At this moment economists of well known resources world wide come with their adjustments (and similar explanations) on Japanese economic growth (GDP) expectations for 2011 and beyond, including currencies and other leading indicators.
Now the damage, the delays and the recovery will have an impact, here is no disagreement. The question here is what this will do to your economy and business?
Some say it is too early to tell and adjust modestly, others heavily correct their forecasts downwards of Japan or other countries. Probably the truth will be somewhere in the middle but what are you going to tell your management or stakeholders? Following a heavy paid opinion in case it goes wrong?
If Japan is a key country to your business or Japanese firms are competing it will be helpful to access reliable data and to integrate them efficiently at any corporate level. Now who can deliver that? What resource outperforms others about Japan? What fits nowadays in your budgets?
Let us not tell each other stories and fairy tales about forecasting. There is no resource (or economist) able to tell you what exactly this impact will be in the short, long term, in size, in dollars or yen or in your industry. It is all guessing, constantly adjusting and no one will afterward tell how wrong they were.
Some professionals do not care and rely blindly on that brand name provider where paying the price seems of lesser concern. As corporate pays the employees follow without benchmarking or doubt. A too common vicious circle of business - market intelligence with no tangible synergies or contribution.
Others tell their planning, market intelligence, finance or other data teams to search on internet looking for more (free) information about Japan. Here extra labor costs and outdated info seem not questionable because it is for free. Sure!
When knowing all the alternatives, what is your price for reliable economic data of Japan and the effects globally? What is your tool or provider? Do you care about quality, synergy and fees when using macro parameters?
If so, please contact me because on Tuesday the 5th of April we will release our new monthly edition of Major Economies, including the last changes of 25 selected national and international institutions for 10-15 key Japanese macro parameters (2-5 year forecasts).
Key differences with other alternatives; hard to beat average forecasts, more cost / time savings and faster ROI. Is that welcome in this business climate or not?
I´d be pleased to inform you how to get this Japanese update without charge. Thanks in advance!
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta market research. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta market research. Mostrar todas las entradas
jueves, 24 de marzo de 2011
jueves, 17 de diciembre de 2009
Purchasing brand identity is still preferred. But for how long?
Client behavior:
We are now in business for ten years and the last five years I had the chance to discuss with a lot of business leaders world wide.
From non cooperative narrow minded fearful closed managers to final customers who took the time to listen to the alternative for our kind of market data.
Before discussing end proposals it is interesting to hear alternatives. It is sometimes amazing that professionals take the fast lane instead of studying all alternatives. You almost hear them thinking "It is a corporate expense, so...?"
You expect in good years professionals take more their time in selecting data providers by looking at quality and in bad years a similar research is done with the focus on synergies.
This will avoid in hard times cost cuttings put an end to certain valuable data receiving or they is simply no interest in knowing what adds or what is a waste. The corporate pressure on saving is higher than on long term value.
Now most of the downturn looks like to be behind, for the time being, it is interesting to study how professionals have been dealing with their challenges in regards to market data providers.
For example in case of financial or strategic planning decisions these last years, surprisingly, many have been using one source (data provider) only. Imagine in a downturn still relying on one opinion.
What causes that kind of strategy? Lack of interest in others? Avoiding changes? No maximum budgets?
As we do not consider the global leading market data providers as competitors I believe my following comments are not without arguments but I have no problem with mentioning one of them.
This is based on feedback from others and many of our clients use them as a source. I will not criticize their services but use them to show the difference between a single source and for example how we use a multi-view of sources.
One source only:
Besides planning our kind of data of the underlying economies in countries of interest in many cases come from the same source as the sector data.
Reasons are diverse; from administrative advantages to not knowing or willing to know the alternatives.
Some even claim only to need industrial information which depending on the role in the company I can agree with. Others, even worse than using one source, use free sources such as internet. Like out of date info or extra labor costs add more value.
When a demand planner or CFO of a Retailer uses for example Global Insight for their food sector analyzes included are macroeconomic data like forecasts. A combination (package) of sector and macro from one source.
Who is the expert?
Now I can imagine when analyzing for years a food sector you learn and you can become an expert. But an expert in food is different from an expert in economics. At a corporate level with a retailer you are probably a food expert. So, you should in fact already know more than others about your business.
The same is when studying economics and explaining the food sector. We do not do that for example. It is for both client and provider better to stay in your core business.
The past years I do not believe sector experts were able to predict better the markets than economists. Every one lacked the same visibility and for many countries / sectors this continues in 2010.
There might be exceptions but they were either not contacted, they were not seen as reliable or they were ignored. Otherwise the world would have looked different many times.
Too long too positive:
This is about logic. In good times, I was reading about an upturn of ten years before the last crisis emerged, it is easier to make your analyzes come through or realistic.
No one for commercial reasons will become critical about the markets of their clients and as long as it continues, let us keep the positive mood!
Imagine a global provider would completely turnaround a certain sector trend. It hardly happens, even not in for example stock markets. The risk is too high and clients are at stake.
The continuing positive mood is partly responsible for crisis in the Finance industry. In theory all sectors have had the same models of too optimistic ratings. Only Finance works faster than Food.
A close call was the Automotive industry. Merely because here besides an oversupply, we cannot digest more cars before economies recover or become profitable, the industrial leaders did an overkill themselves by too late reformation and innovation. Still there is a lot of resistance.
When looking at market research reports, besides links to alternative energy sources or smaller different cars, the world kept overwhelmed with weekly models.
That required analyst to write again reports (positive) and any other kind of PR necessarily to promote the new vehicle. Another example of keeping the statu quo.
Optimism is here again:
As said other sectors like food might not have had the same experiences from a business model but from a market research model they did.
Even though some countries look like to have escaped (
Again, I might have not read all reporting out there, but the point is that it is much easier to predict a positive market than a negative one. Even in a downturn.
When writing negative comments the chance your report is bought is lower than writing you have good arguments the momentum is changing.
This is accepted, maybe already since the industrial revolution, and it will probably not change fast. But what needs a change is predictions for macroeconomics. That is not similar to market or sector outlooks.
When counting we alone have more than hundred selected different opinions. Each month for 10-15 indicators per country. That comes to about 100,000 figures per month.
Still when it comes to a GDP or inflation forecast of BRIC, US, Canada, France, UK, Germany, Italy and other countries professionals prefer a single source like Global Insight.
The truth about forecasts:
I here can easily defend Global Insight because they seems to me in their field the best alternative but not when it comes to economic forecasts. For one and only reason:
Economic data cannot be relied on, economic forecasts are not realistic and economic forecasts are too vulnerable to take a brand identity for granted.
It is like years ago when they find out a chimpanzee had better investment rates than a group of highly trained brokers (from brand identity companies).
When we already receive for one indicator in
When they get closer the economy looks like to become more stable and with more differentiation the opposite, instability can occur. But nothing is certain in economics.
What is the price or value of trust?
So, where is the brand identity, the trust? Where when it comes to economic forecasts can be more received from Global Insight than others?
Can they like with stock markets constantly beat the average? Is there such outperforming available for economic forecasts?
Now before the last downturn in a period of for example five years it has been possible to come closer to certain economic predictions but not for emerging markets, only for developed ones.
Take for example the
When it comes to stock markets people decided that for any kind of advise or guidance final results cannot be relied on former or past performance. That has become a strict rule.
I believe that should be similar for all market analyzes or forecasts. Not only economic forecasts but for all kind of industrial predictions. Because who is finally going to be right? Do you get your money back when the results are worse than expected?
The fact professionals still choose for global providers such as Global Insight should only have a valuable reason, not a brand identity one.
Like for their clients this value has to be demonstrated in the current recovery from most bottom reached markets. This should be normal.
Purchasing without a reason:
Fortunately for them a lot of professionals see purchasing market data not as a valued corporate contribution. They purchase because they have to and because it worked. But does it mean there is no better alternative? When having one solution, the search for improvements stops?
Now for macroeconomic forecasts this model is changing I believe it will be changing too for any kind of sector information. On top were do business leaders take decisions based on one market scenario?
This will not threaten for example Global Insight but will give them and others the chance to adjust, to learn and to improve their services.
Professionals that purchase brand identity will always remain. But hopefully for their company this will change before the new uptrend is followed by another downturn.
Conclusion:
Looking ahead markets will get more complex and volatile. This requires value upgrades of data and separations of core and non core cannot be postponed because there are no longer more advantages than disadvantages.
Except for those who, when it comes to market data, do not care much about cost / benefits but they would not read this. I wonder if their management is aware of their lack of interest. Probably they will before the next downturn because nowadays getting a second chance is harder than before.
We are pleased to notice the downturn also has had the advantage of offer professionals a better priced alternative. By continuing improving and expanding we can even offer more of the same price-quality.
We might not become of the same sized brand identity like Global Insight or similar providers but we learned our customers do not care. They care about their company. Purchasing brand identity is still preferred. But for how long?
miércoles, 25 de noviembre de 2009
Complex sale or buying complex?
During the last years it is remarkable how sales efforts are qualified. Old tricks are even sold as new breakthroughs while it is widely known making sales is no longer a trick every dog can learn but doing serious business.
Still at the buy-side responses are remarkable. Barking, biting and guarding the door are more common than looking for a serious B2B opportunity. How come?
It looks like buyers have an easier task but in fact most do not even care. As long as there is enough competition or demand can be facilitated without long negotiation, the buyer feels comfortable.
Now this is not about exceptions but about general sales. In general it is time to criticize buyers instead of always looking for apologizes from sellers. Who is really more aggressive, for example?
Yes, sellers should not be aggressive, unless it is a numbers game. Wrong but this is not about informing call centers how to fix that problem. A very interesting and easy solution is available but that is not the discussion here.
This is about buyers that represent (read: are on the payroll) of multinational companies. SMB’s cannot be excluded but this is about companies with a global interest (2 or more regions).
Whatever you sell them, you may call yourself fortunate when you have a real interest or someone taking the time. This partly can be affected by being a sales pro but there are limits. Limits made by the Buyer and often without reason.
A buyer that not only likes your product or service but really makes an effort, i.e. using well his or her position paid by his or her organization, is not common but exceptional.
Not the person that starts telling you that they already have your stuff or no longer have budgets. Or use words in their feedback such as “sufficient”, “satisfied” or even “happy”. Lucky for them their company is not affected by downturns!
Do they get training to say this or are they really not interested in improvements for the company? Or do they fear Sellers?
Some even believe they can decide for the whole company. "Sorry, but WE....."
It is not only wasting time for the seller, assuming her or she is prepared well and has indeed an additional value to offer and is well educated. This is also a missed B2B opportunity.
So, what is the value of giving excuses? What will add that to the company?
Instead of "nothing" the person, that should consider the purchase better, at least must give the seller the benefit of the doubt (unless your offer pencils to Staedtler, latest news to Reuters or printers to HP).
Now when you as a good sales person deal with these situations there are two options:
1. Moving on, ignoring, no further efforts, let them have a worse solution etc
2. Show some teeth.
Those who go for number 2 will have most of the struggle but also more success. First of all you do not have to eat them or scare them. You only have to be persistent and showing how dedicated you are.
There is nothing wrong with being determined and demonstrating where a buyer is mistaken or where he or she failed in the evaluation / decision process. The problem only is that hardly any one is really making that effort. Why?
Is it easier to go for number one? Does this not confirm the whole idea of distinguish yourself from a numbers game or competition?
According to research top annoyances of sellers are over aggressiveness and failure to listen. Really?
That is remarkable because why would a majority of Buyers choose these above a lack of preparation, a lack of follow through or a lack of product knowledge?
The answer is simple; top annoyances can only be created (by) when Sellers consider their prospects as numbers. For this you do not need preparation or knowledge. You just hammer them!
This has provided Sellers a bad name when you offer your products or services. There will always be the feeling “They want to sell me something” when contacting potential Buyers.
It also has not helped Sellers getting a better negotiation. Patience and less pressure on your sales cycle can be a better strategy to fill your pipe-line.
Now when looking at what impresses Buyers in this same research on top you find; thoroughness/follow-through, willingness to fight for the customers, knowledge of the customer needs, market / product knowledge.
In other words; when you are able to come close to the above Buyers are impressed. But are they also buying?
Without making further research concluding from the above Buyers mostly find themselves more important than their company. Otherwise best impressions should be Quality, Synergy and Price.
The impressions nevertheless are useful and praised but not by all Buyers. Partly this is understandable because who cares about what your company uses, wins in terms of cost and time savings or finally pays for? When being able to decide, you decide because of you.
The typical Buyer will also first look at his or her position. Does this decision undermine my power or status? Can this affect my career or promotion? Do I have to work harder now when using this product or service?
Buyers will of course deny but why would there be so many products and services on this planet? Is it not just to satisfy someone for a moment or that we stop thinking?
In fact in some industries it is all about brand identity. Local or small players have to use other instruments to get the Buyer’s attention. Often here is forgotten that Quality, Synergy and Price has no or hardly any value.
Imagine a manager or director who uses product / service A from a well known source. Would he or she do that because it is really better or because he or she feels more comfortable when sharing it with the higher management? Is impressing your management more important than the quality or contract details?
A contradiction is born. While this higher management urges for cost cuttings, savings and freezing budgets the company Buyers stop acting. Even those who normally appreciate better solutions. They now have the perfect excuse for any one who offers a B2B opportunity. Postponing has become the key.
This not only blows away bad proposals from aggressive sellers but also good proposals. Until the management declares the company is back on track or profits have returned Buyers will not even give you the benefit of the doubt.
Another contradiction as now it looks like only in good shape the company is willing to consider or use your products or services while many make the difference during hard times.
Fortunately there are exceptions from both Buyers and Sellers. But the essence is no longer what you have to do as a Seller to get the Buyer´s attention but what the Buyer should do with this attention. Then they can benefit all.
Making a Sale more complex is not the solution. Complexity is already there when the Buyer is not giving what he or she should give; a chance. Selling will remain the same with the same pros and cons and this is repeated over and over.
What now is needed is that Buyers become more open minded and really look what can help their organization, not only their own position. This is not as complex as it looks like. It should only be much easier to find both Sellers and Buyers at the same time and place with the same objectives.
Still at the buy-side responses are remarkable. Barking, biting and guarding the door are more common than looking for a serious B2B opportunity. How come?
It looks like buyers have an easier task but in fact most do not even care. As long as there is enough competition or demand can be facilitated without long negotiation, the buyer feels comfortable.
Now this is not about exceptions but about general sales. In general it is time to criticize buyers instead of always looking for apologizes from sellers. Who is really more aggressive, for example?
Yes, sellers should not be aggressive, unless it is a numbers game. Wrong but this is not about informing call centers how to fix that problem. A very interesting and easy solution is available but that is not the discussion here.
This is about buyers that represent (read: are on the payroll) of multinational companies. SMB’s cannot be excluded but this is about companies with a global interest (2 or more regions).
Whatever you sell them, you may call yourself fortunate when you have a real interest or someone taking the time. This partly can be affected by being a sales pro but there are limits. Limits made by the Buyer and often without reason.
A buyer that not only likes your product or service but really makes an effort, i.e. using well his or her position paid by his or her organization, is not common but exceptional.
Not the person that starts telling you that they already have your stuff or no longer have budgets. Or use words in their feedback such as “sufficient”, “satisfied” or even “happy”. Lucky for them their company is not affected by downturns!
Do they get training to say this or are they really not interested in improvements for the company? Or do they fear Sellers?
Some even believe they can decide for the whole company. "Sorry, but WE....."
It is not only wasting time for the seller, assuming her or she is prepared well and has indeed an additional value to offer and is well educated. This is also a missed B2B opportunity.
So, what is the value of giving excuses? What will add that to the company?
Instead of "nothing" the person, that should consider the purchase better, at least must give the seller the benefit of the doubt (unless your offer pencils to Staedtler, latest news to Reuters or printers to HP).
Now when you as a good sales person deal with these situations there are two options:
1. Moving on, ignoring, no further efforts, let them have a worse solution etc
2. Show some teeth.
Those who go for number 2 will have most of the struggle but also more success. First of all you do not have to eat them or scare them. You only have to be persistent and showing how dedicated you are.
There is nothing wrong with being determined and demonstrating where a buyer is mistaken or where he or she failed in the evaluation / decision process. The problem only is that hardly any one is really making that effort. Why?
Is it easier to go for number one? Does this not confirm the whole idea of distinguish yourself from a numbers game or competition?
According to research top annoyances of sellers are over aggressiveness and failure to listen. Really?
That is remarkable because why would a majority of Buyers choose these above a lack of preparation, a lack of follow through or a lack of product knowledge?
The answer is simple; top annoyances can only be created (by) when Sellers consider their prospects as numbers. For this you do not need preparation or knowledge. You just hammer them!
This has provided Sellers a bad name when you offer your products or services. There will always be the feeling “They want to sell me something” when contacting potential Buyers.
It also has not helped Sellers getting a better negotiation. Patience and less pressure on your sales cycle can be a better strategy to fill your pipe-line.
Now when looking at what impresses Buyers in this same research on top you find; thoroughness/follow-through, willingness to fight for the customers, knowledge of the customer needs, market / product knowledge.
In other words; when you are able to come close to the above Buyers are impressed. But are they also buying?
Without making further research concluding from the above Buyers mostly find themselves more important than their company. Otherwise best impressions should be Quality, Synergy and Price.
The impressions nevertheless are useful and praised but not by all Buyers. Partly this is understandable because who cares about what your company uses, wins in terms of cost and time savings or finally pays for? When being able to decide, you decide because of you.
The typical Buyer will also first look at his or her position. Does this decision undermine my power or status? Can this affect my career or promotion? Do I have to work harder now when using this product or service?
Buyers will of course deny but why would there be so many products and services on this planet? Is it not just to satisfy someone for a moment or that we stop thinking?
In fact in some industries it is all about brand identity. Local or small players have to use other instruments to get the Buyer’s attention. Often here is forgotten that Quality, Synergy and Price has no or hardly any value.
Imagine a manager or director who uses product / service A from a well known source. Would he or she do that because it is really better or because he or she feels more comfortable when sharing it with the higher management? Is impressing your management more important than the quality or contract details?
A contradiction is born. While this higher management urges for cost cuttings, savings and freezing budgets the company Buyers stop acting. Even those who normally appreciate better solutions. They now have the perfect excuse for any one who offers a B2B opportunity. Postponing has become the key.
This not only blows away bad proposals from aggressive sellers but also good proposals. Until the management declares the company is back on track or profits have returned Buyers will not even give you the benefit of the doubt.
Another contradiction as now it looks like only in good shape the company is willing to consider or use your products or services while many make the difference during hard times.
Fortunately there are exceptions from both Buyers and Sellers. But the essence is no longer what you have to do as a Seller to get the Buyer´s attention but what the Buyer should do with this attention. Then they can benefit all.
Making a Sale more complex is not the solution. Complexity is already there when the Buyer is not giving what he or she should give; a chance. Selling will remain the same with the same pros and cons and this is repeated over and over.
What now is needed is that Buyers become more open minded and really look what can help their organization, not only their own position. This is not as complex as it looks like. It should only be much easier to find both Sellers and Buyers at the same time and place with the same objectives.
viernes, 24 de julio de 2009
How Corporate Spending affects negatively your Corporate Planning.
During the past 12 months the global companies (read decision makers) negotiated with in regards to supporting them with essential economic data reports clearly were divided in two groups:
One group fully agreed making changes in the cost structure is needed at all means. Not only restructuring the work force or shutting down plants but also saving costs coming from non core business activities.
The other group in contrast was very determined in not spending at all but only in the core business. No chance of smarter or better spending when it comes to external intelligence, no need for additional economic data despite the worst economic crisis in their job history and certainly not willing to even look at the proposal.
When it comes to Corporate Spending is a negative impact on Corporate Planning justified? Can it easy be eliminated or limited?
My main focus will be on the second group. Not only because I disagree with their spending rituals but because I simply do not understand in this climate there is no need for better economic data combined with cost/time savings.
Current market shifts are caused by changes in the local economies and when these recover more market opportunities will occur. This will go slowly and not by one region.
When China improves the immediate affect on Korea or Malaysia will be smaller. The same for Brazil for example while recoveries from the US and Euro zone remain uncertain.
It all needs time and during this period every minute or dollar spent on non core business issues is a direct extra cost. This is not different per sector or industry.
The global crisis is not caused because of one industry. Housing and finance are related but cannot be marked as one industry. Economic data is essential in every market.
To be prepared or in better shape for potential market recovery most attention is paid to the largest efforts of cutting costs; laying of 5, 10 or even 20% of the staff, cutting salaries of executives or shutting down plants abroad. This will save millions and people actually get rewarded for it.
The irony is that when recovery takes place the staff is hired again and plants are re-opened or re-built but that is the way it is.
But what is wrong with a cost cut of 10, 30 or even 100K?
The past 12 month is noticed group two is not interested. Especially when this is regarding non core business information there is no interest as it is not seen as part of the core Corporate Strategy or Planning.
The majority is not prepared to listen or consider a change here as a contribution. Instead they continue wasting corporate time and expenses on non core business information such as economic information.
The contradiction here is that for group two good or bad times do not matter. They do not care who provides them the forecasts or costs involved. They even prefer a well known brand to “blame” for wrong established analyzes.
But they forget hidden costs like non core business spending finally reduce budgets more resulting smaller budgets. Where remain benefits?
People can only spend once in terms of time and expenses. When a too large part is not related to own business it will have a negative effect on the total.
This total includes all budgeting and corporate planning. While those who are in charge of the larger restructurings clean up the next 12 months hidden costs remain untouched.
Why?
An easy calculation concludes that in every organization operating in other international markets 10% spends corporate time and expenses on non core business information such as macroeconomics.
This 10% contain professionals linked to for example corporate / regional / country departments such as Finance, Marketing, Business Development, Country Management, Strategic Planning etc where macroeconomic data is used to complete market insights.
Per person a cost calculation will result in an annual extra non core expense of at least 1,000 dollars based on one hour per week with an average hourly salary of US$ 30.
Just multiply that with the 10% of your work force. Is that a not relevant or can be missed under the new corporate objectives?
Often current external provision is not under revision which leaves costs unchanged which is a missed opportunity. Lack of interests or lack of decision making power?
The same professionals claim not to be able to work without certain global providers of information (business / market intelligence) but are they right?
Should they not instead to complete the new program of Corporate Strategy and Planning, which is adjusted to this cost driven climate, not look for better and more efficient tools?
According to group two this is again not necessary. Conclusion;
New Corporate Planning requires new settings but this cannot only be focused on core business expenses.
When business leaders complain about the market conditions every dime saved should be embraced.
Business leaders should not hide behind the new Corporate Planning, even though this indicates more savings than spending.
All what can positively affect the corporation should be explored and welcomed; even if this is only 10K instead of 1000K.
When a service can cut down 80-90% of non core business costs of similar information and help professionals prepare for a new era of corporate growth, should that be ignored?
Group two screams about the worst performance in decades but only looks at the big and easy numbers. Their non core business spending will therefore remain inefficient in terms of costs and corporate time.
While this looks like a small issue it will finally slow down the whole corporate processing and directly Corporate Planning.
Helping improving the non core business part by spending smarter resulting from the first month in more time and assets available to core business should be welcomed.
Otherwise Corporate Spending will affect negatively Corporate Planning.
One group fully agreed making changes in the cost structure is needed at all means. Not only restructuring the work force or shutting down plants but also saving costs coming from non core business activities.
The other group in contrast was very determined in not spending at all but only in the core business. No chance of smarter or better spending when it comes to external intelligence, no need for additional economic data despite the worst economic crisis in their job history and certainly not willing to even look at the proposal.
When it comes to Corporate Spending is a negative impact on Corporate Planning justified? Can it easy be eliminated or limited?
My main focus will be on the second group. Not only because I disagree with their spending rituals but because I simply do not understand in this climate there is no need for better economic data combined with cost/time savings.
Current market shifts are caused by changes in the local economies and when these recover more market opportunities will occur. This will go slowly and not by one region.
When China improves the immediate affect on Korea or Malaysia will be smaller. The same for Brazil for example while recoveries from the US and Euro zone remain uncertain.
It all needs time and during this period every minute or dollar spent on non core business issues is a direct extra cost. This is not different per sector or industry.
The global crisis is not caused because of one industry. Housing and finance are related but cannot be marked as one industry. Economic data is essential in every market.
To be prepared or in better shape for potential market recovery most attention is paid to the largest efforts of cutting costs; laying of 5, 10 or even 20% of the staff, cutting salaries of executives or shutting down plants abroad. This will save millions and people actually get rewarded for it.
The irony is that when recovery takes place the staff is hired again and plants are re-opened or re-built but that is the way it is.
But what is wrong with a cost cut of 10, 30 or even 100K?
The past 12 month is noticed group two is not interested. Especially when this is regarding non core business information there is no interest as it is not seen as part of the core Corporate Strategy or Planning.
The majority is not prepared to listen or consider a change here as a contribution. Instead they continue wasting corporate time and expenses on non core business information such as economic information.
The contradiction here is that for group two good or bad times do not matter. They do not care who provides them the forecasts or costs involved. They even prefer a well known brand to “blame” for wrong established analyzes.
But they forget hidden costs like non core business spending finally reduce budgets more resulting smaller budgets. Where remain benefits?
People can only spend once in terms of time and expenses. When a too large part is not related to own business it will have a negative effect on the total.
This total includes all budgeting and corporate planning. While those who are in charge of the larger restructurings clean up the next 12 months hidden costs remain untouched.
Why?
An easy calculation concludes that in every organization operating in other international markets 10% spends corporate time and expenses on non core business information such as macroeconomics.
This 10% contain professionals linked to for example corporate / regional / country departments such as Finance, Marketing, Business Development, Country Management, Strategic Planning etc where macroeconomic data is used to complete market insights.
Per person a cost calculation will result in an annual extra non core expense of at least 1,000 dollars based on one hour per week with an average hourly salary of US$ 30.
Just multiply that with the 10% of your work force. Is that a not relevant or can be missed under the new corporate objectives?
Often current external provision is not under revision which leaves costs unchanged which is a missed opportunity. Lack of interests or lack of decision making power?
The same professionals claim not to be able to work without certain global providers of information (business / market intelligence) but are they right?
Should they not instead to complete the new program of Corporate Strategy and Planning, which is adjusted to this cost driven climate, not look for better and more efficient tools?
According to group two this is again not necessary. Conclusion;
New Corporate Planning requires new settings but this cannot only be focused on core business expenses.
When business leaders complain about the market conditions every dime saved should be embraced.
Business leaders should not hide behind the new Corporate Planning, even though this indicates more savings than spending.
All what can positively affect the corporation should be explored and welcomed; even if this is only 10K instead of 1000K.
When a service can cut down 80-90% of non core business costs of similar information and help professionals prepare for a new era of corporate growth, should that be ignored?
Group two screams about the worst performance in decades but only looks at the big and easy numbers. Their non core business spending will therefore remain inefficient in terms of costs and corporate time.
While this looks like a small issue it will finally slow down the whole corporate processing and directly Corporate Planning.
Helping improving the non core business part by spending smarter resulting from the first month in more time and assets available to core business should be welcomed.
Otherwise Corporate Spending will affect negatively Corporate Planning.
jueves, 9 de julio de 2009
Only efficient market research is vital
Please read first at:
www.marketresearchbulletin.com
Top B2B Tips For Emerging Markets
These are my comments:
I especially like the tip that market research is vital and the need of using independent sources.
Still many believe what can be found for free (internet) is better because it is for free. The fact this info is out of date, increase labor costs or can harm results seems of lesser importance.
On top who is best? What market information provider really makes a difference or has done a good job the past 12 months?
I have no doubt many have good knowledge about certain industries or call themselves sector experts.
Still predicting a trend is not the same as explaining one.
Therefore I believe professionals using market research have to divide this in two groups:
1. One for all information directly related to the core business, i.e. industrial analyzes and competitive intelligence.
2. One for all information about the operational countries, especially those where it is hard to find reliable macro data.
For 1. there is a wide range of providers. Most of our clients use one of them or even let them overlap to secure each specialty per provider (for their core business).
For 2. they have our macroeconomic consensus forecast reports because they do not want to rely on single sources (1.) only for different scenario planning.
Furthermore without 2. more valuable research time is spent during core business hours and already time limited professionals are further cut back or delayed.
On top every one complains about costs. Well, in a cost driven climate you should look for more efficient tools and not postpone a small investment.
Unfortunately even the smallest investments on market research are examined or are simply postponed / canceled because the upper management can no longer fly first class or spend corporate money at fancy restaurants.
This is a time for solutions and every contribution should be welcomed.
Now those not being able to use our reports will spend 10, 20 and sometimes even 100 times more the coming 6-12 months in extra labor costs, hence not even including the risks on the results of bad data.
Imagine you can choose between spending 5K or 500K? Would you not go for the 5K and impress your upper management with the cost saving?
Finally emerging markets remain volatile, unstable and less predictable. Still some have clearly become more developed but the information stream remains difficult in regards to economic forecasts.
This cannot be solved (only) by the other steps mentioned by Matthew Harrison.
There is also no one-stop-shop for market research. Like with doing your private shopping also for corporate shopping you must change and become a smarter spender.
Look around or look at our website. I look forward to send you a copy of our global regional reports or any country in special.
Yes, market research is vital but those the one which is most efficient. Or otherwise do not complain about lost revenues due to the crisis.
When for macro intelligence there is no interest in improvements, what is then to worry?
www.marketresearchbulletin.com
Top B2B Tips For Emerging Markets
These are my comments:
I especially like the tip that market research is vital and the need of using independent sources.
Still many believe what can be found for free (internet) is better because it is for free. The fact this info is out of date, increase labor costs or can harm results seems of lesser importance.
On top who is best? What market information provider really makes a difference or has done a good job the past 12 months?
I have no doubt many have good knowledge about certain industries or call themselves sector experts.
Still predicting a trend is not the same as explaining one.
Therefore I believe professionals using market research have to divide this in two groups:
1. One for all information directly related to the core business, i.e. industrial analyzes and competitive intelligence.
2. One for all information about the operational countries, especially those where it is hard to find reliable macro data.
For 1. there is a wide range of providers. Most of our clients use one of them or even let them overlap to secure each specialty per provider (for their core business).
For 2. they have our macroeconomic consensus forecast reports because they do not want to rely on single sources (1.) only for different scenario planning.
Furthermore without 2. more valuable research time is spent during core business hours and already time limited professionals are further cut back or delayed.
On top every one complains about costs. Well, in a cost driven climate you should look for more efficient tools and not postpone a small investment.
Unfortunately even the smallest investments on market research are examined or are simply postponed / canceled because the upper management can no longer fly first class or spend corporate money at fancy restaurants.
This is a time for solutions and every contribution should be welcomed.
Now those not being able to use our reports will spend 10, 20 and sometimes even 100 times more the coming 6-12 months in extra labor costs, hence not even including the risks on the results of bad data.
Imagine you can choose between spending 5K or 500K? Would you not go for the 5K and impress your upper management with the cost saving?
Finally emerging markets remain volatile, unstable and less predictable. Still some have clearly become more developed but the information stream remains difficult in regards to economic forecasts.
This cannot be solved (only) by the other steps mentioned by Matthew Harrison.
There is also no one-stop-shop for market research. Like with doing your private shopping also for corporate shopping you must change and become a smarter spender.
Look around or look at our website. I look forward to send you a copy of our global regional reports or any country in special.
Yes, market research is vital but those the one which is most efficient. Or otherwise do not complain about lost revenues due to the crisis.
When for macro intelligence there is no interest in improvements, what is then to worry?
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)