<\/p>\n

The Most Common Reaction to Economic Turmoil: Expense Reduction<\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/strong>here\u2019s a line in the Willie Nelson tune \u201cNothing I can do about it now\u201d that goes like this:<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve survived every situation<\/em>
\nKnowin\u2019 when to freeze and when to run.<\/em><\/p>\n

Two years into the current economic downturn, there is plenty of evidence that companies are trying to do both. Firms continue to take aggressive steps in reaction to reduced demand. Cisco just announced layoffs of 6,500 employees. Other big name firms such as Merck, Lockheed and Boston Scientific also announced staff reductions.\u00a0 Borders finally threw in the towel, closing its last 400+ stores.\u00a0 It once had 1,200 outlets, employing more than 35,000.\u00a0 And most recently, HSBC indicated it will let go between 25,000 and 30,000 employees.<\/a><\/p>\n

Small to mid-sized company layoffs typically don\u2019t make a lot of news. But a quick informal survey at the other end of the corporate spectrum, showed that smaller firms, particularly those without an international earnings contribution to their performance, have experienced a down-turn in revenues of anywhere from 25% to 40% from their peaks in 2007 and 2008. They\u2019ve aggressively cut expenses and conducted layoffs as well.<\/p>\n

Of course, there are exceptions. Companies with specialized innovations targeted at niche market problems are doing much better than firms depending only on their traditional products and markets. But by-and-large, corporate \u201ceconomic adjustment\u201d initiatives focus on operational expense reductions.<\/p>\n

Instability in Europe continues, the DOW is down more than 1,500 points since July 1, unemployment and underemployment in the U.S. remain high, Asian demand for US exports will decline as a reflection of reduced US demand for their imports, and the US Congress is mired in finger-pointing politics vis-\u00e0-vis problem solving. Under these economic conditions, can you blame anyone for immediately reaching in the first aid kit for the expense reduction tourniquet?<\/p>\n

Taking a Second Look at Revenue Upside Options:<\/span><\/p>\n

Stemming the bleeding is crucial under these economic conditions. However, in the frenzy to cut expenses, the potential for revenue upsides gets short shrift. Why? Expense reductions can be swift and easily seen in reduced cash outlays. Revenue upside strategies, on the other hand, even in good times, carry with them risk. Financial executives and conservative CEOs will opt, almost every time, for the less risky, faster impact, sure thing. Revenue-upside options fall to the side of the road.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, there are a handful of strategies for realizing revenue upside in a down economy. Due diligence and responsible managerial behavior should compel managers in serious economic times like these to, at least consider the revenue-upside options that follow. An impulsive, headlong rush into any one of them would simply be unwise. Rather, we suggest a serious vetting exercise, followed by execution of the best.<\/p>\n

Upside Potential #1: Market Focus<\/span><\/p>\n

Focus is typically rejected, out of hand in tough times. When the business is hurting why would anyone in their right mind \u201cnarrow\u201d their focus? Shouldn\u2019t we be casting the net further?<\/p>\n

Not necessarily.<\/p>\n

Spending time to reconsider the market segmentation of your customer base and the unique conditions extant in each of those segments helps you identify areas that might benefit from additional focus and re-deployed resources.<\/p>\n

Not all the market segments served by your business are affected equally by the economic winds. Not all market segments have adopted your products and services to the same degree. Not all market segments are afflicted with the same competitive infestation. And most importantly, not all segments of the market receive the same economic value from your product offering.<\/p>\n

For example: Let\u2019s say that, in general, customers in a particular market segment garner a 10X economic benefit from your product in a relatively short time frame. That is, the economic return on what they buy from you is 10 times more than they paid. In other segments, the return may be less. It is more likely that focusing additional effort in the market for which your product yields the highest return to the customer would have a higher probability of success than expenditures in other areas where that return is less.<\/p>\n

In contrast, broad-brush marketing initiatives intended to expand a firm\u2019s reach are less efficient because they: a) dilute resources, b) dilute the economic return differentiation of your brand, c) begin to encompass more competition in each new segment and d) don\u2019t adequately leverage your greatest successes. Focus is likely to be more effective and profitable.<\/p>\n

Upside Potential #2: Pricing<\/span><\/p>\n

This alternative has two options: 1) holding prices and 2) increasing prices<\/p>\n

Holding Prices: The competitive nature of tough economic times inevitably presents opportunities for price cutting, particularly as a means to close hotly-contested deals. The reasons for this are many. First, weak, undifferentiated competitors are starting price wars. Secondly it\u2019s the easiest option for the sales person and requires the least amount of sales effort. Third, it typically doesn\u2019t make much of an impact on sales commissions, unless the commission is tied directly to the profit margin of a deal. Fourth, sales people are not trained or disciplined enough to sell on value. Fifth, in tough times customers (particularly purchasing managers) know they can request price concessions and \u201cwork\u201d one vendor against another. Finally, owners and managers frequently don\u2019t have enough good first-hand information or a well-enough established relationship with the key customer decision-makers to mitigate price discussions.<\/p>\n

The truth is, allowing price cutting, even in tough economic times, is really an admission of several foundational weaknesses. The product is may not be providing a differentiated economic value to the customer (wrong target customer). Management may be out of touch with customer decision makers. The strategic market segment focus is one that has too much competition. Or managers don\u2019t understand how to direct their sales team on how to avoid price-based competition.<\/p>\n

In a mini-workshop, I asked CEOs of small to mid-sized B2B firms to imagine their best product being purchased and used by their best customer. I then asked them to pencil out what they thought the 3 year economic impact would be on their customer \u2013 that impact being the amount of profit their product would drop to the customer\u2019s bottom line. For example, if their product was of very high quality, what would the economic impact be to the customer for purchasing the high quality product vs. a lower quality product from one of their competitors?<\/p>\n

In this 15-minute exercise, not one CEO was able to arrive at an answer. If the CEO can\u2019t describe it, how can they expect their sales people to? If the sales people can\u2019t explain it, how can price-based competition be avoided?<\/p>\n

Raising Prices: A number of years ago we were working with a client whose new product adoption was stalled, gaining virtually no traction in the marketplace no matter their continuing effort to increase distribution agreements. It was priced 3X higher than the most popular competitive approach. Of course, the sales people thought their job was futile and continually pleaded for significant price reductions.<\/p>\n

A brief assessment showed that a certain portion of the tiny installed base went to a segment of the market whose needs were unique. Only this product could meet those needs, for a myriad of reasons. (Interestingly, initially the market had found my client, not the other way around.)<\/p>\n

Rather than reduce prices we suggested the business refocus their efforts to this one segment, highlighting to potential customers the unique fit and match of the product to their unique needs. After focus and redeployment of time, money and energy (no increases), adoption took off, with no accompanying price reduction.<\/p>\n

Now some people would call this just another version of Revenue-Upside, Option #1 \u2013 Market Focus. That\u2019s largely true. However, the rest of the story is that while focused and penetrating this particular segment, customers began to request additional features and functions \u2013 which in turn led to increased selling prices. In the end, the average price point rose to 4X its original. (Remember, the original was 3X the competitive approach).<\/p>\n

At no time was there a need for a price reduction and the business turned completely around, growing much faster than anyone had anticipated. By focusing on market segments where the economic value and unique characteristics of your products are understood, the opportunity exists for improved performance products at increased prices.<\/p>\n

Upside Potential #3: Fragmenting Offerings<\/span><\/p>\n

Sometimes fragmenting your offering into more affordable pieces makes it more digestible for clients. Increased revenue accrues when decisions that otherwise would have been delayed can be made with smaller financial commitment by the customer. This provides your firm at least a small amount of revenue vs. none. It also sets the groundwork for follow-on purchases.<\/p>\n

When fragmenting your offering, selling prices of the fragmented pieces need to be set so that the sum of all the pieces of the fragmented offering sum up to more than what would be charged were the product\/service sold all at once. Is this \u201csum-of-the-parts pricing\u201d gouging? No. The costs of doing business associated with the planning, coordination, administrative management and handling of multiple orders justifies the increased pricing \u2013 and you can be honest with customers about that price penalty. They understand that it costs more to do business that way and might even be encouraged to buy larger chunks to avoid paying that premium.<\/p>\n

Depending on the type of product or service, fragments or phases might be identified as any on the following list: planning, design, testing, tooling, manufacturing, test, integration, set-up, training, service and\/or recycling. The bottom line is that fragmenting your offerings should make it easier for customers to buy something rather than not buying a more costly nothing.<\/p>\n

Upside Potential #4: Adding Services to Product Lines<\/span><\/p>\n

Have you noticed that, these days, nearly every durable-good purchase comes with an offer to buy a replacement or service contract? Last week I bought a 16GB PC thumb-drive for $27.99. The checkout clerk asked if I wanted to buy the replacement warranty. I declined, but certain types of renewable service warranties can be very profitable add-ons.<\/p>\n

Upside Potential #5: Acquisition or Licensing<\/span><\/p>\n

Opportunity to acquire businesses and intellectual property during major economic downturns increase as companies struggle and values are depressed. However, as with any acquisition at any time, there is reason to be cautious.<\/p>\n

Buying a competitor\u2019s business to capture their customer base (barring SEC denial) is not necessarily a coup, even at a bargain price. Your competitor\u2019s customers may be receiving a technologically obsolete, poor quality or functionally inferior solution. In such a circumstance, you would be wiser to boost investment in your own product development effort vis-\u00e0-vis buying your competitor.<\/p>\n

Opportunities for acquiring intellectual property may arise more frequently in tough economic times as well, as challenged companies look to find sources of cash. Turning IP (purchased or licensed) into products and then into cash, however, doesn\u2019t typically happen quickly. A better way to ensure a speedy IP-to-cash transition is to acquire IP that can be integrated quickly into your current product offerings, increasing their functionality, their value to the customer and their selling price.<\/p>\n

Just Don\u2019t Do Something, Sit There! Think!<\/span><\/p>\n

In most businesses the ratio of execution-driven people to strategic-thinking people is low. Of the two roads to survival in a downturn, expense reduction and top-line, the expense reduction road is best travelled by the tactically driven, the top-line by the strategy-minded.<\/p>\n

The strategy-minded are often those at the top of the organizational pyramid. So, it\u2019s only self-discipline and personal values that will compel people at the top to consider revenue upside.<\/p>\n

George C Scott in the movie Patton said this to his troops.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t ever want to hear we\u2019re holding anything. We are advancing all the time.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Be brave. Seriously consider the revenue-upside options in the face of adversity.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

Learn more about the QMP Marketing and Sales Engine <\/a>and how it can revitalize both top and bottom-line growth<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Most Common Reaction to Economic Turmoil is Expense Reduction. Nonetheless, there are a handful of strategies for realizing revenue upside in a down economy .Due diligence and responsible managerial behavior should compel managers in serious economic times like these to, at least consider, the revenue-upside options that follow. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,12,105,21,9,99,32],"tags":[101,25,102,24,28,106],"yoast_head":"\n