2018/01/15

Cencosud y Falabella pierden fuerza entre los mayores retailers del mundo

A pesar de continuar en el top 100 entre los mayores grupos del mundo, ambas compañías chilenas cayeron varias posiciones en el ránking 2018. Cencosud y Falabella pierden fuerza entre los mayores retailers del mundoCencosud y Falabella, los mayores retailers de Latinoamérica. Si bien ambas empresas se mantuvieron como los grupos más grandes de la región, los retailers chilenos perdieron peso en el ránking global de los cien mayores empresas del sector del mundo, de acuerdo al informe Global Powers of Retailing, elaborado por Deloitte.

La compañía de Horst Paulmann, Cencosud, propietaria de las tiendas departamentales Paris, pasó del puesto 57 al 64 este año. El grupo opera también con cadenas de supermercados y tiendas de mejoramiento del hogar, además de centros comerciales.


www.modaes.com

Se crean más empleos en México, pero los salarios pierden poder adquisitivo

Se crean más empleos en México, pero los salarios pierden poder adquisitivo, una situación que se acentuó a finales del 2017 por los altos índices inflacionarios que se presentaron en el país.
Se crean más empleos en México, pero los salarios pierden poder adquisitivo / Cuartoscuro

A nivel laboral, estamos en una etapa complicada ya que si bien la generación de nuevos empleos es una de los más altas de los últimos años, los salarios han tenido una debacle importante con respecto al poder adquisitivo de las personas, una situación que se acentuó a finales del 2017 por los altos índices inflacionarios que se presentaron en el país.

Ciudad de México.- Para una persona desempleada, conseguir un puesto laboral es una de sus mayores prioridades y esto puede representar la posibilidad de mejorar sus ingresos y su calidad de vida, sin embargo, en México esto no se da de manera paralela, ya que debido a las condiciones actuales, los salarios no son suficientes para cubrir todas las necesidades de las familias.
Así, por un lado el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) reportó que 2017 fue un año particularmente bueno en la generación de nuevos empleos, con la creación de 801 mil 831 empleos formales.
Según cifras que retoma El Financieroesta sería “la cantidad más alta de puestos de trabajo generados desde 1996” y solo por detrás de 1980, cuando se registró el mayor número de empleos creados en un año.
De acuerdo al IMSS, “este es el tercer mejor aumento reportado desde que se tiene registro, solo ligeramente por debajo de los cierres de año de 1980 (804 mil 310) y 1996 (819 mil 950) y 69 mil 240 o 9.5 por ciento más que el aumento reportado en el 2016 (732 mil 591)”.
Con el acumulado, al cierre de 2017 “se alcanza un registro de 19 millones 418 mil 455 trabajadores asegurados en el IMSS, de los cuales, el 86 por ciento son permanentes y 14 por ciento son plazas eventuales”, dijo el instituto de seguridad social.
Pero la realidad de los salarios es diferente
Si bien estos datos son alentadores, por otro lado está una realidad diferente con respecto a la capacidad que tienen los empleados de mejorar su calidad de vida a través de los salarios obtenidos con estos empleos.
Según la confederación sindical británica Trades Union Congress (TUC), México es uno de los países en donde los salarios han perdido la mayor capacidad de poder adquisitivo en los últimos años y apenas se ha logrado un avance del 0.7 por ciento “lo que implicaría un estancamiento para todos los mexicanos asalariados”, dice esta organización.
Esto a pesar de que el salario mínimo ha tenido aumentos constantes y significativos en el último año, al ubicarse primero en 80.04 pesos y ahora en 88.36 pesos, pero estas alzas no han servido para combatir los altos índices inflacionarios, que en diciembre de 2017 cerraron en 6.77 por ciento, la más alta desde hace al menos 16 años.
Por ellos, el Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (Coneval), señaló que  la inflación “convirtió el sueldo mínimo de 80.04 pesos a uno real de 63.50 pesos” con respecto a su capacidad real de poder adquisitivo.
Por su parte, la Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social (STPS) informó que el salario contractual registró una caída de 1.47 por ciento en términos reales en 2017, lo que “representa la pérdida de poder adquisitivo más pronunciada desde 1996, cuando la reducción del salario fue de 10.65 por ciento”.
De esta manera, la generación de empleos ha tenido un buen desempeño, incluso llegando a niveles máximos, pero en la misma medida pero en sentido inverso, los salarios tienen cada vez menor poder adquisitivo, lo que afecta de manera profunda la calidad de vida de las personas.

https://elsemanario.com

Why Sam's Club Conversions To Online-Order Hubs Are A Sign Of The Times


Forget The Hype About Self-Driving Cars: At The Detroit Auto Show, It's All About Pickup Trucks


2018/01/12

Creating a Multi-million Dollar Brand: Stuart Weitzman on His Shoe Empire

Weitzman shoes
The Stuart Weitzman shoe brand is associated with some of today’s most famous pop stars, actresses, and celebrities, including Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Kate Middleton, Gisele Bundchen, Kate Moss and Gigi Hadid. Its stores are located on the most fashionable shopping streets in the world including Rodeo Drive, Via Sant’Andrea, Via Condotti, Michigan Avenue, Faubourg Saint Honore, and Madison Avenue. And millions of women in dozens of countries buy Stuart Weitzman shoes in retail stores and online.
How did the entrepreneur and designer of the same name build this globally-renowned business? Stuart Weitzman shared tales of his success at a recent Wharton Leadership Lecture. Weitzman also appeared on Wharton’s Marketing Matters radio show, which airs on SiriusXM channel 111. (Listen to the full podcast using the player above.)
Weitzman got into the shoe industry at a young age, working at his father’s Massachusetts shoe factory while still in college at Wharton. Later, he ran the family business with his brother. In 1986 he struck out on his own, launching his company under the Stuart Weitzman brand. In 2015, handbag maker Coach acquired the business for $574 million but kept Weitzman on as creative director, according to Forbes. Weitzman continued in that role until his retirement earlier this year.
Weitzman talked about the DNA of his brand. Sexiness is a key element, he said. “There’s an expression that ‘sex sells,’” he said. “If you can incorporate something sexy about a fashion product… you’ll get more business out of it.” That’s been proven from the fashion industry to the automobile industry, he added.
This idea was certainly reflected in his controversial ad campaign last year, which featured three supermodels in a tight embrace, all completely nude except for the brand’s sandals. (Weitzman said — perhaps tongue-in-cheek — that the ads had to be taken down from his New York storefronts because they were causing car accidents.)
“If you can incorporate something sexy about a fashion product … you’ll get more business out of it.”
But sexy isn’t everything: “stylish comfort” is important, too. He calculated that it costs him $8,000 to get a new customer into his store, based on the total investment in advertising, PR and editorial placement. If she leaves empty-handed, he’s lost that $8,000. “There’s no logic in getting you through [my] door, putting a shoe on you that’s going to kill you, and you’re not coming back.” Any new design that wasn’t a hit with his shoe tester was always taken out of the line.
The Million Dollar Sandal
Weitzman told the story of what he called the company’s “tipping point,” quoting the book by the same name by Malcolm Gladwell that analyzes how certain trends become enormously popular. Early in his business, Weitzman was trying to figure out how to offer his products to “a billion people around the world” and said that there wasn’t enough money “on the planet” to get his message out to all of them.
“I needed the help of something else, someone else, without them even realizing it because I certainly couldn’t pay for it,” he said.
That “something” was a breathtaking, one-of-a kind pair of sandals created by Weitzman in collaboration with a diamond company, each sandal encrusted with 464 diamonds with an 18-carat diamond hanging in the center. The “someone” turned out to be actress Laura Harring, co-star of the David Lynch movie Mulholland Drive, who agreed to wear them to the 2002 Academy Awards. She even pinned up her floor-length Giorgio Armani gown so the sandals would be more visible.
As Weitzman tells it, his bet paid off. Harring stepped onto the red carpet and the late comedienne Joan Rivers commented on camera, “Laura, come over here. Everyone wants to see Stuart Weitzman’s million-dollar sandal.” Weitzman said there were 400 million viewers for the Academy Awards that night, and the next week, a picture of Harring showing off the sandals appeared in more than 500 news outlets worldwide. The shoe got nicknamed the “Million Dollar Sandal.”
Weitzman calculated that it cost him $8,000 to get a new customer into his store, based on the total investment in advertising, PR, and editorial placement.
“[Now] everyone knew who we were,” said Weitzman. “They didn’t yet know all our products … but there was now a positive association with our brand.” Of this stunt that launched his company into public view, he said that luck may have played a role but he personally believes “you have to be good to be lucky.”
Taylor Swift’s Boot
Weitzman continued over the years to place his products in the hands (and on the feet) of celebrities to get more exposure for the brand. For example, he cultivated an acquaintance with Jennifer Anniston at the height of her career, and Anniston began wearing the brand’s new high-wedge espadrille around town. “She fell in love with it … she kept wearing and wearing it, and it had so much impact.” It was the first espadrille to be designed with an elevated heel and it became one of the company’s top-selling products, he said.
He talked about the subtleties of working successfully with the rich and famous. Making sure that items are quickly and easily available is key. “These people need things at the last minute. They don’t know where they’re going tomorrow; they don’t know what outfit they’re wearing…. You need to be able to play their game or you’re not going to be on the field with them.” He noted that the business keeps inventory of its most important items, in all sizes, to ship to celebrities at a moment’s notice.
A big celebrity promotional opportunity opened up in 2015 when Taylor Swift was preparing for her “1989” tour. Weitzman said Jennifer Lopez had suggested to Swift’s stylist that she contact Weitzman for attention-getting footwear designs. One design needed to be a thigh-high boot that Swift wanted to attach to a garter belt for the performances.
The boot, said Weitzman, was “what we still call, in our slang from Brooklyn, New York, a ‘home run.’” He said that a million of Swift’s followers wanted to know where they could get “Taylor Swift’s boot.” A version of the boot was added to Weitzman’s commercially available collection. “Now when [fans] found out it was $900, that dropped down to about 25,000 [people],” said Weitzman, to audience laughter. “But think about the impact of someone like that.”
He added that it had been important to translate the custom-made boot into a saleable product that most customers could wear. For one thing, the original boot had run very high on the leg to accommodate the garter belt. “When we created this for the exact height that I thought every girl would want, the story is that it became our biggest boot.”
The Power of Store Design
Weitzman said he’s always looked to do things that are exclusive and unique with an eye toward getting low-cost publicity for his brand, such as his “Million Dollar Sandal” escapade. (Not to mention the custom-made “priceless” sandals the company created the following year, which were topped with diamonds from earrings given to Marilyn Monroe by JFK.) Moreover, his approach has extended beyond the product to the look and design of his stores.
“I personally believe you have to be good to be lucky.”
When Weitzman was ready to launch his Madison Avenue store in New York, he was concerned about measuring up to the luminaries already there: Barney’s, Prada, Gucci and the like. His wife suggested putting artwork in the window. The idea inspired a display of “art shoes” created by talented local art students, he said, with fanciful shapes like race cars, flower bouquets, Alice in Wonderland characters, and baskets of puppies.
Weitzman used this type of display for two years, at no cost (“The students were thrilled to get their name on Madison Avenue and 58th Street”) instead of putting any product in the window. Shoppers kept coming in, and the business continued to flourish. Many of the company’s print advertisements also displayed unusual shoe-inspired images rather than products, which Weitzman said conveyed to potential customers “the whimsy and creativity of Stuart Weitzman and company.”
Sometimes the goal of being one-of-a-kind has required knocking on doors more than once. A few years ago Weitzman got the idea of having a famous architect create retail stores for him. He approached the late Zaha Hadid, a prominent Iraqi-British architect who had received distinguished awards for her work including the Pritzker and Stirling Prizes.
At first, she didn’t even want to answer his phone calls, said Weitzman, and had no interest in making a shoe store. But, he said, “After persistence, a no sometimes can become a maybe, and a maybe can become a yes.” The first Hadid-designed boutique was opened in Milan in 2013, and others followed in Hong Kong, Rome and New York. The dramatic, unusual spaces of course got plenty of attention. “Nobody else had used an architect of this type to build a store like this,” Weitzman said.
Reflecting on having chosen the path of entrepreneurship, Weitzman spoke enthusiastically. “When you’re in your own business — not everybody’s going to be — but boy, if you can, it’s a great thing to do.”  He talked about the “passion” of building an entrepreneurial company and observed: “It creates a love for it, and it becomes a hobby more than a business. You don’t count the hours and you don’t count the time.”
Weitzman was asked how it felt to step away from designing shoes for the now Coach-owned business, especially since it would continue to bear his name. He responded, “I still have an attachment to [the company], but I really have no issue with what goes on from here being Coach’s legacy.”
He said that the last Stuart Weitzman collection he had designed was “great” and that “everybody loved it,” which was a source of deep satisfaction. He compared his exit to that of legendary Boston Red Sox player Ted Williams: “In his last at-bat, the last game of his career, he hit a triple, a double and a home run.”

Are Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon Unstoppable?

book1
41HF4gOPvxLApple, Google, Facebook and Amazon have created products and services enjoyed by billions of people. But their size and reach into our daily lives also is cause for concern. Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at New York University, shines a spotlight on the dangers of letting Big Tech invade our personal lives without a second thought in his book, The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. He recently spoke on the Knowledge@Wharton show on SiriusXM channel 111 to explain why people need to pay attention.
The following is an edited transcript of the conversation.  
Knowledge@Wharton: These four companies have come very far in a relatively short amount of time. While they have certainly reaped the benefits of the internet and gathering of data, what other common factors have propelled their growth?
Scott Galloway: Since 2008, these companies added more market capitalization than the GDP of India. The value accretion and influence is just staggering. I think each of them taps into a fairly basic instinct. Google taps into our need for a super being and some sort of divine authority to help us answer questions. We used to look to the skies and pray, ‘Will my kid be all right?’  Now we type symptoms into the Google query box. One in six questions presented to Google have never been asked before in the history of mankind, which intimates its incredible authority.
Facebook calls on our instinct to not only be loved but to love others. Using photographs catalyzes and strengthens relationships. Amazon is our consumptive gut. We have a need for more. The penalty for too little is starvation. The penalty for too much is lethargy or gluttony, which is a fraction of the downside of too little. Open your cupboards, open your closets. We have 10 to 100 times what you really need.
Finally, I think Apple calls on our reproductive instinct. The iPhone is the new way to signal that you have good genes. It says you’re part of the innovation class. It says you’re successful and a worthy mate.
Knowledge@Wharton: Apple has put together an impressive ecosystem in the last two decades. People want to be seen with an iPhone or Apple product because it is a status symbol.
Galloway: If you look at the watch industry and the apparel industry, they both incurred significant losses or a huge decline in shareholder value across many or most of them. We look at the over-storing of America. We look at retail, and there is too much competition. But I would argue that Apple is the new way we indicate or signal self-expressive benefit. It used to be through clothes and watches and shoes and jewelry, but I think Apple has taken the place of these items.
Knowledge@Wharton: Why hasn’t the Apple Watch caught on as much as the other products?
Galloway: The Apple Watch has become a second screen to what is the most important item or accessory now, and that’s the iPhone. I’m not sure the Apple Watch will be around in three to five years. But it doesn’t matter because what Apple’s been able to pull off, mostly through the iPhone but also the supporting ecosystem, is a company that has the production volumes of Toyota with the operating margins of Ferrari. Apple’s pulled off the impossible in business in that it’s a low-cost producer with a premium-priced product. As a result, Apple is going to do double the profits this quarter than Amazon has done in its entire history as a company. We’ve never had a company this profitable.
“Apple’s pulled off the impossible … it’s a low-cost producer with a premium-priced product.”
Knowledge@Wharton: Where do you see the pitfalls for Facebook? The company is dealing with the dark side of social media, including trolling, cyber-bullying and interference by Russian hackers.
Galloway: I believe the worm has turned against Big Tech. Up until just a couple months ago, we engaged in what I would refer to as a gross idolatry of innovators and youth. It really manifested around these few companies, yet they weren’t subject to the same scrutiny that the rest of business endures.

The weaponization, if you will, of Facebook and Google has really highlighted some issues around what it means to be a media company and not have the safeguards in check that some other media companies have in place. We’re asking some very difficult questions. Like any crisis, where it turns into a major crisis is when you don’t respond or address the issue. There’s been a series of half measures that have come out of Facebook. First, it was 250 employees to monitor safety, then it went to 1,000. But I don’t think they’ve really addressed the issue.
Knowledge@Wharton: Should Mark Zuckerberg have considered these potential problems when he came up with the idea of Facebook and put safeguards in place then?
Galloway: In his defense, I don’t think even he probably imagined that 60% of Americans would get their news from social media. It’s an incredible business model to have other people creating your content. It’s an incredible business model not to have the friction of human intervention around who’s advertising on your platform. It’s incredible to your profitability. But it’s the equivalent of being a member of a beach club, and the club would be more profitable if there was no lifeguard. The same thing happened here. There are no editors. There are no people screening the content or the advertisers. As a result, that injects some danger into the system.
Knowledge@Wharton: Is Amazon going to be the first company valued at $1 trillion?
Galloway: The easy guess would be Apple because they’re closest at $750 billion. But I think the good money is on Amazon. If you look at Amazon’s momentum and where it butts up and competes against the other three, they’re winning. Google controls 90-plus points of share for all of search, but Amazon now controls 55% of product search, up from 44% in 2015. The most innovative hardware product of 2015 and 2016 wasn’t the Apple watch or the Apple pods but Amazon’s Echo device. You can go through each of them, and wherever they’re butting up against each other, Amazon is winning. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a company with this much momentum or strategic advantage as we see in Amazon right now.
Knowledge@Wharton: What do you think of Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods?
Galloway: I would argue that Whole Foods will be to Amazon what Instagram was to Facebook. I think it’s going to be one of the best acquisitions in the history of that sector. Amazon now has permission or license to get into the wealthiest refrigerators in the nation. The only way you create intensity across those 60% of households that now have a relationship with Prime is to offer grocery. For what was a 2% or 3% dilution, Amazon now has 500 well-lit warehouses with proximity to the wealthiest households in America, access to long-tail brands. This was a genius acquisition.
Knowledge@Wharton: What is the reaction in that specific sector of the economic world? What can Walmart do to keep their share of the market?


Galloway: People tend to pit it as a win/lose between Amazon and Walmart. I think they’re both going to do pretty well in the digital age. Walmart is an incredibly well-run company, the largest grocer. They’re not befuddled prey waiting around for Amazon to disrupt them. They’re making a series of acquisitions. They’re doing some interesting things both in terms of acquiring Jet.com to be an adrenaline shot to their heart around e-commerce [as well as] their acquisition of Bonobos. Their click and collect [strategy], trying to take advantage of their stores. As we’ve seen, the stocks actually perform pretty well. I don’t think it’s an either/or. Who will be successful? Amazon or Walmart? I think the answer is, yes.
“I believe the worm has turned against Big Tech.”

Knowledge@Wharton: For Google, where is that next mountain to climb?
Galloway: The next battleground across most of them is in the home. To capture more of people’s attention, the home seems to be the next frontier. There’s been this enormous battle waged over the screen in terms of the phone. Netflix, Amazon and Apple are now waging that battle on the second most important screen: your television. But the notion of being relationship vis-à-vis voice in the home, that seems like the next battleground. Google is playing catch-up, and Apple kind of gave up the early lead to Amazon. But I think the next big battlefront is voice and artificial intelligence, and the battlefield is going to be the home.
Knowledge@Wharton: I grew up going to the movie theater and the grocery store. What will happen to these types of outlets in the future? Which has the greatest concern?
Galloway: All of them. Not only that, the disruption happened before. In between the time that Amazon announced the acquisition of Whole Foods and when it closed, the largest pure play grocer in America — Kroger — lost a third of its value. Keep in mind Whole Foods is only one-eleventh the size of Kroger. If you didn’t know Amazon had acquired Whole Foods, you wouldn’t know. It wasn’t as if Kroger’s business changed overnight, but it’s the expectation that Amazon is going to destroy industry after industry. It’s happening in movie theaters. AMC stock is off hugely. It’s not what industry will Amazon disrupt, it’s more difficult to think about what industries in the consumer world it won’t disrupt.
Knowledge@Wharton: It seems that even a Goliath like Comcast could be a takeover target of one of these four companies.
Galloway: I don’t think anybody’s safe. If you look at these companies, they’re now in sort of a defensive posture. They have incredible assets. They have cash flow. But television was supposed to be a place that was somewhat immune from these players. Now all of these players are doing things like bidding on sports. It’s only a matter of time before the rights of the Super Bowl are purchased by one of the four.
Knowledge@Wharton: Are there companies on the fringe of those four that could become part of the group in the next five to 10 years? Will we have five or six tech companies running everything?
Galloway: I have a chapter called “Who Is the Fifth Horseman?” I try and go through the features or components of being a $500 [billion] or $700 [billion] market cap company, and then apply that same criteria to try to identify who might be next. There probably is a fifth horseman right now, and that’s Microsoft. But I didn’t write about Microsoft because I think of it as a B2B company.
In terms of the new guys, the one that is probably in striking distance right now is Netflix. At the end of the day, these companies are all operating systems for media, for information, for retail. Netflix is becoming an operating system for the second-most important screen in our lives, and that’s the television. Millennials spend more time watching Netflix than the rest of cable television combined. So, Netflix is on the verge of being in the same weight class. People talk about Amazon versus Walmart being a huge battle. I think the battle that’s really shaping up to be the celebrity death match of the next decade is Amazon and Netflix.
“I would argue that Whole Foods will be to Amazon what Instagram was to Facebook.”
Knowledge@Wharton: What about the future of movie theaters?
Galloway: I think it’ll be similar to the magazine and newspaper industry in that movie theaters aren’t going to go away, it’s just going to be a difficult place to work or invest. We knew Blockbuster was going out of business, but we thought it was going out of business in 1998, and it took another 14 years. People are still going to go to the movie theater, but your home viewing experience is getting better and better. The original content available in your home is getting better and better. Film will continue to leak consumers’ revenues and talent and capital to television in the home.
Knowledge@Wharton: Do you have concerns about these companies having so much influence over almost everything that we do?
Galloway: Very much so. I believe we engage as a society in what I would refer to as the gross idolatry of youth and innovators. These companies are not subject to the same scrutiny as the rest of business. If the terrorists in San Bernardino, California, had been using a Blackberry, and Blackberry [formerly known as RIM] out of Canada had refused a court order from the FBI to let the FBI get into the phone to see if other terrorist activities were unfolding, I believe we would have had a trade embargo proposed against Canada within 48 hours.
But we’ve decided that the iPhone is the new object of worship. They shouldn’t call it the iPhone X, they should call it the iPhone Cross. We let these companies engage in massive tax avoidance. We don’t hold them responsible as media companies the same way we hold other media companies responsible. I think these companies get the mother of all hall passes. They’re just not subject to the same standard and the scrutiny as the rest of business.