From a simple tower to human-sized figures of cartoon characters – we’ve seen a whole range of creative expression using a simple plastic brick. (Well, to be accurate, a wide variety of plastic bricks – but all developed around the same principle.)

An icon in a child’s world, the LEGO ® brick has just turned 50-years young.

According to the company, “there are actually more than 900 million different ways of combining six eight-stud bricks of the same colour.” Ample room for creativity!

The company itself is about 75 years old, and was named LEGO after the founder Ole Kirk Christiansen put two Danish words together – “Leg godt” – meaning “play well”.

The company has had its ups and downs, the brand has been extended to include other product / service offerings, and the group also includes other brands today. But the power of the simple LEGO brick lives on, even in this wired (or increasingly wireless) world.

The time the brand has been around just re-emphasised the point about consistency and time being very important building blocks for brands.

“Play Well!”

Last year in an impassioned memo, Starbucks’ Howard Schultz identified several strategic and operational decisions that, according to him, were responsible for a deteriorating customer experience at Starbucks.

Starbucks faced the classic problem of any company scaling up (especially a retail brand) – how to be large without being bureaucratic, how to be efficient without losing the soul of the brand, how to be consistent without losing the differentiation edge.

The problem created by Starbucks taking the certain decisions was compounded by the fact that competitors have not stood still either. Competition has improved its core products (coffee), as well as the augmented product (store ambience, service, wait time etc.), and in comparison Starbucks has possibly stood still or slipped back.

Now, almost a year after that memo, Starbucks begins 2008 with Schultz stepping back into the CEO role. It’ll be interesting to see how his passion for the brand is infused back into the stores and the operations in the coming months.

On a separate note, the classic “founder vs. professional” conundrum also comes to mind, along with the notable examples of Apple (Steve Jobs), The Body Shop (Anita Roddick) and others. (Though Howard Schultz was not strictly the founder of Starbucks – the company was founded in 1971, and Schultz bought the company in 1987 when there were less than 20 stores in the chain – he is pretty close to being one.)

The question is: for iconic brands that are more than just the physical product or service being sold, can a ‘professional CEO’ ever take the place of the founder(s), replicate their passion & vision and maintain the integrity of the brand? I believe there are examples to support both answers: ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.

What do YOU think?

Management consultants, the media, financial analysts have had one phrase tripping off their tongues the last few years … “organized retail”. … The growth of “…”, the inevitability of “…”, the power of “…”

Some highly visible people have even made statements that essentially mean – “if you want to play at the table of retailing, bring big money with you, because stakes have now risen, entry barriers have now gone up”.

In our opinion, nothing could be further from the truth – retail is fundamentally an entrepreneurial business, and even today, you can start with one shop, or even a corner in a shop.

We did write about it in May 2005 (read here : “Playing with the Big Boys“), prompted by some of the profound observations people were making on the inevitable demise of the small retailer.

Typically the only people who seem to talk about small retailers amongst these loud voices are the market associations when an ‘organized’ retailer opens a store in or near their market, and those activists who despise anything that has a whiff of corporate.

In that context, it is interesting to read the BusinessWorld article by Vishal Krishna, M. Allirajan and Manashwi Banarjee titled “Squaring Up To Survive”. It mentions companies that are enabling smaller retailers to streamline their operations, and describes what individual store owners are doing to compete with Big Business.

Yes, things are tough for small business people, but don’t write them off just yet. Almost every business that is big today was once very small.

With the possibility of 51% foreign direct investment (FDI) in India opened up to foreign retailers, one of the questions arising frequently is whether this means the death (or at least a slow-down) of franchising in India.

After all franchising, in most people’s mind, has these alternate images of unscrupulous franchisers ripping-off the life-savings of the small retailer on the one hand, and shady landlords in the guise of retail franchisees gouging at the pockets honest businessmen who are trying to build national brands. There also haven’t been too many sustained success models in India where both franchiser and franchisees have consistently won.

Surely, with FDI opening up gradually, foreign retailers would want to set up joint ventures in which they have control, rather than go through the franchise route, where their brand is “at the mercy of another company”? So it is a legitimate question, whether FDI sounds the death knell for franchising.

However, jumping to that conclusion would be to ignore the fundamentals of franchising as a business. If the barrier to FDI was the only factor in the growth of franchising, there would be no franchise businesses in countries such as the USA (the largest retail market) or Australia (again one of the most dynamic albeit small markets for franchising in the world), which have negligible barriers against foreign retailers or service providers setting up their own outlets.

At its most basic, a franchise is an authorisation, granted to an individual or company by another company, to sell its goods or services in a specific territory. The motivations for entering such a relationship are as varied as the individuals involved in the business, but typically cover some common points.

For the franchiser, franchising offers increase in the business footprint and scale that can help to reduce costs per unit of sales, improve business visibility and the brand, and make the business a more likely candidate for investment or listing. Franchisees become a source of finance and additional management to grow the business, which otherwise would need to be provided by the franchiser himself. Franchisers also gain from the franchisee’s local market knowledge, existing infrastructure and real estate, which they would otherwise take time, money and effort to build. What’s more, each franchisee is an entrepreneur and “business partner” who directly gains from helping the franchiser grow, unlike employee managers – thus, potentially there is more energy and enthusiasm available to drive the business.

The big trade-offs for the franchisee are that the local (or regional) business ownership, topline (sales) and a chunk of the margin, are passed on to the franchisee.

The biggest motivator from the franchisee’s point of view is that, despite operating under another company’s brand and selling another company’s products, he is not an employee but an independent business owner. This is as important to an individual store franchisee as to a regional or national master franchisee. The franchise relationship also offers the umbrella of a brand under which to operate his own outlet(s) – the time, efforts and investment put into the brand across the various territories all converge to the benefit of the individual franchisee when the customer walks in with a prior knowledge and confidence in the brand. The franchisee also benefits from previously defined processes and systems, as well as structured training and business coaching.

However, if I were to identify two major hurdles in the path of growth of franchising, they would be the immaturity of the business model on the franchiser’s part, and lack of compliance on the franchisee’s.

The franchiser must approach the market with a well-structured model that makes money and can be replicated across locations, and with a system of training and transferring knowledge to the franchisees.

The franchiser must also have a clear control on the product stream, intellectual property or other key success factors without which the franchise reduces to a generic outlet. Given the overloaded courts in the country, litigation to stop a franchisee from misusing the Brand’s rights is only a very very remote last resort!

There are no hard and fast rules that can be generalised about whether franchising, joint-venture or direct investment is the correct model to follow – each situation is unique to the specific companies involved, and it comes down to previous experience with franchising, the feasibility of franchising in that specific product or service mix, and the business attractiveness (risk and investment versus the return). Franchising offers an attractive model of business growth, certainly a more collaborative one which is in keeping with the changing and entrepreneurial environment. Now that both models, direct investment and franchise, are available, companies can actually make decisions based on a balanced analysis.

India has literally millions of individuals who would prefer to be their own boss and run a business, rather than being an employee. There are joint-families, where resources may be available in the form of some real-estate and family members who can be part of the business. Personal loans are available from family and friends, in the close social fabric of our communities. Ideal ground for franchising to grow.

To close, I must quote a conversation with an international Brand about 30 months ago. I put across the premise that given India’s potential size and strategic importance as a market, surely the brand would consider setting up its own company rather than a franchise relationship. The Brand’s head of internationalisation looked ambivalent because at that time FDI in retail was nowhere on the horizon, but thought that they might consider it if government regulations changed. Well, the government allowed FDI earlier this year. And yet, this brand recently launched in India through a franchise relationship, for many of the reasons listed above.

Franchising lives!

(Guest Column in The Financial Express on 5 May 2006)

(This was a Case Study Analysis for The Financial Express on the justification for implementation of ERP in a start-up modern (organised) retail business – 15 April 2006)

Most consumer, product-supply chains have evolved into fairly complex chains for two main reasons. Firstly, despite all the talk about removing intermediaries, there are still many people involved in the entire supply chain at different levels — for no reason but that they do add some value in the steps they are handling. Whether this is breaking of bulk, or handling of disparate products, shipping or storing goods, or providing bridge finance, each intermediary is in the chain because he has a role to play.

Secondly, and more importantly, product diversity has increased tremendously. Whether it is the number of brands available of biscuits, or the number of types of melons, or the package sizes of shampoos, the growing market has created more suppliers, more product segments and more variety for the retailer to handle.

With perishable items, a third factor gets added in: date of production and shelf-life. Clearly, even in a developing market like India which has lax regulation and low compliance, consumers are increasingly aware of perishability of products. And as companies grow in size and profile, their vulnerability to litigation also increases.

The retailer, who is the critical link between the consumer and the rest of the supply chain, must effectively manage not just the diversity and the perishability, but also communicate with and manage with the rest of supply chain. And given the nature of the complexities, Mr Paul’s business would have no choice but to implement an effective IT system that would keep the company’s executives clued into the information on as near-time a basis as feasible. For a company that is planning operations at a certain scale, even the opening of one store without the IT system would create a huge gap to overcome in subsequent growth.

However, the IT system alone cannot guarantee the success or failure, and certainly not the profitability of the venture. Technology may be seen as the easy quick-fix, or as the stick with which to drive process discipline. But to me it is the last link in a chain that begins with ‘People’ and leads to ‘Processes’. Without the right orientation, training and skills, effective processes cannot be created. Without effective processes, the best IT system in the world is, at best, very effectively enabling a bad organisation.

The advantage of an existing branded product is that it is more ready for roll-out than a bespoke (custom-developed) system would be. Not just would it take more time to create a bespoke solution, it would also require the involvement of senior management. Senior management time is a rare commodity in the best of times — in a start-up business, it is even more scarce.

There is also the premise that a branded IT product that has been implemented across other companies will have some amount of best practice built in. With the assumption that poor practices are not also built into the system, it might actually help the management to leap-frog the business learning curve.

On the other hand, Mr Paul may be paying for features and capabilities in the branded IT product that his fledgling business will not use for a long time. Customisation and implementation needs may also push the cost over the limit.

Therefore, the ERP system must be evaluated just like any other business investment or expense.

There must be a clear rationale for it, a very clear set of objectives and deliverables, and a well-structured programme and project plan for implementation. Like any other investment, IT must also be evaluated for returns.