Curiosidade do dia

De Junho de 2016, "Fundos UE tornam a Wood One na primeira empresa do mundo a produzir só com energia solar" (impressionante a referência a fundos: QREN 2007-2013; COMPETE 2020 – Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização;  ON2. - Programa Operacional do Norte), a Janeiro de 2017, "Empresa do Ano 2016: WoodOne (feira em Cuba?) e agora a "Fábrica de mobiliário que recebeu milhões de euros do Estado fechou portas".

Num sector que cresce em exportações desde 2010 é estranho este desempenho, que nem com "soro" se salva. Algo me diz que seguiram a cartilha do bicicletas e tentaram competir pelo preço mais baixo.

A magia da interacção

 Ao longo dos anos tenho aqui sublinhado o papel da interacção nos ecossistemas da procura, para fugir à comoditização, para subir na escala de valor.

"The Joint Sphere: Value Co-creation Opportunities.
In the joint sphere, the customer’s value creation is different. In this part of the value process, the two actors meet and interact with each other.
...
What may happen in such direct interactions, if the actors allow it, is that the provider’s and the customer’s processes—the firm’s service-providing process and the customer’s consumption and value-creating process—merge into one interactive, collaborative and dialogical process. The two processes become one, and a platform of co-creation emerges. Such direct interactions can be both face-to-face interactions and interactions with smart technologies. If both actors are willing to do it and know how to do it, the service provider may engage with the customer’s value-creating process and co-create value with him or her at this stage of the value process. If they do not want to or do not know how to do it, no value co-creation takes place, in spite of the existence of a platform of co-creation. In that case, the provider’s role is restricted to continue facilitating the customer’s value creation.
.
Thus, in the joint sphere, the role of the firm may be that of a value co-creator, where the firm’s goal is to, when needed and appropriate, actively influence the customer’s value-creating process and, thus, his or her value fulfilment. On the other hand, the customer’s role is to be the value creator and perhaps also a value co-creator with the provider. The customer’s goal is the same as in the customer sphere: to use and integrate resources with the aim to become better off. In the joint sphere, the actors may switch roles, and the provider becomes the customer and the customer becomes the service provider of, for example, actionable information and feedback. Viewed from below, from a managerial micro-perspective, co-creation only takes place in direct interactions, provided that a platform of co-creation is formed. In all other situations, the firm can only facilitate the customer’s value creation.
...
From a managerial point of view, co-creation can have both positive and negative consequences.[Moi ici: Quando o tema não é abordado de forma preparada, planeada, é provável que por vezes quem interage não tenha consciência das prioridades e das consequências dos seus actos e comportamentos]
...
From the micro-vantage point, one also observes that the firm can do much more than only offer value propositions. If the actors’ processes indeed merge in the joint sphere into an interactive, collaborative and dialogical process and a platform of co-creation comes into existence, the firm has the opportunity to influence the customer’s value process and how this process develops, and in the end, the customer’s value fulfilment. Because this also may have an impact on the customer’s preferences and future purchasing decisions, it also has fundamental implications for marketing. In the service marketing literature, this part of the marketing process is called interactive marketing, and the service employees involved in it are termed part-time marketers."

Trechos retirados de "On Value and Value Creation in Service: A Management Perspective" de Christian Grönroos publicado por Jornal of Creating Value.

Sobre o fim da distribuição normal e o advento de Mongo

Julgo que foi em Novembro de 2007... 10 anos!!!

Julgo que foi em Novembro de 2007 que comecei a usar a palavra Mongo para descrever o futuro económico para onde caminhamos.



Cá está, "A cauda longa e o planeta Mongo", escrito no rescaldo de um dia na FIL em que ouvi Chris Anderson falar da cauda longa.

Recomendo a leitura de "Taylor Swift, iOS, and the Access Economy: Why the Normal Distribution is Vanishing":

"These aren’t normal distributions at all. They’re totally different – they’re bifurcated distributions where one factor is dominating over all of the other factors. Either you care about X, or you don’t. Either you care about Y, or you don’t. And what used to be the happy middle – the fat part of the normal distribution, where most of the demand is supposed to lie – is all of a sudden quite sparse.
.
The world seems to be steadily moving in this direction: from one where our demands and preferences are normally distributed to one dominated by these weird, bifurcated, two-tier balances."

Acerca de Mongo, a origem da metáfora.

Acerca do optimismo não documentado

"Except I didn't buy 1,000 dollars worth of Bitcoin in 2008. If I had, I'd have more than $40,000,000 today.
.
It's not that I didn't know.
.
It's that I didn't act.
.
Two different things.
.
I knew, but I didn't know for sure. Not enough to act.
.
All the good stuff happens when we act even if we don't know for sure."

Tão bom!!!

Faz-me lembrar o optimismo não documentado (2010, 2010, 2010, 2014) , faz-me lembrar a tese da concorrência como um mecanismo de descoberta.

"O optimismo não documentado é um assunto que separa a ténue fronteira entre o arriscar com fundamento e o arriscar com base na fé."

BTW, este optimismo não documentado pode ser relacionado com aquela fase de neblina em que o mundo muda e as receitas anteriores deixam de funcionar. Então, alguns optimistas (ou desesperados) arriscam, fuçando. A maioria falha, um acerta e depois começa a aprendizagem dos empríricos por spillover.

Trecho inicial retirado de "What you know vs. what you do"

o vector tempo não é irrelevante (parte III)

Parte II.

Ontem à noite comecei a ler "On Value and Value Creation in Service: A Management Perspective" de Christian Grönroos e publicado muito recentemente por Jornal of Creating Value. É sempre um gosto ler este pensador.

O Abstract soou a algo de familiar:

"To develop a managerially relevant understanding of value and value creation, these phenomena must be analysed on a micro level. Seen from above, they lack a microfoundation. In the present article, value and value creation are discussed from a micro position, based on a service logic (SL) analysis of the service perspective on business and marketing."

E continuou:

"Viewing from above, or taking a macro-perspective, ... it can be observed that a whole host of actors, such as firms in various stages in the supply chain and end users, contribute to the value that emerges for the end user and other actors in the process. ... However, although a macro- analysis reveals phenomena which are not visible from below, ... at the same time, micro-level phenomena can only be observed from below and remain disguised for an analysis on a system- of-actors level. [Moi ici: Como não recordar os encalhados da tríade, qual Sarumans incapazes de abandonarem o alto das suas torres, incapazes de apanharem o que um anónimo engenheiro da província observa todos os dias há anos] The many different ways in which the actors contribute to value cannot be observed from above and, therefore, are not analysed in detail. ... ‘value co-creation is difficult to observe empirically’, and in order to theoretically develop the service perspective further, researchers must pay more attention to the micro-foundations that underpin SDL’s macro- constructs. ... ‘[M]acro scholars too often work with firm-level constructs which often unclear microfoundations, and proceed as if there are direct causal relations between macro variables (e.g. arguments that capabilities cause performance), where, in fact, the real causal relations involve lower level actions and interactions’.
...
What takes place on an actor level, in contrast to a level of systems of actors, is invisible to macro- analysis. ... the need to avoid the ‘black- boxization of concepts’ . In macro-analysis, the roles and goals of the actors cannot be observed, and even the nature of value as value-in-use is difficult to capture  ... To be able to draw conclusions about this, interactions must be observable and the nature of interactions clearly understood.
...
First, analysing the service perspective from below reveals that the nature of value-in-use is partly different from what is postulated in a macro-analysis. Indeed, value-in-use is determined in an idiosyncratic and phenomenological manner by customers, as suggested by SDL, but how value emerges or is created is not observable in a macro-analysis."

A micro-economia sabe coisas que a macro-economia ou ainda não sabe ou nunca chegará a saber. E, escrevo que "ainda não sabe" porque, quando o mundo muda, os encalhados continuam a tentar explicar o mundo com base nas sebentas em que aprenderam. Os "ignorantes", como não sabem, por tentativa e erro, o nosso querido fuçar, descobrem ao nível micro as opções que funcionam no novo mundo.

Ainda ontem num webinar a que assisti, vi esta imagem:

Quando o mundo muda, o conhecimento que funcionava transforma-se numa armadilha, só resta a acção. O novo conhecimento só virá depois da reflexão sobre as acções que resultaram.

"a culpa será do primeiro-ministro de turno"

Esta manhã, onde tomei o meu café, estava um exemplar do JN de ontem de onde retirei esta imagem:

Que me fez recordar este postal "Familiar?" e esta imagem:

Numa empresa com ADN para produzir quantidades grandes o preço tem de ser competitivo, o truque não é o preço é a margem e a grande quantidade de unidades repetidas produzidas. Se numa empresa deste tipo o número de pessoas se mantém e a quantidade de unidades produzidas baixa, sinto logo o cheiro a "napalm" pela manhã. Sem acesso a mais nada sei logo que os seus custos fixos unitários estão a subir o que não augura nada de bom para a sustentabilidade deste modelo.

Voltando à foto do JN, ouvi há bocado na rádio que o BE e o governo querem criar um apoio para quem se reformou antes do tempo e foi penalizado. Vai ser lindo ver o pranto e ranger de dentes dentro de 20-30 anos quando isto se materializar "Geração de 40 anos vai ter “cortes de 40% a 50% no valor dos rendimentos recebidos na reforma”". Então, a culpa será do primeiro-ministro de turno que será acusado de roubar os reformados.

Infelizmente, os Bagões, Manelas e Vieiras da Silva não estarão por cá para receber a sua parte:

pena q os vieiras da silva desta vida ñ levem um enxerto de porrada qd acabar a mama https://t.co/H1zdEKrBtb

— Carlos P da Cruz (@ccz1) October 20, 2017

Estratégia e capacidades

"While strategic plans identify what your organization should do differently, [Moi ici: É isto que fazem as iniciativas estratégias que ajudo a construir, como transformar uma empresa no terreno, alinhada com a estratégia] very few provide a roadmap for how to build the skills, knowledge, and processes needed to carry out and sustain the critical changes. But without building these capabilities, it’s very difficult to achieve the results you want.
...
Capabilities lie at the heart an organization’s ability to achieve results, [Moi ici: Estão na base do mapa da estratégia, as capacidade em que investimos] so it’s hardly a surprise that different results require different capabilities. [Moi ici: Recordar Bruce Jenner e os salami slicers] But strategic plans often get this simple equation wrong, for one of two reasons.

.
First, many strategic planners and senior executives assume that if the strategy is logical, then people will figure out what to do, and don’t build capabilities development into their plans at all.
...
At the other extreme, some planners like to be prescriptive and can spend significant resources mapping out in great detail what everyone should do differently. But a “paint by the numbers” approach to strengthening organizational capabilities rarely works. Developing capabilities requires experimentation, trial and error, and iterative learning to figure out what will work in each organization’s unique culture, functional structure, and environment.
...
To get started with this approach, think about your company’s own strategy, and what capabilities are critical to achieving results. Then identify opportunities for teams to create or strengthen those capabilities while actually executing some aspect of the strategy. Doing this will ensure that capability development is a real and tangible part of your organization’s growth, instead of a hope or an afterthought."

Trechos retirados de "Your Strategy Won’t Work if You Don’t Identify the New Capabilities You Need"

"innovation theater"

"Companies and government organizations are discovering that innovation activities without a defined innovation pipeline result in innovation theater. And an innovation pipeline needs to be driven with speed and urgency and results measured by the impact on the top and bottom lines."

Confesso que quanto maiores as organizations, e mais próximas estão de dinheiro fácil que não decorre da sua missão para clientes, mais sinto que assisto a "innovation theater".

Web Summit, rings a bell?

Trecho retirado de "Why GE’s Jeff Immelt Lost His Job: Disruption and Activist Investors"

Fugir de os tratar como plankton

"When customers perceive equality between two suppliers, it is easy for them to default to the one that offers lower pricing. If the only quantifiable data point containing a currency symbol that a seller has to engage a customer with is their unit pricing, they will be at a severe disadvantage during any type of negotiation. This lack of solid data will work against them especially if they're either the highest- or the lowest-price provider. Note the key word in the first sentence—"perceive." It's unfortunate, but far too many people today base decisions on their perceptions rather than on facts.
.
The old phrase "what you don't know will hurt you" will plague sellers during pricing and business negotiations with customers if they're unaware of the tangible value delivered. Qualitative, abstract, and general statements of activities and perceived benefits cannot effectively combat the thinking that "I can get the same thing cheaper from many other suppliers." Likewise, similar types of intangible statements of supposed benefits cannot consistently and effectively offset price objections for superior products, services, or technologies. Even if the seller and their organization is truly responsible for effectively implementing technology or process improvements that have increased efficiencies and/or reduced external expenditures, the customer will perceive that no formal value has been created."

Recordo esta frase:

"The key management capability is not being in control, but to participate and influence the formation of sense making and meaning. It is about creating a context that enables connectedness, interaction and trust between people" 

 E esta outra:

"to move away from the traditional industrial view of the customer offering as an output of one’s production system to a view in which the customer offering is seen as an input in the customer’s value creating process"

E ainda:

"Customers often think we are different not because we are different, but because we recognize what makes them different"

Isto explica a dificuldade crescente das empresas grandes, empresas que têm tendência a tratar os clientes como plankton. Quando se tratam os clientes como plankton fazem-se contas gerais e genéricas sobre como um cliente médio criará, percepcionará valor a emergir na sua vida. Quando se tratam os clientes como membros de uma tribo específica ou melhor ainda, como indivíduos, fazem-se contas muito mais correctas e ajustadas. Aliás, algo que se confirma ao ler estes textos sobre pricing, as contas são tanto mais correctas e eficazes quanto mais resultarem de uma colaboração entre ambas as partes. Empresas grandes não têm ADN para esse tipo de abordagem. Tudo aponta para Mongo.

Trecho inicial retirado de "Value First Then Price" de Hinterhuber e Snelgrove.

o vector tempo não é irrelevante (parte II)

Recordar estes postais sobre a aplicação dos princípios da física à economia:

• como se fosse um problema de poder de computação. (Setembro de 2015)
• O triunfo da heterogeneidade (Agosto de 2012)
• Em sintonia com os Austríacos (Julho de 2011)
• Na Economia o factor tempo conta, não é um universo newtoniano (Junho de 2011)
• É impossível matematizar a realidade... ainda bem!!! (Maio de 2011)
• o vector tempo não é irrelevante (Agosto de 2010)

"The difference between economic competition and the successful procedure of science is that the former exhibits a method of discovering particular temporary circumstances, while science seeks to discover something often known as “general facts,” i.e., regularities in events, and is concerned with unique, particular facts only to the extent that they tend to refute or confirm its theories. Since this is a matter of general and permanent features of our world, scientific discoveries have ample time to demonstrate their value, whereas the usefulness of particular circumstances disclosed by economic competition is to a considerable extent transitory. ... By the nature of things, however, the theory of the market is unable to accomplish this in all those cases in which it is reasonable to make use of competition. As we shall see, the predictive power of this theory is necessarily constrained to a prediction of the type of structure or abstract order that will result; it does not, however, extend to a prediction of particular events.
...
The basis for this point of view is the conviction that the coarse structure of the economy can exhibit no regularities that are not results of the fine structure, and that those aggregates or mean values, which alone can be grasped statistically, give us no information about what takes place in the fine structure. The notion that we must formulate our theories so that they can be immediately applied to observable statistical or other measurable quantities seems to me to be a methodological error which, had the natural sciences followed it, would have greatly obstructed their progress. All we can require of theories is that, after an input of relevant data, conclusions can be derived from them that can be checked against reality. The fact that these concrete data are so diverse and complex in our area of inquiry that we can never take them all into account is an unchangeable fact, but not a shortcoming of the theory. A result of this fact is that we can derive from our theories only very general statements, or “pattern predictions,” as I have called them elsewhere; we cannot, however, derive any specific predictions of individual events from them. Certainly, however, this does not justify insisting that we derive unambiguous relationships among the immediately observable variables, or that this is the only way of obtaining scientific knowledge—particularly not if we know that, in that obscure image of reality we call statistics, in aggregates and averages we unavoidably summarize many things whose causal meaning is very diverse."

F. A. Hayek em "Competition as a Discovery Process"

"the art and science of negotiations of value versus price"

"The selection of the right accounts … Personally, large accounts can be critical, but they could be 100% transactional. If after a journey of 3 to 5 years you don't have a share of these large, critical customers that are open to talking value, you should keep that customer on the list or large customers, but not on the list of strategic accounts. A strategic account has to have some openness value.
.
That being said, some strategic accounts will buy a lot of stuff transactionally, but key are the dynamics and the journey: Do I have a share at my strategic accounts that's based on value creation and quantification? Is that share growing out of the total sales to that customer? These are the key metrics you have to look at to encourage you to continue along the value journey. But: if after 3 to 5 years you are 100% transactional, you have to cut your costs and abandon value creation and quantification.
…
You have to set a time frame. I see a lot of Sales Account Managers not walking away. But what do they do? They try to give their customers even more value, assuming that eventually they'll be willing to pay for that value. So, I think that, as you said, after a preset time, if you can't convince them, you should walk away and stop delivering the value. Don't try to deliver more value where it is not recognized or not being paid for.
…
There are organizations where procurement is focused on price and price only. Are there things you can do to get them to start thinking that maybe they should do things differently?
…
If you look at companies, they typically will tell you that out of 100 Sales Account Managers, they have that least half or more who let the price go; they don't find the value because they’re convinced that competitors will catch up, but they haven't even checked it. So I would really say that in the end, the art and science of negotiations of value versus price will have the biggest impact on whether the customer recognizes the value you bring.
…
Understanding your competitors’ value and how much more you bring versus your competitors - that's going to be the key to negotiating for value and getting paid for it.”

E a sua empresa costuma estudar os dados das vendas? Stobachoff rings a bell?

Ás vezes descubro que as empresas não têm percepção do que está a acontecer por debaixo do valor das vendas globais do ano.

A quem vendem? O que vendem? Com que margem? Que quantidades?

Não é fácil.

Trechos retirados de "Value First Then Price" editado por Andreas Hinterhuber e Todd Snelgrove.

Vender projectos (parte II)

Parte I.

"Clearly, the shift to becoming a project-driven organization and selling projects rather than products or services presents sizeable challenges to corporations and their business models. Working in projects throughout my career, I have identified these as the important ones:
.
Revenue streams. Revenues will be generated progressively over long periods of time, instead of right after the sale of a product. This will affect the way revenues are recognized, as well as accounting policies and the overall company valuation.
Pricing model. New pricing models will need to be developed. It is easier to price a product, for which most of the fixed and variable costs are known, than a project, which is influenced by many external factors.
Quality control. Delivering quality products will not be enough to meet customer expectations. Implementation and post-implementation services will also have to be of the highest possible quality to ensure that clients continue to buy projects.
Branding and marketing. Traditional marketing has focused on short-term immediate benefits. Marketing teams will need to promote the long-term benefits of the projects sold by the organization.
Sales force. The buyer of the project will no longer be the procurement department of an organization. Sales will be pitched to leaders of the business, so the sales force and sales skills will have to be upgraded with strategy and project management competencies."

Trecho retirado de "Selling Products Is Good. Selling Projects Can Be Even Better"

"To cement that link between price and profit"

"CEOs often ask me point-blank for my silver bullet in pricing. Is there one thing in pricing they can do to make their companies better off?
...
I tell them. “Price is a company’s most effective way to drive enterprise value, but it is an extremely sensitive lever’.
.
To cement that link between price and profit, a CEO must play three roles: a strategic one, a cultural one, and a custodial one. The CEO defines the primary strategic vector of a company: its direction and its goals. This includes the price position, which can range from ultra-low to luxury. Often viewed as malleable and somewhat arbitrary, the price position is in fact one of the most fundamental strategic decisions any CEO will make. It is also one of the hardest to change."

E as empresas não podem fazer como os governos, não podem subir os preços só porque sim. Na verdade até podem, mas subir o preço sem o correspondente aumento de valor percepcionado pelo cliente é uma boa receita para a seguir começar uma espiral viciosa de problemas.

Trechos retirados de “Pricing and the CEO”.

Cativações e cascata de problemas

Há dias dei comigo a relacionar as cativações governamentais com o comportamento de um responsável fabril.

Qual o papel de um responsável fabril? Atingir objectivos e resolver problemas. Quando um responsável fabril aparece junto da gerência com problemas esta responde-lhe:

- Pago-lhe para resolver problemas não para que me venha trazer problemas para eu resolver.

Assim, mês após mês, os recursos vão diminuindo e o responsável fabril vai fazendo o seu melhor para conciliar o aumento da produção com a diminuição de pessoal e de manutenção.

Então, um dia, o dique não aguenta mais e uma cascata de problemas surge para cobrar dividendos.

Nessa altura, a gerência vai olhar para os números e vai despedir o responsável fabril com justa causa argumentando que a fábrica está ingovernável e que ele é o responsável. E quando o responsável fabril argumentar que a gerência também é responsável esta vai perguntar por evidências, por relatórios, por avisos. Como o responsável fabril interiorizou aquela resposta inicial "Pago-lhe para resolver problemas não para que me venha trazer problemas para eu resolver." nunca pôs a boca no trombone.

Claro que no caso da política o importante vai ser conseguir realizar as próximas eleições antes da cascata de problemas se manifestar.

Pricing e posicionamento

"We are observing an increasing involvement of CEOs in pricing, which has a significant impact on profit performance. The CEO’s role is threefold: strategic, cultural, and custodial. If a company chooses a premium price positioning, all aspects of strategy, culture and implementation have to be different from those of a company that aims for a low price position. While the CEO should not get involved in the details of pricing or price negotiations, he or she must make sure that all efforts are aligned according to the necessities of the selected position."

Leio este trecho em “Pricing and the CEO” e recordo uma frase lida recentemente em "Value First Then Price":

"changing pricing practices involves far more than changing list prices. ... Changing pricing practices is, in many cases, a case for a true organizational transformation. Its a bit like changing the company DNA. Pricing is part of the company culture, and changing pricing practices requires a change in capabilities, in culture, in structure, in incentive systems, and in how de company interacts with customers."

"the rapid testing of many modest innovations"

Fantástico!

Que memórias!

Chegar ao Twitter e apanhar uma ligação para um artigo, "All Management Is Change Management". Ler o título e perceber que o nome do autor é Robert H. Schaffer.

Fico logo em pulgas. Será que é o mesmo Robert H. Schaffer que escreveu "The Breakthrough Strategy"?

Leio o artigo e no final vejo a foto do autor e confirmo que é o mesmo Robert H. Schaffer que tanto me ensinou e que citei nestes postais:

• A dança da chuva e outros rituais (Julho de 2006)
• Simplex (Abril de 2006)

Quando não sigo o principal conselho de Schaffer arrependo-me: concentrar um problema grande numa cascata de problemas mais pequenos e capazes de serem resolvidos mais rapidamente.

E o que diz Schaffer neste artigo?

"all management is the management of change.
.
If sales need to be increased, that’s change management. If a merger needs to be implemented, that’s change management. If a new personnel policy needs to be carried out, that’s change management. If the erosion of a market requires a new business model, that’s change management. Costs reduced? Productivity improved? New products developed? Change management.
.
The job of management always involves defining what changes need to be made and seeing that those changes take place. Even when the overall aim is stability, often there are still change goals: to reduce variability, cut costs, reduce the time required, or reduce turnover, for example. Once every job in a company is defined in terms of the changes to be made (both large and small), constant improvement can become the routine. Each innovation brings lessons that inform ongoing operations. The organization becomes a perpetual motion machine. Change never occurs as some sort of happening; it is part of everyday life.
...
Leaders should view change not as an occasional disruptor but as the very essence of the management job. Setting tough goals, establishing processes to reach them, carrying out those processes and carefully learning from them — these steps should characterize the unending daily life of the organization at every level. More companies need to describe their work in terms of where they are trying to go in the next month or next quarter or next year.
.
How do you transition into such a company? The simple answer is to skip the months spent creating a comprehensive plan to make the company more change-oriented. Instead, focus on some important goals that are not being accomplished. Have teams carve out some sub-goals they will aim to achieve in a few months. [Moi ici: Este é o velho Schaffer!] They should be asked to test innovative steps they think will make a difference and to learn from the process. Maintaining a short time frame for these experiments permits the rapid testing of many modest innovations. Of course, these are steps to advance major strategic goals, but the emphasis should be on executing specific changes — with each success followed by a new round of more-ambitious goals to tackle."

"There's no such thing as a true commodity"

"So, personally, I am a big fighter against the concept of commodity. There's no such thing as a true commodity. It's the new economy, the Internet, and the sharing economy that are leading to so many service opportunities and so much value creation that no commodity is ever condemned to remain a commodity. It is a mind-set, it is a question of capability, and it is a question of top-driven transformation. It is not a question of "help me, my product is a commodity!""

Trecho retirado de "First Value Then Price"

Outro exemplo de Mongo, agora o mel

"Italy’s wide range of high-quality honeys — a happy result of climate, countryside and strong horticulture — has led to the country developing a trained method of tasting. Just as wine experts can taste grape varieties, honey tasters are taught to distinguish and remember different flavours and nectar sources. Does a jar of monofloral honey contain what it says on the label, for example, or is it significantly altered by large quantities of other types of nectar?
...
“To start with, people tend to know just one or two kinds of honey — just a brown liquid with the same taste,” says Gian Luigi Marcazzan, president of the government-funded register. In contrast to the bland blends of imported industrial honey, Italy has about 50 distinct types of monofloral honey, 22 of them closely studied and analysed. And
every millefiori has its own character. Different honeys will appeal to different tastes. “There is a honey for everyone if you look for it,” he says.
...
Since each honey is unique to its time and place, it is a product that varies widely. Even in monofloral honeys the bees can fly where they want and gather in other nectars."

Há dias eram os vinagres, já foram os azeites, já foram os vinhos e as cervejas, já foi o sal, estão a ser as castanhas, ... agora o mel!!!

Sempre que se abandona o granel, começa-se a subir na escala de valor, precisa-se de marca, de denominação de origem, de marketing, ... trabalhar para Mongo.

O problema é que os produtores estão concentrados em produzir que não trabalham o ecossistema da procura, a marca, o marketing, a relação, a interacção.




Trechos retirados de "Forget wine tasting, Italy is now a prime destination for honey-tasting courses"

Vender projectos (parte I)

"In the beginning companies sold products. And then they sold services. In recent years, the fashionable suggestion has been that companies sell experiences and solutions, solving the needs and aspirations of customers.
.
Companies, indeed, do all of these things. But increasingly, what companies sell are projects. To understand the difference, think of an athletic shoe company, such as Nike or Adidas. A focus on products means a focus on selling running shoes. A focus on experiences might mean they sell you a membership to a local running club. A focus on solutions might mean they figure out how to help you reach your goal weight. While these clearly offer more value than simply selling you a pair of shoes, they also have limitations. Selling products limits the revenues you can make from clients: Unless you are innovating and continually updating your product offering, customer attrition tends to be high, and incentivizing repurchases can be hard. Selling experiences provides intangible benefits that are hard to quantify and measure, often focusing on meeting the needs of one single customer, preventing any mass production. Selling solutions became popular in the early 2000s when customers didn’t know how to solve their problems. But today, in the internet age, people can do their own research and define the solutions for themselves.
.
A focus on selling projects would mean helping someone do something more specific, such as running the Boston Marathon. Nike could provide you with its traditional sports gear, but in addition it could include a training program, a dietary plan, a coach, and a monitoring system to help you achieve your dream. The project would have a clear goal (finish the marathon) and a clear start and end date.
.
And that is just one type of project. More so than products, the possibilities with projects are endless."

Treco retirado de "Selling Products Is Good. Selling Projects Can Be Even Better"

O futuro é demasiado importante para depender dos seus clientes, apenas

Cuidado com os seus clientes e com o seu know-how.

"Purchasing know-how is dwindling due to budget cuts.
The inevitability of budget cuts among retailers is having an adverse effect on the purchasing know-how and professionalism available within these organisations. More and more purchasers are merely acting on the basis of sales results and purchasing lists. They are losing contact with the market and with consumers and their business, increasingly, is dominated by rules, margins and prices. Purchasing ‘success’ is more about budget than about understanding the market, anticipating trends and responding quickly.
.
Considerations for actionIf your organisation has a keen understanding of European markets, or the capacity to develop that kind of knowledge, capitalise on it by taking on a more assertive role in your relationships with buyers. In many cases, they will welcome your expertise. If you lack this capacity, find a wholesaler/importer who can compensate for you.
.
Market awareness is dwindling due to budget cuts.
Awareness of market trends and developments is eroding among buyers in Europe for the same reason for which purchasing know-how is diminishing. Due to budget cuts and high workloads, many buyer organisations lack the capacity they need for competitive analysis, market research and trend watching. All too often, they do not see an opportunity until it has all but passed by.
.
Considerations for actionDo not restrict yourself to manufacturing, but instead keep a constant lookout for opportunities emerging in the market. Take time to study market reports and competitors and share knowledge and insights with your buyer. This added value will be much appreciated; much new business arises from problems and opportunities no one else has identified."

O futuro de uma empresa é demasiado importante para depender dos seus clientes apenas.

Continuando a leitura de "CBI Understanding European Buyers: Footwear".