Nunca esquecer: profit is sanity, volume is vanity

Mal comecei a ler "Islands of Profit in a Sea of Red Ink" de Jonathan Byrnes dei por bem empregue o meu dinheiro.
.
Claro que só podia ficar positivamente impressionado quando ao segundo capítulo encontro este título prometedor ""Revenues are Good, Costs are Bad" and Other Business Myths" e para não perder o momentum Byrnes começa logo ao ataque:
.
"1. Revenues are good, costs are bad
This is the biggest myth of all. The truth is that some revenues are very profitable, and some are very unprofitable. If you use profit mapping to look carefully at the net profitability of virtually any company, 20 to 30 percent is profitable, 30-40 percent is unprofitable, and the remainder is marginal. Islands of profit in a sea of red ink.
.
By focusing on average, or aggregate, profitability, you lose this essential fact, along with the opportunity to radically increase profitability at very little cost using sharply targeted measures. Because most sales compensation systems are based simply on revenues - and not all sales dollars are equally profitable (many are not profitable at all) - most companies are doomed to carry significant embedded unprofitability. (Moi ici: Please rewind and read again and again and again. Em 2009, uma PME que conheço, descobriu com espanto que, apesar da facturação ter caído cerca de 30%, teve lucro semelhante ao de 2008. Teve a sorte da crise a ter livrado dos clientes não rentáveis.)
.
What about costs? If all revenues are viewed as equally desirable, it follows that all costs are uniformly bad. Thus, most cost reduction programs are broad and across the board. In fact, the very profitable portion of your business can support the extra expenditures needed to lock in and grow that portion of your business. But this is usually precluded because the unprofitable business absorbs unwarranted resources. The danger is that competitors can identify and pick off your best business by focusing their resources very selectively.

2. We should give our customers what they want
This myth goes to the heart of how you define your business. You should give your customers what they need, which often is different from what they want. What your customers want is usually defined by their current way of doing business; what they need usually moves them forward and enables them to change and improve their business.
...
3. Sales reps should sell, operations should fulfill orders
In transactional account relationships, where you are responding to one-off customer needs, this distinction holds true. But in relationship selling, operations has a critical role, both in the initial sale and on an ongoing basis.
...
4. All customers should get the same great service
In most companies, if you try to give all customers the same great service, service declines and costs spin out of control. When this happens, management has trouble rebalancing the supply chain: The objectives swing back and forth between cost and service like a pendulum. One quarter, management focuses on reducing inventories because costs are too high; the next quarter, they push for increased inventories because "the customers are screaming."
.
The answer is service differentiation, a process in which you set different order cycle times for different customers and products. Typically, customers are divided into core and non-core categories, according to sales volume, profitability, and loyalty. Products are similarly divided into core and non-core categories according to sales volume, profitability, criticality, and substitutability.
.
When you break your customers into these four groups, it turns out that each group can best be served with a different supply chain, each with finely tuned service and cost characteristics. The key is to make different but appropriate order cycle promises to different customers for different products, but always to keep the promises you make. (Moi ici: AGAIN!!! Please rewind and read again and again and again. Diferentes clientes-alvo chamam valor a coisas diferentes, logo, precisam de ser servidos por diferentes cadeias de valor.)
.
5. Supply chain integration is a great goal
I recall seeing a presentation depicting the stages of supply chain evolution. The stages progressed from primitive arm's-length relationships to sophisticated, fully integrated channels. The clear implication was that the latter was the ideal to which all supply chains should aspire. This is ridiculous.
.
The proper degree of supply chain integration should reflect a variety of factors, including channel economics, customer willingness and ability to innovate, loyalty, and customer-supplier strategic alignment. For example, if you created a simple 2x2 matrix with customer importance on one axis, and customer willingness and ability to innovate on the other, you would find that the correct degree of supply chain integration depends on the quadrant the customer is in. Because companies have finite resources, and supply chain integration is a very intense relationship, it is necessary to be very selective and tailor the degree of supply chain integration to the account relationship."
.
Continua.
"