Posts Tagged ‘Competition’

Edition 35: Best of 2010 – The business of news

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Business21C Weekly is now available through the iTunes Podcast directory. To subscribe directly via iTunes, go to the Advanced menu in iTunes and select Subscribe to Podcast. Then paste in the following URL: http://www.business21c.com.au/podcasts/feed

Business21C Weekly is broadcast on Sydney’s 2SER 107.3 fm radio station at 9:00 am each Monday morning.

For this summer edition we are going to play a best of 2010 for Business21C Weekly. Today is the second and last “best of 2010″ with a repeat of  ’The business of news’:

This edition of Business21c Weekly looks at the business of news, as bloggers-in-pyjamas take on the might of the global media empires, as News Limited launches its paywall experiment at the Sunday Times, as iPad sales top two million worldwide, and its first look-alike challenger the iped is released in China – identical but at a fifth of the cost.

The news media landscape is a laboratory of experiments. The question isn’t simply who is making the news, but who is making money from news, and how? And how do we know whom we can trust?

Our guest is career journalist Tony Maniaty, veteran international reporter of conflict and crisis from East Timor to Lithuania. Tony is a Senior Lecturer in International Journalism at UTS and member of the advisory board of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism.

Is it a David and Goliath contest? Or is there truly room for all, gatekeepers and gatecrashers, to meet our ever-expanding, but ever more fragmented demand for news, information and entertainment?

Ideas are the currency at the Australian Innovation Festival

Monday, May 10th, 2010

In today’s world of breakneck change, companies need ways to develop ideas into strategies, strategies into prototypes, and prototypes into the next big thing. Quickly.

One way to do this is to combine two of the most powerful forces known to business: the market, and the crowd.

In the marketplace for ideas, those ideas that attract the most love and attention will be the ones that win out. They’ll get funding and intellectual energy that others don’t – no matter how much senior management pushes them.

The question is, how can organisations attract ideas, and then leverage the knowledge and understanding of its people to help the most viable ones become reality. What’s needed is a transparent internal market for ideas that allows everybody to see the ideas on offer, and gives everyone a stake in the process.

The answer? Social media. The way that social media sites operate is perfectly adapted to the generation, feedback and refinement of ideas into reality. Individuals can provide their ideas, feedback and participate in the refinement process, without leadership or facilitation – it happens as a result of the power of the swarm.

Software provider Spigit has developed a social media platform for doing just this. Customers such as Cisco, Pfizer, and Southwest Airlines use Spigit’s innovation management software for corralling the to-and-fro of collaboration across the enterprise, in a transparent process that encourages cross-fertilising of ideas through the organisation.

The software has been customised for the Australian Innovation Festival. The Australian Innovation Festival Ideas site invites all comers to provide ideas, to give their feedback on other participants ideas, and to invest their spigits (a fantasy currency created for the comptition) in those ideas they think are most promising.

Once the Australian Innovation Festival concludes, ideas in each category with the most investment dollars from registrants are awarded access to advisors and investors to continue to develop the idea for possible funding and real world implementation.

Business21C will support those ideas that successfully emerge from the process by providing expert business insight and academic analysis through UTS Business. They will also be supported by other partners including Patent Attorneys Griffith Hack; Innovation think tank the Hargraves Institute.

Ideas can be submitted against four themes: A Better Future for our Children (ideas to help future generations); Sustainable Environments (climate control, green technology etc.); The Connected World (making use of the national broadband network); and The Recovering Economy (making Australia a more robust economy).

Register your idea here now.

Super? More cooperation, less competition in superannuation

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Competition in the superannuation industry has not served investors well. In fact, it may have knocked some 40 percent off your pension. Professor Ron Bird and Adjunct Professor Jack Gray of the Paul Woolley Centre for Capital Market Dysfunctionality suggest that encouraging cooperation may be the key to reducing costs and safeguarding market efficiency.

Competition, the cornerstone of the Western economic system, ensures that consumer needs are met and at minimum cost. This is the fundamental understanding on which Western economies have built their financial services industries.

But research suggests competition has not served superannuation fund members well. It has led to a raft of agency costs, to significant overservicing and, ultimately, to a dysfunctionality of the capital markets.

In fact, according to our calculations at the Paul Woolley Centre for Capital Market Dysfunctionality at UTS, competition costs superannuation fund members in the order of three percent of their investment return per annum – resulting in a reduction of their terminal wealth of about 40 percent. We believe that it is cooperation rather than competition that will produce the most efficient use of capital and the most effective return for superannuation fund investors.

The three-percent-per-annum leakage that we have identified is distributed fairly equally across three sources: inefficient pricing, agency costs and excessive choice.

Academic evidence of inefficient pricing continues to grow. We are all painfully aware of two recent bubbles: the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s and the finance-created bubble of the 2000s. It is no accident that such instances of capital market dysfunctionality are becoming more frequent. We believe they result from a combination of changes in the structure of investment markets, the perverse outcome of remuneration systems in financial institutions and corporations, and the extreme pro-cyclical nature of monetary management.

The issue of changes to the structure of markets arises as a result of the shift from information-based investors, who dominated the market 40 years ago, to today’s trend-following momentum managers and passive index funds, which together make up two-thirds of investors. The dominance of trend-following investments fuels the market swings around fair value in security prices that have been identified consistently in empirical studies.

Recent work at the Paul Woolley Centre for Capital Market Dysfunctionality at UTS Business suggests that this switch to trend-following investment reduces investment returns to members by about one percent per annum.

We believe that this figure could be reduced if superannuation funds were to cooperate. Currently, each superannuation fund runs its own team of fund managers. We propose that super funds jointly appoint and share ownership of a small number of information-based fund managers – a sufficient number to create and maintain market efficiency.

Watch the Cafe21C interview with Ron Bird, Jack Gray and Paul Woolley here:


Destination and enterprise management in a changing world

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

An important part of a successful tourism industry is the ability to recognise and deal with change. By understanding the key drivers of change, Australian tourism stakeholders are becoming ‘future makers’ rather than ‘future takers’, says Dr Deborah Edwards.

Tourism stakeholders need a clear understanding of the direction of change and its implications in order to maintain their competitive advantage in uncertain times. Since tourism is closely integrated with other sectors in the economy, trends in this area cannot be considered in isolation from other drivers that will shape the world in coming years.

Research sponsored by the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) and published in the journal Tourism Management is helping the tourism industry plan for a challenging future.

The tourism and hospitality industries are facing increasing competition: between international and domestic destinations, between established and new markets, and between firms within destinations. With greater knowledge of the trends underpinning tourism development, destination managers and tourism operators will be better able to achieve competitive advantage for their organisations.

Forecasts for the next fifteen years show major shifts in the leisure and tourism environment reflecting changing consumer values, political forces, environmental changes and the explosive growth of information and communication technology.

Destinations and individual operators that fail to address changing customer needs will suffer what Johnson and Scholes (1997) call strategic drift. Strategic drift occurs when an organisation’s strategy moves away, with no clear direction, from addressing the forces in the external environment.

However, by identifying broad global trends, we can anticipate their influences on tourists, destinations and tourism organisations. The challenge for stakeholders in both private and public sectors is then to account for these changes proactively to maintain and improve their positions in a competitive marketplace.

Research can play a major role in assisting tourism managers and operators develop strategy. Through research, tourism stakeholders can act as ‘future makers’ rather than ‘future takers’ (Ellyard, 2006). But this requires them to ask, not ‘what will the future be?’ but rather ‘what should the future be?’ and ‘how can we meet that future’?

In 2007, STCRC researchers from UNSW, UTS, Monash and the University of Queensland conducted a review of ‘futures’ literature to identify the major forces driving global change to 2020. In a subsequent series of workshops, participants from the tourism and hospitality industry explored the ways in which these trends influence tourist values and attitudes, and the implications for the management of tourism destinations and enterprises – including new product and service development.

Workshop participants identified the following themes as relevant to destination management:

  • sustainable tourism development
  • climate change
  • target marketing
  • risk management, and
  • education for tourism management.

Themes identified as being relevant to enterprise management were:

  • sustainable operations
  • innovation in product development
  • strategic management
  • target marketing, and
  • risk management.

These issues are by no means the only ones relevant or important in management strategies to fashion tourism futures. Nevertheless, they are expected to play an important role in the context of ongoing global changes.

The resulting paper discusses the implications of each of these themes for tourism industry management in both the public and private sectors. It also examines how innovative strategies can be formulated by destination managers and tourism operators worldwide to avoid strategic drift for their organisations and to develop tourism in a sustainable way.

Although the workshop discussion undoubtedly had an Australian focus, much of the industry input was relevant to tourism industries worldwide. The implications of the global trends for new product development and various aspects of enterprise and destination management are of broad interest, and are applicable worldwide.

It is these themes that will help set the action agenda for tourism into the future.

This article is based on the paper Destination and enterprise management for a tourism future, in Tourism Management, Volume 30, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 63-74. co-authored with Larry Dwyer (UNSW), Nina Mistilis (UNSW), Carolina Roman (UNSW)and Noel Scott (University of Queensland).

The innovation cycle

Saturday, September 19th, 2009

There are three types of innovation. Nigel Bairstow’s research shows that, to be successful, companies should understand what they are trying to achieve, and work to their competencies.

Every company seeks innovation, but many find it elusive. It is, however, the only sustained source of competitive advantage and growth. You can cut expenses only so much, and imitating competitors’ inventions can only go on for so long.

Honest profit is achievable by companies that offer products or services that are viewed by customers as new or perceived to be highly desirable. Innovation equals new ideas plus action. Done right, they result in an improvement, gain, or profit. But how should companies think of innovation? There are three fundamental types of innovation.

The first, type A, is the most radical innovation, which gives birth to a brand new market or industry. For example, today’s information technology industry was shaped by two breakthroughs:

  • the first internet website created by Tim Berners-Lee in 1990, and;
  • the first web browser invented by Netscape in 1994.

These inventions re-shaped the information technology industry. They were the genesis of the dot.com era and the rapid development of e-banking, iTunes, amazon.com and the myriad other internet-enabled services that make life today so radically different to that of twenty years ago.

Today, we can see this type of innovation taking place in the nanotechnology and biotech industries, creating the new markets and industries of the future.

Type A: New market or industry

Type B innovation changes the basis of competition. Such innovations create a new competitive position or niche within an established field.

Sony created a market with its Type A Walkman in the 1980s. But Apple followed up with a killer Type B in the iPod. Apple built on the market that Sony developed in the early stages and is now the dominant market leader in this personal entertainment category.

Type B:

The third innovation type, Type C, is closely aligned with explicit customer needs. These are small incremental changes that extend the product life cycle and occupy many companies’ marketing activities.

There is significant value to be created even with this incremental form of innovation. For example, Nokia released the Nokia 1100 mobile phone for the Indian market and, like most new model mobile phones, made only small changes to previous versions. The 1100 was dust resistant and had an inbuilt flash light – useful in a country that suffers from numerous electricity blackouts. The company ended up selling 20 million units.

Type C: Line extension

The three innovation types can be applied to different kinds of customer relationships to produce a matrix of possibilities. Figure 1 displays a matrix of how 3M has developed a culture of innovation with its Post-it® notes.

When Art Fry developed this idea it was new business (Type A) for 3M which created a successful new market. 3M were able to innovate further by changing the basis of competition (Type B) with the introduction of Post-it® Flags. Finally, its incremental changes (Type C), represented by line extensions that lengthened the product life cycle and sales growth, were introduced through the development of different colours and sizes of its original Post-it® notes.

Matrix of innovation types

Companies that have innovation at their heart have an ability to develop solutions in search of real-world problems.

To be successful requires companies to understand their strategic competencies, strengths, and weaknesses and develop strategic alliances with other companies to increase speed to market for their products and services. The age of globalisation has meant the world is indeed flat and requires increased collaboration and quick response to be first to market or perish.

Companies need to understand what their innovation objectives are, and build an environment in which these can be fulfilled. Managing innovation also requires risk-taking and investment, particularly for Type A innovations. Type A innovations require individuals that are entrepreneurial and have the ability to grow a new business from scratch. Type B and C innovations require individuals in organisations that that can maintain and generate profits over the long term.

Innovation doesn’t just happen, at least not consistently. Like talent, cash and other company assets, it needs to be fostered, managed and have an underlying strategy that can be adapted as the organisation, and its environment, changes.

Nigel Bairstow is a lecturer in the school of Marketing at UTS. This article is based on his experience working at 3M for 12 years in the 3M management team.

Competitive performance

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

James Goth, a Partner and Managing Director at The Boston Consulting Group, provides a unique insight into the specific relationship between strategy and competitive advantage, defining what developing a strategy means for an organization and how a consulting firm can support that process.

Watch the full video above, or skip to selected chapters below.

James introduces BCG’s contribution to strategy and underlines the importance of competitive advantage in any strategic thinking they do.

A unique insight is given on this successful global firm’s contribution to their clients’ strategy development.

James explains how the famous BCG matrix came to be and its relevance to corporate strategy.

With the background of new emerging powerhouses on the world scene, we explore why good strategies are more important than ever before.

James describes a detailed process which should form a key component of anyone’s strategy ‘toolbox’.

A strategist’s ‘toolbox’ should include a clean sheet, open mind, team work and dynamic thinking.

James discusses how changing mindsets, new frameworks and technology will impact on competitive advantage.