A DAY OF REFLECTION

“There will always be good men doing good things. And, there will always be evil men doing evil things. But, to get a good man to do an evil thing—for that you need religion”

--John Milton, Author of Paradise Lost

September 11, 2001 arrived with such premeditated violence and seismic force that it forever replaced December 7, 1941 as “the date that will live in infamy” for Americans. For us, to some extent, it must have been what the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt on the day the dreaded atomic bomb fell on their cities. However, for us, 9/11 was a surprise—a vile and pernicious ‘sucker punch’. The difference between 9/11 and the dropping of the atomic bomb, obviously, was that in a ‘world at war’, death, destruction and carnage, unfortunately, become daily and expected events.

Yet, the scale of death, destruction and carnage the Japanese witnessed and experienced was unparallel—even in war. Like Edwin Starr, in his seminal R&B hit of the ‘70s asked, I constantly ask myself—“War! What is it good for?” How do we, as a species--the majority of us avowed God fearing and worshiping people--find ourselves acting like cavemen with lethal rocks?  As Gandhi observed, if we follow the principle of “an eye for an eye …it would make the whole world blind”. Alas, while our brains are pondering quantum physics in the limitless universe, our knuckles are still dragging the ground. And, we keep shuffling menacingly towards each other, while ducking and dodging the weapons of both individual and mass destruction that we claim will insure our safety and security. What’s our problem? As Joan Rivers would say, “Can we talk?” Let’s give it a try.

Immediately, I want to say that the purpose of this little treatise is not to make a blanket case against war—even though, there a very few instances where I think it is justified. My real purpose is to engage in the act of reflection. The best definition of Reflection, being the “process of one observing oneself”, comes from Peter Vail in his book, Managing as a Performing Art. So, let me begin reflecting. My first epiphany is that I think the majority of humans believe in a higher power—God, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, if you will. And, if that’s the case, why are we so locked into “heated agreement”? Why do we insist that others wear what we wear, say what we say, act like we do in their worship rituals? Why do we commit acts of inhumanity towards each other in the name of our God? Why do we commit evil acts in the name of The Most High? Has the devil infiltrated our holy ranks? Is this hatred we hurl at each other the way we are suppose to live? And, why does live spelled backwards spell evil? Should we focus more on living to love rather loving to live? I don’t know….I’m just saying—you know?

What I do know is that we should not make 9/11 a national Day of Hysteria. Nor should we turn it into a national Day of Hatred. What we should be doing is reflecting and reconciling with each other so that no future “Date in Infamy” comes about to dwarf and replace 9/11. On this day, let us all, on Earth, atone for the myriad of sins committed under hypnotic nationalistic and religious trances. Let us insure that ‘freedom of religion’ is practiced and revered in whatever manner a group chooses to worship God.

We’ve seen the awful destructive power of hate. We long to see the awesome constructive power of Love. Let’s make 9/11 the head corner stone of a universal covenant to advance humankind from the Stone Age to an enlightened Space Age. Let’s agree to grow up as a species.

The Brand Eating Trolls

According to Wikipedia, as described in Old Norse sources, trolls are said to dwell in isolated mountains, rocks, and caves, sometimes live together, and are rarely described as helpful or friendly.”

In reading about Kraft’s most recent decision to split into two publically traded companies—Global Snacks and Domestic Grocery—I was intrigued by the comments made by some of the Consumer Package Goods [CPG] analysts. What’s really going on here? Has Irene Rosenfeld, with her powerful cache of Kraft’s well known and iconic brands—as some analysts suggest—given up on the North American grocery market? Have US consumers become so price sensitive that they are willing to abandon brand loyalty for a private label look-a-like and/or the seductive everyday low price of the Big Box stores like Wal-Mart and Costco? Has the price-value ratio, intuitively, used by consumers, finally, tilted in favor of “store brands”? What, I repeat, is going on!?

Well, let me venture a guess. First, I do not believe it is a case of “everybody’s doing it”—e.g., Sara Lee, Motorola and Fortune Brands, just to name a few. Secondly, I don’t believe that Irene was bullied into this decision by so-called “activist investors” like Peltz. Nope, as they say, “I ain’t buying it” (excuse the unintended pun). What I am buying is that Irene made a calculated decision based on industry developments (trolls) that have been at work the past quarter century—nibbling at the product portfolio and profitability of these mammoth CPG companies. Their annual revenues suggested to an interloper, ‘we are too big to take on…what about scale don’t you understand?’ was the subtext.  Yesiree, scale use to be a competitive advantage you could count on to scare off and/or vanquish your smaller competitors. Now, scale can, actually, be a competitive disadvantage in the development and introduction of new and innovative products. For sure, scale is still advantageous and can scare off a number of potential competitors while providing the enterprise with certain supply chain efficiencies.  So even with the breakup, Kraft will still have scale on its side.  Still, years ago, as a novice in the corporate world, I was told that it always came down to volume, share and revenue.

Yet, there are some other industry trolls that have been lurking under the bridge to profitability for a number of years. Volume, share and revenue are the tasty morsels for these trolls and they have gained considerable weight at the expense of the Branded CPG companies. Specifically, there are three industry ‘trolls’ that have created a ‘force field’ over the bridge to profitability that the Brand Giants must cross to get to sustained profitability. The most effective troll has been the ‘Big Box’ stores exemplified by Wal-Mart who is currently at one third of a trillion dollars in revenue. That’s right, I said a trillion dollars. Big Box stores, like Wal-Mart and Costco (at about $78 billion in annual revenues) feast off of a company’s revenue in exchange for accelerated volume opportunities. And, volume is very, very important to the company—the greater the volume produced and sold, the lower the overhead expense of the manufacturing facilities. However, to get this volume outlet, the company must accept lower profit margins or even the threat of ‘look-a-like’ products emblazoned with the Big Box store’s private label. Consumer loyalty to brands wane in the face of an affordable price.

The next troll is the private label industry operating in all categories/segments. These folks meet annually in Chicago at the PLMA conference. As an industry, they have come a long way. Back in the day when I was growing up, my mother would send me to the store to get Oscar Mayer bacon—not just any bacon. She believed that Oscar Mayer bacon was higher quality with less shrinkage. The price –value ratio favored the branded product. For the record, we were not wealthy or even solidly middle class yet. Still, her pantry reflected her loyalty to brands—like Kraft Sandwich Spread, Miracle Whip and Jell-O. Why? Because they were higher quality and the manufacturer stood behind their products. Yet, this private label troll kept improving both the quality of their product and packaging. Because, the CPG giants spent the trade and consumer advertisement money to grow the categories, private label manufacturers could price lower. Their morsel of preference was ‘market share’. They nibbled and nibbled until, in many cases, ate up several share of market points off the ‘big boys’ plate. After years of steady growth, this past year 2010, sales of private label foods stagnated. The big boys of branded products had “counterattacked and increased trade and consumer promotion”.  

 Ironically, the weapons used to contain and push back the private labels benefit the last troll—that is, the large retail customer like Kroger with revenues of about $80 billion annual, placing it #2 behind Wal-Mart. Kroger, Safeway and Supervalu, for example, are important customers to large branded CPG companies like Kraft.  They receive millions of dollars in trade promotions yearly. And, in return for these trade dollars, intended to drive their business, CPG, instead, find they are subsidizing another competitor—the third troll,  if you will. The unassuming and cash strapped consumer walks into one of these stores and it immediately bombarded with ‘store brands’ in every category, in every aisle. Incandescent yellow sales tags announcing price cuts on store brands scream at the consumer; and, sitting next it is the branded product, even when on sale, has a price that is a ‘fistful of change’ more expensive than the store brand. 

Why, you ask, would the Krafts of the world accept this? Or an even better question is why the retailer would even want to carry the branded product while ‘hawking’ their own. Simply put, these trolls need the branded product for price comparison. Now that price sensitivity works to jar the consumer away from brands, the issue becomes a purchasing IQ test. For Kraft and other CPGs the retailer is the most convenient and direct route to the consumer. The retail outlet is the last place you can get profitable margin—albeit, with increasing contraction. But, with the store labels proliferating, volume becomes softer and softer. This retail troll eats profitable volume.

Now, what is a bright and skilled marketing mind like Irene to do—when faced with these three trolls?  Simple, get the hell out and look for greener pastures. Fact is the developing world countries are the greener pastures. According to the World Bank “the global middle class are expected to triple by 2030 to 1.2 billion. Today, a bit more than half of that free-spending group resides in the developing countries. By 2030, almost all of it, 92% will call the developing world home.” Irene is getting a visa and passport ready to leave Troll Land and go to the Promise Land.

 

MEETING PEOPLE—THE GAMES WE PLAY

“People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything”

--Thomas Sowell, American Writer and Economist

Please excuse my title. As they say in sports, there is a little ‘trickeration’ at work.  I really didn’t mean to imply that this blog was about the act of meeting people. No, in fact, I was using the word ‘meeting’ as a descriptive adjective—not a verb. My intent in this blog is to write about the types of people I have observed in the countless meetings I attended during my career. Just for grins, I use to classify my peers and others by virtue of their similar behaviors—sort of my own taxonomy of meeting participants.

As I wrote in my last blog, “meetings are the bane of most employees”.  Meetings, because they are necessary, however, are not going away. An efficient and effective meeting is a thing of beauty—both in design and execution. Unfortunately, the best designed meeting can be undermined by one or more of the participants. And, we all have been conspirators and co-conspirators in derailing a well designed meeting—sometimes consciously, sometimes unwittingly. I realize that to enumerate is to limit. Still, I want to share my personal taxonomy of meeting participants. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, empirical or even equitable. It is, simply, the product of my twisted world view of human nature.

In fact, my discussion of the types I am about to talk about often described me—or as the cartoon cat, Garfield, would say “I resemble that remark.” Still, in the spirit of the blissful blogger, I will tread on to the taxonomy. Ok, let’s leap into the world according to me. 

No doubt there are others that could be added to a list of meeting types. For example, the Slick, the Sly and theWicked  along with the Crackberry addict come to mind. 

However, I will list the types I have identified below and describe them to the best of my recollection. They are as follows: 

The Smoozer

The Socialite

The Socrates

The Silent

Understand, my friends, that this list was purely a creation of a fatigued and meeting addled mind—i.e., a mind, often, paying more attention to the participant’s behaviors than the presentations.

So let us get started. I did not list the most important participant in the meeting—the leader or boss. The leader/boss can be, either, a facilitator, referee or circus ringmaster. Armed with a clear agenda, s/he sets the tone for the meeting—the ambiance or climate. S/he can either follow or subvert the agenda. And, if there is no agenda; there is no meeting—just a gathering of people looking for reasons why they are sharing the same space and time. Without strong leadership, even a meeting with a clear agenda will devolve into a series of sideshows starring one or more of the participants I listed above as types. The leader facilitator makes sure that the meeting is not dominated by any one type of participant. Looking through the leader's eyes, here is how the particular types of participants might behave in a meeting.

The ‘Smoozer’ is usually recognized by his/her fixed gaze and ‘bobbing head’, signifying approval to any sound, word or statement uttered by the boss. Sometimes the smoozer even adds a sound element to his/her head gesture. The sound is usually a soft and purring “yes” –audible enough to be heard by the boss. Additionally, this type is very good at “summarizing” what the boss has said for the benefit of the 'less astute' in the meeting.

Yet, there is usually one type in the meeting who benefits from this summarization—that being the “Socialite”. He/she is so busy with their own agenda—i.e., cracking jokes, reliving the weekend or discussing their kids’ latest accomplishments—that sometimes they appear peeved, because the rest of the engaged participants are “talking too loud”. You can spot the ‘socialite’, most often, by his/her fixed smile and darting eyes. Their objective is to look engaged. As such, they, frequently, borrow the “bobbing head” routine of the ‘smoozer’. Yet, as we use to say, “Lights on, nobody home”.

Perhaps the most vexatious type is the “Socrates” or ‘know it all’.  This is the person who has positioned him/herself as the ‘keeper of all insight’ in the known universe. Until Socrates weights in, all perspectives are subject to doubt. Ironically, other meeting participants defer to this pompous and punctilious egotist. Socrates sometimes dominates dialogue and, at other times, is a sniper, waiting for the opportune time to attack and correct. The strange thing about the Socrates type is that they are often ‘right—but, more often, irrelevant’. He/she arbitrarily sets up a false premise, attacks or defends it and then ‘waxes eloquently’ on why the rest of the team should adopt this point of view. Interestingly enough, the Socrates type has the discipline “to keep his powder dry” until he/she sees an opening.

While the Socrates type can mimic the Silent type for a short period of time, they cannot sustain it. The Silent type can sit through a 3 hour meeting without saying a word; without head or body gesturing; without making a single contribution to the meeting agenda. In a sense, they are a selfish and cowardly lot. They subscribe to Abraham Lincoln’s old adage that “it is better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and prove it”. However, often they are the most opinionated and talkative among the team—after the meeting was adjourned. When asked, why they didn’t contribute? They will usually claim that everyone else was dominating the dialogue or, as one friend pointed out, they assert that they "didn't want to create waves". They are the turtles of the corporate world; sticking their necks out only to cross the road back to the coffee room.

In summary, I realize that the types of meeting participants do not always fall into such a neat and tidy taxonomy. Still, that is my point of view—and I’m sticking to it.