04/26/13

Booz Allen Global Innovation study shows rising R&D investments in 2011 … what about 2013?

$-large

The global innovation report is a yearly report showing R&D spendings across different industries. For reference, I have included the 2009 results by industry and the 2011 version below. The sectors which invest in R&D do not differ much from one year to another.

Although the report states that R&D investments doesn’t always mean that innovation is produced, or that this innovation is performing better than other products investments diluted across other budgets, there a precious few metrics that make it possible for us to measure how innovation is faring. So we’ll have to make do with this.

image_thumb[5]What the report shows as well is that rising investments mostly happe in America, whereas Europe was already deep in recession at that time. I can’t wait to see what the 2013 report will show.

At last, the report shows a strong correllation between sales and R&D investments. One could read this either of two ways: when sales are good, R&D investments grow, or … when R&D investments grow sales are better.

An interesting question would also be to wonder what is actually meant by R&D spending and whether all product development efforts are measured under that umbrella. I have seen a lot of companies in which R&D is kept as a separate effort and doesn’t represent the main area for product design and development ; this is significant in a world in which innovation is driven by vendors’ offerings, mostly in the Computing & Electronics world, the first sector for innovation in that study.s

image

image

R&D Spending Returns to Pre-Recession Levels, Finds Booz & Company Global Innovation 1000 Study | Innovation Management

key findings from this year’s Global Innovation 1000 study:

  • The three industries with the greatest R&D investment were computing and electronics, health, and automotive (28 percent, 21 percent, and 16 percent of the total Global Innovation 1000 spend, respectively).
  • Two-thirds of the $53 billion increase in R&D spending between 2010 and 2011 came from the computing and electronics, automotive, and industrials sectors.
  • 75 percent of companies increased their R&D spending from the previous year in 2011, up from 68 percent in 2010.
  • This year Amazon joined the top 10 “Most Innovative” companies pushing out Facebook. For the third straight year Samsung rose in rank on the list (to fourth place, up from seventh place last year), and Apple, Google, and 3M took the top three positions, respectively, also for the third consecutive year.
  • Regionally, companies based in North America grew their R&D spending by 9.7 percent—just above the global average of 9.6 percent—while Europe and Japan grew theirs at below-average rates of 5.4 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively.
  • India- and China-based firms again increased R&D investment at the highest rate overall across regions (27 percent on average), although from a small R&D spending base.

via R&D Spending Returns to Pre-Recession Levels, Finds Booz & Company Global Innovation 1000 Study | Innovation Management.

02/16/12

Byron Sharp: debunking the myths of marketing 3/3

brands that grow

[This report has been published in instalments, type bit.ly/sharpgrow in your browser location bar to display  the piece in its entirety]

myth number six : the 80/20 rule always applies

This isn’t a myth per se, but the numbers don’t quite add up. Sharp, on the basis of numbered evidence once again, shows that Pareto’s Law does apply but real numbers based on observation are closer to 50% for most brands and never reach 80%. This reinforces the need to acquire more customers.

myth number seven: advertising doesn’t sell

Sharp shows on the contrary that advertising has a clear (but mostly long-term) impact on sales… Provided your product is distinctive enough and that your campaigns follow a few simple principles amongst which:

  • reaching all by categories
  • no lapses
  • clear brand links
  • easily noticed and remembered

myth number eight: price promotions increase sales in the long term

That one is far less counterintuitive I find. Price promotions are quite effective in boosting sales. Evidence produced by Byron Sharp shows that promotion have no or little effect on long-term sales. Sharp sees little rationale for maintaining price promotions over time apart from maintaining a relationship with retailers.

myth number nine: loyalty programs are effective

In fact, loyalty programs work a little, but their impact on loyalty is minimal and in some cases, brands won’t even feel the true effect at all for many external reasons. My friend and colleague Prof Christophe Benavent from the Paris University has been a long-time contender that loyalty programs don’t work. He’s actually quoted in Byron Sharp’s book as well. One may have the vague feeling that conclusions might be different whether one looks at airlines for instance, or a company like AMEX which has built its distinctiveness upon its loyalty program (I even chose to get an AMEX card a few years back which is coupled with my airline frequent flyer program and I have transferred the entirety of my purchases to AMEX) but evidence is required before one makes any rash conclusion.

Overall, I really enjoyed Sharp’s approach which is based on fact rather than fiction, even though some of the most counterintuitive conclusions would benefit from a serious data update. I definitely recommend you buy this book and place it on your bookshelf.

Byron Sharp’s blog is available at http://marketinglawsofgrowth.com/

… to be continued

[This report has been published in instalments, type bit.ly/sharpgrow in your browser location bar to display  the piece in its entirety]

02/14/12

Byron Sharp: debunking the myths of marketing 2/3

brands that grow

[This report is being published in instalments, type bit.ly/sharpgrow to display  the piece in its entirety]

myth number two: heavy buyers matter, light buyers don’t

That is false too. A customer base is like a long tail , with few repeat buyers and a vast majorty of light or very light buyers; but the sheer mass of the latter makes their category very important in fact. These people are those which brands must convince over and over again if they want to succeed.

myth number three: targeting works

That one is really puzzling I must admit. Sharp points out that despite marketeers’ efforts in trying to “differentiate” through targeting, brands end up sharing “normal – looking” customer bases and those customer bases are supposed to be interchangeable. This is – once again – said to apply across all categories and countries. Yet, luxury products for instance, cannot be afforded by all. Sharp’s point is that segmentation within a subcategory doesn’t exist. It may exist between subcategories however. This item would however, in my mind, require further investigation.

myth number four: cannibalisation is a bad thing

According to Sharp’s findings, it’s not! What matters here, is not whether brands are differentiated, but whether they are “distinctive” (that is to say easy to recognise from others).

myth number five: consumers by preferred brands

Sharp contends that is just the other way round. One tends to favour one’s own choices; some sort of post justification of one’s own purchases in fact (I bought this, therefore I like it; or, I’m used to buying this etc.) That point he adds, also applies to iconic brands like Apple and Harley-Davidson. Basically, he means that Apple customers aren’t in any way, more loyal than PC clients for instance.

This chapter is probably the most difficult to sell. There is so much hype about Apple products that things do get very irrational. Sharp may well be right, but the evidence he uses to show that this is the case are rather outdated. Beside, Apple’s overwhelming success has, recently, put so many companies in such a bad position (Nokia, Sony Ericsson to name a few, not to name hp which withdrew from the Pocket PC (then Smartphone) market which it hugely dominated only a few years before). The evidence given here is a bit outdated on the one hand, and debatable on the other. This chapter requires therefore more investigation, even though mine Sharp may well be onto something (for other myth busting regarding Apple on this blog, click here).

Byron Sharp’s blog is available at http://marketinglawsofgrowth.com/

… to be continued

02/8/12

Byron Sharp: debunking the myths of marketing 1/3

brands that growOnce in a while, a business book appears which changes your perception on things for ever. Such business books are inspirational (Crossing the chasm in 1992 for instance), some are critical (such as Scott Berkun’s myths of innovation) and some just take you back to basics. This is the case with Byron Sharp’s “how brands grow” (Oxford – 2010), an opus which unfortunately didn’t get enough attention and is even sometimes wrongfully dismissed as scientific claptrap. I must admit that I enjoyed the book thoroughly, even though some of its conclusions did puzzle me a bit. I suppose that these will lead to more investigations, since some of the evidence presented in the book and some of the conclusions based on such evidence (mostly in chapter 7) are very counterintuitive. Here is what I learned and would like to share with you regarding this book.

[This report is being published in instalments, type bit.ly/sharpgrow to display  the piece in its entirety]

Marketers are used to believing their own stories but often fail to check the facts. This is what Byron Sharp and his Ehrenberg Institute have done and their conclusions can be summarised as follows:

myth number one: loyalty matters, acquisition is less important

How often do we hear that it is more worthwhile to retain existing clients rather than acquire new ones? Well… as far as I am concerned, almost on a daily basis. Sharp shows that this is wrong, that churn depends – mostly – on the size of your customer base and that customer acquisition is of paramount importance. This is what is known as the double jeopardy law: “sales are lower because they have fewer buyers who buy the brand less often”. That law, besides, applies to all sectors, and all countries. As a consequence of the double jeopardy law, it is not cheaper to retain an existing customer than acquire new ones. Acquisition, CRM pundits must be eating their hats now, is not an option, it must even be a priority for brands.

… to be continued

06/15/11

Fons Trompenaars: helping people to perform better should be the focus of managers #live11

reporting live from Orange Business Live in Munich

Despite the fact that his flight was not able to take him further than New York and let alone Munich, Fons Trompenars was brought live from New York by Orange thanks to its network of telepresence rooms.

DSC_1159His presentation was about “managing people in a fast changing world”

Shareholder value was established at the cost of other values, Fons Trompenaars said, and all values established at the expense of other values are doomed to failure. The essence of a value is how you can “integrate opposites”, mostly in a world which is multicultural (60% of people below 25 years of age living in Amsterdam he said have non Dutch parents).

The real question he added not “how can I perform better” but “what can I do to help you perform better”. The real question he added is “why did we forget about serving people in business” and business literature. Great leaders show passion and control, it’s not bi polar like in the Myers Briggs example he said. We don’t need “balance” he said, this is bi-polar too. What we need is integration instead.

Do we need to globalise/standardise or customise?

What we need to do in a global world is build unique offers from “standardised building blocks” he added. Speed comes with hindsight he said (“recul” in French) quoting John Cleese with whom he worked a few years ago. This isn’t self excluding. And he concluded with a lot of humour at the end of his presentation by saying “we don’t need questions because I’m usually very clear in my messages”, but he did answer quite a few questions of course.