Why My Company Won't Support Office 97

There are 3 key things about Office 97 that will send us to another office suite:
1. New Word files are, by default, saved in a non-downward compatible format. This means people with old Office or other word processing programs cannot use the files.
2. Lotus worksheet files are no longer supported. That's right - they REMOVED functionality that existed in Office until this version.
3. There is no compelling functional reason to spend money upgrading, as the increased functionality is tiny compared to the two above headaches.

We work with a LOT of different people in different companies. The problems above are making our lives very difficult right now, and they are costing us money. What a terrible thing to do to customers.

I'm guessing we will move to Star Office or the Lotus offerings - which I am sure will be more sensitive to compatibility.

I just felt you should be warned about these colossal problems before you shell out hard earned money for a product that screws you up.

New Blog

I've decided to focus all my postings into one blog, which is titled Strategic Planning Thoughts.

Hopefully, this will enable me to post a bit more often.

Why No Oil Price Shocks?

Many of my clients have been asking me why the record-high prices of oil haven't led to the kind of deep recession we saw in the mid-1970's. There are several answers to this, and - if understanding where the economy is headed is important to you, it's worthwhile to look at each of them.1. Oil is less critical to the US and Global economies today. While offshore outsourcing seems to be here to stay, much of the pressure for globalization comes from the simple fact that the value created by offshore suppliers far exceeds the cost of transporting that value. This is clearly the case when we look at information-based products/services, such as computer software and movies, but it is also true of physical products, such as cameras and automobiles. Even commodity products like oil and steel embody a great deal more information that they did in the 1970s. This means that the fuel component of the transportation cost for shipping these goods, while rising, can be balanced by commensurate increases in productivity.2. No one is surprised by high oil prices. Not only do most CEOs have clear memories of the 1970s, but most of us also remember the oil price spike that happened around the first Gulf War. Being prepared for these cost pressures means that we know how - and hopefully when - to adapt to them.3. Inflation has been TOO low. Oil prices are a fine excuse for many companies to take much needed price increases. As we exit the "Wal-Mart Era", many of us are realizing that nothing goes straight to the bottom line like a price increase...but most of us, psychologically, are still afraid of them. Seeing other prices rising gives us comfort in raising our own prices - just a bit - and this is leading to greater profitability in, for example, parts of the trucking industry.

Note: this is a repost of an old entry from Sept. 2005, to delete unmoderated spam comments.

Is Disney out of danger?

Disney's annual shareholder meeting this year was a lot less contentious than last year, largely because their results are better.

Still, there is a great deal of rancor among Disney fans, (Roy Disney being chief among them, it seems), who feel that Michael Eisner has spent the last few years taking the soul out of the organization.

When I talk to most people about it, one of the key issues they point out is the high cost of visiting Disney's theme parks. I think the high cost is just fine - but the average consumer may be reacting to the recent decline in customer value being delivered by the parks.

I wouldn't disagree with anyone saying Disney parks are expensive. In the past, that's been OK - since you generally DO get what you pay for. Start screaming about the cost, and Disney will listen to you (to a point) - but the end result may be a crap experience.Sadly, there has been far too much cost-cutting at the parks in recent years. Disney used to really ice the cake for their guests in many ways. The worst effect - in my opinion - is in the employees. They are clearly getting less training than they used to. It wouldn't surprise me if Disney is cutting a lot of other corners in the cost department.There is no good excuse for cutting costs that add to customer value while raising prices. Disney needs to make a clear choice - are the parks expensive and WORTH it? Or are they cheap, with lots of cost cutting? A good deal of the dissatisfaction people have with Disney today is that - compared to a few years ago - it's expensive, with cost cutting. It's like paying Nieman-Marcus prices for a Wal-Mart experience. It will take longer to kill the parks with this than it did to kill (or nearly kill) the Disney Store - but there will be a long-term effect.

So Kmart Holding Corp. has appointed Aylwin Lewis, formerly an executive at the restaurant operator Yum Brands (think ex-Pepsico restaurants), as its new chief executive and president.

Some people think K-Mart is a dinosaur, doomed to failure. But it's entirely possible that K-Mart can do much better, financially, over the next few years. They have some good assets, and a decent brand. If K-Mart can build a strategy that stops fighting with their brand - a strategy that USES their brand to build market share - they could have a winner.

Frankly, they could probably score heavily by adopting a "We aren't Wal-Mart" approach to the communities they still have stores in... many communities would probably welcome a store that would fill the market space Wal-Mart fills without crushing local businesses. It might also be useful to push hard against Wal-Mart's weaknesses in supplier relations and overdependence on cheap imports.

Korea...what's next?

I can't help but think that there is something truly fishy about the recent large explosion in North Korea. North Korean officials are now claiming the explosion was planned and intentional, as part of a construction project, but the site is where North Korea has a munitions operation. Some analysts think this site is where North Korea would store at least some of their nuclear weapons, assuming they have them. We will probably learn more about this in coming days, but may never learn the whole truth. One distinct possibility is that this did involve North Korea's nuclear weapons - and that someone managed to attack the facility with a large bomb. No one involved would likely be interested in spreading the truth about that one - North Korean or her enemies - but we will likely see evidence in other arenas if this, indeed happened. If North Korea substantially changes her stance toward the West in the next few months, I would look for clues about the relationship between this mysterious blast and the North's negotiating position. If the North gets more belligerent, something about the blast may have improved their position - and the opposite, if they become less belligerent.

In discussing this, someone asked "Who would win - North or South Korea?"

This is an easy one. A N/S war would be terrible, partly because it would be difficult to prevent the North from killing a lot of people in Seoul. That being said, North Korea would depend heavily upon support from the PRC. This is effectively countered by US support of South Korea, but that effectively means a Korean war would either become a Sino-US war or the two would have to duke it out themselves. A Sino-US war would be much worse than a Korean war, as it would have significantly worse effects on the global economy. China has far more to lose on that score at the moment, because almost all Chinese economic growth is driven by export.
Were the Koreans left to their own devices, it would probably play out like the US Civil War in reverse. The South has the industrial might and the technology, and would likely win as a result.

Airlines...

Reading about the airlines being in trouble today reminds me of a few sad things about the industry.

It's amazing to me how consistently stupid airline management has been over the past 10 years. When everyone competes for the same customer, using the same strategy, there can only be one winner...the absolute cheapest airline. None of the majors besides Southwest has a ghost of a chance of winning that game...but they insist on playing it.Maybe some of the more distressed airlines will start offering something besides air travel that sucks. Charge a little bit more for it and bingo, you can stop worrying about squeezing another penny per ASM out of your already skeletal operations.If you look closely at who is making the most money right now, you will see that (other than Southwest, the clear cheapo flying that sucks winner), the airlines that are working on adding value to their service AND charging just a little more for it are the ones that are on top. This is because there are only THREE things that will create airline profitability right now: 1) Being the absolute cheapest (that one is taken), 2) Dominating a good hub and charging the hell out of the customers in that city (Northwest is good at this) and 3) Creating strong customer preference (Midwest Express).

Welcome

I've been writing this and that about business strategy for some time...sometimes in newsgroups, sometimes on Yahoo message boards, and sometimes in the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning newsletter. I've decided to put some of my shorter stuff-mostly responses to current news articles - up here. If you would like to learn more about the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, and what I actually do for a living, please visit www.cssp.com.