marți, 20 octombrie 2015

Seth's Blog : Offense and defense, a b2b insight

Offense and defense, a b2b insight

Selling change to organizations is difficult. One reason is that change represents a threat, a chance for things to go wrong. It's no wonder that many people avoid anything that smells of change.

Another reason is that different people in the organization have different worldviews, different narratives.

Consider the difference between "offense" and "defense" when confronting a new idea.

The person who is playing offense wants to get ahead. Grow market share. Get promoted. She wants to bring in new ideas, help more customers, teach the people around her. Change is an opportunity to further the agenda, change is a chance to reshuffle the deck.

The person who is playing defense, though, wants to be sure not to disappoint the boss. Not to drop a ball, break what's working or be on the spot for something that didn't happen.

Either posture, surprisingly, can lead to significant purchases and change.

Defensive purchases are things like a better insurance policy, or a more reliable auditor. Offensive purchases include sophisticated new data mining tools and a course in public speaking.

The defensive purchaser switches to a supplier that offers the same thing for less money. The offensive posture demands a better thing, even if it costs more.

Not only are people divided in their posture related to change, they're also in different camps when it comes to going first. For some, buying something first is a thrill and an opportunity, for others, it's merely a threat.

While we often associate defense with late adoption, that's not always true. The military, for example, frequently pushes to buy things before 'the bad guys' do. For example, the internet was pioneered and supported by the defense establishment.

And while you can imagine that some people seeking to make change happen are eager geeks of whatever is new, it's very common for a proven success (a titan) to wait until an idea is proven, then overinvest in putting it to use in order to continue to steamroll the competition. Trader Joe's did this with laser scanners... They like change, as long as that change is proven to help them win even more than they already are.

Play with the graph a little bit and consider who you are contacting and what story you're telling...

XY_grid_for_offense

       

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.



Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.

luni, 19 octombrie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Socialist Finds 14 Flaws in Capitalism and Seeks Help to Fix Them; Mish 14 Point Rebuttal

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 11:26 PM PDT

Those looking for a big laugh can find one in Philip Kotler's Huffington Post article entitled Fix Capitalism - Join Us!

Kotler says "The economic system is failing to deliver rising living standards for most Americans. Most of the gains from higher productivity are going to the rich. The middle class is getting smaller, the wages of the working class are lower in real terms than in the 1980s, and the really poor continue to constitute 15% of our citizens."

On his website FixCaptalism.Com Kotler notes 14 shortcomings of capitalism but says "there may be more".

14 Alleged Shortcomings

  1. Proposes little or no solution to persistent poverty
  2. Generates a growing level of income inequality
  3. Fails to pay a living wage to billions of workers
  4. Not enough human jobs in the face of growing automation
  5. Doesn't charge businesses with the full social costs of their activities
  6. Exploits the environment and natural resources in the absence of regulation
  7. Creates business cycles and economic instability
  8. Emphasizes individualism and self-interest at the expense of community and the commons
  9. Encourages high consumer debt and leads to a growing financially-driven rather than producer-driven economy
  10. Lets politicians and business interests collaborate to subvert the economic interests of the majority of citizens
  11. Favors short-run profit planning over long-run investment planning
  12. Should have regulations regarding product quality, safety, truth in advertising, and anti-competitive behavior
  13. Tends to focus narrowly on GDP growth
  14. Needs to bring social values, well being and happiness into the market equation.

Kotler's list is so preposterous, I hardly know where to start. So let's just go down the list one by one.

Mish 14 Point Rebuttal

  1. It is capitalism that is responsible for improved standards of living over the decades.
  2. The Fed and government bureaucrats, not capitalism is behind growing income inequality. That said, some degree of inequality is not only a good thing but a very necessary thing. People need to be rewarded for bringing new ideas to the market. Successful new ideas raise the standards of living of everyone, and income inequality creates the very incentive to market new ideas.
  3. The inflationary policies of central bank planners is the primary reason people do not make a "living wage".
  4. Throughout history people feared automation. Yet every technological advance created new jobs. One reason for the acceleration of job losses now are the very "living wage" proposals espoused by those like Kotler that price humans out of jobs.
  5. It's not the role of businesses, nor should it be, to be concerned with undefinable "social costs".
  6. It's not capitalism that fails to charge businesses for pollution costs, but rather governments.
  7. It is beyond idiotic to propose capitalism causes economic instability. It is governments and central banks that cause economic instability.
  8. With his concern about "community commons", one can easily see Kotler is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. The problem with socialism is, it does not work and never will.
  9. Capitalism does not encourage high consumer debt. The Fed and central banks do, in the inane belief debt drives the economy.
  10. Capitalism does not let "politicians and business interests collaborate to subvert the economic interests of the majority of citizens". Rather corrupt politicians willing to do anything to get reelected are the problem.
  11. Capitalism does not favor short-run profit planning, but tax laws might.
  12. In point 12, Kotler argues in favor of "anti-competition". Competition is the very essence of improved products and rising standards of living.
  13. Capitalism does not focus on GDP at all. Misguided economists, politicians, and central banks do.
  14. Pray tell, whose "social values" do we need to consider? Mine? Yours, ISIS? Kotler's? Personally, I do not want some jackass or set of government jackasses, deciding what is socially right or wrong.

Save Us from Socialists!

Philip Kotler is the S.C. Johnson & Son Distinguished Professor of International Marketing at the Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management in Chicago.

Having completed my 14 point rebuttal, it is pretty clear Kotler has no idea what capitalism really is or the advances it has created. He attributes problems to capitalism that are in reality caused by central banks and government bureaucrats. 

Kotler wants to "save capitalism from itself."

The irony is capitalism does indeed need to be saved, not from itself, but from economically illiterate socialists like Kotler.

Rather than fixing capitalism, I suggest we actually try capitalism in lieu of Fed foolishness, government foolishness, and socialist foolishness.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Rio Tinto's Pilbara Mines Totally Driverless, Controlled 746 Miles Away

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 06:06 PM PDT

The first two mines in the world to start moving all of their iron ore using fully remote-controlled trucks have just gone online in Western Australia's Pilbara.
Mining giant Rio Tinto is running pits at its Yandicoogina and Nammuldi mine sites, with workers controlling the driverless trucks largely from an operations centre in Perth, 1,200 kilometres away.

Josh Bennett manages the mining operations at Yandicoogina mine north west of Newman and is closely involved with running 22 driverless trucks on the site.

Mr Bennett said the two pits are the largest of their kind in the world.

"What we have done is map out our entire mine and put that into a system and the system then works out how to manoeuvre the trucks through the mine."

The company is now operating 69 driverless trucks across its mines at Yandicoogina, Nammuldi and Hope Downs 4.

The trucks can run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without a driver who needs bathroom or lunch breaks, which has industry insiders estimating each truck can save around 500 work hours a year.

Mr Bennett said the technology takes away dangerous jobs while also slashing operating costs.

"We have taken away a very high risk role, where employees are exposed to fatigue," he said.


Rio plans to fully automate its trains by the middle of next year once the Office of Rail Safety includes the technology in its safety guidelines.
Let's be honest. This is not about reducing fatigue or taking away dangerous jobs. This is about slashing costs. Truck drivers in remote locations are very expensive.

Now a single person hundreds or even thousands of miles away can monitor multiple trucks, replacing many much more expensive drivers in one fell swoop.

And the same thing is going to happen to millions of interstate truck driving jobs in the US.  Taxi and Uber drivers will vanish as well in the 2020-2025 time frame.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Anti-Immigration Party Wins Swiss Election

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 10:11 AM PDT

Fears over waves of millions of Syrian refugees flooding Europe have spread to Switzerland. In a huge swing to the right, the Anti-Immigration SVP Party Wins Swiss Election.
The right-wing, anti-immigration Swiss People's Party (SVP) has won Switzerland's parliamentary election with a record 29.4% of the vote.

Its victory translates into 11 extra seats, giving it 65 out of the total 200 in the lower house. SVP leader Toni Brunner can now forge a majority with other right-wing parties.

Europe's migrant crisis boosted support for the SVP, commentators say - though Switzerland is taking in far fewer migrants than Germany.

The right-wing liberal FDP also got an electoral boost, coming third.

Swiss media are speaking of a "Rechtsrutsch" - a "slide to the right" - because the SVP, FDP and some small right-wing parties can now command a majority in the National Council (lower house).

No such slide has occurred yet in the 46-seat upper house (Council of States), as a second round of voting is required in many cantons.

The SVP won the 2011 vote with 26.6%, becoming the largest party, but now it has made further gains.

"The vote was clear. The people are worried about mass migration to Europe," said SVP leader Toni Brunner.

The SVP spearheaded the Swiss drive to impose immigration quotas, which got the green light in a February 2014 referendum. But it contradicts the EU's freedom of movement principle, which Switzerland had earlier agreed to respect.

The EU has until January 2017 to resolve the dispute with Switzerland - after that the Swiss government must make the quotas law.

Switzerland has pledged to participate in the EU's controversial scheme to relocate 120,000 refugees from Italy and Greece, but it is not yet clear how many the Swiss will accept.

The SVP is sceptical about Switzerland's many bilateral agreements with the EU, telling voters that the country is better off remaining outside the 28-nation bloc.
Solution

The only thing that can stop this refugee crisis are strict border controls coupled with policy changes.

The EU brought this crisis upon itself by offering free food, free shelter, and free services to economic as opposed to political refugees.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Homebuilder Confidence Soars to Highest Level in 10 Years Despite Falling Traffic; Unwarranted Optimism?

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 09:19 AM PDT

Yahoo Finance says Whoa! Homebuilders Feeling Happiest in 10 Years.

I am not sure they are the "happiest" in 10 years, but they are the most confident.
Sentiment jumped 3 points in October to a level of 64 on the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index. Anything above 50 is considered positive sentiment. The index stood at 54 last October.

"The fact that builder confidence has held in the 60s since June is proof that the single-family housing market is making lasting gains as more serious buyers come forward," said NAHB Chairman Tom Woods, a homebuilder from Blue Springs, Missouri.

Of the index's three components, two saw gains in October.

Sales expectations in the next six months rose 7 points to 75, while current sales conditions rose 3 points to 70. Buyer traffic, however, didn't move, sitting at 47— the only component still in negative territory.
Unwarranted Optimism?

As with manufacturing six-month look-ahead expectations that have been ridiculously overoptimistic for at least a year, I suspect the same thing applies to home builders.

The one stat that matters most, prospective buyer traffic, is actually negative. So why the optimism?

Are builders are simply trying to hype up the price of their stocks?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Damn Cool Pics

Damn Cool Pics


See The Actors Behind Hollywood's Most Terrifying Masks

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 12:16 PM PDT

These movie villains are absolutely terrifying, that is until you take off their masks.

Xenomorph – Bolaji Badejo



Michael Myers – Tony Moran



Predator – Kevin Peter Hall



Wolfman – Lon Chaney Jr.



Boba Fett – Jeremy Bulloch



Pennywise – Tim Curry



Freddy Krueger – Robert England



Pumpkinhead – Tom Woodruff Jr.



The Collector – Juan Fernandez de Alarcon



The Gimp – Stephen Hibbet



Darth Vader – David Prowse



Leatherface – Gunnar Hansen



Original Jason – Ari Lehman



Jason – Kane Hodder



Ghostface – Dane Farwell



Dick Durock – Swamp Thing



Monster Squad Mummy – Michael Reid MacKay

Seth's Blog : Too much salt

Too much salt

Why do most restaurants use an unhealthy amount of salt in the food they serve? I'm talking three to five times as much salt as the typical home chef might use.

For the same reason that lazy marketers spam people and unsophisticated comic book writers use exclamation points.

1. Because it works (for a while). 

Salt is a cheap and reliable way to persuade people that the food is tasty. Over time, it merely makes us ill, but in the moment, it amplifies the flavors. It's way cheaper than using herbs or technique.

And that's why marketers under pressure push the limits in terms of spamming people or offering urgent discounts. And why Batman is so easily caricatured with the word: POW! 

Cheap thrills. Shortcuts. Lazy.

2. Because they've been desensitized.

Cook with enough salt long enough, and nothing tastes salty after a while. And so the lazy shortcut becomes more than a habit, because it's not even noticed.

And so the marketer figures that everyone is used to being treated this way, so he ups the ante. And the other marketers around him are used to it too, so no one says anything.

The solution to all of these problems it to zero out. Play for the long haul. Take the more difficult route. Surround yourself with people who insist you avoid the shortcut. 

Back to the basic principles, so you can learn to cook again.

       

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.



Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.

duminică, 18 octombrie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Swamped By Stupidity; Peak Merkel

Posted: 18 Oct 2015 08:57 PM PDT

Backlash against sheer stupidity is starting to build.

I am talking about German Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to ramrod an agreement that requires EU countries to accept more alleged refugees than many countries want, and even Germany itself can handle.

The backlash has finally hit Germany in a big way as was easily predictable months ago.

German citizens who once welcomed refugees now complain 'We're Under Water'.
Hesepe, a village of 2,500 that comprises one district of the small town of Bramsche in the state of Lower Saxony, is now hosting some 4,000 asylum-seekers, making it a symbol of Germany's refugee crisis. Locals are still showing a great willingness to help, but the sheer number of refugees is testing them. The German states have reported some 409,000 new arrivals between Sept. 5 and Oct. 15 -- more than ever before in a comparable time period -- though it remains unclear how many of those include people who have been registered twice.

Six weeks after Chancellor Angela Merkel's historic decision to open Germany's borders, there is a shortage of basic supplies in many places in this prosperous nation. Cots, portable housing containers and chemical toilets are largely sold out. There is a shortage of German teachers, social workers and administrative judges. Authorities in many towns are worried about the approaching winter, because thousands of asylum-seekers are still sleeping in tents.

But what Germany lacks more than anything is a plan to make Merkel's two most-pronounced statements on the crisis -- "We can do it" and "We cannot close our borders" -- fit together. In the second month of what has been dubbed the country's brand new "Welcoming Culture," it has become clear to many that Germany will only be able to cope if the number of refugees drops.

Merkel's last hope is Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president. The chancellor is visiting Ankara this weekend, bringing with her a number of gifts that Europe's leaders had discussed in their summit in Brussels. The plan is to persuade Erdogan to strengthen the border in the Aegean Sea that "the strong nation of Germany" (as Merkel put it) is unable to.

Merkel Increasingly Isolated

The griping over Merkel's policies has grown louder within her own party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The meetings of the party's parliamentary group, which for many years radiated the boredom of an English gentleman's club, now resemble tribunals against the chancellor. Meanwhile, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, the strong man in Merkel's cabinet, also expressed his own dissatisfaction, in distant Peru, by cracking jokes about border controls in the former East Germany.

Merkel is looking increasingly isolated. Government sources say she has made refugee policy her personal concern, and now she is being left to deal with it on her own. Last week, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière confided in his Luxembourg counterpart, telling him that Merkel did not have a plan, only "cold feet."

Ralph Tiesler, deputy head of the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK), had to get to grips with a real emergency situation: Tiesler is the man who distributes the refugees across Germany, the lord of the buses and trains.

Last week, his team had to pull extra shifts, after the number of new arrivals increased again on Monday night. Between 8,000 and 10,000 refugees have been arriving recently -- per day.

Tiesler's job is to organize a roof over the refugees' heads on their first night -- and then to get them on to special trains and buses as quickly as possible, to be relocated. There are five major routes distributing the asylum-seekers across Germany's states. The "West" route leads to North Rhine-Westphalia, the "Southwest" route to Baden-Württemberg and its neighboring states.

The distribution lists are political hot potatoes. The various states fastidiously make sure they aren't allocated more refugees than has been set down by the so-called "Königstein Key," the agreement between the federal government and the states that stipulates how much each state contributes to national programs.

Meanwhile the weather is giving Tiesler a lot to worry about. Temperatures have fallen, the first frosts have appeared, in some places snow. Authorities are determined not to allow anyone to sleep in the wet and cold in the open air. "We have to do everything we can to prevent homelessness, and we have to organize the distribution accordingly," he says.

Above all, members of the SPD will be watching very closely in the weeks ahead to see if and how quickly Angela Merkel shifts her position. Within her own party, the Christian Democrats, many consider it a given that she will have to change her policy. "The next party caucus is in three weeks," says CSU domestic policy expert Uhl. "If the government hasn't made something happen by then, then the caucus will have to act."
Problem in a Nutshell

The problem, as I have stated on numerous occasions is quite simple: There is an unlimited demand for free food, free shelter, and free services.

Border agreements alone cannot and will not work. The Financial Times reports this evening Brussels draws up plan to resettle 200,000 refugees across Europe.

Meanwhile ponder this hyperbolic chart of refugees into Germany alone.



The above chart seems woefully out of date given the claim "409,000 new arrivals between Sept. 5 and Oct. 15"

Peak Merkel

Angela Merkel, being the chameleon that she is, will soon change he colors for the simple reason she needs to. If she doesn't, it will certainly toll the end of her "grand coalition".

Of course, that "grand coalition" may fail for numerous other reasons as well. Indeed, I suggest no matter what the outcome of the migration, Chancellor Merkel's ability to force the EU to her will peaked with the submission of Greece to German demands.

For more on the absurdity of Merkel's policies, please see Bargaining With the Devil: Germany Bribes Turkey With Aid Package, EU Sidelines Highly Critical Report on Turkey's Free Speech Record.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Headline #1: "Most Americans Have Less than $1,000 in Savings"; Headline #2: People Saving Too Much is Now a Problem

Posted: 18 Oct 2015 08:44 AM PDT

A pair of conflicting headline stories caught my eye. One headline says Americans have too little savings while the other says we are saving so much that it's a problem. Let's have a look.

Most Americans Have Too Little Savings

MarketWatch reports Most Americans Have Less Than $1,000 in Savings.
Americans are living right on the edge — at least when it comes to financial planning.

Approximately 62% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts and 21% don't even have a savings account, according to a new survey of more than 5,000 adults conducted this month by Google Consumer Survey for personal finance website GOBankingRates.com. "It's worrisome that such a large percentage of Americans have so little set aside in a savings account," says Cameron Huddleston, a personal finance analyst for the site. "They likely don't have cash reserves to cover an emergency and will have to rely on credit, friends and family, or even their retirement accounts to cover unexpected expenses."
Why Have a Savings Account at All?

I have a question: Why have a savings account at all? Interest is roughly 0% so it effectively makes no difference whether money earns nothing in a "savings" account rather than nothing in a checking account, or nothing in a money market account.

That said, I agree with the overall message: people are not saving enough. Here's a better way of stating the problem, also from the article.
A similar survey of 1,000 adults carried out earlier this year by personal finance site Bankrate.com, which also found that 62% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair. Faced with an emergency, they say they would raise the money by reducing spending elsewhere (26%), borrowing from family and/or friends (16%) or using credit cards (12%). And among those who had savings prior to 2008, 57% said they'd used some or all of their savings in the Great Recession, according to a U.S. Federal Reserve survey of over 4,000 adults released last year. Of course, paltry savings-account rates don't encourage people to save either.
This is entirely believable. The next headline is pure nonsense.

People Saving Too Much is Now a Problem

Myles Udland writing for Yahoo!Finance reports People weren't supposed to be saving this much money — and now it's a problem
Too much saving means not enough spending means a lack of aggregate demand in the economy, the thinking goes. "Secular stagnation" is another term that might apply.

In a note to clients last week, Deutsche Bank's Binky Chadha looked at the relationship between interest rates and savings rates, finding that — of course — consumers aren't exactly acting the way the economists at the Federal Reserve might expect.

Namely, people are saving money despite low interest rates when many economists expected or hoped these folks would spend that money to buy stuff or put it in assets that actually earn some return.
Keynesian Fallacy

For starters, it should be perfectly obvious that the first article is far closer to the truth: people are simply not saving enough. Secondly, the idea people can save too much is a Keynesian fallacy.

Frank Shostak offers this lesson in Is Saving Bad for the Economy?
Contrary to popular thinking, saving doesn't weaken aggregate spending; on the contrary, it reinforces it. On this, Henry Hazlitt, in his "Economics in One Lesson," wrote:

"When money is saved and then invested it is used to buy or build capital goods. Any of these projects puts as much money into circulation and gives as much employment as the same amount of money spent directly on consumption. Saving in short in the modern world, is only another form of spending."

According to Mises, "Production of goods ready for consumption requires the use of capital goods, that is, of tools and of half-finished material. Capital comes into existence by saving, i.e., temporary abstention from consumption."

Since saving enables the production of capital goods, saving is obviously at the heart of the economic growth that raises people's living standards. On this Mises wrote, "Saving and the resulting accumulation of capital goods are at the beginning of every attempt to improve the material condition of man; they are the foundation of human civilization."

When money is printed—that is, created "out of thin air" by the central bank—it sets in motion an exchange of nothing for money and then money for something. An exchange of nothing for something amounts to consumption that is not supported by production.

Because every activity has to be funded, it follows that an increase in consumption that is not supported by production must divert funding from wealth-generating activities. This, in turn, diminishes the flow of real savings to the producers of wealth, which weakens the flow of production, which sets in motion an economic recession.

Observe that what has weakened the demand for goods is not a sudden capricious behavior of consumers, but the monetary injections of the central bank. In short, every dollar that was created "out of thin air" amounts to a corresponding dissaving by that amount.

So long as the real pool of savings is expanding, the central bank and government officials can give the impression that loose monetary and fiscal policies drive the economy. This illusion is shattered once the pool becomes stagnant or starts declining.

Mises wrote, "Without saving and successful endeavours to use the accumulated savings wisely, there cannot be any question of a standard of living worthy of the qualification human."

This sheds light on current events in Japan, where the high savings rate that has ranged between 15 percent and 20 percent is blamed for the economic slump. What is happening in Japan is not the result of "too much saving," as suggested by many experts, but rather of too many loose fiscal and monetary policies that continue to destroy households' savings. The misguided policy of lowering interest rates to almost nil is a major catalyst behind the destruction of real savings.
There is no such thing as lack of aggregate demand. Rather, central bank sponsored boom-bust cycles and inflationary policies create so much malinvestment, dissaving, and income inequality that misguided economists mistake money sloshing around for "savings".

The proper way to view savings is production minus consumption. To have savings, one must first produce something. Thus, printing money (borrowing it into existence) does not constitute real savings.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Seth's Blog : What are corporations for?

What are corporations for?

The purpose of a company is to serve its customers.

Its obligation is to not harm everyone else.

And its opportunity is to enrich the lives of its employees.

Somewhere along the way, people got the idea that maximizing investor return was the point. It shouldn't be. That's not what democracies ought to seek in chartering corporations to participate in our society.

The great corporations of a generation ago, the ones that built key elements of our culture, were run by individuals who had more on their mind than driving the value of their options up.

The problem with short-term stock price maximization is that it's not particularly difficult. If you have market power, if the cost of switching is high or consumer knowledge is low, there are all sorts of ways that a well-motivated management team can hurt its customers, its community and its employees on the way to boosting what the investors say they want.

It's not difficult for Dell to squeeze a little more junkware into a laptop, or Fedex to lower its customer service standards, or Verizon to deliver less bandwidth than they promised. But just because it works doesn't mean that they're doing their jobs, or keeping their promise, or doing work that they can be proud of. 

Profits and stock price aren't the point (with customers as a side project). It's the other way around.

       

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.



Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.

sâmbătă, 17 octombrie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


UberRUSH: Uber's On-Demand Delivery Service Rolls Out in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco

Posted: 17 Oct 2015 09:01 AM PDT

Uber's Next Logistics Move – UberRUSH

Following a successful pilot in New York City, UberRUSH officially announced UberRUSH in three cities - New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.

SupplyChain247 reports Uber's Next Logistics Move – UberRUSH.
For a little over a year, Uber has been operating its UberRUSH delivery service as a pilot program in New York City.

Today it's making it an official part of the company, and expanding the courier service to Chicago and San Francisco, allowing customers to receive deliveries from local businesses.

UberRUSH competes directly with Postmates, delivering items like groceries, take-out food, and house supplies, albeit with a much larger fleet of cars on the road.

But unlike Postmates, when you open the Uber app, you won't be flooded with a number of businesses that can deliver something to you.

Uber has integrated its delivery service with a number of top e-commerce platforms used by small businesses like Shopify, Clover, ChowNow, and delivery.com, which should help increase the number of local companies that utilize UberRUSH.

While it's still early in the game for UberRUSH, the possibilities for Uber to truly succeed as a full-fledged delivery service are readily available.

With a fleet of cars that far exceed those operated by Postmates and Seamless, Uber could feasibly cut down on delivery times.

But with Amazon Prime Now still expanding and a number of other delivery startups sure to pop up in the future, UberRUSH is far from the last entry into this market.
What's Next?

Will Uber eventually go the next step and compete with FedEx and UPS?

While pondering that thought, please consider monkey-see, monkey-do, hikes of near-identical amounts at FedEx and UPS.

FedEx Rate Hikes

In September, FedEx Announced Rate Hikes on the basis people are shipping larger, heavier packages, and residential deliveries have increased.

  • FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery will increase shipping rates by an average of 4.9%.
  • Package surcharges increase on packages that exceed specified dimensions.
  • Fuel surcharges apply based on weight

UPS Rate Hikes

This past week, UPS Announced Rate Hikes by the same 4.9% average.

  • Effective December 28, charges rise by an average of 4.9%
  • UPS Air and International services and accessorials, including UPSAir Freight rates within and between the United States and Canada will increase by an average net of 5.2 percent.
  • UPS announced surcharges for Over Maximum packages and tables for Ground Air and International fuel surcharges will increase on November 2.

Rob Martinez, president & CEO, Shipware LLC, a San Diego-based parcel consultancy, offered these comments:
What's surprising is that UPS is again increasing its fuel surcharge effective Nov 2, 2015. Where FedEx's latest announcement to increase fuel surcharges on 11/2/15 brought it more in line with what UPS charges today, the new UPS fuel pricing will again be higher than FedEx. It's also important to note that UPS will implement the 2016 pricing on Dec 28, 2015, a full week ahead of FedEx. Finally, UPS Freight pricing is also increasing an average of 4.9 percent effective Oct 26, 2015. To date, FedEx has not announced increases at FedEx Freight.
The Fed cheers these rates hikes. No one else does but the shippers and new competitors like Uber. Just thinking: What would an Amazon-Uber pairing be able to do?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock