Investor Relations Management<\/strong><\/p>\n By “tricky” he meant the simple fact that shareholders would ask themselves why such an investment was being made. And what the returns are. Of course, as with many non-digital investments, these questions cannot be answered so easily and with certainty. And this uncertainty is then reflected in the share price, at least in the short term. <\/p>\n Investing in the future<\/strong><\/p>\n In a way, this is a paradox: in order to make the company successful in the long term and thus strengthen the share price, major investments have to be made. These investments simply cannot be amortized virtually overnight and no, it cannot be ruled out that they may not be wrong after all. Both attributes, high and quick returns and a high level of (usually feigned) security, are classic characteristics of fraudulent transactions. <\/p>\n Investment backlog<\/strong><\/p>\n In most conversations with such large companies, I encounter an enormous investment backlog. I don’t mean this primarily in terms of money. Rather, in recent years there has usually simply been a failure to think about how the business should be developed further. Of course, there have been projects for growth and optimization, cost-cutting programs and much more. <\/p>\n But no thought has been given to fundamental paradigm shifts. And I keep coming to the conclusion that this investment backlog is largely due to the quarterly thinking of listed companies. Because they are so fixated on the share price, they prefer not to risk anything that could result in a loss of a few percentage points on the stock markets. <\/p>\n Rat Race<\/strong><\/p>\n This type of culture has also caused considerable trouble for the customer mentioned at the beginning. He doesn’t yet see it as drastic, because the business generates billions in sales and the relationships with suppliers and partnerships are supposedly strong. But most companies know surprisingly little about the changes in the market. Most are afraid of a new “Uber” that will devour their industry like a hungry crocodile. They are so caught up in this idea that they don’t even realize that it may be long-standing partners and\/or suppliers who are embracing the new digital opportunities to take over large parts of the business. <\/p>\n It is as ironic as it is tragic that on a Wednesday afternoon, two thirty-somethings use concrete examples to show the highly deserving, long-standing management what is currently happening in their market. They are so entrenched in their own world that they don’t even notice what is really happening in the market. And they only realize it when they can read it in their balance sheets. That’s what really alarms me as a shareholder, because by the time I can read it in the balance sheet, it’s too late in the vast majority of cases. <\/p>\n Shareholder, shareholder, shareholder<\/strong><\/p>\n The transition from a static economy based on saturation growth to a volatile, innovation- and technology-driven economy has also changed the way companies are valued by the market.<\/p>\n Interestingly, in recent years, the companies that have benefited most from share price gains on the stock market are precisely those that pay very little attention to the share price. Entrepreneurs are at work again. And for entrepreneurs, the real thing has always been more important than short-term performance figures. <\/p>\n How often do I hear the phrase “we want to become the Amazon of XYZ”. I’m really a fan of big ambitions. But you also have to be aware of the dependencies. If Jeff Bezos had cared about the share price, Amazon would never be where it is today. Nevertheless, Amazon can keep shareholders on board because they recognize the value of the long-term strategy. It is typical for tech stocks that their valuations already price in these potential high benefits in the distant future. <\/p>\n Blessing<\/strong><\/p>\n But quarterly thinking is not only bad in terms of digital transformation. It can also act as its pacemaker. I worked for a short time on a project for an American chocolate manufacturer. It was about rebuilding and improving an existing online store. While most manufacturers in Europe were still taking baby steps and getting lost in strategic discussions, the sheer pressure of quarterly targets meant that our American colleagues were working intensively on how they could increase sales. Many small innovative functions and offers were incorporated. And sales increased rapidly. <\/p>\n It was all a bit unstructured and crazy, but a relatively small team made big improvements. On the other hand, there were long-planned measures in a large team. We really got a lot done. Apart from discussions and “concepts”, however, nothing really happened. <\/p>\n Please be cannibals!<\/strong><\/p>\n I hear “cannibalize your own business” in this context almost every week. I can follow the arguments, but I don’t share them. It’s usually said in connection with indirect sales models and I’ve had to tell so many decision-makers that the indirect model will basically disappear. The intermediary trade had an information function at a time when product information was difficult to access. <\/p>\n And a distribution function at a time when DHL, DPD and UPS did not deliver practically everything to your doorstep the next day at low cost. Things are different today, which is why indirect and multi-level distribution is as good as dead. It still exists, but its days are numbered. Of course, there will still be dealers, but they will be the exception and will be able to exist where it makes sense. (Please don’t confuse the two: Indirect and direct are not the same as offline and online). <\/p>\n However, especially for higher-priced and special products, there is usually no reason why you shouldn’t buy them directly from the manufacturer. If you talk to these manufacturers about it, the saying about cannibalization comes up. It’s clear that the middlemen will be annoyed at first if you sell directly as a manufacturer. <\/p>\n However, this is by far the lesser evil than suddenly having to fight with competitors who organize distribution very leanly and directly and pass the margins saved on to the end customer.<\/p>\n Riding the doomed horse is only an option in the very short term. Because if it falls over dead, you as a company fall with it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is sometimes forgotten. That’s why you should cannibalize existing models and build new, promising ones in parallel. And change the horse if it is not yet lame, to stay with the comparison. Of course, this will have a short-term impact on business. And that brings us back to the share price. If it hangs over you like the sword of Damocles, you’ll be stuck with the horse. Until the bitter end. It doesn’t have to be that way. <\/p>\n Artikel auf Social Media teilen:<\/p>\n<\/div>![\"The](\"http:\/\/www.alainveuve.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fotolia_46371771_S.jpg\")
(This is what it looks like: The doomed horse)<\/em><\/p>\n