Strategic Partners: For better or worse

Strategic alliances are not uncommon within the foodservice community, not even within the foodservice beverage division of the community. Sometimes, despite the best of intentions, strategic differences can occur between the two partners.

Over the next few weeks we will get to witness what is sure to become a very expensive dispute between two international foodservice brand powerhouses…Kraft Foods and Starbucks Corp.

According to an article on thestreet.com, Kraft has begun arbitration to challenge Starbucks’ attempt to end a 12-year agreement.

The dispute, it appears, is over the right to market Starbucks’ bagged coffee products. Starbucks has asserted that Kraft failed to meet certain provisions of their arrangement, including keeping Starbucks involved in major marketing initiatives, and has said those failures caused “the erosion of brand equity.”

In their defense, since executing the agreement in 1998, Kraft has taken the business from $50million to $500million in annual revenue. So there seems to be slightly more than “erosion of brand equity” behind Starbucks decision to terminate the agreement.

As the arbitration process evolves and more information becomes available, maybe we’ll get a more accurate picture of what is really at stake, and how much this dispute will cost.

In the meantime, the process has raised a question I feel is important. What is more important to a company/brand – maximum annual revenue or brand integrity and control?

Sure, my question is a somewhat loaded question. What company doesn’t want to achieve the maximum annual revenue possible? That’s what companies are designed for…annual revenue. If developing a strategic alliance with a partner is going to help you increase revenue (and/or decrease operating costs), then at the surface, it would be a wise decision.

However, decisions like that always come at a cost and usually that cost is brand control and/or brand integrity.

We don’t need to look any further than this past July when tensions arose between Honest Tea and Coca Cola over wording on the labels of the tea company’s product line. Honest Tea, in an attempt to retain brand integrity and brand control refused to change the wording. Coca Cola respectfully agreed with Honest Tea management, and no changes were made. Since Coke has a financial stake in Honest Tea, we can’t really define them as “strategic partners”, but even so, the importance of brand identity/control can be seen from this example.

A more likely dispute between strategic partners would arise when a decision is made to grow a product line thru new product offerings. The brand owner, after establishing brand recognition and value, decides they want to cash in on that exposure. The brand company develops some complimentary products to extend their product offerings only to find the synergies shared with their strategic partner on the original item(s) aren’t there on the new product offerings.

With the recent success of the Via line of instant coffee products, and the inevitable brand extensions to follow, the Starbucks decision to end their alliance with Kraft is a little easier to understand.

We’ll have to wait and see how much the decision costs Starbucks in terms of money and brand dilution.

Distribution 2.0

If the sign of a successful blog posting is an open and passionate discussion about your topic, I must have written the mother of all blog posts. After posting the 3^rd installment of Foodservice Outlook 2020, my phone started ringing.

The irony of having someone call me regarding an online posting was not lost on me at all.

Don’t get me wrong. I received several emails with comments and words of congratulations as well. But the phone call was one of the most interesting.

“Why did you write that stuff about the distributors and brokers?” I was asked. “What were you thinking?”

“What do you mean?” I responded. “All I did was write about a day dream I had describing a distribution model which was efficient from a manufacturers perspective. My model doesn’t exist, and in all reality probably never will exist.”

“That’s not the point. You’re a brand and a manufacturer who needs distributors to get your product to market. Your post could potentially cost you a relationship with a distributor.”

I usually try to think of how my words will be interpreted before I hit send. However, I did not even consider the scenario I was currently being presented. I mean, my post was written a little tongue-in-cheek. I had been presented with a scenario in a conference, which as a manufacturer seemed to be at one end of the spectrum. I offered the unorthodox and contrarian perspective as a means of illustrating the normalcy of our existing distribution model.

Sure, our distribution path has some potholes. We have some issues that need to be resolved. We, as an industry, have to figure out a better communication model so manufacturer, distributor and operator are all working towards the same goal. We need to develop transparency throughout our multiple channels to build trust and foster better partnerships.

BUT…our distribution model works. Foodservice Manufacturers build products. Operators purchase food products. Consumers consume food products. And distributors, well distributors are the important piece that makes the entire system work.

We aren’t interested in reengineering the distribution model. Foodservice Beverage Manufacturers like myself only want to figure out how to sell more foodservice beverage items, communicate with our operators and consumers, and maximize our profit margins by becoming more efficient.

So, from this beverage manufacturer and brand owner to all those distributors who help us get our products to market, thank you for doing what you do. We don't have the patience, the knowledge, or the vehicles to do what you do...so please keep doing it. And if you can add a few extra cases of mine on every delivery, I would surely appreciate it.

Foodservice Outlook, 2020 (3 of 3)

This is a continuation of my earlier posts, describing my thoughts and comments about the 2010 IFMA President's Conference. This post wraps up my discussions regarding FS-2020.

I was immediately brought back to reality when I subconsciously heard Bill say, “Costs and prices always go down.”

What? Huh?

Did I hear that correctly, or was I still working on my new distribution model? Thankfully, as if he heard the panic in my thoughts, he repeated himself…”Costs and prices always go down.”

Bill, I love you, but what the heck are you talking about? My ingredient costs have gone up. My warehousing costs have gone up. My labor costs have gone up. My freight and fuel costs have gone up. My packaging costs have gone up. The only thing that has gone down in the past year is my profit margin.

I looked up to find Bill moderating a panel of industry leaders, discussing the talking points from his presentation. Apparently the panel was back to discussing buying groups, and Bill was trying to make the point that as manufacturers (or distributors) once you lower your pricing, it is hard (if not impossible) to raise it again.

First, I need to offer some constructive criticism of the panel. We were at an IFMA conference - IFMA, as in the International Foodservice Manufacturers Association. Notice the Foodservice Manufacturer's portion of the name. Bill’s panel consisted of 3 operators and a distributor discussing the potential future and shape of the foodservice industry.

Personally, I thought a key component of the foodservice industry was missing from the panel…a foodservice MANUFACTURER. It would have been great to hear the thoughts from a global food manufacturer like Kellog’s or Nestle, but really any manufacturing perspective of the potential future of our industry would have been appreciated.

Despite the lack of a manufacturer on the panel, the panel offered some insightful comments. One sentiment repeated by all the panelists was - the sales process is changing.

Let me repeat that because I think it's important...THE SALES PROCESS IS CHANGING.

Consumers are not interacting with brands in traditional fashion. They are talking about our brands in social spaces like Facebook and Twitter. They are finding foodservice operators on sites (and mobile apps) like OpenTable, Yelp!, and FourSquare.

Conversations ARE happening, and people ARE talking about our brands. The "new" sales process needs to focus on engaging those customers and participating in the conversations.

If our industry of foodservice manufacturing is going to survive (and succeed), we need to figure out how to engage with the customers. If we can figure out how to engage with the customer and operator in the same conversation, even better.

Foodservice Outlook, 2020 (2 of 3)

This is a continuation of my earlier post, describing my thoughts and comments about the IFMA 2010 President's Conference.

I left off the first post describing Bill Hale's discussion of cost controls and efficiency...as relevant to the foodservice distributor. Bill had posed the question on whether it was more or less cost effective to have more trucks on the road distributing from fewer distribution centers.

Although my first instinct when I heard the question was to check my email, Twitter and Facebook accounts…I decided to listen instead. Actually, I couldn't get a strong wi-fi signal inside the conference room, so really the decision was made for me.

It turned out that listening was the better option. Even though I didn’t hear an answer that directly addressed concerns from the manufacturers standpoint, the ensuing discussion did get me thinking about the issue from our perspective.

As a manufacturer, I would much rather ship into 6, 12 or even 20 distribution points rather than say 82 individual distributor houses. I can manage my freight costs with more certainty. I can achieve better economies of scale by shipping (and thereby producing) more products at one time. And, it is easier on my receivables and cash flow.

The problem with my "solution" occurs from the distributor level, as far as I could predict. By having fewer distribution points, distributors will be shipping over longer distances. This means relatively more trucks with higher fuel costs and considerably more logistics planning.

But, could it work?

As Bill continued to speak about FS2020, my mind began building a distribution network that worked from a manufacturer’s perspective.

First, the organization would have a much leaner employee base with an increased focus on logistics instead of management. There would be a core group of personnel at each of the distribution points whose main focus was to facilitate the inbound and outbound shipments. Orders and AR/AP could be handled at a corporate location and delivered electronically to the few distribution centers and supplier partners, again minimizing the work force, preventing duplicate efforts and increasing efficiency.

Every distributor needs a sales force, but why not outsource it?

Instead of foodservice brokers working for manufacturers, why not have them handle the sales for the distributor? I mean, brokers maintain relationships with operators anyway. I would assume the cost for a distributor to reach an operator would decrease dramatically by utilizing a broker with existing relationships. As for chain account business, manufacturers already have people focused on selling the chain accounts. Why duplicate the efforts at the distribution level?

Plus, unlike the current manufacturer/broker relationship, a distributor would not necessarily have to exclusively align themselves with particular broker. A distributor could open up the marketplace to competition, and competition should help sell more items. If you’re a broker authorized to sell for a distributor, you can sell anything in the distributor book, and, you’ll get paid on everything you sell. Sales could be tracked by broker codes, making it easy to track commissions.

From a manufacturing perspective, since our broker fees were eliminated, we would be able to offer more distributor programming monies...which, since those monies would now be spread over a smaller executive base would translate into larger profits for distributor shareholders.

Yes, my mind wandered for a few minutes, and I am positive I missed the entire focus of Bill’s point. And yes, I know my scenario requires manufacturers and distributors to develop real partnerships, working openly to financially benefit these two sides of our industry and become more efficient.

But I couldn’t help wondering…what if??

--To be continued-- (Part 3 will post on Friday, November 19th)

Foodservice Outlook, 2020 (1 of 3)

I recently attended the 2010 IFMA President's Conference in Palm Springs, California. This is the second year I have attended, after officially joining the association last year. It is one of the better networking events of the year for the foodservice industry, bringing together executives from the foodservice manufacturing, distribution and operator industries.

Because of the length of the post, I am splitting the post up into 3 entries. This is part one of three.

First, Bill Hale of the Hale Group moderated the event. For those who don’t know Bill, he is an industry veteran and one of the nicest gentlemen you will ever meet. He has a great sense of humor and has probably forgotten more about supply logistics than most of us will learn during our entire career.

Bill opened the event with a vision for the future of foodservice. He called it FS2020. I am sure the entire deck will be available shortly, but here are the points I keyed on.

First, Bill described a future with “flatter” distributor sales organizations. Thru the course of discussions, I came to assume he meant that distributors are going to learn how to do more with less people, given the state of the economy and job market.

Bill also went on to prognosticate we will see more buying groups and co-ops within the next decade, noting a significant shift to volume purchasing. “Volume counts”, he quipped. Again, I believe he was talking about end user’s and operators getting together to purchase like items in bulk quantities in order to obtain better pricing from their distributors. But will that affect manufacturers? I think so, yes.

As a manufacturer, we do have to think about the surge of bulk buying groups and how they will affect our current pricing models. Manufacturers have faced this for years as we have watched the consolidation within the foodservice distribution community. Once upon a time we could develop individual distributor-location pricing models that covered the outbound freight cost to deliver our products to various distribution points across the country. Clients knew if they were buying a product manufactured on the East Coast of the United States in their home state on the West Coast, the product was going to cost them more money than if they were located on the East Coast.

Today, with the consolidation of the industry and need for single distributor pricing, manufacturers find themselves “averaging” their freight costs. In some instances, such as distributing close to home, you pick up some margin. In other instances, like shipping cross-country, you lose some margin. This shift costs us manufacturers time and money because we have to make the investment to track, analyze and forecast fuel costs. In our small little manufacturing company, this investment can cost us as much as 1.5% of revenue in a given year.

Actually, this discussion on pricing and freight costs becomes a nice segue into another of Bill’s key points…cost controls and efficiency. Once again, Bill’s presentation focused on the distributor as he posed the question on whether it was more or less cost effective to have more trucks on the road distributing from fewer distribution centers.

--To be continued-- (Part 2 will post on Wednesday, November 17th)