Stretching an advantage further

Low cost is a common option in the business strategy literature. Often we assume that a firm that dominates market share, has substantial economies of scale, and offers a very price competitive product relative to its main rivals most be pursuing such a strategy to a greater extent than differentiation. The recent acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by InBev demonstrates that such assumptions should be tested.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the Brazilian-run, Belgian-headquartered InBev has certainly made some sweeping changes in taking over the US brewing rival.

The new owner has cut jobs, revamped the compensation system and dropped perks that had made Anheuser-Busch workers the envy of others in St. Louis. Managers accustomed to flying first class or on company planes now fly coach. Freebies like tickets to St. Louis Cardinals games are suddenly scarce.

InBev eschews fancy offices and company cars, and groups of its executives share a single secretary. It uses zero-based budgeting — meaning all expenses must be justified each year, not just increases. The company says it saved €250,000 ($325,000) by telling employees in the U.K. to use double-sided black-and-white printing, spending the money to hire more salespeople.

The story also reports extensions in payment terms to suppliers and cuts in advertising spend and format.

InBev clearly saw a lot of fat in this business despite (or perhaps because of) its 48.9% domestic market share. And it seems to be working thus far, with retail share up almost another 1% in the last quarter. Presumably margins are increasing even more.

I guess this could also be dropped in the benefits of multinationality box, with an MNE prepared to make the tougher decisions and to transfer capabilities into a new environment.

Advertisement

Capabilities do matter

One of the biggest questions in international business research is the relationship between multinationality and performance. It is still pretty unclear whether expanding internationally improves a firm’s profitability (or returns to shareholders), and whether the extent of expansion makes a difference. Recent stories on some of the world’s three largest fashion retailers paints an challenging picture.

First up, The Wall-Street Journal tells us that Spanish giant Zara (or rather their parent Inditex) is significantly outpacing US rival Gap with 10% sales growth over the past year versus Gap’s 23% decline.

These numbers are pretty convincing. One noticeable difference between the two firms is their level of internationalisation. Zara operates in 73 countries. Gap is in 6. Could that be the explanation for the divergence in performance?

Well, the news on Swedish competitor H&M muddies the water considerably. They have also announced a 12% profit drop (although sales did grow). These guys operate in 29 countries. We are this left in a bit of a conundrum. Is it the number of countries driving the story?

It would seem there is a clearer story in the area of margins. Inditex’s gross margin is 56.8% versus Gap’s 37.5%. H&M is also at 56.8% (but it is dropping, while Zara stays stable). These figures tell us that it is firm capabilities that are probably making all the difference.

Inditex and H&M run very tight ships, with super lean supply chains. This allows them considerable leeway in terms of lower pricing. Gap is less efficient, and also more exposed to the damaged and increasingly thrifty US consumer market. It cannot absorb lower prices at the consumer end quite as well. Put simply, it also just doesn’t deliver as exciting or new a product as its two European rivals.

Turning quickly to H&M it is notable that they are bearing the brunt of rising costs from Asia more than Inditex. Inditex owns a great deal more of its production facilities and thus is less prone to suppliers leaning on them in tough times (and/or passing on costs). This also means Inditex must continue growing so as to make production investments worth it.

What’s the upshot of all this? Trying to find a general multinationality-performance relationship seems rather futile once we note the huge variations in other equally substantial strategy choices and the execution thereof.