Tag Archives: Strategic management

Skirt Steak

It’s Foodie Friday and I want to blog a bit about skirt steak.

English: uploaded for an infobox

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m a big fan of it and have been for a very long time. So long, in fact, that I remember when it was hard to find because it was so inexpensive and so underused that most butchers put it in with the trimmings from other cuts to make ground beef. Then again, many of them took the skirt steak home for supper which is how it came to be known as a butcher’s cut. Other steaks of which you might be aware – the hanger steak, the tri-tip, and flap meat (which they sell as sirloin tip here) used to be hard to find and very inexpensive.

Then the fajita craze hit. Skirt steak – the best cut of meat for fajitas – became more in demand.  What was once a downright cheap, delicious protein became as expensive as all but the high-end steaks such as porterhouse and rib eye.  While it remains so, one other thing has happened.  There are two parts to the part of the steer that’s skirt steak (the plate).  One (the outside plate) was rarely sold since it’s chewier and less tasty.  With the increase in demand, suddenly stores would have sales of skirt that was the lesser cut, confusing consumers and offering a lesser experience.  Consumers moved on.

It’s happened with fish too, as we can see with the monkfish.  Once a “trash fish” and known as the poor man’s lobster, it grew popular because it was tasty and inexpensive.  That led to it becoming very expensive and overfished.  In some cases, other fish were sold as monk that weren’t.  Consumers moved on.

The business point is pretty simple.  People are drawn to high-quality, low-cost products, whether they’re proteins or electronics or services.  The ebb and flow of the market will make some price increases happen and demand will support that up to a point.  What the market won’t support is a changed, lesser product or a price point that makes other products viable options.  I’d rather eat a porterhouse that’s on sale for what it costs for skirt, as an example.

We need to be cognizant of why people came to our products in the first place and not undercut those fundamental reasons.  That’s business suicide.  Thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, food

Our Own Private Idahos

Happy TunesDay!  For our musical subject today, let’s listen to the B52’s.  It’s OK to get up and dance – I’ll wait:

I got to thinking about that phrase and our own private Idaho‘s the other day.  On one level it’s about someone who is wrapped up in their own narrow frame of reference.  They create their own little world and exclude anything outside of its borders.  Maybe that thinking was what inspired yesterday’s post on TV and social.  I do know that it was a bit of synchronicity (not the song!) when I came across an article in the NY Times magazine about popularity that made the point about the continuing segmentation of culture very well.

The piece, entitled What It Means to Be Popular (When Everything Is Popular) sums it up well:

This refraction of the culture into ever-smaller slivers leaves us instinctively with a sense of something lost. Once we listened to the same song together, watched the same show together, argued over the same movies together. Now we’re each focused on our own screen, listening to our own playlist, we’re bowling alone, etc. A landscape that once featured a few unavoidable monoliths of popularity is now dotted with a multitude of lesser monuments, too many to keep track of, let alone celebrate.

I think this creates opportunities for those of us in business along with the obvious difficulties, the ability to scale being the largest problem.   Perhaps we need to be thinking about deep engagement in a series of micro-audiences as opposed to the mass reach everyone seems to desire?  Rather than thinking about going viral (which to me is top-down thinking), maybe we should recognize that there are too many different Idaho’s for that to occur with any regularity and focus instead in creating something for several of them which each of them can serve within their own borders (bottom-up).

When I was a kid there were three television networks and the roster of programs was pretty limited.  The lowest rated shows then would be huge hits now.  That’s not a function of their quality, it’s just that there weren’t any other choices.  Today’s choices are unlimited. “Popular” means someone – anyone – is paying attention.  We need to run our businesses around that definition of popular and build a business model that works, throwing away “old” models in the process.

You with me?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Music, Thinking Aloud

Eating Vs. Dining

It’s Foodie Friday! Today I want to talk about something that was pointed out to me by an older friend.

English: Minangkabau cuisine (Padang food) ser...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We were talking about the quality of a number of restaurants and we happened to hit upon one that we both agreed was not of particularly high quality. The interesting thing was that it always seems to be full of people, generally younger ones.  I was expressing my wonder that their business was doing so well despite that lack of a quality product when he said this:

They’re there to eat.  We like to dine.  You can eat anywhere.

I knew immediately he was right.  The young audience to which this place caters generally doesn’t cook.  They need to eat and are less fussy about the quality of the experience as long as the food is serviceable and not particularly expensive.  They want to perform the human equivalent of gassing up a car.  They need fuel!

My friend and I, both decent amateur cooks, prefer to dine.  We emphasize the quality of both the food and the atmosphere in which it is served.  It’s a very different standard in many ways.  While you and I  could have a good discussion about whether that difference is good or bad, we can probably agree about  one point of differentiation: once you have us as regular customers, we’re not leaving.  Which is an interesting business point.

Having a customer base that treats your product as a commodity is risky.  It opens you up to the whims of the market.  There’s always someone who can play better music or offer cheaper food.  If your customers don’t recognize your product and the experience through which it’s delivered as unique they’ll be gone.  Having a clientele that savors your product is very different from one that views it almost as a necessary evil.

This isn’t a young vs. old or cheap vs. expensive issue.  It’s about building deep relationships between customers and products.  We want them dining and not just eating.  Wouldn’t you agree?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, food, Reality checks