"Volume is Vanity, Profit is Sanity"
"A 1975 study conducted at the Harvard Business School using the PIMS (which originally stood for Profit Impact of Market Share) database of historical market performance of leading global companies had reported a strong, consistently positive, correlation between a company's market share and its relative profitability within an industry. In the Harvard Business Review, the authors proposed multiple plausible reasons why a larger market share could enable a company to operate more profitably. That led to an explosion of literature by marketing theorists and leading consultancies advocating aggressively low pricing as an "investment" in growth that would eventually create "cash cows" - exceptionally profitable revenue streams requiring little investment to maintain them.Unfortunately, companies that adopted this approach to pricing more often than not found the theory, and the eventual profitability it promised, lacking. As the PIMS database grew, more nuanced relationships were revealed. Although a cross-sectional correlation between market share and profitability proved durable, the better predictor of financial success is determined by how a company invested to grow. Most importantly, it was shown that profitable companies are better able to invest in growth opportunities and subsequently enjoy long-term success. Reflecting this more accurate analysis, the PIMS organization cleverly redefined their acronym to stand for Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy.Research by Deloitte Consulting LLP has brought further clarity to the relationship between growth and profitability. Deloitte compiled a time-series dataset of 394 companies, covering the period from 1970 to 2013 with exceptional, mediocre and poor performers matched by industry. The researchers defined "exceptional performance" as a company achieving superior profitability (return on assets), stock value, and revenue growth for more than a decade and sought to understand how a small minority of firms manage to achieve it. Their conclusion:...a [near term] focus on profitability, rather than revenue growth or [stock] value creation, offers a surer path to enduring exceptional performance...-So how do marketing and financial managers at exceptional companies achieve sustainable exceptional profitability? It is not the result of slashing overhead more ruthlessly than their competitors. In fact, Deloitte's data indicates that exceptional performers tend to spend a bit more than competitors (as a percent of sales) on R&D and SG&A. Their exceptional profitability and, eventually, exceptional stock valuations are built on higher margins per sale that fund initiatives to grow future revenues.Unfortunately, many companies fail to understand that making sales profitably should be the first priority not an afterthought to a growth strategy."
Escrevo isto por causa de um texto que me foi enviado por mão amiga. Assim, no Linkedin encontrei estes números:
Global sportswear market share:
2013
- Challenger Brands: 20%
- Legacy Brands: 80%
- Challenger Brands: 36%
- Legacy Brands: 64%
E agora este pormenor:
Nike said in late June it would roll out sub $100 sneakers around the world.
A Nike reportou lucro líquido de 1,5 mil milhões de dólares no quarto trimestre fiscal de 2024, o que representa um crescimento de 45,6% face ao mesmo período do ano anterior.
Na mesma base de comparação, as vendas caíram 1,6%, para 12,61 mil milhões de dólares.
Quando Wall Street soube destes resultados a cotação da Nike caiu 20%. Portanto, a Nike vai lançar sneakers baratos para crescer nas vendas enquanto baixa o lucro por acção e todos ficam contentes.
Sou mesmo um anónimo provinciano. Recordar a Vista Alegre.
BTW, este trecho de um postal recente de Roger Martin:
"The first growth priority should be to gain share in your market — regardless of how fast it is growing. And the share I care most about is $ share, not unit share. Apple has only 20% share of smartphone units but over 50% of revenue share. The latter is its real share!"
