Posted by Mark Brousseau
What do Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual Savings, Arthur Andersen, Starbucks, and Toyota all have in common? All went gunning for business growth but instead ended up with self-inflicted wounds. Each of these companies pursued the wrong kind of growth for the wrong reasons. If you are considering trying to grow your business to beat the economic pressures of the down economy or are caving to the popular "grow or die" influence of Wall Street, Ed Hess asks that you think before you grow.
"Most business executives accept without question the belief that growth is always good, that bigger is always better, and that the healthy vital signs for a public company include growth that is continuous, smooth, and linear," says Hess, a professor at the University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business and author of the new book Smart Growth: Building an Enduring Business by Managing the Risks of Growth. "The problem with those presumptions is that there is no scientific or business basis for them."
Hess, a leading authority on business growth, knows this to be true because he's conducted extensive research of his own with both public and private companies. Based on his research, Hess has found that the hard data shows that above-average, long-term growth (five years or more) by public companies is an exception, not the rule, occurring in less than 10 percent of the companies studied.
"For the vast majority of companies, growth is often pursued in a way that brings with it as many risks of failure as chances of success," notes Hess. "Combine unquestioned strategic presumptions with bad judgment—and sometimes a fair share of greed and arrogance—and the results can be serious or fatal to the viability of a business."
What are some of the self-inflicted wounds premature growth can leave on your company? Hess outlines a few:
Growth can create new business risks. Growth is a business strategy that can require investments in people, equipment, raw materials, space, and supplies. As these cash outlays occur before new revenues kick in, many businesses find themselves exhausting their cash reserves—a risky tightrope to walk.
"Starbucks is a great example of a company that learned this lesson the hard way," says Hess. "Previously the poster child of a successful, well-respected business, a new executive team decided that continuous, quarterly store expansion was necessary to prove to Wall Street how committed the company was to growth. Aggressive plans did indeed increase the number of new stores being opened each month, but many were in unprofitable locations that eventually had to be closed. The result was bad press, a diluted customer value proposition, and, equally troublesome, the sudden need to take on massive and unprecedented short-term debt. A change in senior management and a public mea culpa showed that, in the pursuit of growth, Starbucks had instead weakened itself as a business, at least for a time."
Growth can force you into the big leagues before you are ready. Growth can match companies up against more experienced players before they truly know how to handle the competition.
Growth can strain your operations. Growth can pose huge challenges for your people, processes, controls, and management capacities, resulting in quality problems and the increased potential for damaged customer relationships and diminished brand perceptions.
"Toyota learned this lesson the hard way," says Hess. "The company maintained an unbridled pursuit of growth over the past decade or so even though it was already a market leader in quality and dependability. It wanted more—to be #1 in sales. That shift in mindset set Toyota down a path where controls were stretched beyond capacity. The results: massive recalls, hundreds of lawsuits, and a damaged brand. Even Toyota's current CEO has acknowledged that the company's problems can be traced to growing too quickly."
Hess's solution for overcoming the risks associated with growth is a concept he calls Smart Growth. Smart Growth accounts for the complexity of growth from the perspective of organization, process, change, leadership, cognition, risk management, employee engagement, and human dynamics. It recognizes that authentic growth is a process characterized by complex change, entrepreneurial action, experimental learning, and the management of risk. It is a strategy that requires companies of all sizes to follow what Hess calls the "4Ps of Growth":
Plan for growth before kicking the strategy into gear. Think about how growth will change what you need to do. What new processes, controls, and people will be needed at what cost?
Prioritize what changes or additions to the business have to be made to accommodate the growth. This is a way to make the essential investments first, so as not to deplete cash reserves before new income starts rolling in.
Processes must be put in place to ensure there are adequate financial, operational, personnel, and quality controls for a bigger business. These are like dams on a river: if the water starts flowing faster and with more volume, those dams need to be reengineered to handle it.
Pace growth so as not to overwhelm yourself, your people, and your processes. Growth can be exciting, but it is also almost always stressful. If you underestimate the need for effective change management, and for a phased approach to implementation, you increase chances for failure.
The tools and rigorous governance methods outlined in Smart Growth can help companies along all four parts of the process. For example, Hess's Growth Decision Template can help leaders analyze, illuminate, and devise a plan to manage their growth risks.
Hess also advises all public companies to conduct an annual Growth Risks Audit to review the stresses that growth is placing on the organization, its people, and its processes. Avoiding conflict of interests and striving for objectivity are critical. This annual Audit should be conducted by a senior multi-disciplinary team made up of members who are not rewarded for producing growth results but are rewarded instead for preventing growth risks from creating serious damage to the business.
"CEOs and Boards of Directors face a unique kind of challenge when it comes to planning for smart growth," says Hess. "Sometimes the right decision when it comes to growth is not to pursue it, but it takes a special kind of team to make that decision when shareholders and analysts are clamoring for higher returns each quarter. But smart growth is possible. Successful high-growth companies—such as Best Buy, SYSCO, Walgreens, and Tiffany & Company—have grown through constant improvement in their organizations' DNA, executed by a highly engaged workforce in a positive learning and performance environment.
"What's important to remember is that the goal is not necessarily growth," concludes Hess. "The goal is continuously making your organization better. When you achieve that, growth will happen naturally in due course. That's the way to achieve smart growth."
Showing posts with label p-card. Show all posts
Showing posts with label p-card. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Migraines costly to productivity
Posted by Mark Brousseau
Employees suffering from Chronic Migraines (CM) experience increased lost productive time (LPT) in the workplace, according to new analysis from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study. Lost productive time (LPT) is estimated as the average weekly time lost due to an employee being absent (absenteeism) and reduced performance while at work (presenteeism).
Migraine is a neurological syndrome characterized by severe, painful headaches that are often accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and increased sensitivity to light and sound. Headaches may last for hours or even days. The pain is often on one side of the head and pulsating. Headaches may be preceded by aura: sensory warning signs such as flashes of light, blind spots, tingling in the arms and legs. Migraine can be divided into those experiencing headache on average 15 or more days per month (CM) and episodic migraine (EM): headache on average fewer than 15 days per month. Of the estimated 30 million Americans who suffer from migraine, approximately one million – mostly women – suffer from CM.
Chronic Migraine (CM) sufferers experience greater LPT in the workplace than those suffering from EM. This study showed that in the age interval 35-44 years, the LPT of CM sufferers was 215.3 hours higher per year than those suffering from EM. The amount of LPT among CM increased over age groups while it remained relatively low and stable among EM.
Cost estimates increased for CM across age cohorts while remaining relatively constant for EM. On an annual basis for those aged 35-44 years, this translated to the LPT for CM sufferers being $5,352.36 higher per year than those with EM. The average cost of LPT per week was based on 2005 census median income estimates.
According to Dr. Dawn Buse, one of the study's authors and Assistant Professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Director of Behavioral Medicine at the Montefiore Headache Center, "The burden of CM is significant in terms of LPT and related costs. The results from these analyses may even underestimate that burden as these data do not capture those who are unemployed and may have exited the labor force through disability or early retirement, representing a significant loss of trained and skilled people who may exit the labor force early due to the burden of CM."
According to Dr. Richard Lipton, one of the study's authors and Professor of Neurology and Epidemiology and Population Health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Director of the Montefiore Headache Center, "The cost of treatment, whether it be to prevent a headache attack or to treat during an attack, may be considerably lower for employers than the costs associated with LPT. Additionally, treatments may ease the suffering of employees, while recovering the labor value of experienced and knowledgeable employees burdened by the symptom and work-related impacts of CM."
Dr. Buse advised, "By understanding the findings of this study, assessing the amount of lost work time their organization is experiencing due to migraine, and taking measures to educate and encourage migraine sufferers to seek treatment, organizations could reduce the amount of LPT and related costs due to migraine, and improve the health and quality of life of their employees."
What do you think?
Employees suffering from Chronic Migraines (CM) experience increased lost productive time (LPT) in the workplace, according to new analysis from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study. Lost productive time (LPT) is estimated as the average weekly time lost due to an employee being absent (absenteeism) and reduced performance while at work (presenteeism).
Migraine is a neurological syndrome characterized by severe, painful headaches that are often accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and increased sensitivity to light and sound. Headaches may last for hours or even days. The pain is often on one side of the head and pulsating. Headaches may be preceded by aura: sensory warning signs such as flashes of light, blind spots, tingling in the arms and legs. Migraine can be divided into those experiencing headache on average 15 or more days per month (CM) and episodic migraine (EM): headache on average fewer than 15 days per month. Of the estimated 30 million Americans who suffer from migraine, approximately one million – mostly women – suffer from CM.
Chronic Migraine (CM) sufferers experience greater LPT in the workplace than those suffering from EM. This study showed that in the age interval 35-44 years, the LPT of CM sufferers was 215.3 hours higher per year than those suffering from EM. The amount of LPT among CM increased over age groups while it remained relatively low and stable among EM.
Cost estimates increased for CM across age cohorts while remaining relatively constant for EM. On an annual basis for those aged 35-44 years, this translated to the LPT for CM sufferers being $5,352.36 higher per year than those with EM. The average cost of LPT per week was based on 2005 census median income estimates.
According to Dr. Dawn Buse, one of the study's authors and Assistant Professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Director of Behavioral Medicine at the Montefiore Headache Center, "The burden of CM is significant in terms of LPT and related costs. The results from these analyses may even underestimate that burden as these data do not capture those who are unemployed and may have exited the labor force through disability or early retirement, representing a significant loss of trained and skilled people who may exit the labor force early due to the burden of CM."
According to Dr. Richard Lipton, one of the study's authors and Professor of Neurology and Epidemiology and Population Health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Director of the Montefiore Headache Center, "The cost of treatment, whether it be to prevent a headache attack or to treat during an attack, may be considerably lower for employers than the costs associated with LPT. Additionally, treatments may ease the suffering of employees, while recovering the labor value of experienced and knowledgeable employees burdened by the symptom and work-related impacts of CM."
Dr. Buse advised, "By understanding the findings of this study, assessing the amount of lost work time their organization is experiencing due to migraine, and taking measures to educate and encourage migraine sufferers to seek treatment, organizations could reduce the amount of LPT and related costs due to migraine, and improve the health and quality of life of their employees."
What do you think?
Monday, June 14, 2010
Time to re-evaluate the rationale for SaaS?
Posted by Mark Brousseau
Software as a service (SaaS) will have a role in the future of IT, but not the dominant future that was first thought, according to Gartner, Inc. Organizations should carefully assess their software needs in light of the current promises delivered on by SaaS.
“In 2009, within enterprise applications, SaaS represented 3.4 percent of total enterprise spending, slightly up from 2008 at 2.8 percent,” said David Cearley, vice president and fellow at Gartner. Gartner predicts that the global enterprise applications software market will reach $8.8 billion in 2010.
From a market perspective, most of the spending for SaaS is occurring in content, collaboration and communication and the customer relationship management markets. Collectively, they represented 65 percent of the global enterprise applications software market in 2009.
Many of the bad practices that occurred in the on-premises world are now moving their way into SaaS. The biggest example is shelfware. “Shelfware as a service is the concept of paying for a software subscription that is not being accessed by an end user,” said Cearley. “This most commonly occurs in large organizations, but it could happen to any company, especially those that have downsized their workforce, or one that has oversubscribed to trigger a volume discount.”
SaaS may not have delivered on its early grand promises - of the current SaaS deployments we estimate that a total of 90 percent of SaaS deployments are not pay-per-use -, but it has re-energized the software market and added choice. SaaS does not solve all the challenges of software delivery, but can provide advantages based on the specific circumstances of a deployment as it is quicker to implement and configure for less-complex problems. “SaaS changes the role of IT from implementing its own operations to inspecting a vendor’s operations,” Cearley added.
Gartner said that SaaS will likely penetrate every company at one level or another and recommends that organizations consider four steps when evaluating SaaS:
1. Determine Value
SaaS is not a panacea, and companies need to evaluate and understand the trade-offs that SaaS presents. While it limits infrastructure overheads and management, and lowers short- to medium-term total cost of ownership, third-party application tools are limited and SaaS applications cannot be counted as assets on a balance sheet.
2. Develop Governance
The next step is to develop a SaaS policy and governance document. This document should be a collaborative effort between the business and IT to create internal and external SaaS governance model.
3. Evaluate Vendors
Organizations need to evaluate SaaS vendors for specific application needs as applicable. A vendor’s commitment to SaaS is not just measured in business performance, but in technical considerations, such as operations management capabilities.
4. Develop an Integration Road Map
This step will be a continuous process of developing an integration road map on how SaaS applications will integrate with on-premises applications and other SaaS solutions deployed.
What do you think?
Software as a service (SaaS) will have a role in the future of IT, but not the dominant future that was first thought, according to Gartner, Inc. Organizations should carefully assess their software needs in light of the current promises delivered on by SaaS.
“In 2009, within enterprise applications, SaaS represented 3.4 percent of total enterprise spending, slightly up from 2008 at 2.8 percent,” said David Cearley, vice president and fellow at Gartner. Gartner predicts that the global enterprise applications software market will reach $8.8 billion in 2010.
From a market perspective, most of the spending for SaaS is occurring in content, collaboration and communication and the customer relationship management markets. Collectively, they represented 65 percent of the global enterprise applications software market in 2009.
Many of the bad practices that occurred in the on-premises world are now moving their way into SaaS. The biggest example is shelfware. “Shelfware as a service is the concept of paying for a software subscription that is not being accessed by an end user,” said Cearley. “This most commonly occurs in large organizations, but it could happen to any company, especially those that have downsized their workforce, or one that has oversubscribed to trigger a volume discount.”
SaaS may not have delivered on its early grand promises - of the current SaaS deployments we estimate that a total of 90 percent of SaaS deployments are not pay-per-use -, but it has re-energized the software market and added choice. SaaS does not solve all the challenges of software delivery, but can provide advantages based on the specific circumstances of a deployment as it is quicker to implement and configure for less-complex problems. “SaaS changes the role of IT from implementing its own operations to inspecting a vendor’s operations,” Cearley added.
Gartner said that SaaS will likely penetrate every company at one level or another and recommends that organizations consider four steps when evaluating SaaS:
1. Determine Value
SaaS is not a panacea, and companies need to evaluate and understand the trade-offs that SaaS presents. While it limits infrastructure overheads and management, and lowers short- to medium-term total cost of ownership, third-party application tools are limited and SaaS applications cannot be counted as assets on a balance sheet.
2. Develop Governance
The next step is to develop a SaaS policy and governance document. This document should be a collaborative effort between the business and IT to create internal and external SaaS governance model.
3. Evaluate Vendors
Organizations need to evaluate SaaS vendors for specific application needs as applicable. A vendor’s commitment to SaaS is not just measured in business performance, but in technical considerations, such as operations management capabilities.
4. Develop an Integration Road Map
This step will be a continuous process of developing an integration road map on how SaaS applications will integrate with on-premises applications and other SaaS solutions deployed.
What do you think?
Monday, June 7, 2010
How tax agencies are coping with the economy
Posted by Mark Brousseau
“We are all in the same boat,” Roger Ervin, secretary, Wisconsin Department of Revenue, told attendees at the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) Annual Meeting at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta this morning. “As the economy continues to falter, we need to be more diligent in collections. But citizens want more. They want us to be as efficient as possible. And they want us to do it quietly.”
Ken Lay, secretary, North Carolina Department of Revenue, agreed, noting that, “We want to be easier to do business with. We want to be professional. And we want to be firm, but fair.”
Lisa Echeverri, executive director, Florida Department of Revenue, noted that the recession has presented her department with an opportunity to take a fresh look at its operations and processes.
“You should never waste a good crisis,” Lay concurred, adding that his department is becoming much more process and metric focused. “We are redoing all of our processes. So everyone is not only busy, they are also working on creating the new North Carolina Department of Revenue.”
“We’re beginning to change the organization to fit the processes that will fit the technology,” Lay said, noting that his department has already enhanced its data warehouse capabilities. Some of the changes Lay’s department has implemented include monthly transformation meetings for staff, an updated intranet site with information on changes, deployment of a Microsoft Sharepoint site where anyone can see the state of the project, and an emphasis on deadlines and holding firm on them.
“We’re not doing this for the sake of the Department of Revenue. We’re really doing it for the citizens of North Carolina,” Lay explained. Changes like these may become necessary.
“We are in a period of market conversion in how taxpayers interact with their tax departments,” Ervin added. “Many are choosing electronic products, as their contribution to the future, while many others are continuing with paper. Many taxpayers are using the Internet with regularity, while others still call their tax department until they speak with a person. Clearly, we are in a deep and complex recession and recovery is still months or years away. In this environment, many citizens cannot or will not pay. This puts pressure on collections. Intuitively, this should be a time of investments in new technology and processes. But tight budgets have put a hold on those investments.”
“We are all in the same boat,” Roger Ervin, secretary, Wisconsin Department of Revenue, told attendees at the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) Annual Meeting at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta this morning. “As the economy continues to falter, we need to be more diligent in collections. But citizens want more. They want us to be as efficient as possible. And they want us to do it quietly.”
Ken Lay, secretary, North Carolina Department of Revenue, agreed, noting that, “We want to be easier to do business with. We want to be professional. And we want to be firm, but fair.”
Lisa Echeverri, executive director, Florida Department of Revenue, noted that the recession has presented her department with an opportunity to take a fresh look at its operations and processes.
“You should never waste a good crisis,” Lay concurred, adding that his department is becoming much more process and metric focused. “We are redoing all of our processes. So everyone is not only busy, they are also working on creating the new North Carolina Department of Revenue.”
“We’re beginning to change the organization to fit the processes that will fit the technology,” Lay said, noting that his department has already enhanced its data warehouse capabilities. Some of the changes Lay’s department has implemented include monthly transformation meetings for staff, an updated intranet site with information on changes, deployment of a Microsoft Sharepoint site where anyone can see the state of the project, and an emphasis on deadlines and holding firm on them.
“We’re not doing this for the sake of the Department of Revenue. We’re really doing it for the citizens of North Carolina,” Lay explained. Changes like these may become necessary.
“We are in a period of market conversion in how taxpayers interact with their tax departments,” Ervin added. “Many are choosing electronic products, as their contribution to the future, while many others are continuing with paper. Many taxpayers are using the Internet with regularity, while others still call their tax department until they speak with a person. Clearly, we are in a deep and complex recession and recovery is still months or years away. In this environment, many citizens cannot or will not pay. This puts pressure on collections. Intuitively, this should be a time of investments in new technology and processes. But tight budgets have put a hold on those investments.”
Changes taxpayers can believe in
Posted by Mark Brousseau
“Many taxpayers believe they can’t get a fair shake from their state tax system,” Walter Hellerstein, Shackelford Professor of Taxation, University of Georgia Law School, said this morning at the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) Annual Meeting at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta. “They think there are too many thumbs in the mix. This is what’s driving so many of the problems that we are seeing, not to mention, the Tea Party movement.”
Getting to a more “robust” tax system that is closer to “the ideal” will go a long way toward changing taxpayers’ negative perceptions, Hellerstein told attendees. He said that some key changes should include a streamlined sales tax, independent state tax courts, withholding on flow-through entities, federal-state tax coordination, and corporate income tax uniformity. “These changes would at least get us to where we could talk to each other in more civil tones,” Hellerstein said. “The answer is respect; not only between federal and state entities, but also between taxpayers and states.”
“Many taxpayers believe they can’t get a fair shake from their state tax system,” Walter Hellerstein, Shackelford Professor of Taxation, University of Georgia Law School, said this morning at the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) Annual Meeting at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta. “They think there are too many thumbs in the mix. This is what’s driving so many of the problems that we are seeing, not to mention, the Tea Party movement.”
Getting to a more “robust” tax system that is closer to “the ideal” will go a long way toward changing taxpayers’ negative perceptions, Hellerstein told attendees. He said that some key changes should include a streamlined sales tax, independent state tax courts, withholding on flow-through entities, federal-state tax coordination, and corporate income tax uniformity. “These changes would at least get us to where we could talk to each other in more civil tones,” Hellerstein said. “The answer is respect; not only between federal and state entities, but also between taxpayers and states.”
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Modernized e-Filing System Takes Off
Posted by Mark Brousseau
More than 6.5 million federal tax returns (business and individual) were submitted through the new Modernized e-File (MeF) system, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) told attendees of the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) Annual Meeting at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta today. That’s on top of nearly 400,000 state tax returns (business and individual) submitted using MeF. On March 15th alone, the IRS received nearly 500,000 MeF submissions.
MeF is a web-based system that allows electronic filing through the Internet of corporate, partnership, exempt organization, excise tax returns, and, for the first time this year, Individual 1040 returns. When fully deployed, MeF will replace the IRS’ legacy e-file system.
1040 MeF is being deployed over three years. The first phase, deployed this year, includes processing of Form 1040 and 22 other forms and schedules. Fourteen states currently are in live production with 1040 MeF. As of April 21, more than 1 million federal and state returns were submitted via 1040 MeF, the IRS says.
Phase 2, targeted for next filling season, will support the same forms and will include current and prior year processing. In addition, the IRS will complete the build-out of additional hardware and improved disaster recovery capabilities. The Phase 3 plan, targeted for January 2012, will bring online the remaining related 1040 forms and schedules and will include amended return processing. During the deployment phases, the IRS’ legacy e-file system will remain fully operational with current plans to retire it during the fourth quarter of calendar year 2012.
More than 6.5 million federal tax returns (business and individual) were submitted through the new Modernized e-File (MeF) system, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) told attendees of the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) Annual Meeting at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta today. That’s on top of nearly 400,000 state tax returns (business and individual) submitted using MeF. On March 15th alone, the IRS received nearly 500,000 MeF submissions.
MeF is a web-based system that allows electronic filing through the Internet of corporate, partnership, exempt organization, excise tax returns, and, for the first time this year, Individual 1040 returns. When fully deployed, MeF will replace the IRS’ legacy e-file system.
1040 MeF is being deployed over three years. The first phase, deployed this year, includes processing of Form 1040 and 22 other forms and schedules. Fourteen states currently are in live production with 1040 MeF. As of April 21, more than 1 million federal and state returns were submitted via 1040 MeF, the IRS says.
Phase 2, targeted for next filling season, will support the same forms and will include current and prior year processing. In addition, the IRS will complete the build-out of additional hardware and improved disaster recovery capabilities. The Phase 3 plan, targeted for January 2012, will bring online the remaining related 1040 forms and schedules and will include amended return processing. During the deployment phases, the IRS’ legacy e-file system will remain fully operational with current plans to retire it during the fourth quarter of calendar year 2012.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
8 business imperatives for driving competitive advantage
Posted by Mark Brousseau
Businesses face eight strategic imperatives that will play determining factors in their short- and long-term success following the economic crisis, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC).
PwC’s recommendations include:
1. Sustain cost-reduction measures in order to improve margins with a smaller, more productive workforce and use newly freed resources for investments in the company's future.
2. Align risk to performance and create individual accountability measures by integrating risk at a business unit level and creating more personal accountability and reward structures.
3. Prepare for major regulatory changes through a cross-section of issues—international tax frameworks, infrastructure development, healthcare costs and environmental policies.
4. Enhance trust in your business through voluntary disclosures or independent verifications in areas such as supply chain integrity, measurement of carbon emissions and data integrity, to satisfy discerning stakeholders who now demand greater levels of transparency when making decisions about where to invest.
5. Make technology a strategic asset and competitive differentiator by increasing your investment in technology infrastructure and applications.
6. Leverage innovation to underscore differentiation, especially around hot-button global issues such as sustainability and climate change.
7. Move forward with deferred transactions and deals to help grow, protect value, and capture benefits of scale, productivity and efficiency.
8. Invest in leadership, talent development and deployment of for your employees, starting with the C-Suite.
"Executives must renew their focus on the most important issues to accelerate growth - both top and bottom line," says Bob Moritz, US chairman and senior partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers. "We believe that organizations that better engage key stakeholders while also making strategic IT, innovation, M&A and people investments will unleash potential growth that will create long-term competitive advantages."
These strategies have become particularly important as U.S. CEOs continue to respond to the significant shifts underpinning America's economic recovery. When asked about threats to business growth as their companies emerge from the recession, U.S. CEOs express the greatest concern about the prospect of overregulation, followed by shifts in consumer behaviors.
Interestingly, these concerns weigh more heavily in the US than elsewhere: 71 percent of U.S. CEOs are either somewhat or extremely concerned about overregulation compared to 60 percent of global CEOs; 62 percent of U.S. CEOs worry about changing consumer behaviors compared to 48 percent of global CEOs. Meanwhile, concerns about talent shortages have temporarily receded in the US, with CEOs focusing on organizational redesign and employee engagement and morale programs.
Businesses face eight strategic imperatives that will play determining factors in their short- and long-term success following the economic crisis, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC).
PwC’s recommendations include:
1. Sustain cost-reduction measures in order to improve margins with a smaller, more productive workforce and use newly freed resources for investments in the company's future.
2. Align risk to performance and create individual accountability measures by integrating risk at a business unit level and creating more personal accountability and reward structures.
3. Prepare for major regulatory changes through a cross-section of issues—international tax frameworks, infrastructure development, healthcare costs and environmental policies.
4. Enhance trust in your business through voluntary disclosures or independent verifications in areas such as supply chain integrity, measurement of carbon emissions and data integrity, to satisfy discerning stakeholders who now demand greater levels of transparency when making decisions about where to invest.
5. Make technology a strategic asset and competitive differentiator by increasing your investment in technology infrastructure and applications.
6. Leverage innovation to underscore differentiation, especially around hot-button global issues such as sustainability and climate change.
7. Move forward with deferred transactions and deals to help grow, protect value, and capture benefits of scale, productivity and efficiency.
8. Invest in leadership, talent development and deployment of for your employees, starting with the C-Suite.
"Executives must renew their focus on the most important issues to accelerate growth - both top and bottom line," says Bob Moritz, US chairman and senior partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers. "We believe that organizations that better engage key stakeholders while also making strategic IT, innovation, M&A and people investments will unleash potential growth that will create long-term competitive advantages."
These strategies have become particularly important as U.S. CEOs continue to respond to the significant shifts underpinning America's economic recovery. When asked about threats to business growth as their companies emerge from the recession, U.S. CEOs express the greatest concern about the prospect of overregulation, followed by shifts in consumer behaviors.
Interestingly, these concerns weigh more heavily in the US than elsewhere: 71 percent of U.S. CEOs are either somewhat or extremely concerned about overregulation compared to 60 percent of global CEOs; 62 percent of U.S. CEOs worry about changing consumer behaviors compared to 48 percent of global CEOs. Meanwhile, concerns about talent shortages have temporarily receded in the US, with CEOs focusing on organizational redesign and employee engagement and morale programs.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Sputtering Check Conversion
By Mark Brousseau
While the latest statistics from Herndon, VA-based NACHA show that overall Automated Clearing House (ACH) volumes increased slightly in 2009 (2.6 percent compared to 2008 activity), Accounts Receivable Check (ARC) Conversion -- once the darling of remittance operations -- decreased by more than 10 percent during the same period. In 2009, there were approximately 2.4 billion ARC transactions, NACHA reports, compared to nearly 2.7 billion ARC transactions the previous year.
The drop in ARC volumes comes as no surprise to Creditron, Inc., Founder and CEO Wally Vogel (wvogel@creditron.com). Vogel expects ARC volumes to continue to fall as consumers move away from writing checks for recurring remittances and towards electronic mechanisms such as Internet-initiated payments (which registered a stout 9.7 percent volume increase in 2009, NACHA reports).
Vogel says that, "As far as we have seen, ARC is not really going anywhere among mid-volume processors. Our clients are either moving to Check 21 or staying with what they have. Many clients don't perceive a significant cost benefit if they already have an automated encoding solution."
Vogel adds that Creditron is seeing "slow but steady growth in Check 21 among its current clients, and virtually all of its new installations include Check 21. The biggest reason our clients are reluctant to implement ARC is the notification requirement, which isn't a factor if they go with Check 21."
What are you seeing?
While the latest statistics from Herndon, VA-based NACHA show that overall Automated Clearing House (ACH) volumes increased slightly in 2009 (2.6 percent compared to 2008 activity), Accounts Receivable Check (ARC) Conversion -- once the darling of remittance operations -- decreased by more than 10 percent during the same period. In 2009, there were approximately 2.4 billion ARC transactions, NACHA reports, compared to nearly 2.7 billion ARC transactions the previous year.
The drop in ARC volumes comes as no surprise to Creditron, Inc., Founder and CEO Wally Vogel (wvogel@creditron.com). Vogel expects ARC volumes to continue to fall as consumers move away from writing checks for recurring remittances and towards electronic mechanisms such as Internet-initiated payments (which registered a stout 9.7 percent volume increase in 2009, NACHA reports).
Vogel says that, "As far as we have seen, ARC is not really going anywhere among mid-volume processors. Our clients are either moving to Check 21 or staying with what they have. Many clients don't perceive a significant cost benefit if they already have an automated encoding solution."
Vogel adds that Creditron is seeing "slow but steady growth in Check 21 among its current clients, and virtually all of its new installations include Check 21. The biggest reason our clients are reluctant to implement ARC is the notification requirement, which isn't a factor if they go with Check 21."
What are you seeing?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Integration issues stymie RDC growth among government users
By Mark Brousseau
One positive result of the Check 21 legislation has been the adoption of remote deposit capture, which uses imaging technology to truncate checks at the point of presentment, in turn, streamlining processing, accelerating funds availability, and significantly reducing transportation costs. While remote deposit capture has been one of the most successful banking products of all time (enjoying a faster adoption than even online banking), you would never know it from the results of the 2010 Government Payment and Document Processing Survey conducted by TAWPI and IAPP.
Only 16.2 percent of all survey respondents currently use remote deposit capture. Among state revenue agencies, 17.4 percent of respondents currently use remote deposit capture. The adoption of remote deposit capture was strongest among the county government entities that responded to the survey, with half (50 percent) indicating that they use the technology. None of the (non-revenue) state agencies or city government entities that responded to the question use remote deposit capture.
Dave Bracken, vice president and senior account manager for Cash Management Solutions, Inc., says the low adoption rate of remote deposit capture among government users doesn’t mean that the need isn’t there for out-of-footprint collection solutions; instead it speaks to the complexity of integrating this type of technology without having to replace their entire legacy remittance processing system.
“A standalone remote deposit capture solution doesn’t provide updates to a government user’s internal tax systems,” Bracken explains. “And this ‘associating information’ is as important as the funds themselves. For remote deposit capture to be effective for a government user, it needs to be an extension of their centralized processing system. For most users, this presents an integration issue.”
Despite this challenge, Bracken predicts that more government users will adopt remote deposit capture – or “split source” solutions – into their operations as they replace their highly customized, “one-off” applications – which are difficult to upgrade – with more flexible and open platforms.
“The problem isn’t a lack of need. The problem is in effective implementation,” he concludes.
What do you think?
One positive result of the Check 21 legislation has been the adoption of remote deposit capture, which uses imaging technology to truncate checks at the point of presentment, in turn, streamlining processing, accelerating funds availability, and significantly reducing transportation costs. While remote deposit capture has been one of the most successful banking products of all time (enjoying a faster adoption than even online banking), you would never know it from the results of the 2010 Government Payment and Document Processing Survey conducted by TAWPI and IAPP.
Only 16.2 percent of all survey respondents currently use remote deposit capture. Among state revenue agencies, 17.4 percent of respondents currently use remote deposit capture. The adoption of remote deposit capture was strongest among the county government entities that responded to the survey, with half (50 percent) indicating that they use the technology. None of the (non-revenue) state agencies or city government entities that responded to the question use remote deposit capture.
Dave Bracken, vice president and senior account manager for Cash Management Solutions, Inc., says the low adoption rate of remote deposit capture among government users doesn’t mean that the need isn’t there for out-of-footprint collection solutions; instead it speaks to the complexity of integrating this type of technology without having to replace their entire legacy remittance processing system.
“A standalone remote deposit capture solution doesn’t provide updates to a government user’s internal tax systems,” Bracken explains. “And this ‘associating information’ is as important as the funds themselves. For remote deposit capture to be effective for a government user, it needs to be an extension of their centralized processing system. For most users, this presents an integration issue.”
Despite this challenge, Bracken predicts that more government users will adopt remote deposit capture – or “split source” solutions – into their operations as they replace their highly customized, “one-off” applications – which are difficult to upgrade – with more flexible and open platforms.
“The problem isn’t a lack of need. The problem is in effective implementation,” he concludes.
What do you think?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Government users have limited capital for payments and document automation
By Mark Brousseau
If state, county and municipal government users are going to make improvements in their payments and document processing operations in 2010, they’ll likely have to do it without the benefit of additional capital, according the results of a new survey from The Association for Work Process Improvement (TAWPI) and International Accounts Payable Professionals (IAPP).
The survey was conducted in partnership with the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) and sponsored by J&B Software, Inc. (a 3i Infotech company), Fairfax Imaging, ibml, WAUSAU Financial Systems, Inc., Cash Management Solutions, Inc., and Eastman Kodak Company.
Complete results are available at: http://www.tawpi.org/research/government-processing-study.aspx.
Nearly half (46.4 percent) of all survey respondents indicated that their capital budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged for 2010. However, 17.9 percent of all respondents stated that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are slightly lower compared to 2009, and 28.6 percent said their capital budgets are significantly lower. This means that the majority of respondents (46.5 percent) have smaller capital budgets in 2010 for payments automation projects. Only 3.6 percent of respondents to the electronic survey from TAWPI and IAPP reported that their 2010 capital budgets are slightly higher, while 3.6 percent said they are significantly higher.
The outlook is only slightly better for state revenue agencies, with 6.3 percent of respondents indicating that their 2010 budgets for payments initiatives are slightly higher, and 6.3 percent reporting that their budgets are significantly higher. About a third (37.5 percent) of state revenue agencies indicated that their 2010 budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged, while 31.3 percent said they are significantly lower and 18.8 percent reported they are slightly lower.
Two-thirds of (non-revenue) state agencies reported that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are slightly lower, while 33.3 percent said that their budgets are unchanged.
Three-quarters (75 percent) of county government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged, while 25 percent said they are significantly lower compared to 2009. Among the city government entities that responded to the question, 60 percent said their 2010 budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged compared to 2009, while 40 percent stated their capital budgets are significantly lower.
It is important to note that none of the (non-revenue) state agencies, county government entities or city government entities that responded to the question said their budgets for payments automation projects are higher in 2010. Clearly, capital continues to be very tight for government operations.
The budget situation is almost identical for document automation projects. Almost half of all survey respondents (44.4 percent) indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are unchanged compared to 2009, while 14.8 percent of all respondents stated that their capital budgets are slightly lower, and 29.6 percent indicated that their budgets are significantly lower. Only 7.4 percent of all respondents indicated that their capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly higher in 2010, while a fortunate 3.7 percent stated that they were significantly higher.
The budget situation is a bit better for state revenue agencies, with 12.5 percent indicating that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly higher compared to 2009, and 6.3 percent reporting that they are significantly higher. Still, 37.5 percent of state revenue agencies said their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are unchanged, while 31.3 percent stated that their budgets are significantly lower compared to 2009, and 12.5 said they are slightly lower.
Two-thirds of (non-revenue) state agencies report that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly lower compared to 2009, while 33.3 percent said they are unchanged.
One-third (33.3 percent) of county government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are significantly lower compared to 2009, while 66.7 percent stated that they are unchanged. Similarly, 40 percent of city government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are significantly lower, while 60 percent stated that they are unchanged.
The federal government respondent to the survey indicated that its 2010 capital budget for document automation projects is significantly lower compared to 2009. It is worth noting again that none of the responding (non-revenue) state agencies, county government entities, city government entities, or federal government agencies stated that their 2010 budgets for document projects are higher.
If state, county and municipal government users are going to make improvements in their payments and document processing operations in 2010, they’ll likely have to do it without the benefit of additional capital, according the results of a new survey from The Association for Work Process Improvement (TAWPI) and International Accounts Payable Professionals (IAPP).
The survey was conducted in partnership with the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA) and sponsored by J&B Software, Inc. (a 3i Infotech company), Fairfax Imaging, ibml, WAUSAU Financial Systems, Inc., Cash Management Solutions, Inc., and Eastman Kodak Company.
Complete results are available at: http://www.tawpi.org/research/government-processing-study.aspx.
Nearly half (46.4 percent) of all survey respondents indicated that their capital budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged for 2010. However, 17.9 percent of all respondents stated that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are slightly lower compared to 2009, and 28.6 percent said their capital budgets are significantly lower. This means that the majority of respondents (46.5 percent) have smaller capital budgets in 2010 for payments automation projects. Only 3.6 percent of respondents to the electronic survey from TAWPI and IAPP reported that their 2010 capital budgets are slightly higher, while 3.6 percent said they are significantly higher.
The outlook is only slightly better for state revenue agencies, with 6.3 percent of respondents indicating that their 2010 budgets for payments initiatives are slightly higher, and 6.3 percent reporting that their budgets are significantly higher. About a third (37.5 percent) of state revenue agencies indicated that their 2010 budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged, while 31.3 percent said they are significantly lower and 18.8 percent reported they are slightly lower.
Two-thirds of (non-revenue) state agencies reported that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are slightly lower, while 33.3 percent said that their budgets are unchanged.
Three-quarters (75 percent) of county government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged, while 25 percent said they are significantly lower compared to 2009. Among the city government entities that responded to the question, 60 percent said their 2010 budgets for payments automation projects are unchanged compared to 2009, while 40 percent stated their capital budgets are significantly lower.
It is important to note that none of the (non-revenue) state agencies, county government entities or city government entities that responded to the question said their budgets for payments automation projects are higher in 2010. Clearly, capital continues to be very tight for government operations.
The budget situation is almost identical for document automation projects. Almost half of all survey respondents (44.4 percent) indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are unchanged compared to 2009, while 14.8 percent of all respondents stated that their capital budgets are slightly lower, and 29.6 percent indicated that their budgets are significantly lower. Only 7.4 percent of all respondents indicated that their capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly higher in 2010, while a fortunate 3.7 percent stated that they were significantly higher.
The budget situation is a bit better for state revenue agencies, with 12.5 percent indicating that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly higher compared to 2009, and 6.3 percent reporting that they are significantly higher. Still, 37.5 percent of state revenue agencies said their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are unchanged, while 31.3 percent stated that their budgets are significantly lower compared to 2009, and 12.5 said they are slightly lower.
Two-thirds of (non-revenue) state agencies report that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are slightly lower compared to 2009, while 33.3 percent said they are unchanged.
One-third (33.3 percent) of county government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are significantly lower compared to 2009, while 66.7 percent stated that they are unchanged. Similarly, 40 percent of city government entities that responded to the question indicated that their 2010 capital budgets for document automation projects are significantly lower, while 60 percent stated that they are unchanged.
The federal government respondent to the survey indicated that its 2010 capital budget for document automation projects is significantly lower compared to 2009. It is worth noting again that none of the responding (non-revenue) state agencies, county government entities, city government entities, or federal government agencies stated that their 2010 budgets for document projects are higher.
Getting a raise at work – not as hard as you think
Posted by Mark Brousseau
With the ever-increasing cost of living, employees at all levels would love to get a raise. But how do you make your pitch to the boss and succeed in the face of today’s economic difficulties?
Diane L. Katz, Ph.D., a Tucson, Arizona based organization consultant and author of the new book, Win at Work! The Everyone Wins Approach to Conflict Resolution, offers a strategy for resolving workplace conflicts such as debating the merits of a raise. You need a game plan that allows you to be professional, assertive but not confrontational, and clear about what you want. Diane Katz’s time-tested approach speeds up decision-making, blends intuition and logic, and leaves everyone comfortable with the solution.
To get a raise, she recommends thinking carefully about what you want and how your performance compares to the other employees around you. Next, research the wage rates and ranges of other workers in your profession and with your level of experience and responsibility.
Determine what is negotiable. Identify all the possible forms of compensation that can be given to you. In addition to your hourly rate or salary, consider vacation time, paid health leave, travel and per diem, and the ability to work at home. Can you get paid for key product or service deliverables by the unit or by the job? Bonuses and commissions may also be something you can negotiate.
After doing your homework, ask your boss for a meeting. At the start, present the key data that support your case. Describe what you have accomplished and any promises made to you, then state what you want. Assure the boss that you like the work and the challenge, but expect to be fairly and appropriately compensated.
Be prepared to receive a tough or even a negative response. Accept criticism, but say what you have you learned from mistakes and misunderstandings and remain firm.
If you get yes, show appreciation but don’t leave without asking for confirmation or at least a timeframe for when you will have the details on your new compensation and the effective date.
If the answer is no, assess what you learned. Focus on how your work performance is viewed, and what you need to do to protect your future there or elsewhere.
No matter what the outcome, you win by standing up for yourself, making your feelings known, demonstrating your commitment and ability, and maintaining your self-respect.
With the ever-increasing cost of living, employees at all levels would love to get a raise. But how do you make your pitch to the boss and succeed in the face of today’s economic difficulties?
Diane L. Katz, Ph.D., a Tucson, Arizona based organization consultant and author of the new book, Win at Work! The Everyone Wins Approach to Conflict Resolution, offers a strategy for resolving workplace conflicts such as debating the merits of a raise. You need a game plan that allows you to be professional, assertive but not confrontational, and clear about what you want. Diane Katz’s time-tested approach speeds up decision-making, blends intuition and logic, and leaves everyone comfortable with the solution.
To get a raise, she recommends thinking carefully about what you want and how your performance compares to the other employees around you. Next, research the wage rates and ranges of other workers in your profession and with your level of experience and responsibility.
Determine what is negotiable. Identify all the possible forms of compensation that can be given to you. In addition to your hourly rate or salary, consider vacation time, paid health leave, travel and per diem, and the ability to work at home. Can you get paid for key product or service deliverables by the unit or by the job? Bonuses and commissions may also be something you can negotiate.
After doing your homework, ask your boss for a meeting. At the start, present the key data that support your case. Describe what you have accomplished and any promises made to you, then state what you want. Assure the boss that you like the work and the challenge, but expect to be fairly and appropriately compensated.
Be prepared to receive a tough or even a negative response. Accept criticism, but say what you have you learned from mistakes and misunderstandings and remain firm.
If you get yes, show appreciation but don’t leave without asking for confirmation or at least a timeframe for when you will have the details on your new compensation and the effective date.
If the answer is no, assess what you learned. Focus on how your work performance is viewed, and what you need to do to protect your future there or elsewhere.
No matter what the outcome, you win by standing up for yourself, making your feelings known, demonstrating your commitment and ability, and maintaining your self-respect.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
NACHA stats reveal electronic migration
Posted by Mark Brousseau
If you’re looking for more proof that consumers continue to move away from paper-based check payments and towards more convenient and “greener” electronic transactions, look no further than NACHA’s 2009 statistics for the Automatic Clearing House (ACH) Network, says Leilani Doyle (ldoyle@usdataworks.com), product manager at US Dataworks, Inc., a leading provider of enterprise payments solutions.
Doyle notes that while overall ACH payment volume increased by more than 475 million transactions in 2009 – a 2.6 percent increase compared to 2008 – Accounts Receivable Check (ARC) Conversion volume decreased by about 10 percent, according to NACHA’s statistics. The drop in ARC volume was offset by a spike in Internet-initiated (WEB) transactions of 9.7 percent in 2009, Doyle points out. Similarly, US Dataworks, the long-time market share leader in ARC volumes, saw its WEB volumes soar 700 percent in 2009 compared to the previous year, Doyle said.
“This trend is not surprising,” Doyle says. “It reflects the shift in consumer preferences from writing checks to making payments over the Internet.”
Doyle adds that she also wasn’t surprised by the uptick in Back Office Conversion (BOC) volumes indicated by NACHA’s annual statistics. “BOC will continue to grow as businesses that still take checks over the counter look for ways to reduce their costs to process checks,” Doyle explains.
What do you think?
If you’re looking for more proof that consumers continue to move away from paper-based check payments and towards more convenient and “greener” electronic transactions, look no further than NACHA’s 2009 statistics for the Automatic Clearing House (ACH) Network, says Leilani Doyle (ldoyle@usdataworks.com), product manager at US Dataworks, Inc., a leading provider of enterprise payments solutions.
Doyle notes that while overall ACH payment volume increased by more than 475 million transactions in 2009 – a 2.6 percent increase compared to 2008 – Accounts Receivable Check (ARC) Conversion volume decreased by about 10 percent, according to NACHA’s statistics. The drop in ARC volume was offset by a spike in Internet-initiated (WEB) transactions of 9.7 percent in 2009, Doyle points out. Similarly, US Dataworks, the long-time market share leader in ARC volumes, saw its WEB volumes soar 700 percent in 2009 compared to the previous year, Doyle said.
“This trend is not surprising,” Doyle says. “It reflects the shift in consumer preferences from writing checks to making payments over the Internet.”
Doyle adds that she also wasn’t surprised by the uptick in Back Office Conversion (BOC) volumes indicated by NACHA’s annual statistics. “BOC will continue to grow as businesses that still take checks over the counter look for ways to reduce their costs to process checks,” Doyle explains.
What do you think?
10 tips to better pricing
Posted by Mark Brousseau
Rafi Mohammed, Ph.D, the author of The 1% Windfall: How Successful Companies Use Price to Profit and Grow, says organizations can start generating new profits and growth tomorrow morning. Here's how:
Pricing is one of the most powerful – yet underutilized – strategies available to businesses. A McKinsey & Company study of the Global 1200 found that if companies increased prices by just 1%, and demand remained constant, on average operating profits would increase by 11%. Using a 1% increase in price, some companies would see even more growth in percentage of profit: Sears, 155%; McKesson, 100%, Tyson, 81%, Land O’Lakes, 58%, Whirlpool, 35%. Just as important, price is a key attribute that consumers consider before making a purchase.
The following 10 pricing tips can reap higher profits, generate growth, and better serve customers by providing options.
Stop marking up costs. The most common mistake in pricing involves setting prices by marking up costs (“I need a 30% margin”). While easy to implement, these “cost-plus” prices bear absolutely no relation to the amount that consumers are willing to pay. As a result, profits are left on the table daily.
Set prices that capture value. Manhattan street vendors understand the principle of value-based pricing. The moment that it looks like it will rain, they raise their umbrella prices. This hike has nothing to do with costs; instead it’s all about capturing the increased value that customers place on a safe haven from rain. The right way to set prices involves capturing the value that customers place on a product by “thinking like a customer.” Customers evaluate a product and its next best alternative(s) and then ask themselves, “Are the extra bells and whistles worth the price premium (organic vs. regular) or does the discount stripped down model make sense (private label vs. brand name). They choose the product that provides the best deal (price vs. attributes).
Create a value statement. Every company should have a value statement that clearly articulates why customers should purchase their product over competitors’ offerings. Be specific in listing reasons…this is not a time to be modest. This statement will boost the confidence of your frontline so they can look customers squarely in the eye and say, “I know that you have options, but here are the reasons why you should buy our product.”
Reinforce to employees that it is okay to earn high profits. I’ve found that many employees are uncomfortable setting prices above what they consider to be “fair” and are quick to offer unnecessary discounts. It is fair to charge “what the market will bear” prices to compensate for the hard work and financial risk necessary to bring products to market. It is also important to reinforce the truism that most customers are not loyal – if a new product offers a better value (more attributes and/or cheaper price), many will defect.
Realize that a discount today doesn’t guarantee a premium tomorrow. Many people believe that offering a discount as an incentive to trial a product will lead to future full price purchases. In my experience, this rarely works out. Offering periodic discounts serves price sensitive customers (which is a great strategy) but often devalues a product in customers’ minds. This devaluation can impede future full price purchases.
Understand that customers have different pricing needs. In virtually every facet of business (product development, marketing, distribution), companies develop strategies based on the truism that customers differ from each other. However, when it comes to pricing, many companies behave as though their customers are identical by setting just one price for each product. The key to developing a comprehensive pricing strategy involves embracing (and profiting from) the fact that customers’ pricing needs differ in three primary ways: pricing plans, product preferences, and product valuations. Pick-a-plan, versioning, and differential pricing tactics serve these diverse needs.
Provide pick-a-plan options. Customers are often interested in a product but refrain from purchasing simply because the pricing plan does not work for them. While some want to purchase outright, others may prefer a selling strategy such as rent, lease, prepay, or all-you-can-eat. A pick-a-plan strategy activates these dormant customers. New pricing plans attract customers by providing ownership options, mitigating uncertain value, offering price assurance, and overcoming financial constraints.
Offer product versions. One of the easiest ways to enhance profits and better serve customers is to offer good, better, and best versions. These options allow customers to choose how much to pay for a product. Many gourmet restaurants offer early-bird, regular, and chef’s-table options. Price sensitive gourmands come for the early-bird specials while well-heeled diners willingly pay an extra $50 to sit at the chef’s table.
Implement differential pricing. For any product, some customers are willing to pay more than others. Differential pricing involves offering tactics that identify and offer discounts to price sensitive customers by using hurdles, customer characteristics, selling characteristics, and selling strategy tactics. For example, customers who look out for, cut out, organize, carry, and then redeem coupons are demonstrating (jumping a hurdle) that low prices are important to them.
Use pricing tactics to complete your customer puzzle. Companies should think of their potential customer base as a giant jigsaw puzzle. Each new pricing tactic adds another customer segment piece to the puzzle. Normal Norman’s buy at full price (value-based price), Noncommittal Nancys come for leases (pricing plans), High-end Harrys buy the top-of-the-line (versions), and Discount Davids are added by offering 10% off on Tuesday promotions (differential pricing). Starting with a value-based price, employing pick-a-plan, versioning, and differential pricing tactics adds the pricing related segments necessary to complete a company’s potential customer puzzle. Offering consumers pricing choices generates growth and increases profits.
Since pricing is an underutilized strategy, it is fertile ground for new profits. The beauty of focusing on pricing is that many concepts are straightforward to implement and can start producing profits almost immediately.
What better pricing windfall can your company start reaping tomorrow morning?
What do you think?
Rafi Mohammed, Ph.D, the author of The 1% Windfall: How Successful Companies Use Price to Profit and Grow, says organizations can start generating new profits and growth tomorrow morning. Here's how:
Pricing is one of the most powerful – yet underutilized – strategies available to businesses. A McKinsey & Company study of the Global 1200 found that if companies increased prices by just 1%, and demand remained constant, on average operating profits would increase by 11%. Using a 1% increase in price, some companies would see even more growth in percentage of profit: Sears, 155%; McKesson, 100%, Tyson, 81%, Land O’Lakes, 58%, Whirlpool, 35%. Just as important, price is a key attribute that consumers consider before making a purchase.
The following 10 pricing tips can reap higher profits, generate growth, and better serve customers by providing options.
Stop marking up costs. The most common mistake in pricing involves setting prices by marking up costs (“I need a 30% margin”). While easy to implement, these “cost-plus” prices bear absolutely no relation to the amount that consumers are willing to pay. As a result, profits are left on the table daily.
Set prices that capture value. Manhattan street vendors understand the principle of value-based pricing. The moment that it looks like it will rain, they raise their umbrella prices. This hike has nothing to do with costs; instead it’s all about capturing the increased value that customers place on a safe haven from rain. The right way to set prices involves capturing the value that customers place on a product by “thinking like a customer.” Customers evaluate a product and its next best alternative(s) and then ask themselves, “Are the extra bells and whistles worth the price premium (organic vs. regular) or does the discount stripped down model make sense (private label vs. brand name). They choose the product that provides the best deal (price vs. attributes).
Create a value statement. Every company should have a value statement that clearly articulates why customers should purchase their product over competitors’ offerings. Be specific in listing reasons…this is not a time to be modest. This statement will boost the confidence of your frontline so they can look customers squarely in the eye and say, “I know that you have options, but here are the reasons why you should buy our product.”
Reinforce to employees that it is okay to earn high profits. I’ve found that many employees are uncomfortable setting prices above what they consider to be “fair” and are quick to offer unnecessary discounts. It is fair to charge “what the market will bear” prices to compensate for the hard work and financial risk necessary to bring products to market. It is also important to reinforce the truism that most customers are not loyal – if a new product offers a better value (more attributes and/or cheaper price), many will defect.
Realize that a discount today doesn’t guarantee a premium tomorrow. Many people believe that offering a discount as an incentive to trial a product will lead to future full price purchases. In my experience, this rarely works out. Offering periodic discounts serves price sensitive customers (which is a great strategy) but often devalues a product in customers’ minds. This devaluation can impede future full price purchases.
Understand that customers have different pricing needs. In virtually every facet of business (product development, marketing, distribution), companies develop strategies based on the truism that customers differ from each other. However, when it comes to pricing, many companies behave as though their customers are identical by setting just one price for each product. The key to developing a comprehensive pricing strategy involves embracing (and profiting from) the fact that customers’ pricing needs differ in three primary ways: pricing plans, product preferences, and product valuations. Pick-a-plan, versioning, and differential pricing tactics serve these diverse needs.
Provide pick-a-plan options. Customers are often interested in a product but refrain from purchasing simply because the pricing plan does not work for them. While some want to purchase outright, others may prefer a selling strategy such as rent, lease, prepay, or all-you-can-eat. A pick-a-plan strategy activates these dormant customers. New pricing plans attract customers by providing ownership options, mitigating uncertain value, offering price assurance, and overcoming financial constraints.
Offer product versions. One of the easiest ways to enhance profits and better serve customers is to offer good, better, and best versions. These options allow customers to choose how much to pay for a product. Many gourmet restaurants offer early-bird, regular, and chef’s-table options. Price sensitive gourmands come for the early-bird specials while well-heeled diners willingly pay an extra $50 to sit at the chef’s table.
Implement differential pricing. For any product, some customers are willing to pay more than others. Differential pricing involves offering tactics that identify and offer discounts to price sensitive customers by using hurdles, customer characteristics, selling characteristics, and selling strategy tactics. For example, customers who look out for, cut out, organize, carry, and then redeem coupons are demonstrating (jumping a hurdle) that low prices are important to them.
Use pricing tactics to complete your customer puzzle. Companies should think of their potential customer base as a giant jigsaw puzzle. Each new pricing tactic adds another customer segment piece to the puzzle. Normal Norman’s buy at full price (value-based price), Noncommittal Nancys come for leases (pricing plans), High-end Harrys buy the top-of-the-line (versions), and Discount Davids are added by offering 10% off on Tuesday promotions (differential pricing). Starting with a value-based price, employing pick-a-plan, versioning, and differential pricing tactics adds the pricing related segments necessary to complete a company’s potential customer puzzle. Offering consumers pricing choices generates growth and increases profits.
Since pricing is an underutilized strategy, it is fertile ground for new profits. The beauty of focusing on pricing is that many concepts are straightforward to implement and can start producing profits almost immediately.
What better pricing windfall can your company start reaping tomorrow morning?
What do you think?
Removing the Model T mentality from SAP hosting
Posted by Mark Brousseau
At one time or another, most people have heard Henry Ford’s famous quote about his revolutionary Model T automobile: “Any customer can have a car painted in any color so long as it is black.” Today, we look upon his inflexible, non-customer service-oriented attitude as quaint, a mindset from a bygone era that would never fly today.
But the reality is that attitude is still very prevalent. Not in our vehicles, thankfully – you can get a car or truck painted in just about any crazy color, or combination of colors you want. Instead, it’s the common mindset for IT hosting in the SAP world.
Dan Wilhelms (dwilhelms@sym-corp.com), president and CEO of Symmetry Corporation (www.sym-corp.com), explains:
By now you’ve probably seen all the articles and heard the Webinars talking about IT infrastructure as a commodity rather than a strategic advantage. They tell you how, in this day and age, managing your own infrastructure makes about as much sense as manufacturing your own electricity on a day-to-day basis, and that you’d be better off moving to a hosted model. And they tell you how IT costs to manage SAP average three percent to five percent of revenue, whereas an integrated technical managed services solution incorporating hosting reduces this figure to only one percent of revenue. All of which is true.
Unfortunately, they tend to leave out one small detail. The act of moving your infrastructure to a 20th Century-style hosting provider can be very expensive and time-consuming, especially for a mid-market organization, before it ever becomes smooth and cost-efficient.
The reason is that Henry Ford mentality. The typical 20th-Century hosting provider has a giant server farm full of equipment onto which it will move your applications. Essentially, they tell you that you can run your applications on any hardware you want – as long as it’s the hardware they already have. If you’re running on the same hardware – say your current system is IBM and so is the provider’s – that part will probably transition fairly smoothly. But if your applications are set up to run on HP servers and they’re using IBM, it’s going to take a lot of work to make the changeover. And guess who has to make the change?
The other big problem with the 20th Century model is sharing resources. Back in Ford’s day, when running water was still a rarity, families often shared bathwater (or even baths) because filling a bathtub was a time-consuming, labor-intensive task. They didn’t want to waste the effort on providing clean water for each bath.
In the traditional hosting world, the resources you’re sharing are servers. In order to operate as efficiently (and profitably) as they can, hosting providers try to fill every micron of disk space on every server with data. That means they’ll often mix data from two or more organizations to increase utilization.
It makes sense from their standpoint. But it’s not so good from yours. If a problem with some other organization’s application takes down the server you’re sharing, you are just as out of luck as they are – even though your applications are running perfectly fine. In addition, if you’re working with a government agency and have to show compliance with laws requiring separation of data, it’s going to be pretty tough to prove when your supposedly secure data is running alongside that of an organization with different (or no) compliance requirements.
There is a solution, however. Rather than settling for a “Model T” type of hosting environment, look instead for a provider using a 21st Century hosting model.
With a 21st Century hosting provider, you don’t have to make your applications fit their hardware. Instead, they will host your applications on whatever hardware you want – whether that means purchasing all new hardware of your choice as part of an upgrade, or actually packing up and shipping your current hardware to their locations. If you’re buying new hardware, a good hosting provider will even give you a choice of procuring it yourself or taking that burden off your hands – whatever method works best for you.
Moving to a hosted system dedicated specifically to your organization instead of one that is carved out of a general storage area network also solves the concerns regarding data separation. Since your hardware operates as separately as if it were in your own facility, there is no chance someone else’s application problems will affect your business. It also makes proving separation of data a very simple task.
A 21st Century hosting provider will also tend to be more specialized. In the early days, hosting meant setting up equipment and running whatever applications its customers sent its way. There was little on-staff expertise to draw from if there was a problem with, say, SAP or another complex system. In the new world of hosting, providers specialize in particular technologies and have deep expertise on staff, which allow them to do what you really want them to do – manage and maintain the system completely, including overcoming any issues immediately rather than having to call an outside specialist.
While moving to a 21st Century hosting provider makes sense for virtually any organization, it is particularly well-suited to mid-market organizations that are increasingly finding more time being spent on IT maintenance and less on actually deriving more value out of their applications. It’s a lot like those early Model Ts. Back then, if you were going to own a car, you had to know how to fix it, too.
Today, most car owners don’t know what’s under the hood and don’t want to know. They just want to get in and drive. Rather than adding IT staff (and finding themselves in the IT business instead of whatever business they’re actually in), these mid-market organizations can stay focused on the reasons they installed their applications in the first place.
When it comes to hosting, why settle for a Model T mentality? Using a 21st Century hosting provider will give you complete control over your environment and keep your data separate, all while saving you as much as 30 percent over traditional hosting. Even Henry Ford would approve of that.
What do you think?
At one time or another, most people have heard Henry Ford’s famous quote about his revolutionary Model T automobile: “Any customer can have a car painted in any color so long as it is black.” Today, we look upon his inflexible, non-customer service-oriented attitude as quaint, a mindset from a bygone era that would never fly today.
But the reality is that attitude is still very prevalent. Not in our vehicles, thankfully – you can get a car or truck painted in just about any crazy color, or combination of colors you want. Instead, it’s the common mindset for IT hosting in the SAP world.
Dan Wilhelms (dwilhelms@sym-corp.com), president and CEO of Symmetry Corporation (www.sym-corp.com), explains:
By now you’ve probably seen all the articles and heard the Webinars talking about IT infrastructure as a commodity rather than a strategic advantage. They tell you how, in this day and age, managing your own infrastructure makes about as much sense as manufacturing your own electricity on a day-to-day basis, and that you’d be better off moving to a hosted model. And they tell you how IT costs to manage SAP average three percent to five percent of revenue, whereas an integrated technical managed services solution incorporating hosting reduces this figure to only one percent of revenue. All of which is true.
Unfortunately, they tend to leave out one small detail. The act of moving your infrastructure to a 20th Century-style hosting provider can be very expensive and time-consuming, especially for a mid-market organization, before it ever becomes smooth and cost-efficient.
The reason is that Henry Ford mentality. The typical 20th-Century hosting provider has a giant server farm full of equipment onto which it will move your applications. Essentially, they tell you that you can run your applications on any hardware you want – as long as it’s the hardware they already have. If you’re running on the same hardware – say your current system is IBM and so is the provider’s – that part will probably transition fairly smoothly. But if your applications are set up to run on HP servers and they’re using IBM, it’s going to take a lot of work to make the changeover. And guess who has to make the change?
The other big problem with the 20th Century model is sharing resources. Back in Ford’s day, when running water was still a rarity, families often shared bathwater (or even baths) because filling a bathtub was a time-consuming, labor-intensive task. They didn’t want to waste the effort on providing clean water for each bath.
In the traditional hosting world, the resources you’re sharing are servers. In order to operate as efficiently (and profitably) as they can, hosting providers try to fill every micron of disk space on every server with data. That means they’ll often mix data from two or more organizations to increase utilization.
It makes sense from their standpoint. But it’s not so good from yours. If a problem with some other organization’s application takes down the server you’re sharing, you are just as out of luck as they are – even though your applications are running perfectly fine. In addition, if you’re working with a government agency and have to show compliance with laws requiring separation of data, it’s going to be pretty tough to prove when your supposedly secure data is running alongside that of an organization with different (or no) compliance requirements.
There is a solution, however. Rather than settling for a “Model T” type of hosting environment, look instead for a provider using a 21st Century hosting model.
With a 21st Century hosting provider, you don’t have to make your applications fit their hardware. Instead, they will host your applications on whatever hardware you want – whether that means purchasing all new hardware of your choice as part of an upgrade, or actually packing up and shipping your current hardware to their locations. If you’re buying new hardware, a good hosting provider will even give you a choice of procuring it yourself or taking that burden off your hands – whatever method works best for you.
Moving to a hosted system dedicated specifically to your organization instead of one that is carved out of a general storage area network also solves the concerns regarding data separation. Since your hardware operates as separately as if it were in your own facility, there is no chance someone else’s application problems will affect your business. It also makes proving separation of data a very simple task.
A 21st Century hosting provider will also tend to be more specialized. In the early days, hosting meant setting up equipment and running whatever applications its customers sent its way. There was little on-staff expertise to draw from if there was a problem with, say, SAP or another complex system. In the new world of hosting, providers specialize in particular technologies and have deep expertise on staff, which allow them to do what you really want them to do – manage and maintain the system completely, including overcoming any issues immediately rather than having to call an outside specialist.
While moving to a 21st Century hosting provider makes sense for virtually any organization, it is particularly well-suited to mid-market organizations that are increasingly finding more time being spent on IT maintenance and less on actually deriving more value out of their applications. It’s a lot like those early Model Ts. Back then, if you were going to own a car, you had to know how to fix it, too.
Today, most car owners don’t know what’s under the hood and don’t want to know. They just want to get in and drive. Rather than adding IT staff (and finding themselves in the IT business instead of whatever business they’re actually in), these mid-market organizations can stay focused on the reasons they installed their applications in the first place.
When it comes to hosting, why settle for a Model T mentality? Using a 21st Century hosting provider will give you complete control over your environment and keep your data separate, all while saving you as much as 30 percent over traditional hosting. Even Henry Ford would approve of that.
What do you think?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Paper shuffling continues
Posted by Mark Brousseau
“While I’m not surprised that we haven’t seen the ‘Holy Grail’ of putting co-mingled documents into a scanner, and letting the system and software figure it out, I am surprised by the amount of manual processes in place at most companies,” Mark Smith of OPEX said during a panel discussion Monday at FUSION 2010 at the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas. The panel brought together document management solutions providers to offer their perspectives on the results of TAWPI’s 2009 Document Management Study.
Smith noted that 67 percent of survey respondents indicated that they are still inserting document separators. “That is a ton of document separators – with expensive paper and ink,” Smith said.
ibml’s Derrick Murphy told attendees that he was surprised by the lower-than-expected adoption rate of automated document classification technology. “This reminds me of the days when people thought ICR [intelligent character recognition] was going to save the day,” Murphy said. “The problem with auto-classification is the high costs associated with miss-classifications and errors. The technology simply has to become more intelligent. When that happens, it will open up a tremendous amount of cost savings, as well as opportunities to better leverage intelligent scanners to out-sort documents based on their content.”
Jim Wanner of KeyMark also was struck by “the lack of software utilized for front-end document classification.”
Murphy added that he was surprised that less than two-thirds of survey respondents track their imaging production rates. “If you don’t track your production rates, you can’t accurately track your costs,” Murphy noted. “And, in this economy, I’m shocked that operations wouldn’t want to know their true costs.”
Jim Thumma of Optical Image Technology (OIT) said organizations should strive to track their document management costs end-to-end -- from capture to archive -- to look for opportunities to remove inefficiencies.
“While I’m not surprised that we haven’t seen the ‘Holy Grail’ of putting co-mingled documents into a scanner, and letting the system and software figure it out, I am surprised by the amount of manual processes in place at most companies,” Mark Smith of OPEX said during a panel discussion Monday at FUSION 2010 at the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas. The panel brought together document management solutions providers to offer their perspectives on the results of TAWPI’s 2009 Document Management Study.
Smith noted that 67 percent of survey respondents indicated that they are still inserting document separators. “That is a ton of document separators – with expensive paper and ink,” Smith said.
ibml’s Derrick Murphy told attendees that he was surprised by the lower-than-expected adoption rate of automated document classification technology. “This reminds me of the days when people thought ICR [intelligent character recognition] was going to save the day,” Murphy said. “The problem with auto-classification is the high costs associated with miss-classifications and errors. The technology simply has to become more intelligent. When that happens, it will open up a tremendous amount of cost savings, as well as opportunities to better leverage intelligent scanners to out-sort documents based on their content.”
Jim Wanner of KeyMark also was struck by “the lack of software utilized for front-end document classification.”
Murphy added that he was surprised that less than two-thirds of survey respondents track their imaging production rates. “If you don’t track your production rates, you can’t accurately track your costs,” Murphy noted. “And, in this economy, I’m shocked that operations wouldn’t want to know their true costs.”
Jim Thumma of Optical Image Technology (OIT) said organizations should strive to track their document management costs end-to-end -- from capture to archive -- to look for opportunities to remove inefficiencies.
Monday, May 10, 2010
'One Person Can Make a Difference'
“One thing I have learned over the past 27 years is that one person can make a difference,” says John Walsh, the opening keynote speaker of Fusion 2010, at the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas. Motivational speaker Walsh, who also hosts the long-running FOX weekly television series “America’s Most Wanted,” was speaking specifically about his successful efforts to raise awareness about America’s epidemic of missing and exploited children in the wake of the murder of his own son, Adam, by a serial pedophile in 1991.
Since then, despite the frequent reluctance of state and federal officials, Walsh and his wife have succeeded in honoring the memory of their slain son by spearheading creation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the National Child Sex Offender Registry (NCSOR). The former organization facilitates distribution of information about missing children to law enforcement officials and the general public; the latter requires convicted sex offenders to be registered in a national database and their whereabouts made known to the general public. Currently, Walsh is lobbying Congress to enact legislation requiring DNA samples to be collected from those arrested for alleged felonies.
Walsh’s audience call to action was primarily intended to encourage advocacy for this pending legislation. However, he also encouraged attendees to advocate within their organizations for proactive embrace of the many changes sweeping the global business community. Many of those changes were detailed at the opening session by IAPP Executive Director and CEO Tom Bohn. For example, members of the so-called Millennial generation entering the workforce toady will hold an estimated 10 to 14 jobs --- by the time they are 38 years of age. This is having a huge impact on training and management practices.
Since then, despite the frequent reluctance of state and federal officials, Walsh and his wife have succeeded in honoring the memory of their slain son by spearheading creation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the National Child Sex Offender Registry (NCSOR). The former organization facilitates distribution of information about missing children to law enforcement officials and the general public; the latter requires convicted sex offenders to be registered in a national database and their whereabouts made known to the general public. Currently, Walsh is lobbying Congress to enact legislation requiring DNA samples to be collected from those arrested for alleged felonies.
Walsh’s audience call to action was primarily intended to encourage advocacy for this pending legislation. However, he also encouraged attendees to advocate within their organizations for proactive embrace of the many changes sweeping the global business community. Many of those changes were detailed at the opening session by IAPP Executive Director and CEO Tom Bohn. For example, members of the so-called Millennial generation entering the workforce toady will hold an estimated 10 to 14 jobs --- by the time they are 38 years of age. This is having a huge impact on training and management practices.
FUSION 2010
Posted by Mark Brousseau
During a panel discussion this morning at FUSION 2010 at the Gaylord Resort & Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas, Serena Smith of FIS, Les Young of US Bank, Blaine Carnprobst of BNY Mellon, Mike Reynolds of Image-Remit, Phil Ahwesh of PNC Bank, and Jill Humbert of 3i Infotech, shared the 12 things that attendees “absolutely must know” about the lockbox processing market:
1. Business-to-business (B2B) payments are still largely paper-based – but electronification efforts continue
2. Clients want tools for B2B decisioning
3. Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment (EBPP), home banking and mobile payments data is being integrated with lockbox information
4. There’s a convergence of lockbox, accounts receivable (AR) and accounts payable (AP)
5. United States Postal Services (USPS) changes – namely, five-day mail delivery -- will impact lockbox processors
6. While most biller volume is declining, there is an upswing in healthcare consumer self-pays
7. Federal government initiatives will help drive the electronification of healthcare payments
8. Changes are coming to payments formats
9. There is an increasing emphasis on disclosure controls
10. Risk management control mandates are driving up payments processing costs
11. Labor is becoming more costly and scarce
12. There may be more consolidation among lockbox providers
What do you think?
During a panel discussion this morning at FUSION 2010 at the Gaylord Resort & Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas, Serena Smith of FIS, Les Young of US Bank, Blaine Carnprobst of BNY Mellon, Mike Reynolds of Image-Remit, Phil Ahwesh of PNC Bank, and Jill Humbert of 3i Infotech, shared the 12 things that attendees “absolutely must know” about the lockbox processing market:
1. Business-to-business (B2B) payments are still largely paper-based – but electronification efforts continue
2. Clients want tools for B2B decisioning
3. Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment (EBPP), home banking and mobile payments data is being integrated with lockbox information
4. There’s a convergence of lockbox, accounts receivable (AR) and accounts payable (AP)
5. United States Postal Services (USPS) changes – namely, five-day mail delivery -- will impact lockbox processors
6. While most biller volume is declining, there is an upswing in healthcare consumer self-pays
7. Federal government initiatives will help drive the electronification of healthcare payments
8. Changes are coming to payments formats
9. There is an increasing emphasis on disclosure controls
10. Risk management control mandates are driving up payments processing costs
11. Labor is becoming more costly and scarce
12. There may be more consolidation among lockbox providers
What do you think?
Good morning Rock Stars!
Ladies and gentlemen, supervisors and CFOs, welcome to FUSION 2010! IAPP/IARP Chairman Eric Jones and Robert Lund, Chairman of the TAWPI board of Directors, officially announced the merger of the two organizations, which will continue to operate as autonomous organizations with a shared staff and shared board of directors. Keynote Speaker John Walsh has just taken the podium . . . but the question of the morning was: Who were those masked, um, thingies, in flaming red and green who opened the show, T-shirt cannons blazing? Your inside source has it on good authority it was FUSION staffers Ken Brown and Diane Sears, morphed by the power of FUSION. Never fear. They have promised to only use their superpowers for good – and to never wear tights in public again.
Opening Night Reception
FUSION 2010 attendees show off their dance moves last night at the event's opening night reception.
Opening Night Reception
IAPP/IARP CEO Tom Bohn joins the B Street Band at the opening night reception of FUSION 2010 at the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
