Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: multinationals

jobs...16865_9.1_000009319445XSmall

I just discovered a surprising statistic.

In the euro zone, judged by hours per week, the Germans are not nearly the hardest workers. Instead Greece, with an average of 42.1 hours is close to the top of the list. By contrast, for 2011, the average German devotes 35.5 hours to a job and the Netherlands, with the lowest time, is 30.5.

Greece????

The reasons that Greeks work long hours relate to where and who. More Greeks are in agriculture where longer hours prevail. Also, in Greece, people tend to work full time or not at all while in Germany there are more part-time opportunities. Finally, more women work in euro zone countries and women tend to work less.

This takes us to a predictable conclusion. Although Germans work less, they are much more productive. A Greek worker generates €20.3 per hour while Germans produce more than double at €42.3. In 2011, at €51.8 an hour, the Irish topped the productivity list and their low corporate tax seemed to be the reason. Attracting multinational firms, they became a magnet for the world’s best technology, technology that boosted Irish productivity to relatively stratospheric levels.

A definition: When we look at productivity, we are comparing  factor inputs-land, labor and capital– to the value of the goods and services they create. More output from less input means a more productive economy. It also means resources are then freed to do other work and produce still more.

Sources and Resources: Many thanks to the Brussels WSJ blog where I first saw the Greek German worker hours/productivity comparison. For up-to-date information and analysis on worker hours and productivity, Eurostats has easily accessible data.

Euro Zone Labor Productivity Per Hour Worked

Legend (euro per hour worked):

  • Lighter yellow: 4.8-10.8
  • Darker yellow: 10.8-20.2
  • Lighter green: 20.2-39.2
  • Dark green: 39.2-46.2
  • Darkest green: 46.2-68.7
  • Gray: No data

Productivity per Hours Worked in the Eurozone

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Chinese Consumers and Fresh Apples

Reporting their 4th quarter earnings yesterday, Coach, the handbag and accessories retailer, disappointed investors when they said that US department store and factory outlet sales had slowed. They did report, though, that sales of their handbags and accessories were up by 60% in China.

Like 2 halves of a whole picture, Coach’s marketing plan for China and the description of the new Chinese consumer ideally fit together. Coach is targeting a Chinese urban consumer who is increasingly affluent and aspirational–precisely what a McKinsey Report on the 2020 Chinese consumer projects.

Here are some of McKinsey’s numbers:

Chinese Urban Households: Disposable Income/Proportion of Urban Population

Household Type:

Annual disposable income

2010

(total of 226 million households)

2020*

(total of 328 million households)

Affluent

(More than $34,000)

2%

6%

Mainstream

($16,000 to $34,000)

6%

51%

Value

($6,000 to $16,000)

82%

36%

Poor

(Less than $6000)

10%

7%

*estimated

 

Coach says that it will have 125 locations in China by the end of FY2013, that sales in China will be up by 33% to $400 million, and that “tier 2 and tier 3″ cities were exceeding their expectations. Meanwhile, McKinsey says that Chinese consumers will be more affluent, more urban, more mobile, more educated, aspirational and older at each stage of life.

With US economic growth “muted” and China’s annual growth rate predicted to be close to 8%, doesn’t it make sense that US multinationals ranging from Starbucks, the Gap and J. Crew to Coach all have China as a part of their competitive strategy?

To compare an analysis of the Chinese consumer and Coach’s business plans, you can read McKinsey’s “Meet the 2020 Chinese Consumer” here and read the transcript of the Coach 4Q 2012 investor call here. Also, this article from Reuters on the Chinese consumer was enlightening.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Decisions Have An Opportunity Cost That Require Tradeoffs

Why do Brazilians drink Coca-Cola?

Our story starts during 1990. Trying to cope with an 80% monthly inflation rate, Brazilian shoppers rushed to supermarkets early in the morning before higher price stickers replaced the old ones. In just one month, a $1 carton of eggs would cost $1.80.

You can imagine what a difference it made when Brazil got its staggering price increases under control. Purchasing power soared, the middle class grew and people bought more soda.

In a paper called, “Grab Them Before They Go Generic,” 2 researchers looked at Brazil’s new spenders. Curious about multinational consumer goods, they wondered whether demand would soar for a famous, heavily advertised brand like Coke as wealth grew in an emerging economy.

The researchers concluded that when the newly affluent started shopping, they had not yet formed a soda buying habit. If they initially bought a generic brand, they stayed with it, even when they could afford more. To get people to form a “premium habit” rather than a “frugal habit,” Coke cut its prices by 20% and according to the researchers, stopped the growth of Brazilian generics.

The paper from these 2 professors, one from Hebrew University and the other from Northwestern, applies far beyond Brazil to China, India, Turkey and Indonesia–to all emerging markets where the middle class is growing. Multinationals, they believe, should recognize the importance of shaping people’s buying habits as they develop.

If you want to listen to more about Brazil’s hyperinflation and how it was controlled, NPR’s Planet Money has a wonderful podcast. And here, The Economist quantifies the growth of the middle class in emerging economies. Finally, econlife looked at how Coca-Cola might have been too late in India for the newly affluent to form a premium habit when they selected Thums Up.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16910_oreo.12.28.11_000016671656XSmall

Everybody in the U.S. knows that eating an Oreo is an experience. You split open the cookie, slowly swallow the filling, and then submerge its chocolate remains in your milk. At Kraft they call it, “Twist. Lick. Dunk.”

When the Oreo team brought their cookie to China in 1996, they expected that familiar enthusiastic response. Instead, sales were tepid. Consumers said the taste was too sweet and no one knew to “twist, lick and dunk.”

Taking a second look at the Chinese cookie eater, Kraft decided to redefine the Oreo experience. They made the cookie less sweet, created a cylindrical/straw-like Oreo that dipped but did not divide, and developed nonwhite fillings. With the new product, they marketed a cheaper package that more people could afford and an ad campaign that introduced the dunk in the milk concept. The result? Kraft is now #1 in China.

Here is an Oreo Wafer Stix ad.

The Economic Lesson

Being a trading nation is about more than shipping products abroad. At first it was the 18th century New England merchants who facilitated trade from home. During the 19th century, businesses like I. M. Singer & Co. (sewing machines) secured foreign patents, sold exclusive selling rights to representatives abroad and established foreign manufacturing facilities. Then, the next step was the foreign subsidiary through which the multinational firm increasingly took on the identity of its home away from home.

And that returns us to the Chinese Oreo.

An Economic Question: Which multinationals produced your Adidas sneakers, your Bic pens and your Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment