Don’t mind the start-ups

22

September

2017

No ratings yet.

During these university years we have seen a lot of models, a lot! Think of Porter’s five forces or a more recent one: the theory of newly-vulnerable markets (TONM).

Both these models talk about the threat of new entrants or what TONM calls, newly easy to enter. This threat entails that incumbents have to watch out for new market entrants as they might take their profit. These new entrants have learned from the mistakes that the incumbents made. In addition, if the incumbents are serving customers that are less profitable, the new entrants can solely focus on customers that have high profit margins. New entrants can also be seen as start-ups, and it seems a valid point that they pose a threat.

However, the “Financieel Dagblad” just published an article saying, don’t mind the start-ups, be scared of tech-giants. Where I was convinced that start-ups do pose a real threat, in the technology market the tech giants are the ones to watch, apparently. The three main tech giants are Amazon, Facebook and Google, of course.

Annet Aris, teacher of digital strategy at INSEAD, actually advises companies to look at these giants instead. They are posing threats rather than the start-ups. According to the article, this can be explained by the data, the algorithms the giants hold, and their money. If they enter your market, you should definitely be worried.

Partick van der Pijl states that there has been a shift of focus. Four years ago, companies were afraid for the start-ups and what they were doing. However, nowadays the focus is on the development of technologies and how companies should prepare for these upcoming changes.

What do you guys think? I think the article makes a valid point. Although some start-ups have made an impact (Uber & AirBnB), a lot of them have not. In the end, these tech incumbents still seem to rule the market.

Please rate this

Away with M.E. Porter! Data is revolutionizing Business Strategy.

6

October

2016

4.67/5 (6)

Michael Porter, professor at Havard Business School, is of course a widely acknowledged business strategist. Not rarely did we come across his philosophies in our books, is he cited in studies or are whole businesses based on his theories. In this blog I am going to argue that the assumptions on which these theories are based are no longer valid and that a new way of thinking about business is in place.

Let us start with a little history about business strategy. One of the first accepted business strategy theories came from Bruce Henderson, the founder of BCG. He stated that by concentrating a large mass against a weakness a competitive advantage could be achieved. Basically by overwhelming the ‘enemy’ while making use of economies of scale. It was the introduction of incorporating military strategies into doing business. Porter partially agreed to this theory and improved it by adding the idea of the value chain. Companies could not be seen as one entity but as a sequence of steps, getting from a raw material to a finished product. So while trying to create a large mass, the efficiency and costs of these steps where critical in achieving a competitive advantage.

One of the biggest aspects of a value chain are the transaction costs, consisting mainly of the costs of processing information and the costs of communication. As we all know, the costs of both aspects have tremendously decreased since the increase in computing power and the rise of the internet. Because of this change it is more difficult to achieve a competitive advantage within a companies’ value chain. Companies started to break up the value chain or started to ‘attack’ other companies at certain steps within their value chain. For example, the way encyclopedias were sold. Most of the costs went to the salesman, but when the CD-ROM and the internet entered our world it became much cheaper to sell and distribute them. An even more interesting change in the value chain of encyclopedias is actually the way they are produced. When we entered the Web. 2.0 era, it turned out that thousands of people could make the whole production layer of the value chain of conventional encyclopedia’s obsolete. Obviously, I am referring to Wikipedia.  Screenshot 2016-10-06 16.44.11

Figure 1: Value chains become dynamic.

Screenshot 2016-10-06 16.45.33

Figure 2: Phases of the ‘digital revolution’

Right now, as we are entering the third information era Web 3.0, another revision of business strategy is needed. More and more devices are connected to the internet and all these devices gather data. This results in an enormous growth of the amount of data that is available now. When studied in combination with data from different devices and places, new patterns and discoveries are waiting for us. To get an idea of the impact this could have, you can think of for example the mapping of a human genome. In the year 2000 the first human genome was mapped and it took researchers 200 million dollar and ten years to do. The cost of doing this in 2017 is expected to drop below $100, – in a fraction of the time, which opens up the possibility for this technology to go commercial. Every doctor will map your genome to take lessons from it. When all this genome data is combined with the information from devices like medical sensors in hospitals or our phones, opportunities open up to do discoveries and find patterns that are unprecedented.Screenshot 2016-10-06 16.47.00

Figure 3. World’s stock of data

But, there is a problem here. Different institutions, corporations and organizations need to access each other’s information in order to leverage the potential of all this data and create new businesses from it. However, for many organizations today, data is where companies are still getting their competitive advantage from. It looks like this unstoppable improvement of technology is driving the way we think about doing business away, and with that the conventional way in which business strategy is formulated.

Transaction costs are diminishing that essentially held businesses together, value chains are changing drastically like in the Wikipedia example and it looks like leveraging the potential of sharing information across companies and institutions is becoming the new way of getting a competitive advantage. I have no clue to what form of doing business we are heading, but I do know that we live in a different time then when Porter formulated his theory and we are going to have a very exciting transformation.

 

Joep Beliën

 

This blog is a summary and own interpretation of a TED talk of Philip Evans: How data will transform business.

National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). (2016). DNA Sequencing Costs: Data. [online] Available at: https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcostsdata/ [Accessed 6 Oct. 2016].

SEIER CAPITAL. (2016). How Big Data Could Change Your Business Strategy – SEIER CAPITAL. [online] Available at: http://www.seiercapital.com/disruptive-business-how-big-data-could-change-your-business-strategy/ [Accessed 6 Oct. 2016].

McGuire, T., Manyika, J. and Chui, M. (2016). Why Big Data is the new competitive advantage •. [online] Iveybusinessjournal.com. Available at: http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/why-big-data-is-the-new-competitive-advantage/ [Accessed 6 Oct. 2016].

TED, (2015). How Data Will Transform Business. [ video] Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_evans_how_data_will_transform_business [Accessed 5 Oct. 2016].

Please rate this

Tipping point of a sustainable future

28

September

2016

5/5 (2)

Humanities nature of pushing boundaries can economically be explained by the invisible hand of Adam Smith. The pushing culture resulted in short-term tendencies, which damaged our habitat. Especially energy generated from fossil fuels like gas and coal. This increasing stretch on our big blue marble comes with a price. Not for the planet as many shall be thinking, but for living organisms like humans. Kind of ironic that the outraging exploitation of our planet will not harm it, but will ultimately strike us. And kind of funny that the root for our problem, economic rational shall give us a solution.

Headlines aren’t covering it, but at this moment a silent revolution is taking place. It is driven by technology and progressive businessmen. These people realize, that besides the greenhouse effect, fossil fuels are limited. To maintain their wealth, they started to invest in alternative energy. This generated an acceleration in sustainable energy. Because of these technological developments and investment activities sustainable energy is cheaper than energy generated by fossil fuels. This tipping point is reached without governmental financial aid. Therefore, it is the economic rational that gives the ultimate solution. This incentive will speed up the transition to sustainable energy. This scenario is not a futuristic one, but a reality in countries such as Brazil, Australia and United Arab Emirates. Other countries like Spain, Germany and Morocco will reach their tipping point in a few years. How come that the Netherlands is not following these developments and increased the use of coal to produce energy? Dutch government policy about sustainability is powerless, missing a clear vision and the drive to innovate.

Looking at the five forces model of Porter you can envision that the treat of sustainable energy as a substitute of fossil generated energy in the coming decade is high. The quality of the two different sources of energy is equal, this will not change the threat. But knowing that the substitute is (becoming) cheaper and that switching costs are low may have enormous consequences for current energy suppliers. These substitute threats may be reduced by initial high capital investments and the need for economies of scale. Therefore, there will be no abundance of new entrants. But a lot of capital is flowing in the sustainable energy sector. A record of 286 billion dollars for investments and new capital can create economies of scale and hence new entrants can form a threat. You can think of large pension funds who grasp the opportunities and have a policy in sustainable development.  Will current leading energy companies make the transition earlier because of these developments? Will society profit from this in terms of wealth but also in welfare? Which technologies will be leading?

References:

6 procent van onze stroom kwam vorig jaar uit wind. (2016, November 28). Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://nos.nl/artikel/2134785-6-procent-van-onze-stroom-kwam-vorig-jaar-uit-wind.html

Armstrong, R., & Perez-Arriaga, I. (2014, November 10). The Utility of the Future. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://energy.mit.edu/news/the-utility-of-the-future/

De doorbraak van duurzaam. (2016, August 25). Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/speel~VPWON_1261670~de-doorbraak-van-duurzaam-vpro-tegenlicht~.html

Luttikhuis, P. (2016, September 22). ‘Duurzame welvaart is onze taak’ Retrieved September 28, 2016, from https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/09/22/duurzame-welvaart-is-onze-taak-4406112-a1522876

McCrone, A., Moslener, U., D’Estais, F., Usher, E., & Grüning, C. (2016, March). Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2016. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2016

Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage.

Please rate this

Technology of the week – HBO versus Netflix

26

September

2016

No ratings yet.

In this blog we describe the business models of Netflix and HBO, use Porter’s five forces analysis to analyze the video entertainment industry, critically compare the strengths and weaknesses of both companies and make predictions for the video entertainment industry.

 

Netflix uses the business model of video on demand via the internet. The high quality and easily accessible content, available from many different devices anytime and anywhere at low prices has already attracted more than 75 million subscribers worldwide. HBO is the largest pay-TV cable channel in the USA with a subscriber base of 46 million. The company uses a service business model in both the cable television industry and the video on demand industry, which is scalable with a recurring subscription-based revenue model.

 

The video entertainment industry is very competitive with a large number of firms. The switching costs are low which intensifies the competition. Low levels of product differentiation also increase the rivalry. The threat of new entrants is moderately low because of the high cost of capital required to acquire the needed platforms and products. The threat of substitutes is high and therefore costs must be kept low in order to be competitive. The bargaining power of buyers is medium because buyers can easily switch between services and there are little to no switching costs, but buyers don’t have the power or ability to influence the products or prices. The bargaining power of suppliers is moderately high as companies like Netflix have to make sure they can secure and keep contracts with the most popular networks and studios to keep its customer happy.

Porter's five forces model

 

The SWOT tables below list the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of respectively HBO & Netflix.

SWOT HBO

SWOT Netflix

 

The main differences between HBO and Netflix are:

  • The monthly subscription fee of HBO is almost twice as expensive as Netflix;
  • HBO offers more recent movies but has less content than Netflix;
  • HBO provides online streaming via a subscription to cable providers (and now also independently via HBO now) and Netflix only provides online streaming via the use of the internet;
  • Netflix and HBO got different original series and movies. But where HBO offers fewer than 350 films, Netflix offers around 5.000 films;
  • HBO Now initially can only be streamed on Apple devices as a 3-month exclusive. Netflix is available on almost all streaming platforms.

Our predictions of the video entertainment industry are that:

  • The industry for online streaming will continue to grow worldwide and be innovative over time;
  • Netflix and HBO are in prime positions to pounce on a new generation of movie fans;
  • In the future Netflix will focus more and more on children to secure their loyalty for life;
  • Netflix will increase the prices towards HBO’s fees, thereby reaching a higher adjusted operating income (bottom line);
  • Targeted advertising: with big data and audience analytics there will be streamlined and targeted advertisements for specific subscribers of the TV industry.

 

References:

http://www.cinema.nl/artikelen/12132512/titanenstrijd-hbo-vs-netflix

http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/220517/Netflix.pdf

http://www.slideshare.net/MintyThomas/netflix-1-51317848

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/state-future-netflix-v-hbo-2015-jason-hirschhorn

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/28/netflix-is-coming-for-your-kids/

https://www.statista.com/chart/4254/netflix-subscriber-growth/

 

Group 51: Daniëlle de Jong, Mitchel Riemen, Siobhan Heale & Tom Kuil

Please rate this