's segment 2 that is usually responsible for marketing their products to segment 4, the consumers. I expect that something similar is or will be occurring from segment 1 to segment 4, to address concerns consumers may be having about production-methods.


• Meta-segment A - regulation: It has been my observation from my thesis that the government is a factor at pretty much every stage of the process of bringing a product to the market. It is a tool both for consumers, for larger interest-groups, and for businesses to stimulate change within industries, with all the consequences that has. Again, regulations pertaining to organic & green production-methods, as well as human rights and memberships of trade-unions are just a few of many factors to consider here.


• Meta-segment B - optimisation: This is where I would place consultancies, which are super-specialists aimed at improving processes in and between organisations, but also aiming at customers who are having more and more information at their disposal, more cash, and more complex needs.

That's all for now. Please let me know if I missed anything or if you disagree with something. I am here to learn!

I'm hoping to finish up my wrap-up by this weekend and that it will be business as usual next week.

Premise of this post: I'm going to get my camera fixed, for the second time in 3 weeks, at a store called Saturn. It is, as far as I know, the only other German chain focussed on consumer-electronics in the Netherlands, next to Media Markt, which is clearly the no. 1 here and in Germany. Ironically, while they appear as competitors to the consumer, they are owned by the same concern, Metro Group.

Now, I don't know the exact reason behind internal store-competition. The only company I worked for, where something like this was the case, was Sony, who allocated annual budgets to individual departments based on their performance. Reminds me a lot of the way governments are run. Of course, bureaucrats have a job for life.

While I was at Sony, I've never seen so many departments closed and managers fired, and both physical locations where I worked in Germany & the Netherlands, are no longer in existence. To a large part, in my opinion, this explains the troubles that Sony is in today, many of which are a disconnect with its audience and, very likely, caused by disconnects within the gigantic company also. But… that's a story for another day.

The other area where I know about examples of internal competitions, are product-lines. Didn't Steve Jobs once say (paraphrased): "If anyone should take marketshare away from one of our products, it should be Apple." I think that this is a conscious decision of Apple and I briefly touched upon it at Tech IT Easy, in regards to form-factor of the Macbook Air (MBA)—the screen, hard-drive, and CPU, which very much overlap with (read: fit into) other products that Apple sells, and, to me, represent economies of scope and scale to the company. It doesn't matter if the MBA sells or doesn't, what matters is that component costs will go down and innovation will go up, which is good for Apple.

Now, none of this really answers the questions why Saturn and Media Markt occupy the same market-segment. And, I have to confess, I just opened my Retail Marketing book to find the answer, and couldn't find it (the book is apparently not focussed on business strategy much).

Both Media Mark & Saturn offer similar features to customers, which are mostly represented on the chart below:

(Source: IBM white paper - "Deeper Customer Insight," which I wrote about several times before)

Some differences are perhaps that Saturn was most often located within another Metro Group-owned store, called Galeria Kaufhof, though I think they are changing that strategy in Germany, and certainly in the Netherlands, where they are stand-alone. Media Markt, as far as I know, has always been stand-alone. Both facilities are rather large, offer parking-facilities, and are usually located within the city (though in Rotterdam, Media Markt takes a more prominent place). And prices, promotions, and brands, while similar, differ in certain areas.

From this, I think it's safe to conclude that market-saturation is a clear goal of Metro-Group. By giving customers not one, but two large options, with separate deals to be had, at separate locations, etc., it appeals to an implicit customer-demand, that of choice, and takes attention away from other, "lesser," and certainly not Metro Group-owned choices.

Something else that is interesting, is mentioned on both companies' websites. Both chains are very decentralised in their management-structure. Every store acts as a self-sufficient enterprise, co-owned by each director, who, with his/her team, is responsible for how the store is run, and ultimately, how successful it is. Kind of sounds like a franchise.

So, I can only conclude that the internal competition paradigm is very much similar to that of Sony's, to force individual stores to perform better.

I think it's an interesting strategy and clearly Metro-Group is the winner here. How this plays out for individual stores and their share-holding directors is uncertain and clearly depends on the skill-level of store-management and the level of support given by their parent-company.

I'm spending a lot of time with a friend this week, who runs a start-up in a developing (2nd world) country in the lifestyle-food sector. I won't mention his name, his company or focus, or his country, nor anything confidential, because I don't want the information to be used against him. Instead, I'll talk about some general principles, that I've identified.

The irrelevance of business-literature
We both studied at Rotterdam school of management (sometimes known as Erasmus), and spent some time there last night. Funnily, I came across an article in a university-published journal identifying 6 traits of leadership to ask for in the "new" workforce. Keywords included: ethics, diversity, global outlook, tech savvy, adaptive capacity, and the X-factor (charisma?). I asked him, as a joke, which he thought applied to him. Global and adaptive, he responded. The rest meant virtually nothing to him. As a start-up, I guess, you have to do what you have to do, to stay alive.

The advantages of 2nd world start-ups
I distinguish between 1st world (e.g. the Netherlands), 2nd world (e.g. Brazil), and 3rd world (e.g. a large part of Africa), when I look at countries. 1st world countries are mature in their development, 2n world countries are not yet mature, but their economies are growing pretty fast, and 3rd world… well, I'm pretty depressed about that, though sometimes there's surprising pockets of entrepreneurship and innovation.

The advantage of a fast growing economy is that people are still figuring stuff out, meaning there are a lot of inefficiencies and gaps in the market. Another advantage, in his country's case, is the interests of governments in boosting those economies. If your innovative, the grants you receive may be both easier to get and larger in size than anything available in 1st world countries.

For start-ups, another advantage is that you can look at what works in a 1st world country and use that for your own business. This principle is not exclusive to start-ups, it's also relevant to the innovation race between Europe and the US, for instance.

The costs of educating a market
My friend operates a lifestyle-food start-up, as I said. One gap in 2nd world markets is usually that that segment is underdeveloped. But, if the economy is booming, wealth is increasing, and that certainly has a positive effect on the luxury-market.

However, when you introduce a new product to a market, you'll have to build the market up first. There are various approaches to marketing, I'll just go into the one that my friend used.

Essentially, you want to get your products into a supermarket, and you want people to buy the food. Sometimes one, sometimes both will take some convincing. In the beginning. he spent a lot of time in supermarkets, getting people to taste his food. After that went well, he could use that success to convince other supermarkets to become customers also.

Two advantages of supermarkets: they usually have pre-written contracts for suppliers so you don't have to draft them yourself. And they sometimes operate in chains, which makes it easier to get larger customers.

There's two further things to do with food, to make customer-adoption a little easier. One is to sell it in an easily digestible fashion, e.g. a snack. Two is to not do so, and instead provide customers with instructions to prepare the food. You could do this on the packaging, a website, and even more drastically (can't mention what). My friend is pretty active in this area.

Another problem with 2nd world countries is that, while your food may be part of a lifestyle in the 1st world, it's close to impossible to lead that lifestyle over there, because all the components are not there yet. So, in fact, you don't use that lifestyle as a marketing-term. Instead, focus on health-advantages, as that is often the underlying driver for such demand.

Still, even after more than a year, my friend spends about half of his monthly expenditure on marketing—which goes through a marketing-agency that designs the brand, the colours, etc.

Global outlook?
As a start-up, you have to work within certain boundaries: limited money, staff, production-facilities, time, etc.

The clients for a food-company may very well be supermarkets, which, as I mentioned, have the ability to buy a lot. My friend is expanding into other countries, but he's carefully picking the ones that don't exceed his capabilities.

He prefers a fragmented market, where he can concentrate on a one or two chains at a time, not a market where there's national chains that could bleed him dry.

Related to this, fragmented markets are usually underdeveloped also, so in fact he is exporting to countries similar to his own. That, at least, is as theoretically expected.

Theory, schmeory.
While there are certainly concepts that can be found in a number of different fields, ranging from entrepreneurship & strategy, innovation, supply-chain management, and marketing, it remains a matter of being practical, and specific to the business.

Entrepreneurship is a 60-80 hour / week job, usually. You don't have time to check out business-journals, etc. to do your job.

P.S. his business-plan was 2 pages long.

And those… are the facts of life. More, if I can think of it. The picture is completely unrelated to his product.

Every now and again, you come across something that changes the colour of your perception, that allows you to see the world in different ways. One such moment happened after reading a chapter in the IKEA-book, I wrote about before (1 & 2), on how the customer is deeply involved in the logistical process and the effects and cause of it.

As you may, or may not know, when you shop at IKEA, you generally go into the store, choose the furniture you want, pick up the already-boxed version of that item, put it in a cart, pay, drive home, and assemble it with some tools that are in the box. All-together, the customer at IKEA does 80% of the work related to sales.

I had read, in my bachelor, I think, that the reason that IKEA introduced this system was because of when it first opened its store, there was such a mass of people that their staff couldn't handle it, and that they then just decided to let the mob do all that stuff. I thought that the reason that system remained was cost-saving; I mean, how cheap is that to let customers do all that work for themselves, right? Well, that's definitely a reason, but only part of the story.

The other part is the effect it had on customers. Because you always ask yourself, why would someone go through that, when they can just pay the store a little extra for the transport and the assembly? And that's where it gets interesting.

To start, IKEA, even though it offers low-cost goods, is well-positioned for the middle-class market. The stores are outside the city, and pretty much all their customers have cars, which they can use to transport the furniture back home. I'm not 100% sure if this was by design or a consequence of other factors. But at the very least, the conditions for making the customer part of the logistics process are in place. Still, you kind of wonder. Aren't these exactly the people that could afford a little extra service?

The explanation is culture. Western culture, you could argue, has seen a shift towards individualism. People are over-informed, over-serviced, over-indulged. Sales-clerks and waiters can't wait to throw themselves at you and ask you if you're happy, if you want another…, and another, and another. It's exhausting, both for the store and for the clients.

In comes this place, which tells you, very Scandinavian, here… go do it yourself. Like a party, where you can mix your own cocktails. Where you control what goes in and what comes out. And most of all, where you get the feeling that you are part of a productive ecosystem. It's the good kind of stress.

The book quotes some sociologists, Robert Jungk and Ivan Illich, according to whom, a society which receives too many services, where every screw has a handyman, is a broken society. Services, they say, destroy activities. For every small chore, you can call an expert and let them do work that you actually do yourself. On a larger scale, services destroy the entrepreneurial drive. Also Thomas Düllo, according to whom, we live in a world of indirectness, and because of this, it's very exciting to be asked to do something. A French student was also quoted, calling IKEA: "Lego for Adults."

And there are definitely signs that suggest that society wants to move into another direction: open source, Wikipedia, Make-magazine, do-it-yourself, self-help, etc. Probably even blogging. A collection of niches to be sure, but growing ones.

Ever since reading that chapter, I sit in restaurants, stores, etc. and wonder how this principle can be worked into their or other businesses. For instance, is the take-away coffee part of it, or McDonalds' policy of throw-it-away-yourself, or Amazon. All of these "features" cause both a downward-shift in the bottom-line of "service" businesses, but they also remove the "service." And these businesses are unarguably booming too.

But I also wonder which services can be removed, and which shouldn't. More on that when I have the answer. Or perhaps you have it yourself? Let me know in the comments.

The picture is courtesy of Marco.org

I have a general philosophy on restrictive business-model: that particular business (or industry) is in pain. Much like when you drive an animal into a corner, it will quickly start bearing its teeth and drawing the line.

I spent today searching for a gym close to me (healthy body = healthy mind), and most of what I met were restrictions and crazy prices, mostly summarised by:

limited opening times (don't people train on weekends?); a fat one-time-only entry-fee; multi-month/year lock-ins; and prices charged per 4 weeks instead of per month.

So is the fitness-industry in trouble or is there another reason? I have some theories.

1. Low price-elasticity due to the health-boom


2. Too much competition - but it's not like barbers, which are on every corner, are trying to lock me into a 1-year contract.


3. Too little competition - more likely (see point 4)


4. Expensive cost-structure - likely, I imagine it's much higher than for other retail/entertainment-venues.


5. Low education entry-barrier, translating into uncreative business models


6. Extensive government-restrictions - seriously, what's with the stupid opening-times? High insurance-requirements also likely.

Anything I missed ???

What I want, and sort of found, is the classic model: sweaty seats, instructors who growl at you when asked a stupid question, lots and lots of free weights, and if possible some over-muscular body-building chicks to compare muscle-size with. I'd also like the ability to pay per month, as well as a gym that opens before 8 a.m. (but that apparently is asking for too much).

P.S. Finally found something in that sort of fits the bill (see pic). Classic Gym Rotterdam. I'll be joining tomorrow.