Archive | Business models RSS feed for this section

Up in the air

21 Mar

1-von-1DSC_0280

Our little chart tries to answer the age-old question: Can you be rich and popular?

We compared the the top ten most popular airlines with the top ten most profitable ones. The chart reveals: Ryanair, arguably the most awkward airline, has the biggest EBIT margin (22 %). Local airlines like LAN or Copa Airlines are doing well. But the biggest winner is Turkish Airlines. Yes, THY (frequent flyers not long ago translated this abbreviation „THEY HATE YOU“) has become one of the most popular (No. 7) and most profitable (11.2 % EBIT margin) companies in the airline business. And they are running one of the most powerful hubs in the world connecting the Europe with Asia: Istanbul.

Change hurts

14 Sep

Our little graph shows the process of change.
Nothing changes without movement. Movement causes friction. Friction causes pain. So no real change will take place if we don’t accept any pain as part of the change-process. This is true for large scale transformation of societies, and it’s true for personal development. So the question is not: how to change. The question is: Are you willing to take some pain?
Typically the announce of a new, say, Head of Marketing leads to lots of movement (hiring new ad agency, re-positioning etc), it stirs a lot of water, but you won’t expect a lot of pain. And therefore: also no real change. On the other end: endless meetings lead to a lot of pain but often no movement, because no one is willing to make a decision.

Better never than late

4 Aug

Here’s a dilemma:
What’s worse: Committing a mistake early on or committing a mistake after having thoroughly adressed a problem? In other words: is it worse to make a mistake based on superficial judgement or doing a mistake believing you were absolutely right?

Science say: the latter is the worst. Manager loose more money if they ponder a question for a long time than if they make a quick but wrong decision. The bottom-line: better never than late.

What’s the best and what’s the right idea?

26 Feb

Best vs. Right Idea

If your idea is neither groundbraking nor lucrative, it’s not an idea. Ideas who appear to be very lucrative are often copies of exisiting, lucrative ideas. Take Motorola’s 1996 „StarTAC“ clam-shell. How did everyone in the market react? They copied this idea, even Nokia did. Ideas that seem far out are what we often call „the best idea“. Ideas you fall in love with. When studying with the Kaospilots (www.kaospilot.dk) we were given the task to re-brand the danish City of Aarhus. The City is known as the City of Women (they have the only exisiting Women Museum, their girls are known as the most beautiful in the whole of Denmark etc) Our idea: in Europe all pedestrian traffic lights have small green/red men to indicate WALK/NOT WALK. We wanted to exchange the men with green/red women. Aarhus said: great, but too expensive. So what is an exemple for „the right idea“? An idea that is lucrative for the market and groundbreaking? Like Radiohead’s idea to give away their latest album „Rainbow“ for whatever you are willing to pay. They ended up with more money than they would have earned selling the CD in stores.

The Understanding of a Flow Chart

15 Dec

Use a chart to understand waht a chart is. Very dialectic! Thanks Randall Munroe, xkcd.com

Marketing Strategy

12 Mar
Abell D.F. 1980    

Abell D.F. 1980

We don’t know if this works in real life but it helps when you turn vague ideas into business ideas to check them out in a real market. Here some examples, seen from our perspective (correct us, if we are wrong, it’s quite difficult to come up with comparable examples).

  1. One product in one market: segment concentration (e.g. most of the “we make exactly these screws for exactly this machine-companies”)
  2. One product in different markets: specialized in a certain product (e.g. Nintendo, not any longer for kids but for 30+ doing exercise or with using it in the kitchen as e-recipe-book)
  3. Several products in one market: specialized in a certain market (e.g. Apple pods, ipod classic, ipod touch, ipod nano)
  4. Several products in several markets: selective specialized (e.g. swiss health insurance company Helsana with its spin-offs Areosan, SANSAN, progrès, etc)
  5. Market coverage (e.g. copyright societies lika GEMA, SUISA)

Swede dreams are made of these

10 Mar
We love Sweden 

We love Sweden!

Restart From Scratch

2 Mar

Starting from scratch to be innovative?

Starting from scratch to be innovative?

We found this model at a lecture by Martin Kupp, the brilliant member of the faculty of the EMST (European School of Management and Technology). Don’t be put off by the complexity of the model’s layout. It works! Likes this: Most consumers expect more and more from technic devices. That’s why industries incrementally improve products like computers. What does that mean: they use a lot of research and development but the improvements are marginally. That’s expensive. Low profit margin. Small room for innovations. So sometimes you have to do something different to find something different. When Apple introduced the Apple II, it’s perfomance was ridiculously bad compared to IBM-Computers. Apple II-performance was lower than what consumer expected. Why did they still do it? They could grow easily from there on: because it is easier to grow from 0 to 10 than from 10 to 11.

Innovative field

30 Nov

innovation

Who’s innovative (by the book)? We found a couple of indications in our old logbook from the Kaospilots University. How we change the world? And who is changing it? Nowadays it’s common sense that the innovative field is set somewhere in the middle between chaos and method, between structure and intuition. Is it? After all since change has a name, Obama is acting within these guidelines. His put-together-administration isn’t too revolutionary nor boring. You can put in your network and think about it. We did. But we won’t put it online, sorry guys.

Hype cycle

14 Nov

gartner2

(click on pic to enlarge…a little bit)

Thanks, dear reader Jens Woinowski, indeed it would have been a good idea to combine The Chasm with The Gartner Hype Cycle as one of 50 topmodels in our book. Anyway now you have it online and you can comment on it. 
The hype cycle tries to predict the beginning of corporate marketability of technological innovations. Maybe it also predicts the time you gonna marry – but that’s our interpretation. The model cuts a new technology roughly into five periods in its life cycle (altough real time is phased differently and individually):

  1.  Technology Trigger — the procuct is on the market and you hear the buzz all over the place. Kind of a breaktrough in visibility. Comes along with: „Have you checked this out? It’s great!“
  2. Peak of Inflated Expectations — The hype is on top, but more and more people uncover that the product or services is just half-baked. Comes along with: „It’s great, but…!“
  3. Trough of Disillusionment — the technology fails to meet expectation and becomes boring for early adaptors. There’s hardly any press about it, but still, people use it. Comes along with: „It would be great, but they should change this and that!“
  4. Slope of Enlightenment — press stopped covering the technology, but some businesses take time to experiment with it or they invest in it. The feature becomes more practical. Maybe 2.0 version. Comes along with: „I use it, but in another way.“
  5. Plateau of Productivity — now it’s a real benefit for the users. The technlogoy is accepted and maybe even broadly spread (within it’s purpose to serve). Comes along with: „I knew it!“

Our little drawing shows parts of the the 2008 issue (german). Compared to 2006 (german), Web 2.0 went from “peak” to “disillusionment” – just as the market researchers of Gartner predicted.

Management tool

1 Nov


Here’s a hands-on matrix for times like these. Well, maybe to late.

The Risk Management Matrix helps structuring “to dos” by splitting possible events into likelihood (how likely will it happen?) and impact (if it happens: how much will it influence me/the company).

Do what you want to do!

15 Oct

This modell – actually it’s just a thought – shows how we get dependent (or independent) as time goes by. Growing up in a famlily with values and an education preparing for a traditional career allows quite a lot of freedom and it supports individuality in the beginning. But soon you have to queue up your personal needs and wishes. You do what you HAVE to do. As soon as experience (and hopefully a fortune) has arrived, you start again doing what you WANT to do.
We call it “fundriven” if you don’t care about savings. You live your live quite spontaneous. A traditional career and education are replaced by a shifting career and an affinity for distance learning programs. A typical indication is to get (professionally) independent. You do what you want but you earn just as much money you need to live. The lack of savings might end in a bigger dependence at the end of your life.

Well, it is quite reduced and the starting point of individuality is indeed individual. But anyway it is interesting to question yourself if you are doing what you want. Or are you designing your (professional) life towards the future (e.g. saving money in order to fulfill a dream later).