>Precious metals >> Top investment

>

Precious metals were the top performing investment for the second consecutive year during 2010 with their value soaring by 42% as people sought a safe haven from inflation, research indicates.
It is the fourth time in the past five years that precious metals have topped the tables for the best asset class, as continuing uncertainty over the prospects for the global economy caused investors to flock to gold, silver and platinum, according to Lloyds TSB.
The value of precious metals has surged by 365% during the past 10 years, nearly double the increase for the next best performing asset during the same period – residential property, which made a gain of 198%.
The steep increase in precious metal prices seen during 2010 was driven by silver, with its value jumping by 80%, significantly outstripping the 29% rise in the price of gold and the 20% increase for platinum.
The group said the price of silver had been boosted by pressure on the supply of the metal, as demand remained high from both investors and industries which use it.
Commodities were the second best performing asset class during 2010, offering returns of 30%, while they were the third best during the past decade, with a 176% increase in value.
They were also the best performing asset during the first two months of 2011, driven by a 38% jump in the price of cotton since the start of the year, due to a combination of rising demand from Asia and falling supply as some of the major cotton producing countries were hit by flooding.
All nine asset classes produced a positive return during the past year, although people who held their money in cash would have seen it rise by just 0.6%, while residential property did little better with a gain of 1.2%.
UK shares and commercial property both returned 14.5%, while the value of international shares increased by 10.6%.
Suren Thiru, economist at Lloyds TSB, said: “Going forward, the level of demand from emerging economies, particularly from China and India, is likely to remain an important determinant of many assets prices as well as the pace at which the global economic recovery continues.”

Related articles

>THINKING ABOUT INVESTING INN GOLD? >> ASSESS YOUR OPTIONS CAREFULLY !

>

A beginner’s guide to investing in gold

Gold has been sought after for its unique blend of near indestructibility, beauty, rarity and because of its status as a means of exchange and universal currency par excellence for centuries.
Empires and nations have sought to possess gold as a medium of international exchange, as a store of wealth and in order to increase and preserve power. Individuals have used gold as a store of wealth and as insurance against the fluctuations and depreciation of paper money and to protect against other macroeconomic and geopolitical risks.

<a href=”http://adserver.adtech.de/adlink|3.0|567|2908116|0|170|ADTECH;loc=300″ target=”_blank”><img src=”http://adserver.adtech.de/adserv|3.0|567|2908116|0|170|ADTECH;loc=300″ border=”0″ width=”300″ height=”250″></a>

Throughout history, perhaps no other asset in the world has had the universal appeal of gold and this appeal has increased in recent times due to the very significant macroeconomic, geopolitical, monetary and systemic risk facing our modern global financial system and economy.
Successful investing is about the diversification and management of risk. In layman’s terms this means not having all your eggs in one basket. We know from history that markets can and do crash and if you are not properly diversified your nest egg can be severely affected.  

So a healthy portfolio will include a wide range of assets including a variety of equities with exposures to different market sectors and regions; a variety of different countries’ bonds of different durations; a diversified property portfolio; a cash component and a 5-15% allocation to gold related investments and gold bullion. In these uncertain times, caution and risk consciousness is crucially important and counterparty and systemic risk should be considered.
The key is to determine what amount of each asset class to have and to own assets that will whether the onslaught of inflation, deflation, stagflation and even hyperinflation.
Some exposure to gold should be included in all diversified portfolios. A good rule of thumb would be a minimum allocation of around 10% to gold and related gold-investments.
One’s motivation for buying gold is fundamental to deciding in which form you should buy it. Are you a speculator, investor or saver? Do you wish to take a short term speculative position in gold? Are you investing for the short, medium or long term? Or are you diversifying, saving or using gold as a form of financial insurance?

Investing in physical gold

Physical gold should form a part of a properly diversified portfolio. Gold remains a universal finite currency, held by every central bank of note in the world. And central banks are set to become net buyers of gold in 2009 for the first time since 1988. The Indian Central Bank’s purchase of 200 tonnes of gold from the IMF in October 2009 ( and a further 200 tonnes is being acquired) is the biggest single central bank purchase in such a short period of time (at least known to the markets) for at least 30 years.
In the same way that the family home should not be regarded as an investment, gold bullion is not an investment per se, rather a form of ‘saving for a rainy day’ or of financial insurance. It is to be taken possession of or stored with a secure third party and should not be traded. One does not trade an insurance policy and thus as a form of financial insurance, physical gold should not be traded.
Gold is money and is the ultimate safe haven asset and a great way, if not the best way, of ensuring wealth preservation and for passing wealth from one generation to the next. Once the solid base or core holding of gold bullion is achieved in a portfolio then other investments in gold such as mining stocks and mutual funds and other more speculative gold investments can be considered.

Modern bullion coins and bars

Modern bullion coins allow investors to own investment grade gold (between 0.90 and 0.9999 fineness) legal tender coins at a small premium to the spot price of gold as quoted on the markets. The value of bullion coins and bars is determined almost solely by the price of gold and thus follows the bullion price. Larger bars are not generally taken delivery of due to the cost of insured delivery and the security implications of having very large amounts of bullion outside the chain of integrity (say in a private residence). A London Good Delivery Bar weighs 400 troy ounces and costs over $400,000, £270,000 and €300,000 (prices as of 20/11/09) and is prohibitive in terms of cost and thus big bars are normally the preserve of large companies, institutions and central banks.
Gold, silver, and platinum are all available in the form of bullion coins, minted in the UK, the US, in Canada, South Africa, Austria, Australia, China and other countries. Most bullion coins are minted in 1/10oz, 1/4oz, 1/2oz & 1oz form (and some can be bought in 2oz, 10oz & 1 kilo). However, one ounce gold bullion coins such as Krugerrands or Britannias are by far the most popular for both small investors and high net worth individuals who see the advantages of owning legal tender bullion coins, either in their possession or in depositories, and recognise the advantages of the divisibility afforded by them.
Buying investment grade gold bullion for investment is stamp duty free and tax free (VAT exempt) in the UK and EU due to the EU Gold Directive of 2000.
Providers: Goldcore, Gold Investments Ltd, Baird, Chard, ATS Bullion

Semi-numismatic and numismatic gold coins

Numismatic or older and rare coins are bought not solely for their precious metal content but also for their rarity and their historical, aesthetic appeal. They are leveraged to the gold price which means that the price of these coins will generally surpass and increase faster than the gold price in a bull market (due to their historical and aesthetic value and to their rarity) and will decrease by more when gold is in a bear market.
The British Gold Sovereign (originally the one pound coin) is the most widely traded and owned semi-numismatic gold coin in the world. Important is the fact that, unlike the other forms of gold investment, British gold sovereigns are not subject to capital gains tax (CGT). Thus all post-1837 British gold sovereigns – because they are legal tender and have a legal tender face value – are capital gains tax free, which is obviously a significant benefit to investors vis-à-vis other gold investments.
Also highly owned are high-quality pre-1933 gold coins graded MS-65 or better by either the Professional Coin Grading Service or the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation. They are bought by both collectors and investors and most opt to take possession of these older coins unless they have invested in significant quantities.
Insured delivery of bullion and numismatics is usually some 1%-2% of the total value.  Insured storage of bullion and numismatic coins in an allocated account will cost some 1% per annum. Investors should choose their storage provider carefully, making sure of a high credit rating and high net worth. This leads some to prefer an offshore bank or specialist depository.
Providers: Goldcore, Gold Investments Ltd, Baird, Chard, ATS Bullion

Gold certificates

The Perth Mint Certificate Programme is the only government backed precious metal certificate programme in the world. It allows investors to own bullion in unallocated or allocated accounts. The Perth Mint retains its AAA credit rating from Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s and is one of the safest and securest ways to own investment grade gold bullion. There are no initial or ongoing shipping, insurance, holding or custodial fees and thus it is one of the most cost effective ways for investors to own bullion over the long term.
Gold certificates are liquid and can be sold easily (soon investors will be able to buy and sell in real time online). Most investors opt to own their bullion in unallocated accounts as there are no insurance or holding fees on them and there is the flexibility of being able to transfer to an allocated account simply by paying small fabrication fees should the investor deem it necessary. Every gold bar is audited and accounted for and it is thus considered a safe way to own bullion. Bullion in a format of your choosing (coins or bars) can be shipped internationally from an allocated account or from an unallocated account once it has been converted to allocated.
Providers: GoldCore

Allocated accounts

Allocated gold accounts allow an investor to buy gold coins and bars from a bullion brokerage which will transfer or ship the bullion to an individual’s account in a depository or bank. Allocated accounts involve ownership of specific gold and the owner has title to the individual coins or bars. Due diligence should be done on allocated gold account providers and the history, security, credit rating and net worth of the provider is of vital importance.
Providers: GoldCore, specialist depositories

Digital gold currency or e-gold

Digital Gold Currency, goldgrammes or e-gold are also increasingly popular. There are no specific financial regulations governing DGC providers, so they operate under self-regulation. DGC providers are not banks and therefore do not need to comply with bank regulations and there are concerns that there are unscrupulous operators operating in this emerging sector.
However, two of the more respected providers who have rightly garnered trust are Bullion Vault and Gold Money. They offer allocated accounts where gold can be instantly bought or sold just like any foreign currency. Every gold bar is audited and accounted for and it is thus considered a safe way to own bullion. Digital gold is primarily used by clients to buy gold for saving or as an investment and/ or as electronic money amongst users.
Providers: Gold Money, Bullion Vault

Gold bullion in SIPPs

UK citizens can as of April 2006 invest in gold bullion through their Self-Invested Personal Pensions (Sipps). US citizens could already do so in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA’s). Sipps are new types of personal pension scheme that hold investments until you retire and start to draw a pension income. They are designed for people who want to manage their own fund by investing in asset classes of their choice. Investments made in gold bullion are topped up in the form of tax relief, meaning individuals can claim up to 40% back depending on the income tax band they fall in to.
Gold bullion is allowed in a Sipp providing it is investment grade gold which is gold of a purity not less than 995 thousandths or 99.5% pure and which is in the form of a bar, or of a wafer, of a weight accepted by the bullion markets. The bullion must be immoveable and stored with a secure third party. It cannot be taken possession of and used as a “pride in possession” article. Thus ETFs, some digital gold providers, allocated gold accounts and gold certificates are all allowed in the new SIPP.
Providers: GoldCore, Bullion Vault

Investing in paper gold

Mineral exploration, mining and the processes used to mine and produce metals are highly technical. Investors in gold production and exploration company stocks need to equip themselves with a basic understanding of the industry, in order to identify possible pitfalls and the risk-reward relationships of entering this investment sector. Investors should generally not buy just one or two stocks, but rather a basket of unhedged stocks or a mutual fund.
Derivatives, such as ETFs, forwards, futures, options and spread betting are normally short term speculations on the future price of gold and other markets such as commodities, shares or bonds, interest rates, exchange rates, or indices. They are financial instruments which derive their value from or whose price is dependent on the underlying asset. One does not directly own the underlying asset and one does not have a right to take possession of the underlying asset. Leverage or borrowing substantially may increase investment gains but also increases risk as if the price goes against the purchaser they may be subject to a margin call. There is significant leverage involved with derivatives and they are thus considered risky for non professionals as the potential positive or negative outcome is greatly magnified.
pyramid

Gold exchange traded funds (ETFs)

The recently launched ETFs are derivatives that track the price of gold and silver. Two of the more popular are the Streettracks Gold Shares (NYSE:GLD) and in London the Lyxor Gold Bullion Securities (LSE:GBS). They can be bought through stockbrokers.
There is an annual administration fee of between 0.4% and 0.5% per annum. Thus every year the amount of gold or silver backing an ETF share shrinks by that amount. This makes them unattractive as a medium or long term way to invest in gold. They are akin to derivative contracts that track the gold price and one does not own or have title to the underlying asset. Thus they are primarily used by day traders, hedge funds and institutional players going long and short and speculating on short term movements in the gold price.
Providers: Stock Brokers, Online Brokers

Gold stocks

Gold stocks are not gold – rather they are shares in gold mining companies. If the gold price rises, profits of a gold mining company should rise and as a result the share price should rise. There are many factors to take into account and it is not always the case that a share price will rise when the gold price increases. It is important to consider the performance and abilities of the management, auditors and geologists; the conduct of trade unions; a company’s gold hedging position; whether it is producing or exploring; its cost basis; how much reserves it has in the ground and whether it is subject to political, economic, nationalisation or environmental risk.
Individual gold shares would be regarded as very volatile and high risk. Gold shares are regarded as more speculative as there is a higher risk-reward scenario. However, the added risk can be compensated for by the leverage which can result in higher returns. Such higher returns would be expected from mid and large-capitalisation un-hedged senior gold mining companies with proven reserves and strong earnings which have strong balance sheets and growth in resources and production and effective company management.
Providers: Stock Brokers, Online Brokers

Gold stock options

Stock options are a contract between two parties that expires at an agreed-upon time in the future. The contract purchaser is buying the right, but not the obligation, to buy a gold mining stock (a ‘call’ option) or sell (a ‘put’ option) a gold mining stock (the ‘underlying’) at a specific price, on or before the agreed-upon date, the date of expiration.
Stock options allow for a lot of leverage as a trader can control a large stock position with only a small outlay. However due to the very short term of the option contracts, they can expire worthless with the entire outlay being lost. Stock options allow speculators to make bets on market movement without having to pick an up or down direction. Because of this, stock options traders are often said to be trading volatility rather than price.
Providers: Online option brokers such as Options Express and E-Trade and certain stockbrokers

Precious metal unit trusts or mutual funds

Instead of personally selecting individual shares, some investors spread their risk by investing in collective investment vehicles specialising in investing in the shares of gold mining companies. These include mutual funds, open-ended investment companies (OEICs), closed-end funds, unit trusts. Two of these funds are the UK-based Blackrock Gold & General Fund and the Canadian Sprott Gold & Precious Minerals Fund by Sprott Asset Management. There are many precious metal funds in the US but investors assume US dollar currency risk when buying them.
Collective investment vehicles are a good way to invest in the precious metal mining sector as an investor’s risk is reduced; mutual funds are not dependent on the performance and profits of one or two  individual gold mining company and specialists in the field choose a portfolio of gold mining companies.
Providers: Blackrock Gold and General Fund, Sprott Gold & Precious Minerals Fund

Gold futures

Gold futures are traded on exchanges in London, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, at the New York Mercantile Comex Exchange (COMEX), the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and at the precious metals department of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).
Gold futures contracts are firm commitments to make or take delivery of a specified quantity and quality of gold on a prescribed date at an agreed price. Investors may take or make delivery of the gold underlying the contract on its maturity although, in practice, that is unusual. A benefit for some is that such contracts are traded on margin, so that only a fraction of the value of the contract has to be paid up front. As a result an investment in a futures contract, whether from the long or the short side, tends to be highly geared to the price of bullion and consequently more volatile.
They are normally the preserve of some mining companies, speculators, hedge funds and institutions. The leverage makes them a high risk/high reward investment. Participants are either hedging the gold price or attempting to predict whether the value of gold will rise or fall in the short term. Gold futures contracts are valuable trading tools for commercial producers and users of the metal to hedge their price risk.
Success depends on the price movement of gold during the contract term. Traders in these markets without protective stop-losses can quickly find themselves on the wrong side of a fast moving trade, losing large sums of money. Part of the risk is due to the leverage involved which can result in a speculator losing more than their initial capital outlay. Therefore, futures markets are not for amateurs or novice investors.
Providers: Commodity Brokerages, Online Brokerages such as Internaxx

Gold futures options

All the bullion banks trade in gold options and a list of bullion banks is available from the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA). Another way of trading options is through the COMEX Division of the New York Mercantile Exchange. The third route would be to contact a futures broker. They are often used to contain risk in the trading of futures.
Providers: Commodity Brokerages, Online Brokerages

Spread-betting

An alternative is to use spread betting to gain leveraged exposure to precious metals. Firms such as Cantor Index, CMC Markets and IG Index offer the ability to take a bet on the price of gold through what is known as a spread bet.
No commissions or taxes are levied in the UK on spread betting. The advantages are that any gains are CGT free and one can also take a view on movements in either direction. The downside is that in a spread bet the spread can be high, your exposure is geared up and short term bets are risky as it is extremely difficult to forecast any markets short term movement. One can lose more than the initial capital thus they are for speculators with very short term horizons rather than investors.

The World Gold Council is a good resource for investors looking for established and reputable providers of gold related investments in the UK and internationally. 

Assessing your options

One’s motivation for investing in gold is fundamental to deciding how to invest. Are you a speculator, investor or saver? Do you wish to take a short term speculative position in gold? Are you investing for the short, medium or long term? Or are you diversifying; saving or using gold as a form of financial insurance (gold’s primary role)?
When assessing one’s gold investment options one must decide what one’s motivation is. Once this is done, the primary considerations which should be looked at are the costs (both upfront and possibly recurring annual fees), proximity to your asset and perhaps most importantly today counter party risk.
In the table below we have looked at the various vehicles for accessing the gold market and graded them with regard to cost, ability to take delivery and, most importantly, proximity to your gold and counter party risk.

table.ben-table table { border: 1px solid rgb(43, 16, 131); }th { border-left: 1px solid rgb(166, 166, 201); padding: 2px 1px; background: rgb(43, 16, 131) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; text-align: center; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; color: white; font-size: 0.8em; font-weight: bold; }th.first { border-left: 0px none; padding: 2px 1px; text-align: left; font-size: 0.8em; }tr { background: rgb(255, 255, 255) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; }tr.alt { background: rgb(246, 245, 249) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; }td { border-left: 1px solid rgb(166, 166, 201); padding: 2px 1px; text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 0.8em; }td.alt { background-color: rgb(246, 245, 249); }td.bold { font-weight: bold; }th.date { font-size: 0.7em; }td.first { text-align: left; }td.left { text-align: left; }td.bleft { text-align: left; font-weight: bold; }  

Type Costs Risks Delivery Considerations
Initial Recurring Counter party risks Proximity Investor suitability Physical delivery?
Gold certificates Med V good(none) Low Good Diversifier Yes Consider solvency & credit rating. A sovereign AAA credit rating and govt. guarantee is best.
Bullion bars/coins delivered Med V good (none) Low V good Diversifier Yes Use safety deposit boxes, home or office safes, and insurance.
Bullion bars/coins stored Med Med Low Good Diversifier Yes Consider the solvency and credit rating of the depository. Safety and security are key.
Gold bullion in SIPPS Low Low Low Good Diversifier No Make sure you get impartial fee-based asset allocation advice.
Semi numis matics High Low Low Good Diversifier/
Speculator
Yes Premiums can vary. Get reputable and professional advice before purchasing.
Digital gold Low Low Med Med Diversifier/
Speculator
Some do Concerns over dependence on technology (internet, website, servers, etc) which is attendant risks.
Exchange traded funds Low High Med Poor Speculator Large minimum Suitable for speculators, own shares in a trust and not gold. Annual costs quite high at 0.5% per year.
Precious metal unit trusts Med High Med Poor Diversifier/
Speculator
No High annual charges (funds can have hidden charges). Analyse the prospectus fully.
Gold stocks Low Low High Poor Speculator No Very volatile. Management, geologist, auditor, trade union, environmental and nationalisation risk. Seek advice.
Gold futures Low Med High Poor Speculator Yes Only suitable for speculators. High risk, involving leverage. Seek advice.
Spread betting Med Med High Poor Speculator No Only suitable for speculators. High risk, involving leverage. Need to monitor trading constantly. Seek advice.

In an age of significant systemic risk, proximity to the underlying asset is increasingly important. Investors are increasingly wary of having too many counter parties (brokerages, banks, trustees, custodians, sub-custodians, delegates of sub-custodians etc.) between them and their asset. If storing gold with a third party, it is important that you have a direct relationship with that counterparty and there is not significant intermediation and thus increased risk. Another consideration is the ability to take delivery of gold in the event of a systemic crisis.

Investing in gold: conclusion

As we have seen, there are major differences in the various motivations for buying gold and ways to buy gold – from trading and speculating to investing and saving.
Holding precious metals in a portfolio can provide distinct benefits in the form of speculative gains, investment gains, hedging against macroeconomic and geopolitical risk and / or wealth preservation. Traditional asset allocation theory, as represented by the investment pyramid, advocates higher risk speculations at the top, with lower risk assets at the bottom. Commodity futures contracts, options and exploration junior mining companies should be placed at the top of the pyramid, while cash equivalents and fully allocated or taken delivery of physical bullion should form the foundation or base.
Experienced and knowledgeable investors have long known that gold and gold related investments can be solid investment choices. Gold is stable in times of global geopolitical instability and when there is economic uncertainty, recessions and depressions. It is important that investors look at their portfolios holistically. Used correctly, gold and gold related investments can be highly effective components of a properly diversified investment portfolio.

• This article was written by Mark O’Byrne, executive director of international bullion dealer GoldCore. GoldCore has an international media profile (CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, FT, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Dow Jones, Associated Press, Reuters etc.) and takes part in the Reuters Precious Metals Poll and the Bloomberg Gold Survey.
Disclaimer: The information in this document has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable. We do not endorse any of the investment providers mentioned in this article. We cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. It does not constitute a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any investment. Any person acting on the information contained in this document does so at their own risk. Recommendations in this document may not be suitable for all investors. Individual circumstances should be considered before a decision to invest is taken. Investors should note the following: Past experience is not necessarily a guide to future performance. The value of investments may fall or rise against investors’ interests. Income levels from investments may fluctuate. GoldCore Limited ( www.goldcore.com ), trading as GoldCore is regulated by the Financial Regulator of Ireland.

>$460K for 8 pound gold nugget

>

Bidder pays $460K for roughly 8-pound gold nugget

A bidder has paid $460,000 for a roughly 8-pound gold nugget found in Northern California’s Gold Rush country.
Spectrum Numismatics came away with the nugget on Wednesday after a feverish two minutes of bidding at the Golden West Auction in Sacramento. The company was bidding on behalf of an anonymous buyer.
What may be the biggest California gold nugget in existence was found in the unincorporated town of Washington in Nevada County last March with a metal detector.
At current gold prices, the nugget would have fetched less than $138,000. But auctioneers say its connection to the 19th century Gold Rush helped boost its value.
Auctioneer Don Kagin says the person who found the nugget also plans to auction the 180 acres where it was discovered.

>Is Lifetime Value a More Useful Metric than Loyalty?

>

Is Lifetime Value a More Useful Metric than Loyalty?

Let’s grant that behavioral loyalty is what pays the bills, but that attitudinal loyalty is also important, especially when it can be used as an indicator of higher behavioral loyalty. I think that’s the general, if not unanimous, conclusion of the discussion on this topic.
And when it is positioned as a straight yes-or-no proposition, the concept of customer loyalty, as a behavior, is relatively easy. A magazine subscriber who elects to renew her subscription at the end of the first year is engaging in loyal behavior.

However, the real world is rarely described adequately in strict yes-or-no terms. If the magazine subscriber renews her subscription again in the third year, and perhaps again in the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, doesn’t her behavior exhibit a greater and greater degree of “loyalty?” In other words, loyalty is not simply a yes-or-no proposition at all, but is a matter of degree.
And it can get more complicated than that. Consider a new car buyer. The owner of a Brand A car who buys another Brand A when he retires the first one would be said to be loyal, of course, but what about when he chooses to use his dealer’s service area, or to get his car financed from Brand A’s financial services division? Or what if he owns two cars, but only one of them is Brand A?
The “loyalty” concept is equally difficult to deal with in other categories – most categories, actually. Because most business categories are not simple subscription businesses. If a breakfast cereal consumer buys one box per month of Brand B for her family, and then begins buying two boxes a month, does this mean she is twice as loyal as before? What if she also went from buying one box a month of Brand C to buying three boxes a month? Would that mean she is LESS loyal to Brand B? (Note that we are still describing her behavior, here, even though we might be inferring her attitudes.)
The fact is, a much more useful concept than “loyalty,” when thinking about desirable customer behaviors, is probably “lifetime value.” The net present value of the expected stream of future profits attributable to a customer is a much more rigorous and useful variable, simply because it is a vector: it has both a direction AND a magnitude. In its ideal state (a state that can never actually be measured precisely, of course), lifetime value would capture all the various behaviors and activities of a customer that have any bearing at all on the enterprise’s profit from that customer.

>Is Lifetime Value a More Useful Metric than Loyalty?

>

Is Lifetime Value a More Useful Metric than Loyalty?

Let’s grant that behavioral loyalty is what pays the bills, but that attitudinal loyalty is also important, especially when it can be used as an indicator of higher behavioral loyalty. I think that’s the general, if not unanimous, conclusion of the discussion on this topic.
And when it is positioned as a straight yes-or-no proposition, the concept of customer loyalty, as a behavior, is relatively easy. A magazine subscriber who elects to renew her subscription at the end of the first year is engaging in loyal behavior.

However, the real world is rarely described adequately in strict yes-or-no terms. If the magazine subscriber renews her subscription again in the third year, and perhaps again in the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, doesn’t her behavior exhibit a greater and greater degree of “loyalty?” In other words, loyalty is not simply a yes-or-no proposition at all, but is a matter of degree.
And it can get more complicated than that. Consider a new car buyer. The owner of a Brand A car who buys another Brand A when he retires the first one would be said to be loyal, of course, but what about when he chooses to use his dealer’s service area, or to get his car financed from Brand A’s financial services division? Or what if he owns two cars, but only one of them is Brand A?
The “loyalty” concept is equally difficult to deal with in other categories – most categories, actually. Because most business categories are not simple subscription businesses. If a breakfast cereal consumer buys one box per month of Brand B for her family, and then begins buying two boxes a month, does this mean she is twice as loyal as before? What if she also went from buying one box a month of Brand C to buying three boxes a month? Would that mean she is LESS loyal to Brand B? (Note that we are still describing her behavior, here, even though we might be inferring her attitudes.)
The fact is, a much more useful concept than “loyalty,” when thinking about desirable customer behaviors, is probably “lifetime value.” The net present value of the expected stream of future profits attributable to a customer is a much more rigorous and useful variable, simply because it is a vector: it has both a direction AND a magnitude. In its ideal state (a state that can never actually be measured precisely, of course), lifetime value would capture all the various behaviors and activities of a customer that have any bearing at all on the enterprise’s profit from that customer.

>Strategic Innovation – The AVAC framework (Activities, Value, Appropriability, and Change)

>

In his book Strategic Innovation (Routledge, 2009), professor Allan Afuah provides us with a comprehensive strategic framework for assessing the profitability potential of a strategy or product.- the value of “new game” strategies –  in the face of rapid technological change and increasing globalization.
It’s not enough to create value in new and different ways, he says. Nor is it sufficient to merely capture value today. To compete and win, firms may need to rewrite the rules of the game altogether, overturning existing ways of both creating and appropriating value. 

The most important thing, he stresses, is that a firm pursue the right new game strategy


A brief Interview of Professor Allan Afuah by Deborah Holdship


Let’s start by talking about strategic innovation in the most general sense.

 
Afuah: By strategic innovation, I mean a game-changing innovation, not only in products and services, but also in business models, business processes, and the way you position yourself vis-a-vis competitors. People tend to think about products and services when they talk about value creation, and that’s fine. But people are finding out that, on the average, a business model innovation may be more profitable than a product or a service innovation. For example, look at what Google did. Google is this great company with great search engines and a great brand. But that’s not what made them profitable. What made them become profitable was coming out with these paid listings. It sounds so simple, straightforward: Why didn’t I think about it? It was a big, big invention. So you move from a business model where you are renting your search engine to one where people are bidding for key words. And they didn’t invent that tool either. So we are in a world where you have to be aware that it’s not just about coming out with new products or services, but changing your business model, your framework for making money. Do you need to change your processes? Like Dell, selling directly to customers instead of going through distributors.

You have a framework called the AVAC analysis that anyone can use to evaluate the potential of a new game strategy, no matter the scale.

Afuah: AVAC answers the question: What do you do when things are done differently and you want to make money from it? AVAC stands for activities, value, appropriability, and change. The idea behind it is very simple: If strategy is about performance, it’s about having a competitive advantage, and shouldn’t there be some way to evaluate the profitability potential of your strategy? So if you define strategy as a set of activities a firm performs to create and capture value, that profit is what will give you competitive advantage. When you think that way, suddenly the problem of assessing the profitability potential of a strategy becomes a lot simpler: Let me see how each activity contributes to the value I am trying to create and also contributes toward my ability to capture that value instead of someone else. And remember: If there’s change happening, you want to know if the activities you are performing allow you to take advantage of that change. If not, someone else will. And then the value you’ve created is useless or someone else has captured it. Using AVAC, you may even decide to initiate that change yourself.

Crowdsourcing and “the long tail” are a couple of fascinating phenomena you explore in the book. Let’s talk about crowdsourcing in terms of new game strategy. Specifically, there’s a company called Innocentive that illustrates the concept beautifully.
 
Afuah: Crowdsourcing is a way firms use the public to seek solutions to issues, challenges, problems. For example, a company in Alaska was researching ways to keep oil from freezing during deep Alaskan winters. After speaking to a number of specialists — and getting no results — they reached out to Innocentive, which facilitates crowdsourcing on behalf of companies. Innocentive posts the problem online, and invites the public to offer solutions. The oil company got a solution by way of a concrete producer, who pointed out that if you keep shaking the components of concrete, they don’t solidify. Turns out a similar principle holds true for oil. By the old paradigm, the firm would have spent millions hiring all kinds of consultants and engineers to reach a result.

Crowdsourcing itself is a new game strategy. But Innocentive takes it to the next level: It created a business out of facilitating crowdsourcing on behalf of firms.
 
Afuah: Exactly. And the reason I’m so excited is that there are lots of people who are extremely smart who can solve many problems for your firm. They just happen to not be at your firm for whatever reason. There may be someone in Australia or South Africa who can solve your problem. The beauty is the solution may come from a resource you don’t normally use. If you go to a group of doctors for a medical problem, you might be missing out on the guy who knows the cement business. Why keep going to the same source when you have these other options?

Reverse positioning is another type of new game strategy. You cite the Nintendo Wii as one example where it worked really well.
 
Afuah: When Microsoft and Sony introduced their own consoles and videogames, they went after the latest technology and graphics, microprocessors, etc. That was their selling point and was something that would satisfy hardcore gamers who liked to play for five or 10 hours at a time. But that new technology cost a lot and the firms had to recoup what they lost in consoles by way of game sales. But what happens when you don’t have enough games?

Then Nintendo came in and said: “Wait a minute. There may be people who don’t want to spend that much time on a game or may be totally frightened by all these buttons. Suppose we go after old technology that nobody pays much attention to and doesn’t cost too much?” Wii still meets the requirements of those who want to play one or two hours and who don’t care about graphics being so sophisticated and tantalizing. And with each console Nintendo ships, they already are making money.

By the way, many of the hardcore gamers just laugh at that. But that’s okay. You don’t have to satisfy the whole world. Look at Ikea. They said: “Our furniture is not going to last a long time and it doesn’t cost very much. And we don’t even have delivery.” Some people are like, “What? You cannot do that.” Others are like, “That is great. That’s what I’ve wanted this whole time.”

Now we’re seeing it with these netbook computers. They may not have as much memory, they’re not very sophisticated. They are light and have a small screen. But they can cost less than $500. And that’s absolutely wonderful for some people. That’s a new game strategy. You are doing things differently. You are entering a product space no one is in at the moment.

Are some industries more amenable to new game strategies than others?
 
Afuah: It’s difficult to put a finger on a particular industry. But some are more used to change than others, like semiconductor companies or high-tech firms. More mature industries are not used to change so when it comes, it’s a bloodbath. I think of newspapers or the auto industry. It just depends on whether they are used to change or not.

When you embark on a new game strategy, you’re going to need people in the firm to be on board with the change. This can be the most challenging part, right?
Afuah: Yes. First, you need the champion for the cause who can articulate the vision of what a new game is going to bring, not only to the organization as a whole, but to different groups within the organization. What is in this for them? Get them thinking positively.

Next, we have the godfather: someone very high up in the firm who backs the project. Lee Iacocca was the godfather for the minivan at Chrysler. If you mess with the project, you are messing with him. When you have a clear godfather, people who otherwsie would have sabotaged the idea or not worked hard enough to change the culture will work harder than before.

Then you have the boundary spanner. What happens during most new games and most innovation is that the knowledge everyone has is not enough — that what you need actually comes from the outside. But not everybody within the organization speaks the new language or knows people outside who speak the new language. So you generally need somebody who can act as a liaison, who understands both worlds.

And of course, the traditional role is always the project manager.

There is a term in your book: coopetitors. I thought it was a typo, but it’s not.
 
Afuah: The whole idea of coopetition started about the time when the Internet was really taking off, and people started to understand complementors — people who produce products that complement your product. Think of oil companies and car companies. If there’s no gas, people won’t buy cars.

When you work with people like that, sometimes you might compete if they produce products that go up against yours. But you know very well that without them you will not live. So look at your supply, your customer, even your competitor. There will be times when you cooperate. And when you cooperate, keep in mind that you have to try to capture some value there. And when you compete, there are always ways you can cooperate and still come out ahead.

Imagine you are making a pie. You need a piece to bring home — and a bigger one than the other guy. But don’t take all of the pie, or your competitor will starve to death and there will be no one to work with next time. And others will run away altogether. At the same time, if you make the pie, and then just celebrate about what you created, someone else may take the whole pie when you’re not paying attention. And you go hungry.

We are trying to get this into every strategy person’s head to really understand. But we still live in a world where some people think strategy is only about how much value you can capture. Others think it’s not just about capture but how much value you can create. I’m saying it absolutely has to be both.

Deborah Holdship

For more information, contact:
Bernie DeGroat, (734) 936-1015 or 647-1847, bernied@umich.edu
    

O2ibm

Visit this group

>Strategic Innovation – The AVAC framework (Activities, Value, Appropriability, and Change)

>

In his book Strategic Innovation (Routledge, 2009), professor Allan Afuah provides us with a comprehensive strategic framework for assessing the profitability potential of a strategy or product.- the value of “new game” strategies –  in the face of rapid technological change and increasing globalization.
It’s not enough to create value in new and different ways, he says. Nor is it sufficient to merely capture value today. To compete and win, firms may need to rewrite the rules of the game altogether, overturning existing ways of both creating and appropriating value. 

The most important thing, he stresses, is that a firm pursue the right new game strategy


A brief Interview of Professor Allan Afuah by Deborah Holdship


Let’s start by talking about strategic innovation in the most general sense.

 
Afuah: By strategic innovation, I mean a game-changing innovation, not only in products and services, but also in business models, business processes, and the way you position yourself vis-a-vis competitors. People tend to think about products and services when they talk about value creation, and that’s fine. But people are finding out that, on the average, a business model innovation may be more profitable than a product or a service innovation. For example, look at what Google did. Google is this great company with great search engines and a great brand. But that’s not what made them profitable. What made them become profitable was coming out with these paid listings. It sounds so simple, straightforward: Why didn’t I think about it? It was a big, big invention. So you move from a business model where you are renting your search engine to one where people are bidding for key words. And they didn’t invent that tool either. So we are in a world where you have to be aware that it’s not just about coming out with new products or services, but changing your business model, your framework for making money. Do you need to change your processes? Like Dell, selling directly to customers instead of going through distributors.

You have a framework called the AVAC analysis that anyone can use to evaluate the potential of a new game strategy, no matter the scale.

Afuah: AVAC answers the question: What do you do when things are done differently and you want to make money from it? AVAC stands for activities, value, appropriability, and change. The idea behind it is very simple: If strategy is about performance, it’s about having a competitive advantage, and shouldn’t there be some way to evaluate the profitability potential of your strategy? So if you define strategy as a set of activities a firm performs to create and capture value, that profit is what will give you competitive advantage. When you think that way, suddenly the problem of assessing the profitability potential of a strategy becomes a lot simpler: Let me see how each activity contributes to the value I am trying to create and also contributes toward my ability to capture that value instead of someone else. And remember: If there’s change happening, you want to know if the activities you are performing allow you to take advantage of that change. If not, someone else will. And then the value you’ve created is useless or someone else has captured it. Using AVAC, you may even decide to initiate that change yourself.

Crowdsourcing and “the long tail” are a couple of fascinating phenomena you explore in the book. Let’s talk about crowdsourcing in terms of new game strategy. Specifically, there’s a company called Innocentive that illustrates the concept beautifully.
 
Afuah: Crowdsourcing is a way firms use the public to seek solutions to issues, challenges, problems. For example, a company in Alaska was researching ways to keep oil from freezing during deep Alaskan winters. After speaking to a number of specialists — and getting no results — they reached out to Innocentive, which facilitates crowdsourcing on behalf of companies. Innocentive posts the problem online, and invites the public to offer solutions. The oil company got a solution by way of a concrete producer, who pointed out that if you keep shaking the components of concrete, they don’t solidify. Turns out a similar principle holds true for oil. By the old paradigm, the firm would have spent millions hiring all kinds of consultants and engineers to reach a result.

Crowdsourcing itself is a new game strategy. But Innocentive takes it to the next level: It created a business out of facilitating crowdsourcing on behalf of firms.
 
Afuah: Exactly. And the reason I’m so excited is that there are lots of people who are extremely smart who can solve many problems for your firm. They just happen to not be at your firm for whatever reason. There may be someone in Australia or South Africa who can solve your problem. The beauty is the solution may come from a resource you don’t normally use. If you go to a group of doctors for a medical problem, you might be missing out on the guy who knows the cement business. Why keep going to the same source when you have these other options?

Reverse positioning is another type of new game strategy. You cite the Nintendo Wii as one example where it worked really well.
 
Afuah: When Microsoft and Sony introduced their own consoles and videogames, they went after the latest technology and graphics, microprocessors, etc. That was their selling point and was something that would satisfy hardcore gamers who liked to play for five or 10 hours at a time. But that new technology cost a lot and the firms had to recoup what they lost in consoles by way of game sales. But what happens when you don’t have enough games?

Then Nintendo came in and said: “Wait a minute. There may be people who don’t want to spend that much time on a game or may be totally frightened by all these buttons. Suppose we go after old technology that nobody pays much attention to and doesn’t cost too much?” Wii still meets the requirements of those who want to play one or two hours and who don’t care about graphics being so sophisticated and tantalizing. And with each console Nintendo ships, they already are making money.

By the way, many of the hardcore gamers just laugh at that. But that’s okay. You don’t have to satisfy the whole world. Look at Ikea. They said: “Our furniture is not going to last a long time and it doesn’t cost very much. And we don’t even have delivery.” Some people are like, “What? You cannot do that.” Others are like, “That is great. That’s what I’ve wanted this whole time.”

Now we’re seeing it with these netbook computers. They may not have as much memory, they’re not very sophisticated. They are light and have a small screen. But they can cost less than $500. And that’s absolutely wonderful for some people. That’s a new game strategy. You are doing things differently. You are entering a product space no one is in at the moment.

Are some industries more amenable to new game strategies than others?
 
Afuah: It’s difficult to put a finger on a particular industry. But some are more used to change than others, like semiconductor companies or high-tech firms. More mature industries are not used to change so when it comes, it’s a bloodbath. I think of newspapers or the auto industry. It just depends on whether they are used to change or not.

When you embark on a new game strategy, you’re going to need people in the firm to be on board with the change. This can be the most challenging part, right?
Afuah: Yes. First, you need the champion for the cause who can articulate the vision of what a new game is going to bring, not only to the organization as a whole, but to different groups within the organization. What is in this for them? Get them thinking positively.

Next, we have the godfather: someone very high up in the firm who backs the project. Lee Iacocca was the godfather for the minivan at Chrysler. If you mess with the project, you are messing with him. When you have a clear godfather, people who otherwsie would have sabotaged the idea or not worked hard enough to change the culture will work harder than before.

Then you have the boundary spanner. What happens during most new games and most innovation is that the knowledge everyone has is not enough — that what you need actually comes from the outside. But not everybody within the organization speaks the new language or knows people outside who speak the new language. So you generally need somebody who can act as a liaison, who understands both worlds.

And of course, the traditional role is always the project manager.

There is a term in your book: coopetitors. I thought it was a typo, but it’s not.
 
Afuah: The whole idea of coopetition started about the time when the Internet was really taking off, and people started to understand complementors — people who produce products that complement your product. Think of oil companies and car companies. If there’s no gas, people won’t buy cars.

When you work with people like that, sometimes you might compete if they produce products that go up against yours. But you know very well that without them you will not live. So look at your supply, your customer, even your competitor. There will be times when you cooperate. And when you cooperate, keep in mind that you have to try to capture some value there. And when you compete, there are always ways you can cooperate and still come out ahead.

Imagine you are making a pie. You need a piece to bring home — and a bigger one than the other guy. But don’t take all of the pie, or your competitor will starve to death and there will be no one to work with next time. And others will run away altogether. At the same time, if you make the pie, and then just celebrate about what you created, someone else may take the whole pie when you’re not paying attention. And you go hungry.

We are trying to get this into every strategy person’s head to really understand. But we still live in a world where some people think strategy is only about how much value you can capture. Others think it’s not just about capture but how much value you can create. I’m saying it absolutely has to be both.

Deborah Holdship

For more information, contact:
Bernie DeGroat, (734) 936-1015 or 647-1847, bernied@umich.edu
    

O2ibm

Visit this group

>Strategic Innovation – The AVAC framework (Activities, Value, Appropriability, and Change)

>

In his book Strategic Innovation (Routledge, 2009), professor Allan Afuah provides us with a comprehensive strategic framework for assessing the profitability potential of a strategy or product.- the value of “new game” strategies –  in the face of rapid technological change and increasing globalization.
It’s not enough to create value in new and different ways, he says. Nor is it sufficient to merely capture value today. To compete and win, firms may need to rewrite the rules of the game altogether, overturning existing ways of both creating and appropriating value. 

The most important thing, he stresses, is that a firm pursue the right new game strategy


A brief Interview of Professor Allan Afuah by Deborah Holdship follows….
Let’s start by talking about strategic innovation in the most general sense.
 
Let’s start by talking about strategic innovation in the most general sense.

 
Afuah: By strategic innovation, I mean a game-changing innovation, not only in products and services, but also in business models, business processes, and the way you position yourself vis-a-vis competitors. People tend to think about products and services when they talk about value creation, and that’s fine. But people are finding out that, on the average, a business model innovation may be more profitable than a product or a service innovation. For example, look at what Google did. Google is this great company with great search engines and a great brand. But that’s not what made them profitable. What made them become profitable was coming out with these paid listings. It sounds so simple, straightforward: Why didn’t I think about it? It was a big, big invention. So you move from a business model where you are renting your search engine to one where people are bidding for key words. And they didn’t invent that tool either. So we are in a world where you have to be aware that it’s not just about coming out with new products or services, but changing your business model, your framework for making money. Do you need to change your processes? Like Dell, selling directly to customers instead of going through distributors.

You have a framework called the AVAC analysis that anyone can use to evaluate the potential of a new game strategy, no matter the scale.

Afuah: AVAC answers the question: What do you do when things are done differently and you want to make money from it? AVAC stands for activities, value, appropriability, and change. The idea behind it is very simple: If strategy is about performance, it’s about having a competitive advantage, and shouldn’t there be some way to evaluate the profitability potential of your strategy? So if you define strategy as a set of activities a firm performs to create and capture value, that profit is what will give you competitive advantage. When you think that way, suddenly the problem of assessing the profitability potential of a strategy becomes a lot simpler: Let me see how each activity contributes to the value I am trying to create and also contributes toward my ability to capture that value instead of someone else. And remember: If there’s change happening, you want to know if the activities you are performing allow you to take advantage of that change. If not, someone else will. And then the value you’ve created is useless or someone else has captured it. Using AVAC, you may even decide to initiate that change yourself.

Crowdsourcing and “the long tail” are a couple of fascinating phenomena you explore in the book. Let’s talk about crowdsourcing in terms of new game strategy. Specifically, there’s a company called Innocentive that illustrates the concept beautifully.
 
Afuah: Crowdsourcing is a way firms use the public to seek solutions to issues, challenges, problems. For example, a company in Alaska was researching ways to keep oil from freezing during deep Alaskan winters. After speaking to a number of specialists — and getting no results — they reached out to Innocentive, which facilitates crowdsourcing on behalf of companies. Innocentive posts the problem online, and invites the public to offer solutions. The oil company got a solution by way of a concrete producer, who pointed out that if you keep shaking the components of concrete, they don’t solidify. Turns out a similar principle holds true for oil. By the old paradigm, the firm would have spent millions hiring all kinds of consultants and engineers to reach a result.

Crowdsourcing itself is a new game strategy. But Innocentive takes it to the next level: It created a business out of facilitating crowdsourcing on behalf of firms.
 
Afuah: Exactly. And the reason I’m so excited is that there are lots of people who are extremely smart who can solve many problems for your firm. They just happen to not be at your firm for whatever reason. There may be someone in Australia or South Africa who can solve your problem. The beauty is the solution may come from a resource you don’t normally use. If you go to a group of doctors for a medical problem, you might be missing out on the guy who knows the cement business. Why keep going to the same source when you have these other options?

Reverse positioning is another type of new game strategy. You cite the Nintendo Wii as one example where it worked really well.
 
Afuah: When Microsoft and Sony introduced their own consoles and videogames, they went after the latest technology and graphics, microprocessors, etc. That was their selling point and was something that would satisfy hardcore gamers who liked to play for five or 10 hours at a time. But that new technology cost a lot and the firms had to recoup what they lost in consoles by way of game sales. But what happens when you don’t have enough games?

Then Nintendo came in and said: “Wait a minute. There may be people who don’t want to spend that much time on a game or may be totally frightened by all these buttons. Suppose we go after old technology that nobody pays much attention to and doesn’t cost too much?” Wii still meets the requirements of those who want to play one or two hours and who don’t care about graphics being so sophisticated and tantalizing. And with each console Nintendo ships, they already are making money.

By the way, many of the hardcore gamers just laugh at that. But that’s okay. You don’t have to satisfy the whole world. Look at Ikea. They said: “Our furniture is not going to last a long time and it doesn’t cost very much. And we don’t even have delivery.” Some people are like, “What? You cannot do that.” Others are like, “That is great. That’s what I’ve wanted this whole time.”

Now we’re seeing it with these netbook computers. They may not have as much memory, they’re not very sophisticated. They are light and have a small screen. But they can cost less than $500. And that’s absolutely wonderful for some people. That’s a new game strategy. You are doing things differently. You are entering a product space no one is in at the moment.

Are some industries more amenable to new game strategies than others?
 
Afuah: It’s difficult to put a finger on a particular industry. But some are more used to change than others, like semiconductor companies or high-tech firms. More mature industries are not used to change so when it comes, it’s a bloodbath. I think of newspapers or the auto industry. It just depends on whether they are used to change or not.

When you embark on a new game strategy, you’re going to need people in the firm to be on board with the change. This can be the most challenging part, right?
Afuah: Yes. First, you need the champion for the cause who can articulate the vision of what a new game is going to bring, not only to the organization as a whole, but to different groups within the organization. What is in this for them? Get them thinking positively.

Next, we have the godfather: someone very high up in the firm who backs the project. Lee Iacocca was the godfather for the minivan at Chrysler. If you mess with the project, you are messing with him. When you have a clear godfather, people who otherwsie would have sabotaged the idea or not worked hard enough to change the culture will work harder than before.

Then you have the boundary spanner. What happens during most new games and most innovation is that the knowledge everyone has is not enough — that what you need actually comes from the outside. But not everybody within the organization speaks the new language or knows people outside who speak the new language. So you generally need somebody who can act as a liaison, who understands both worlds.

And of course, the traditional role is always the project manager.

There is a term in your book: coopetitors. I thought it was a typo, but it’s not.
 
Afuah: The whole idea of coopetition started about the time when the Internet was really taking off, and people started to understand complementors — people who produce products that complement your product. Think of oil companies and car companies. If there’s no gas, people won’t buy cars.

When you work with people like that, sometimes you might compete if they produce products that go up against yours. But you know very well that without them you will not live. So look at your supply, your customer, even your competitor. There will be times when you cooperate. And when you cooperate, keep in mind that you have to try to capture some value there. And when you compete, there are always ways you can cooperate and still come out ahead.

Imagine you are making a pie. You need a piece to bring home — and a bigger one than the other guy. But don’t take all of the pie, or your competitor will starve to death and there will be no one to work with next time. And others will run away altogether. At the same time, if you make the pie, and then just celebrate about what you created, someone else may take the whole pie when you’re not paying attention. And you go hungry.

We are trying to get this into every strategy person’s head to really understand. But we still live in a world where some people think strategy is only about how much value you can capture. Others think it’s not just about capture but how much value you can create. I’m saying it absolutely has to be both.

Deborah Holdship

For more information, contact:
Bernie DeGroat, (734) 936-1015 or 647-1847, bernied@umich.edu
    

O2ibm

Visit this group

>Strategic Innovation – The AVAC framework (Activities, Value, Appropriability, and Change)

>

In his book Strategic Innovation (Routledge, 2009), professor Allan Afuah provides us with a comprehensive strategic framework for assessing the profitability potential of a strategy or product.- the value of “new game” strategies –  in the face of rapid technological change and increasing globalization.
It’s not enough to create value in new and different ways, he says. Nor is it sufficient to merely capture value today. To compete and win, firms may need to rewrite the rules of the game altogether, overturning existing ways of both creating and appropriating value. 

The most important thing, he stresses, is that a firm pursue the right new game strategy


A brief Interview of Professor Allan Afuah by Deborah Holdship follows….
Let’s start by talking about strategic innovation in the most general sense.
 
Let’s start by talking about strategic innovation in the most general sense.

 
Afuah: By strategic innovation, I mean a game-changing innovation, not only in products and services, but also in business models, business processes, and the way you position yourself vis-a-vis competitors. People tend to think about products and services when they talk about value creation, and that’s fine. But people are finding out that, on the average, a business model innovation may be more profitable than a product or a service innovation. For example, look at what Google did. Google is this great company with great search engines and a great brand. But that’s not what made them profitable. What made them become profitable was coming out with these paid listings. It sounds so simple, straightforward: Why didn’t I think about it? It was a big, big invention. So you move from a business model where you are renting your search engine to one where people are bidding for key words. And they didn’t invent that tool either. So we are in a world where you have to be aware that it’s not just about coming out with new products or services, but changing your business model, your framework for making money. Do you need to change your processes? Like Dell, selling directly to customers instead of going through distributors.

You have a framework called the AVAC analysis that anyone can use to evaluate the potential of a new game strategy, no matter the scale.

Afuah: AVAC answers the question: What do you do when things are done differently and you want to make money from it? AVAC stands for activities, value, appropriability, and change. The idea behind it is very simple: If strategy is about performance, it’s about having a competitive advantage, and shouldn’t there be some way to evaluate the profitability potential of your strategy? So if you define strategy as a set of activities a firm performs to create and capture value, that profit is what will give you competitive advantage. When you think that way, suddenly the problem of assessing the profitability potential of a strategy becomes a lot simpler: Let me see how each activity contributes to the value I am trying to create and also contributes toward my ability to capture that value instead of someone else. And remember: If there’s change happening, you want to know if the activities you are performing allow you to take advantage of that change. If not, someone else will. And then the value you’ve created is useless or someone else has captured it. Using AVAC, you may even decide to initiate that change yourself.

Crowdsourcing and “the long tail” are a couple of fascinating phenomena you explore in the book. Let’s talk about crowdsourcing in terms of new game strategy. Specifically, there’s a company called Innocentive that illustrates the concept beautifully.
 
Afuah: Crowdsourcing is a way firms use the public to seek solutions to issues, challenges, problems. For example, a company in Alaska was researching ways to keep oil from freezing during deep Alaskan winters. After speaking to a number of specialists — and getting no results — they reached out to Innocentive, which facilitates crowdsourcing on behalf of companies. Innocentive posts the problem online, and invites the public to offer solutions. The oil company got a solution by way of a concrete producer, who pointed out that if you keep shaking the components of concrete, they don’t solidify. Turns out a similar principle holds true for oil. By the old paradigm, the firm would have spent millions hiring all kinds of consultants and engineers to reach a result.

Crowdsourcing itself is a new game strategy. But Innocentive takes it to the next level: It created a business out of facilitating crowdsourcing on behalf of firms.
 
Afuah: Exactly. And the reason I’m so excited is that there are lots of people who are extremely smart who can solve many problems for your firm. They just happen to not be at your firm for whatever reason. There may be someone in Australia or South Africa who can solve your problem. The beauty is the solution may come from a resource you don’t normally use. If you go to a group of doctors for a medical problem, you might be missing out on the guy who knows the cement business. Why keep going to the same source when you have these other options?

Reverse positioning is another type of new game strategy. You cite the Nintendo Wii as one example where it worked really well.
 
Afuah: When Microsoft and Sony introduced their own consoles and videogames, they went after the latest technology and graphics, microprocessors, etc. That was their selling point and was something that would satisfy hardcore gamers who liked to play for five or 10 hours at a time. But that new technology cost a lot and the firms had to recoup what they lost in consoles by way of game sales. But what happens when you don’t have enough games?

Then Nintendo came in and said: “Wait a minute. There may be people who don’t want to spend that much time on a game or may be totally frightened by all these buttons. Suppose we go after old technology that nobody pays much attention to and doesn’t cost too much?” Wii still meets the requirements of those who want to play one or two hours and who don’t care about graphics being so sophisticated and tantalizing. And with each console Nintendo ships, they already are making money.

By the way, many of the hardcore gamers just laugh at that. But that’s okay. You don’t have to satisfy the whole world. Look at Ikea. They said: “Our furniture is not going to last a long time and it doesn’t cost very much. And we don’t even have delivery.” Some people are like, “What? You cannot do that.” Others are like, “That is great. That’s what I’ve wanted this whole time.”

Now we’re seeing it with these netbook computers. They may not have as much memory, they’re not very sophisticated. They are light and have a small screen. But they can cost less than $500. And that’s absolutely wonderful for some people. That’s a new game strategy. You are doing things differently. You are entering a product space no one is in at the moment.

Are some industries more amenable to new game strategies than others?
 
Afuah: It’s difficult to put a finger on a particular industry. But some are more used to change than others, like semiconductor companies or high-tech firms. More mature industries are not used to change so when it comes, it’s a bloodbath. I think of newspapers or the auto industry. It just depends on whether they are used to change or not.

When you embark on a new game strategy, you’re going to need people in the firm to be on board with the change. This can be the most challenging part, right?
Afuah: Yes. First, you need the champion for the cause who can articulate the vision of what a new game is going to bring, not only to the organization as a whole, but to different groups within the organization. What is in this for them? Get them thinking positively.

Next, we have the godfather: someone very high up in the firm who backs the project. Lee Iacocca was the godfather for the minivan at Chrysler. If you mess with the project, you are messing with him. When you have a clear godfather, people who otherwsie would have sabotaged the idea or not worked hard enough to change the culture will work harder than before.

Then you have the boundary spanner. What happens during most new games and most innovation is that the knowledge everyone has is not enough — that what you need actually comes from the outside. But not everybody within the organization speaks the new language or knows people outside who speak the new language. So you generally need somebody who can act as a liaison, who understands both worlds.

And of course, the traditional role is always the project manager.

There is a term in your book: coopetitors. I thought it was a typo, but it’s not.
 
Afuah: The whole idea of coopetition started about the time when the Internet was really taking off, and people started to understand complementors — people who produce products that complement your product. Think of oil companies and car companies. If there’s no gas, people won’t buy cars.

When you work with people like that, sometimes you might compete if they produce products that go up against yours. But you know very well that without them you will not live. So look at your supply, your customer, even your competitor. There will be times when you cooperate. And when you cooperate, keep in mind that you have to try to capture some value there. And when you compete, there are always ways you can cooperate and still come out ahead.

Imagine you are making a pie. You need a piece to bring home — and a bigger one than the other guy. But don’t take all of the pie, or your competitor will starve to death and there will be no one to work with next time. And others will run away altogether. At the same time, if you make the pie, and then just celebrate about what you created, someone else may take the whole pie when you’re not paying attention. And you go hungry.

We are trying to get this into every strategy person’s head to really understand. But we still live in a world where some people think strategy is only about how much value you can capture. Others think it’s not just about capture but how much value you can create. I’m saying it absolutely has to be both.

Deborah Holdship

For more information, contact:
Bernie DeGroat, (734) 936-1015 or 647-1847, bernied@umich.edu
    

O2ibm

Visit this group