Crisis; the best excuse for corporations

The past years opinions were shared about the crisis, what to do about it (always after wards) and who to blame. Countries, people and companies were accused but nothing changed while most likely a new crisis is already under way with new and old victims. Will corporations be better prepared or are they still in remote-sessions?

Announcing a new crisis is not shocking and please do not be alarmed. Perhaps this time the crisis will also hit China. Impossible? Maybe in words because that is another phenomenon seen the past years. China, where the stories are true but the data not, is not immune.

Now when and how is the future. Sure, there are global doom scenarios but also many still believe trees will continuing growing in heaven. Not in Brazil because too many are getting cut to remain competitive while the US will be back on track thanks to greed.

Well, this is all nice to know and you can disagree but what will hit you economically, financially or what makes you (more) happy? Can you influence a crisis or can a crisis only influence you? What about your work? Are you less open minded in a crisis? Less willing to take risks or make efforts for the firm?

That is the point here. Happiness in work through economic prosperity or loosing all interest and connection. Most of us are all guilty of it, some even exaggerate.

Corporations world wide, some suffer more of typical bad management, others suffer less because of better managers, products, strategies etc, have one excuse; the crisis.

The perfect excuse of stop spending and cost cutting. Not a new strategy but old fashion lay offs, budget restrictions and no more Christmas gifts for the employees.

The last is really true. One of the largest insurance companies (French, so know you now) last year at the last moment withdraw the X-mas gifts for all employees but not for the upper management. Probably they will repeat this soon. What a hoax!

Always excluded are the board, top management and shareholders because the show must go on. When not excluded your company is under-performing and someone has to be blamed (to pay the price).

This is exactly the reason of a new crisis because leaving is not without a bonus (for bad behavior), not without loosing market value and not without loosing stakeholders.

The new wonder boy or girl will mark the new place and to create space costs will be cut. The new boy / girl wonder needs full access to succeed but oops....there it happened again. A crisis disturbed all plans and the only way out is getting out.

Being exceptional is more luck than constantly outperforming others. Companies that survived the last crisis or do that now could do that because of better measurements during good times. Changing management will not do the same or can even be worse.

It is a combination of who hired who, what the person upfront is promised (bonus), can he or she manage people or are they just bonus hoppers? In fact there are too many who cannot be successful and they need to be paid too.

When the new crisis appears or even like now slowly evaluates, business leaders have the perfect excuse to secure their positions and that of their network. They tell their staff to cut costs but continue with their dinners, meetings and traveling.

It is all a visual circle where we (the staff) have to find our deals, our customers, our new jobs, our income and our future. This is colored by new technologies, inventions, medicines, leaders and social unrest & development. Where some loose, others (can) gain.

As this goes and goes for decades, even centuries, what is a crisis really? That you lost your job? That your house is not save or can be saved? That your firm is not making profit? That China is growing and the US not? Can that only happen in a crisis?

I believe that is not new at all or can really called a crisis. Perhaps a personal one but look at the stock markets. Some must make a lot of money there and those affected are watching while most others are cashing in.

It is finally the people´s attitude and not the crisis that create your situation. Unfortunately there are a lot of a-holes you cannot always avoid. Some you cannot even touch and you know they will cause the next (your) crisis.

Others find themselves the corporate dream team. Look at me! I saved the company millions said the new CFO (by destroying, not creating, what a hero!). Too bad six months or one year later these millions disappear in the accounts of the management or new manpower is needed.

The crisis creates sometimes hysterical calls for savings with really bad management. "Our budgets were cut. We cannot use your service". I do not know if this is the same for all products and services but when not using an external service that is needed the alternatives will always cost more. Great decision!

The best is to accept how it is, stay out of the way of a-holes and try to make the best of it. So, when you have the chance to make a difference, please do. Go with the flow and try to be like water more often. It is not about what you want but about what you get and do with it. Even when you or your firm is in a real crisis.

No guarantee for future predictions

In the world of data intelligence providers it´s evident macroeconomic data is not as appreciated or needed as industrial / sector related analyzes. It should be!

Could it be that both providers and users cannot do without a mutual stalled feeding process while competitive advantages can only be measurable when one provider outperforms the other? What do YOU get what is not delivered to your competitor?

Tailor made analyzes differ too much to qualify them similar to raw data because a consultancy service or support is more than sending a report with numbers.

For macroeconomic data there is a different qualification. Users of country data should more appreciate quality and efficiency but still the opposite is poignant.

Here an overview of the potential single sources for global (!) macroeconomic data and among them those providers most named the past six years (own experience);

- Global Insight
- The Economist (EIU)
- Oxford Economics
- Business Monitor
- Datamonitor
- Euromonitor
- Bloomberg, Reuters, Gartner etc

There are more but this is about giving an example of well known providers that have one opinion - their own - while they all offer (similar) industrial data too. A kind of one-stop-shop but then with one opinion while overlapping is common.

Now other alternatives for latest economic forecasts & outlooks are:

- Consensus Economics (our only global direct competitor but not in quality-synergy)
- Banks (amazing how strong people judge their own contacts and get "last" updates)
- Multilateral organizations and central banks (when you like 2-4 updates a year)
- Consultants (valuable but elsewhere, remain single opinion for economic outlooks)

This is not a "competitive study" or "total product comparison" but to point at who is outperforming who or indirectly calling for the leading position of macro data.

Years ago some of these above mentioned providers proudly presented how they beat a consensus (average) by using very little and not constant data but market rumors tell this can again be expected. It is time asking "how they do it"!

Unfortunately the past five years were hardly or better not successful in case of forecasting economic indicators globally. Would they proudly present failures too?

Before 2006 for example mostly the US was used and then those indicators that hardly moved such as GDP growth (though not split in consumption and investment) or unemployment rates. Sometimes even CPI ratings but as this again has many components it was not done regularly.

Hence, the US has always been a better analytic study place with weekly and monthly polls and surveys but although still existing it cannot be used at global levels.

With upcoming B(R)IC success and economic distress in the US and other G7 economies results of "out-performers" or "track records" were no longer seen.

Due to the crisis of the past years it is unlikely there are out-performers or those that constantly beat the average in these fast changing global economies.

Conclusion:

Outperforming is hardly possible in forecasting. Using some "soft" years of lesser volatile ones combined with stability is no guarantee for future predictions. Like with investments this should be stated officially and never be used as a feature.

Fortunately for the mentioned providers or other firms dealing with forecasting many in the corporate industry do not care, even not after experiencing the last downturn.

Unfortunately this will not benefit those who care because "no interest in macro" is not because of an immunity in their corporate results, strategies or planning.

"No interest in macro" (improvements) is too often related to the decision maker who uses personal and not business reasons like not willing to discuss or a narrow mind.

The coming years traditional data providers will face hard times when not being able to distinguish (further & better) their services and performances.

Corporate time is much more valuable than "time to read nice economic background stories" or "collecting at internet outdated information".

Risks always demonstrate how difficult they can be measured or tested. Afterward it is easier concluding and making decisions. Industrial leaders should know better.

Finally "purchasing a brand name", "knowing someone at board levels" or "protecting budget to save my job" will no longer be valid due to the ongoing macro complexity.

Getting away with excuses will no longer benefit the organization in downturns, in recoveries and periods of stability or growth. Can your firm afford otherwise?

Macro is no longer a secondary intelligence since no one can constantly outperform others while forecasts are constantly adjusted do to fast country changes.

When a track record or past performance no longer is a guarantee for future predictions what is left is a decision to take that data offering most synergies!!

Reinventing Sales

This title crosses my mind for some time now and it is especially for those working in the sales field in large multinationals.

My opinion was confirmed when recently reaching a corporate agreement with one of the largest BI software / solutions firms world wide.

By chance earlier this year I was invited to talk about a possible career switch at this same company.

Where I take distance of aggressive sales methods, although I can be determined, I noticed at this meeting my possible new colleagues clearly cannot do without.

Coincidentally I discovered their aggressive methods are also used by their main global competitor.

Now I work in a small shop, so perhaps can keep a better overview of what goes out in terms of sales proposals but what causes this aggression?

Is it really trying to beat competition or is it how the leading sales strategy, tactics and management tools sell their methods?

Where is the contribution knowing at the end it comes to your personal relationship building up interest, patience and overall showing confidence.

I believe it is really time to reinvent sales. Aggression has to be replaced by knowledge and external (expensive) tools can be replaced by internal training and coaching.

It is all about how you see yourself, your product and your potential client. Fancy tools are just a waste of budget and corporate time.

In Sales using your brains is without costs and being able to communicate requires some skills.

I plan to find time to start working on this reinventing but feel free sharing ideas or feedback.

Greetings,



Martijn.

"The Budget Problem in a Crisis Climate"

Although budgets are always a problem this is even more in a crisis climate due to ongoing cuts and restrictions. Companies can nevertheless fast and easily learn how to to improve their budgets but their key people responsible for these budgets often are not interested. Why?

Five years now selling to big companies has not only give essential understanding how professionals deal with macroeconomic country intelligence data but also how they allocate funding. Well, they mostly don´t!

To understand this it is important to differentiate all what is related to core business and non core business. This hardly happens, so all is done with the same budget in any layer of the company.

Now mentioning for each sector, product or service these differences is too comprehensive for this posting and therefore this diligence can is focused on industrial sector specific intelligence and macroeconomic intelligence (our core business).

By referring to the challenging business climate we still live in, also makes it more simple explaining the budget differences for core business intelligence and macro. We all know what happened and we all know no one could avoid it or see it coming.

You can of course replace macro with your own product or service. The result is the same, as long as your proposal contributes to budget problems.

While avoiding the budget question is easy by not mentioning it, many potential buyers reply too soon their budgets are restricted, cut or funding is not available (till the next fiscal year).

Some do it better by replying their data bases or specific product needs are under revision or they are streamlining the business.

A logical commercial response would be "even better for this opportunity" but when you finally reached the right person this response is regrettably a dead end.

Only a few keep on listening because what you propose next is what they really should do; looking for smarter spending options or better tools for this climate.

By simply accepting "the budget is not available" nothing will change;

The internal problem will continue, involved personnel is frustrated, have to work harder, the labor costs increase, the productivity drops and worst of all, in the case of macro, the corporate risks of monitoring economic developments increase.

What are realistic short term options for any company dealing with budget problems?

1. Divide core and non core first.

Core is often the priority but in times no one can sell you reliable analyzes you do not have to spend the same on your core intelligence. Better is to use your own corporate network (all stakeholders) to help you understand your market developments and trends. It is less expensive and more efficient.

In the case of macro, which is non core, this opens the door for better tools. No longer relying on the same resource of industrial data but giving employees the chance to gain time, give the company the chance to reduce costs and give risks chances to be better monitored.

Advantages; the budget cut can be limited to what really is necessary for core market or business intelligence. When excluding macro every hour formerly used for macro search can now be spend on core. Labor costs will be justified for only core while better macro data helps professionals understand better external risks to their markets (no more out of date internet info).

Disadvantage; it requires corporate changes and people mostly do not like changes. Streamlining has its limitations. This is also seen at Six Sigma. Project leaders or other key people can disagree, cancel or delay new efficiency for personal reasons. On top, in regards to macro, many professionals are comfortable with wrong estimates from a single but well known source. They prefer to blame them then own colleagues.

Conclusion:

Many will claim not to be able to move in any direction which makes stimulating business decision makers in improving their budgets is a non-profit suggestion.

But when they do not cooperate, are open minded or willing to make an effort by forcing an opening there is only a loss. Not looking for improvements to help cutting spending is the opposite of the corporate strategy.

Even calculating their spending increases by 30, 60 or even 90% does not interest them. Despite affecting business, financial or strategic planning in the case of macro does not change their minds either.

A budget is a budget. In a crisis climate we cut it and if we are fortunate we have some left overs for your product or services. Is that all what is in their powers?

When that is the message after the worst downtrend the last hundred years in business, with all wrong analyzes and forecasts from research providers and economists, ongoing uncertainties in many sectors and more consequences like lay-offs, the following two steps are really necessary:

1. Decision makers / business leaders should consider better what affects their corporate results or well being during a recovery. Only looking at the past, what comes from above (higher management) or protecting the own interest (no changes, save zone mentality) will not make any difference in terms of cost savings.

2. When professionals deal with industrial and economic intelligence they should consider a budget split. Otherwise nothing will improve or change in their benefits.

When this is taken into account any supplier of a product or service should not have to worry about budget restrictions from the buyer but only be worried if a competitor can make a better offer in terms of quality, price and synergies.

When this is true the business leaders on the buy side have decided to adjust and adapt to a business climate that is less favorite but they are certainly better prepared for any upcoming turnaround.

We do not want to change!

Do we follow people or strategies?

Perhaps a better title but the result is the same. Managers or / and business leaders upfront are excellent promoters of their own skills and responsibilities but when it comes to changes in their setting the interest suddenly drops.

It is like their strategy is cut off during a conversation or meeting. As long as it is in their own interest they are willing to cooperate. The interest does not depend on what is good for those who pay them.

In fact the following example is a good reflection of following people as a strategy:

Networking tools such as LinkedIn often ask you to respond to a discussion or survey set up by a direct contact or member of a similar group of interest (which is necessary to participate).

Recently here was asked to share in one word what kind of manager or business leader you are.

You will not be surprised 99.9% of the responses were positive and clearly overstating the reality of a person´s own objective reflection .

When all these people are really top managers and apply to their own positiveness the world nowadays would look different or at least better.

Sure, these responses come often from middle management while the real higher management is not active or hardly active at sites like LinkedIn. It also gives to these surveys a kind of Facebook image. I am nice, do you want to be my friend?

In fact they are doing all the same; calling for changes (after being criticized) but not making critical decisions to avoid personal damage (read less income or corporate power).

We already know that for centuries but the fact the middle management copies this behavior of not making changes is disturbing. You have nothing to win but all to loose?

All these managers are send to expensive trainings and courses but when it really matters they often do not decide or change the status quo.

They talk about budget cuts, restrictions, fusions, mergers, reorganizations and other excuses to postpone purchasing your services while sitting in the safety zone.

Why would I risk your service and make a more serious attempt?

I would say because it benefits you and your company but it seems they are not inspired (enough).

Inspiration normally leads to becoming an example to others, open minded, stronger, better informed, prepared and willing to contribute and overall to win.

When not being open for changes you will loose, not win. Still people have the tendency to claim a win while not changing anything. They even believe they can inspire others.

What is said or sad then is that it is too risky to make a change, so they prevented a loss. Really?

Often here is added that when changing for example an external provider of services the work to be done to complete this change is already seen as a loss (of time).

The administration, informing the involved employees, answering questions about the decision and the follow up to complete the new setting; it is all not worth it!

In my work I see this often. But unchanging does not contribute and it certainly not helps the one who takes care of your paycheck.

But look around! Where else do you see this happen besides the corporate arena?

Everywhere! In politics from government to city hall, in the media where news is dictated by a few global parents and even in your private setting where it is amazing how Facebook or Twitter influences your life.

Let´s face it. Change is personal and can be done very fast while changing a setting takes ages. Then it is time to change strategies and focus on other people!

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 (China, Brazil) and old economies are picking up (US, euro zone) in 2009 the research tone was like usual; optimistic.

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 Brazil 22 different opinions we can, based on monthly updates, conclude these sources get closer or more divided.

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 US economy. Forecasting GDP or Unemployment was in 2002 or 2004 easier than now. Does that then give a brand identity more value?

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?

Request

Request:

This week I was asked to explain more about our company, what we do and where we distinguish ourselves. Referring to our website seems not always enough and I do prefer personal contact by sending some recent reports and exchange thoughts by phone later.

I decided to make an exception. In this blog normally I only would like to have an indirect motive to combine my opinion with my work.

Nevertheless it seems a lot of professionals have no idea what we do or what we do for their competitor, government, central bank or even university.

Lacking the time to make a real fancy article I decided to keep it simple. At the end it is simple;

We improve your macroeconomic forecasts data of 50+ countries world wide by offering more quality, creating costs and valuable time savings while our fees can be up to 90% lower than your alternatives.


Get your economic forecast differences in 2010!

One of the most difficult parts of economic forecasting is avoiding damage while having very high costs.

The past years due to the economic slowdown forecasts lost most of their value. All forecasting sources lacked visibility and 2010 looks like a bumpy ride. So, what is then left? Synergies?

When talking about economic forecasts in general people claim only to look at them once or twice a year. When dealing with domestic markets, a small business or in non management position this might be possible but not in a regional or global role.

Some firms are less hurt by fast economic changes but they still make costs of monitoring.

When dealing with for example financial/strategic/demand/ planning, treasury activities, management reporting, business decisions, international salary calculations, new market entries etc. this is absolutely more frequently.

The past years should have wake up professionals and increased their demand for better economic forecasting tools or at least more efficient ones.

The combination of no value and high cost in a downturn can no longer be ignored. Let’s have a look at how most companies deal with this kind of forecasts during a period of 12 months.


Alternatives for economic forecast data:

1. Companies use the same source for macro as for industrial specific / sector data; the large traditional global providers.

While it might look efficient to keep all under the same roof there is hardly any advantage, especially in the past years.

Why relying on a single source? Would you accept that when your Pension Fund is managed by one person?

Sure, it is easier to administrate or to get approval. But cost / benefits remain at a very low level and there are no extras such as savings.

In fact people need more time to separate industrial from macro while others to avoid one opinion only use extra core time on internet to find more forecasts.

2. Companies cancel all or most of their external data providers to save costs.

A good example of mismanagement; cutting subscription costs but creating more labor costs as people now have to do their own data searching and compiling.

Sure, cancel what you do not need but what you need, do not do yourself by inventing the wheel.

Here costs can increase with almost 100%. Being on the payroll is a definitive direct cost, even when having lesser personnel, extra hours are directly wasted and much higher than fees of external providers.


Labor cost example:

Professionals on an average look at a certain country economy (outlook, indicators, forecasts) at least one hour a week. A variety here can occur as some months might be more important but per month a total of 4-5 hours is easily reached.

As these man hours are coming from mid and higher management the average hourly salary would around US$ 50. This brings costs of only monitoring macro per year at US$ 3,000 for one person.

Excluded are risks of using wrong data and the total expense depends on the size of the company. But either having 100 or 10 people the costs are too much.


Conclusion:

Some do not care. They have a budget and they order without looking at the benefits. Purchasing a brand identity is easier than purchasing value.

Others see improvements as a threat or believe appointing the management of the differences cannot lead to positive contributions (for them).

When using data providers it is important to choose those that can really help. Look at the alternatives for example. What is overlapping and what has the best ROI for example?

Keep core data about your industry or sector separated. Besides your own internal knowledge it is easier to integrate than combine it with macroeconomics.

Do not underestimate macroeconomic data by copying it from free sources. Out of date information can do more damage than good. And stop wasting corporate time on own economic research. It is not your core business, so why getting paid or budgets for it?

On top of core business changes a difference can also be made for non core, such as economic data. Instead of extra costs this can result in cost savings up to 90% and time savings which can be used better for core activities.

As long as traditional providers do not add extras or can demonstrates their values in downturns people should keep looking for better alternatives and smarter spending.

Remember in good times it is easier to make results or develop research but has your company already left the uncertain market conditions? Are budget restrictions off line and cost cuttings are no longer necessary?


How will your company deal with costs and values of macroeconomics in 2010?

When you are interested FocusEconomics can demonstrate the difference in terms of labor costs and valuable time for macroeconomic data inside your company.

Remember no one can predict economies. Why then spending more than necessary?

For a special offer for 2010 please contact me at; moostveen@focus-economics.com

Please select from the following regions; Americas, Asia Pacific or Europe.

Thanks and good luck with the business in 2010!