J.B. Hunt as NVOCC

I missed this one but I do think it is interesting the intermodal arm of J.B. Hunt is now a licensed NVOCC.  The article from the Journal of Commerce cites this as a decision more about how to get their Chinese 53' containers to the US at a lower cost (perhaps because they now are hit with tariffs). 

Not sure but it will be interesting as J.B. Hunt is a company to dabble, learn then exploit a good business opportunity.

Is "Freight-Tech" the future or Has Uber and Lyft Killed the Dream?

While I personally was unable to attend the annual Freightwaves Transparency19 conference this year I did watch a lot of the clips and I was fascinated by the shear volume of "Freight-tech"(I will abbreviate FT) companies coming out of the woodwork to help shippers ship product.  We are in the "golden age" of FT launches, venture capital money and potentially IPOs.

Or, as the title stated, has Uber and Lyft killed the dream?  More on that later but first, let's remind ourselves "how business works".

An entrepreneur comes up with a great idea and tries to get it to scale with a series of private fundings.  Venture capitalists get in early, generally get seats on the board and hope for an eventual big pay day when the company is either sold or goes public.  The company is built to scale (meaning it is generating cash - hopefully - or has a path to be cash flow positive.  Then, the early owners need to take money out of the company for a variety of reasons by going public or selling. Here are the reasons they may want to extract money:

1. Family wealth planning - they generally have a lot of their wealth in the company and they need some back.  
2. Pay Employees - Many early stage company employees are paid with options and they eventually want and need that money.  This is a warning to many employees who get in too late in the game.  If your options are valued right before the IPO then a lot of the time you are under water when it goes public (as are many Uber and Lyft employees).
3. All the juice is squeezed and the VC people want out. - Venture capitalists do not hold companies and eventually they want their money back.  Once they believe they have "squeezed all the juice out of they idea they will want to exit. 

Now, let's get back to Uber and Lyft and while I did not read the S-1 for the Lyft before it went public I did read the S-1 of Uber (skip the glitz slides and read the words) and it caused me to ask the question: "Who the hell would invest in this company"?  Let's look at what the S-1 (The S-1 is a required SEC filing before the company goes public and it generally is the first time you get to see their financials - it is required reading if you are going to invest in IPOs)  taught us:

1. Uber has lost over $3Bl in the last three years.  And that is if you count a gain on divestiture and "other investments".  If you look at just operations, in the last three years Uber has lost almost $10bl.  
2. They continually discuss incentives paid to the drivers and to the customers.  They are paying on both sides of the transaction.  
3. There is very little path to profitability.  They "sold" the IPO to the retail investor at exactly the right time (for them. 

Now, what are the learnings from e-commerce?  What we are starting to see is the "bricks and clicks" (Especially Wal-Mart) is the model to win.  Unfortunately, Wal-Mart took far too long to "get in the game" and it may be too late.  But, if Wal-Mart had responded back in 2013 as I had suggested when I wrote The Battle for Retail Sales is Really The Battle of Supply Chains, they would have killed it. Once Wal-Mart woke up I welcomed them back in 2017 in the article, "Welcome Back Wal-Mart. We Missed You Over the Last 5 Years". 

Which brings me to J.B. Hunt and their work with Box and J.B. HUNT360.  That is the winning formula!  It is the "Bricks and Clicks" of the freight world.  Like retail, eventually everything gets down to assets.  Someone needs to build stores and warehouses in retail and in freight someone needs to own the boxes, trucks and have drivers.  J.B. Hunt is showing they learned the lesson of Wal-Mart (Don't cede any ground to the tech guys), they jumped in early, they disrupted their own business and they are now the leader in this space for the asset players.  

What will come of all this?  I believe J.B. Hunt will continue to drive their leadership position further and the asset guys, to catch up, will have to buy a number of these FT companies.  Which means the VC population will get what they want but the asset guys will pay a huge premium for not getting in early.  

So, let me summarize:

1. Too much money chasing too few ideas... the "new" ideas are starting to be "me too's" (How many apps can have a competitive algorithm just to find an available truck)?
2. The FT VC population will want to sell.
3. The Asset guys will find out they are getting killed by the "trucks and clicks" model of J.B. Hunt and this will drive them to pay exorbitant prices to get the tech quick to catch up. 
4. JBHunt, by innovating early and fast will win this game big just like they did with intermodal. 

Finally, in the UBER S-1 we get our first public glance of UBER Freight and I am amazed at how small it is.  Now that UBER is public we will get to see more and more of their financials.  They believe the industry is moving to an "On-Demand" industry.  I find this hard to believe as big shippers need predictable freight and solutions like the J.B. HUNT 360Box where you get access to trailer pools.  I could be wrong, but I do not see a huge future for this.  

Provide Ritz-Carlton Service to Your Customers - It is Mostly Free

I had such a great experience this weekend I had to, as always, relate it back to customer value chain fulfillment.  We decided to spend the weekend at a beautiful resort owned by the Ritz-Carlton company and it was fabulous.  So, how does this relate to order fulfillment - the business all logisticians are truly engaged in?  It is called service.

Many of you may be saying "well of course it was a great time because it cost a lot and you were in a beautiful setting".  True and I will certainly say I am not naive of the fact the Ritz gets paid for all it does.  However, I do have to wonder which came first?  Are people willing to pay higher prices because the service is so incredibly better than the competitors or do they charge more because it costs more?  My hypothesis is it is the former rather than the latter.  Lesson 1:  People are willing to pay more if your service is significantly better than the competition.  Not just a little bit better and not just sometimes but consistently and significantly better than the competition. 

Now, the good news is most of what differentiated the company from the competition was free or very low cost!  I never walked by an associate at any level of the organization without them smiling and greeting me.  If they had a work cart in the aisle they immediately moved it so I did not have to muscle around things.  The place was spotless - every employee was part of the cleaning staff because everyone picked up even the slightest thing which may not belong where it was.  The bottled water was free!  Small bottles of water free!  It likely cost them almost nothing to provide that but rather than leave a bad taste in your mouth about the overall experience by ripping you off on $5 for water they just gave it to you!

My wife needed contact lens solution and the front desk offered to drive her to CVS to get it.  They did not say "I can call you a cab".  They just offered to fix that little problem for us.  Lesson 2: Don't make your customers feel they had a bad experience over some very small petty thing.  Just fix the problem and move on.

I could go on and on about the Ritz-Carlton and its great customer service but I think you get the idea.  So, here are a few lessons for supply chain / 3PL companies:

• Most actions which drive very high customer experience ratings are not very costly.  They are the basics.  Make your customer feel human again!
• Train everyone to be a customer experience evangelist.  The driver, the customer service agent, the building and grounds people.. everyone.  One thing you will find is not only will your customers be wildly excited and promote your company but it will also have the positive effect of making your workplace a desired location for recruits.  Want to recruit top talent and retain them?  Treat them as customers and not machines. 
• Fix the little stuff and move on. How many times do you find your company arguing with a customer over some petty thing (Think free bottled water).  At a company I worked we provided surveys on the delivery experience and I reviewed those surveys.  One customer had rated us all 10's (great) and put in the comment field "please bring donuts next time".  I went ahead and had the driver deliver donuts on the next delivery.  Nike had the right approach - Just Do It.
• Finally, when you do make a mistake, own up to it with your associates and your customers.  No one is perfect and no one expects you to be perfect.  They expect you to own up to it and solve it.  

Well, another great weekend in the books and wow did I learn and in a lot of cases re-learn a lot.  Your customer experience will definitely differentiate you and now, in the Nike fashion go JUST DO IT!.

Kraft, ZBB and the Art of Designing Supply Chains

A lot has been written this weekend about what is happening at Kraft Heinz (KHC) and why they suddenly had to write down a huge portion of their brand portfolio.  Many articles are calling out the zero based budgeting (ZBB) program 3G installed after buying Heinz.  I disagree.  I think it is something far more basic: They lost sight of their customers.

First, a quick definition of ZBB.  ZBB was the darling of the consultant community many years ago as a way to wring costs out of bloated companies. Consultants loved it because it allowed for a lot of business ("I am a ZBB certified...), companies loved it because it had the promise of driving out costs and Wall Street loved it because they generally love all things that are short term profit boosters.  And, in my opinion, it is a good program.  It forces you to reevaluate your costs every year.  Just because you did "x" last year does not mean you need to do it again next year yet the standard budget process assumes programs and positions continue forever.  ZBB does not.  ZBB picks the arbitrary time of one year and says every year every cost needs to be justified.

The reason for this however may be what KHC and 3G totally missed.  The reason you do this is so you can reinvest savings generated from non value added (non competitive) functions of the company to value added functions or better said, programs which make your company more competitive in the market place.  Pocketing the savings or paying it out in dividends is a short term strategy which ultimately ends.  And that is what happened to 3G.  They did not appear to invest the money but rather they pocketed it.

This is also why KHZ and the 3G model relied on acquisitions.  The only way this method of ZBB works is if you keep acquiring bloated companies and implement the program with them.  It is somewhat of a Ponzi scheme.

So, what should they have done differently?  Many of you have read my writings on the customer centered supply chain and outside-in thinking.  This is the fundamental miss of KHC.  They were inside-out in their thinking as they were so focused on the drug of cutting costs then keeping the money they forgot to invest in the future.  Perhaps they felt they would have an endless stream of acquisitions so the music would never stop (Remember, they tried to buy Unilever but were rebuffed and they tried to buy Campbell's but they claim the price was too high)? What they did not anticipate is many of the acquisition targets had implemented their own ZBB and thus the opportunity to wring costs out after acquisition diminished dramatically.

There are lessons for supply chain design and management:

1. Always work and design using outside-in thinking.  Start with the customer and work your way back in.  Never start in and work out. 
2. Not all costs are bad.  You can break costs into competitive and non-competitive costs.  Competitive costs are this which deliver competitive advantage in the market place.  Those are good and necessary.  Non-competitive are those which are either excess or just "cost of doing business" and those you want to minimize.  
3. Your mother taught you this lesson:  Anything taken to the extreme can, and likely will, be bad.   Just because you have a hammer does not mean everything is a nail.  
4. Don't lose sight of your business.  Sears did this and perhaps KHC is doing some of this.  They are in the business of lightening up people's day by selling great food products.  The business is not "how can I cut costs the fastest".  The ultimate tail wagging the dog.  

Lots of lessons here and I just hope a great budgeting tool is not thrown out due to very poor execution.