Category Archives: Strategy

“The Digital Director”

Posted on by
Reply

Last year, the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) ran a series of 10 webinars under the umbrella of “The Digital Director”. Despite the title, there was very little exploration of “digital” technology itself, but a great deal of discussion on how to manage IT within the traditional corporate structure – as between the board of directors, the management, and the workforce.

There was a great deal of debate on things like “digital mindset”, “digital adaption and adoption”, and “digital innovation and evolution”. During one webinar, the audience were encouraged to avoid using the term “digital transformation” (instead, think “digital economy”) – yet 2 of the 10 sessions had “digital transformation” in the title.

Specific technical topics were mainly confined to AI, data privacy, data governance and cyber security. It was acknowledged that while corporate Australia has widely adopted SaaS solutions, it lacks depth in digital skills; and the percentage of the ASX market capitalisation attributable to IP assets shows we are “30 years behind the USA”. There was specific mention of blockchain technology, but the two examples given are already obsolete (the ASX’s abandoned project to replace the CHESS system, and CBA’s indefinitely deferred roll-out of crypto assets on their mobile banking app).

Often, the discussion was more about change management, and dealing with the demands of “modern work” from a workforce whose expectations have changed greatly in recent years, thanks to the pandemic, remote working, and access to new technology. Yet, these are themes that have been with us ever since the first office productivity tools, the arrival of the internet, and the proliferation of mobile devices that blur the boundary between “work” and “personal”.

The series missed an opportunity to explore the impact of new technology on boards themselves, especially their decision-making processes. We have seen how the ICO (initial coin offering) phase of cryptocurrency markets in 2017-19 presented a wholly new dimension to the funding of start-up ventures; and how blockchain technology and smart contracts heralded a new form of corporate entity, the DAO (decentralised autonomous organisation).

Together, these innovations mean the formation and governance of companies will no longer rely on the traditional structure of shareholders, directors and executives – and as a consequence, board decision-making will also take a different format. Imagine being able to use AI tools to support strategic planning, or proof-of-stake to vote on board resolutions, and consensus mechanisms to determine AGMs.

As of now, “Digital Directors” need to understand how these emerging technologies will disrupt the boardroom itself, as well as the very corporate structures and governance frameworks that have been in place for over 400 years.

Next week: Back in the USA

 

 

 

“There’s a gap in the market, but is there a market in the gap?”

Posted on by
Reply

As a follow up to last week’s post on business strategy, this week’s theme is product development – in particular, the perennial debate over “product-market fit” that start-up businesses and incumbents both struggle with.

Launch it and they will drink it….. (image sourced from Adelaide Remember When via Facebook)

The link between business strategy and product development is two-fold: first, the business strategy defines what markets you are in (industry sectors, customer segments, geographic locations etc.), and therefore what products and services you offer; second, to engage target customers, you need to provide them with the solutions they want and are willing to pay for.

The “product-market fit” is a core challenge that many start-ups struggle to solve or articulate. A great product concept is worth nothing unless there are customers who want it, in the way that you intend to offer it, and which aligns with your go-to-market strategy.

I appreciate that there is an element of chicken and egg involved in product development – unless you can show customers an actual product it can be difficult to engage them; and unless you can engage them, how can they tell you what they want (assuming they already know the answer to that question)? How often do customers really say, “I didn’t know I needed that until I saw it”? (Mind you, a quick scan across various crowd-funding platforms, or TV shopping channels, can reveal thousands of amazing products you didn’t know you couldn’t live without!) Of course, if your product development team can successfully anticipate unmet or unforeseen needs, then they should be on to a winner every time! In fact, being ahead of the curve, and understanding or even predicting the market direction is a key aspect of business strategy and product development for medium and long-term planning and forecasting.

Then there is the “build it and they will come” strategy. A bold move in most cases, as it involves upfront deployment of capital and resources before a single customer walks through the door. The image above is the only visual record I can find of a soft drink marketed in South Australia during the late 1960s and early 1970s. And you read the label correctly – a chocolate flavoured carbonated beverage (not a chocolate milk or soy concoction). It was introduced when the local manufacturer faced strong competition from international soft drink brands. No doubt it was designed to “corner the market” in a hitherto under-served category and to diversify against the competitor strongholds over other product lines. Likewise, is was launched on the assumption that people like fizzy drinks and people like chocolate, so hey presto, we have a winning combination! It was short-lived, of course, but ironically this was also around the time that soft drink company Schweppes merged with confectionery business Cadbury, and commentators joked that they would launch a chocolate soda, or a fizzy bar of chocolate….

With data analysis and market research, it may be possible to predict likely successes, based on past experience (sales history), customer feedback (solicited and unsolicited) and market scans (what are the social, business and technology trends). But obviously, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. In my early days as a product manager in publishing, we had monthly commissioning committees where we each presented our proposals for front list titles. Financial forecasts for the new products were largely based on sales of relevant back catalogue, and customer surveys. As product managers, we got very good at how to “read” the data, and presenting the facts that best suited our proposals. In fact, the Chairman used to say we were almost too convincing, that it became difficult to second guess our predictions. With limited production capacity, it nevertheless became imperative to prioritise resources and even reject some titles, however “convincing” they seemed.

Then there is the need to have a constant pipeline of new products, to refresh the range, retire under-performing products, and to respond to changing market conditions and tastes. In the heyday of the popular music industry from the 1960s to the late 1990s, the major record labels reckoned they needed to release 20 new song titles for every hit recording. And of course, being able to identify those 20 releases in the first place was a work of art in itself. For many software companies, the pipeline is now based on scheduled releases and regular updates to existing products, including additional features and new enhancements (particularly subscription services).

An important role of product managers is knowing when to retire an existing service, especially in the face of declining or flat sales. Usually, this involves migrating existing customers to a new or improved platform, with the expectation of generating new revenue and/or improving margins. But convincing your colleagues to give up an established product (and potentially upset current customers) can sometimes be challenging, leading to reluctance, uncertainty and indecision. In a previous role, I was tasked with retiring a long-established product, and move the existing clients to a better (but more expensive) platform. Despite the naysayers, our team managed to retire the legacy product (resulting in substantial cost savings), and although some clients chose not to migrate, the overall revenue (and margin) increased.

Finally, reduced costs of technology and the abundance of data analytics means it should be easier to market test new prototypes, running proofs-of-concept or A/B testing different business models. But what that can mean for some start-ups is that they end up trying to replicate a winning formula, simply in order to capture market share (and therefore raise capital), and in pursuit of customers, they sacrifice revenue and profit.

Next week: Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

 

 

 

Brexit Blues

Posted on by
1

Reading the latest coverage of the Brexit farce combined with the inter-related Conservative leadership contest, I am reminded of Oscar Wilde’s description of fox hunting:

“The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable”

Whichever candidate wins the Tory leadership race and, as a consequence, becomes the next UK Prime Minister, they will inevitably fail to deliver a satisfactory Brexit solution, simply because there is no consensus position.

But the underlying cause for this impasse is a series of flawed processes:

First, the promise made by previous Prime Minister David Cameron to hold a referendum on EU membership was flawed, if not highly disingenuous – because from the start, there were no terms of reference. Cameron chose to make it part of his manifesto pledge ahead of the 2015 general election campaign. Even at the time it felt like a desperate ploy to appease the mainly right-wing and Eurosceptic faction of the Conservative party. Despite being generally in favour of the UK remaining within the EU (but with “looser ties”), Cameron probably never expected that he would have to deliver on his referendum promise let alone lead the Brexit negotiations. Behind in the polls, the Tories were expected to lose the election. Instead, they won, but with a much reduced majority – which should have been the first warning sign that all was not going to be plain sailing with Cameron’s EU referendum pledge.

Second, the referendum question put to the electorate in 2016 was itself flawed. Cameron had originally talked about renegotiating the UK’s terms of EU membership, much like Margaret Thatcher had done with some considerable success in the 1980s. There was certainly no mention at all in Cameron’s January 2013 speech of a “No-deal Brexit”. However, the referendum question put to the voters was a stark, binary choice between “Remain” or “Leave”. As some have argued, the design of the referendum should have been enough to render it invalid: both because the voters were not given enough reliable data upon which to make an informed decision; and because there was no explanation or guidance as to what type of “Leave” (or “Remain”) outcome the government and Parliament would be obliged or expected to negotiate and implement. Simply put, the people did not and could not know what they were actually voting for (or against). I am not suggesting that the voters were ignorant, rather they were largely ill- or under-informed (although some would argue they were actually misinformed).

Third, the respective Leave and Remain campaigns in the 2016 referendum were both equally flawed. The Leave campaign was totally silent on their proposed terms of withdrawal (I certainly don’t recall the terms “Hard Brexit” or “No-deal Brexit” being used), and their “policy” was predicated on the magic number of “£350m a week“. And the Remain campaign failed to galvanize bipartisan support, and was totally hindered by the Labour leadership’s equivocation and ambivalence towards the EU (which has only deepened as Jeremy Corbyn refuses to confirm what his policy actually is).

Finally, the Parliamentary process to implement Brexit was flawed from the start. Cameron jumped ship and ending up passing the poisoned chalice to Theresa May. The latter had supported Remain, but now had to lead the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. However, rather than trying to build consensus and broker a truly bipartisan solution (this is not, after all, a simple, one-dimensional party political issue), May proved to be a stubborn, inflexible and thick-skinned operator. Now, there are threats to prorogue Parliament in the event that MPs vote against a No-Deal or Hard Brexit, if a negotiated agreement cannot be achieved by the October 31 deadline. May’s negotiation tactics have only resulted in deeply entrenched and highly polarised positions, while she ended up painting herself into a corner. Good luck to her successor, because if nothing else, Brexit is casting division and national malaise across the UK.

Next week: Pitch X’s Winter Solstice

 

Spaceship launches the future of superannuation

Posted on by
Reply

Backed by some stellar names in the tech and startup worlds, Spaceship describes itself as a superannuation fund designed to “invest where the world is going, not where it’s been”. Squarely aimed at 18-35 year-olds (and savvy people in their 40s and 50s….), it is the brainchild of Paul Bennetts (a Partner at AirTree Ventures), Andrew Sellen (ex-Marketing Manager at Australian Ethical Investments) and two tech co-founders, Dave Kuhn and Kaushik Sen. Their central thesis is that global tech stocks are the future, and that these assets should form a greater part of a fully diversified portfolio, with a 10-year plus investment horizon.

spaceship-logo-03I first connected with Paul a couple of years ago, when I was working with a legal technology startup that was an early graduate of the Melbourne Accelerator Program. He was interested in what we were doing at Ebla, but the company was at too early a stage for him to invest in. But I’ve kept an eye on what Paul has been doing since, and have followed the Spaceship story quite closely. We last caught up very briefly during a recent roadshow event in Melbourne, as part of the Spaceship beta launch.

Any new superannuation brand, especially if it is neither an industry fund nor a retail fund backed by a major financial institution, is going to struggle to attract members: the industry and public sector funds have the benefit of workplace incumbency (sometimes backed by industrial awards), and the big retail funds have extensive distribution channels via advisor platforms, dealer groups and financial planners. As for corporate superannuation funds, in my experience, many of these employer-run funds are often a re-badged or customised version of an existing retail fund, or a highly outsourced business that retains the company name for brand recognition among employees.

Spaceship is challenging the market by using technology (and very targeted marketing) to streamline the recruitment and on-boarding process. As evidence of its marketing success, Spaceship claims to have built a waiting list of 12,000 prospective members in just 30 days, mostly through social media and word-of-mouth. And as evidence of its success in attracting “smart” money, witness some of the big names who have backed the venture as investors, or joined as members themselves.*

Not surprisingly, Spaceship is also developing some interesting content marketing and social media tactics to drive member engagement. This includes thought leadership on portfolio diversification, understanding investment horizons, accessing investments in early-stage tech companies, and investing in tech brands that its members love and use.

But while much of the media coverage for Spaceship has been positive, it has already drawn detractors (almost in the same breath…). Some of the latter reckon that it won’t achieve necessary scale to be sustainable (in light of APRA moves to drive consolidation among smaller funds), it will be highly concentrated in its exposure to tech stocks (which have a tendency to be more volatile), and without face-to-face contact with members, it will be harder to drive customer engagement.

Given that, following some delays, Spaceship does not launch to the general public until the end of this month (it is still running a waitlist), it’s probably a bit churlish to say it is doomed to failure before it has even really begun. Equally, having worked in financial market research myself, I have met with a number of industry, public sector, retail and corporate superannuation funds who cite member engagement and retention as one of their biggest challenges. The main issue is this: how do you interest an 18-year old in something from which they won’t derive any benefit for at least 40 years?  And once you have got their attention, how do you sustain that interest over the lifetime of their membership and into retirement?

Now technology is having a larger part to play in disrupting the superannuation industry, and changing the way members interact with their fund. As the COO of a major industry fund said recently at a FinTech Victoria event, “consolidating your super balances is only three clicks away” (to which Spaceship, replied “it’s now only one click!”). But it’s not enough to have a smart phone app to check your balances, switch investment options or make voluntary contributions. Members are looking for other services, such as financial education, estate planning, insurance, loans and mortgages, and tailored advice. Plus, they expect much more streamlined processes and pro-active member support.

I suspect that a key factor that will likely contribute to Spaceship’s potential success is the growth of the gig economy:

First, with more people working as freelancers, contractors or becoming self-employed, they will have no ties to a fixed workplace or a single employer – so they will be drawn to a fund product that appeals to their independence and flexibility.

Second, much of the gig economy lies in the tech and startup sectors, so again, prospective members might well be looking for a fund that invests in what they are interested and involved in themselves.

Third, if we are all expected to live and work longer, and if we are going to have to rely more on our own accumulated retirement assets, a fund that fully aligns with this long-term investment philosophy is hopefully going to be better placed to help us meet our financial goals.

Of course, it’s worth remembering that the Australian superannuation industry is both large ($2.1tn in assets as at September 2016, and the 3rd largest pool of pension funds in the world), and highly regulated (for very good reason). Equally, it has been slow to adapt to a changing economy and to different market factors, and is increasingly dominated by just a few big funds. Among some large industry funds, there is almost a cosy, symbiotic relationship between their members (who work in say, construction, energy, mining) and some of the assets the funds invest in (infrastructure, buildings, utilities). (But that may prove to be Spaceship’s USP – representing members who work in the tech sector?)

Although the Australian superannuation and managed funds sectors have established strong capabilities in administration, trustee, custody and asset management services, many of these back-office operations run on legacy IT systems which are potentially ripe for disruption. Plus, while government initiatives look for ways to attract more offshore institutions to place their assets with Australian fund managers, under various financial passport arrangements Australian institutions can invest in offshore funds domiciled and managed in key investment centres such as Luxembourg and Singapore.

Finally, new entrants to the superannuation industry are less likely to be reliant on incumbent and legacy service providers, and more able to take advantage of emerging technologies such as blockchain solutions (distributed ledger platforms), and fully integrated end-to-end CX (mobile apps and tools).

* Declaration of interest and disclaimer: I was successful in signing up to Spaceship in beta/waitlist, and have allocated a small portion of my own super to the fund. I do not have any other commercial connection with Spaceship or its founders. I have not been paid to write this article, nor should it be construed or interpreted as financial advice – it has been provided for general information only. BE SURE TO SEEK YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVICE BEFORE MAKING ANY FINANCIAL INVESTMENT.

Next week: Gaming/VR/AR pitch night at Startup Victoria