| GMA
Question: Where to Focus? Since the P&G / Gillette
merger and with Wal-Mart’s continuing inroads, some
have noted a “Peanut Butter Effect” ---- talk
of the need to compete by getting better across the board.
But when resources are not equivalent, is this not simply
spreading “peanut butter” ---- available company
resources ---- too thinly to accomplish anything? If so,
where should manufacturers and / or retailers focus, to
accomplish something meaningful and/or differentiating?
Synectics
Group Response: The incredible shrinking CPG
manufacturer universe driven by acquisitions and mergers
and the continued exponential growth of Wal-Mart, does
not bode well for the health and well being of the CPG
industry. Ten years ago when the consolidation began
on the retailer side, the somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment
was that the CPG landscape in ten years would be comprised
of 5 large retailers and 5 large manufacturers. That
painted a picture that was extremely ominous to the mid
tier and smaller manufacturer, but at least presented
a playing field that was somewhat level between the retailer
and manufacturer.
Today simply combining the likes of Gillette and P&G
will fall far short if we do not focus upon strengthening
the competing retailers in the Wal-Mart world. The individual
resources available to any one component of this universe
does not come close to matching Wal-Mart’s resources,
but the collective resources of the manufacturers and
competing retailers does.
Wal-Mart has developed an incredibly efficient distribution/analytical
infrastructure over the past 15-year period. The bi-product
of this relentless focus on excellence has resulted in
exponential growth. A focused collaborative effort by
manufacturers and retailers with the existing technology
of today could significantly level the playing field
in as short a time as 15-18 months. This collaborative
effort must revolve around a significant paradigm shift
regarding the execution of the $125 billion trade promotion
investment.
Today conservative estimates state that less then 50%
of the $125 billion trade spend ever reaches the consumer.
The tactic of attempting to match Wal-Mart’s everyday
low price is futile and in essence an advertisement for
Wal-Mart. A collaborative effort by the manufacturer
and competing retailer to Wal-Mart should be accessing
and jointly analyzing real time data to develop a unique
promotional plan by category that differentiates that
retailer from Wal-Mart’s low price strategy. Off
the shelf applications are in production today that could
electronically manage the total trade promotion process
and provide real-time reports regarding category/brand
profitability. This data managed in a collaborative environment
would provide the catalyst for the paradigm shift and
the eventual accomplishment of a more level playing field.
If the current cold war between manufacturer and retailer
continues regarding the use of trade promotion dollars,
Wal-Mart will continue to grow and with that growth more
competing retailers will go away. If Wal-Mart becomes
the last retailer standing the simplistic strategy of
large CPG manufacturers of acquiring to gain leverage
will be a failed one. The CPG industry needs diversity
of competition from both the retailer and manufacturer
perspective. Collaboration of all resources and intellectual
property between the retailer and the manufacturer can
level the playing field between Wal-Mart and the rest
of the world. An isolated individualistic approach will
far dismally short of the goal line.
|