April 19, 2024

You’re the Boss: The Sweet Spot of Business Growth

Thinking Entrepreneur

The growth of business revenue can be steady or sporadic, and it can also reverse itself and go down. Even more complicated is profit, which does not always stay on speaking terms with revenue. Even when sales can go up, profit can go south. The reverse can also happen, which may seem counterintuitive. Let me explain.

Let’s start with bad growth, where sales go up and profits go down. This is easier to accomplish than you might think. Suppose you give your sales manager a new bonus plan — he gets 1 percent of sales, and he has full control of your pricing and discounting. He lands some big deals by discounting heavily. Sales go up a million dollars, but your expenses go up, too, and your profit shrinks. And the sales manager gets a $20,000 bonus!

In this scenario, the customers win, the sales manager wins, you lose. This happens all of the time. The answer is to keep an eye on pricing, and if you give a bonus (especially if there is some discretion on discounting) make sure it is based on profits, not sales. All of that might seem obvious, but the next example — where revenue falls but profit rises — is more subtle.

Suppose you are growing quickly, and you are starting to outgrow your infrastructure. That means you might need more space, more trucks, more computers, more equipment, or maybe a big time chief financial officer. This all costs money, and in many cases you can’t just buy as much as you need for the moment. You can’t buy half of a forklift or half of a new computer system. You have to plan ahead and buy more than you need with the idea of growing into it.

For instance, suppose you are growing at 15 percent a year, and you have a 10,000-square-foot building that’s getting tight. If you move into a 15,000-square-foot building, you will probably outgrow it in three years (assuming you continue to grow at the same rate). Understanding that moving expenses are substantial, you instead move into a 20,000 square-foot building under the theory that it should suffice for five years or more (assuming your growth will slow down eventually).

But here’s what happens: the year after you move in, you only do 15 percent more business but have 100 percent more rent plus some serious moving expenses. Surprise! You make less profit the year after the expansion, not more. Maybe the second year you get back to where you were, and in the third you make more profit. In the fourth and fifth years you make much more profit. Times are good, but now it’s time to move again. The cycle starts all over. Those years when you are nearing full capacity are what I call the sweet spot of making money. Those are the years before you decide to increase your fixed costs again.

If you want to stay in that sweet spot and perhaps make it even sweeter, there are other options. Rather than expanding your infrastructure, for example, you could eliminate poor-performing product lines to free up space and resources. Or you could just raise prices, which will slow down growth — if not eliminate it — but give you a better bottom line. That can be a better solution than spending the money to expand, especially if you would have to borrow the money.

There are many factors that might make you think twice before you start investing money to take the business to “the next level.” It could be the number of employees you are comfortable managing, the amount of inventory you want to carry, the amount of real estate you want to be responsible for, how much debt you want to take on, or how much you want to increase the size of your “nut.” With the recent volatility in business, there are plenty of business owners who wish they had kept their businesses smaller and more manageable.

There is another factor. As business owners get older, their needs and perspectives change. There is a price to pay for growing your business bigger and bigger. Some people get to a point where they conclude that they need more money less than they need more stress.

On the other hand, there are many people who need to keep growing because it is what they do. They wouldn’t have it any other way. You read about them in the newspaper everyday. Some of them are fabulously wealthy, some are going broke, some are very happy, and some are miserable. Some are suing or being sued by family members.

The sweet spot of making money could be where you have the biggest return on investment, or it could be where you are making enough money to live well (whatever that means to you), or it could be where you have no loans, no bad partners, no bad landlords and — as a result — very little stress.

Now, that’s sweet.

Jay Goltz owns five small businesses in Chicago.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f754ca08ddcc56e253b2e6ff7bb71e77

BlackBerry Maker Cuts Its Forecast

That defense is not looking so solid. RIM, the maker of BlackBerry phones, lowered its profit forecast for the current quarter by 11 percent on Thursday, sending its stock down more than 10 percent in after-hours trading.

The announcement followed a less-than-positive reception for the company’s first tablet, the BlackBerry PlayBook, which was released this month and was meant to be an answer to Apple’s popular iPad. Critics found that while the device had merits, it was shipped without several important features and was troubled by minor software problems, suggesting that it was a rushed job.

During a conference call with analysts, Jim Balsillie, the co-chief executive of RIM, said PlayBook sales were within the company’s expectations, but he did not provide any specific figures.

Mr. Balsillie attributed the earnings downgrade to a problem that was the opposite of the PlayBook’s: delays in introducing new BlackBerry phones. While the company said sales of lower-margin, less costly BlackBerry phones remained strong, sales and shipments of its more profitable flagship models were swiftly declining in the United States and Latin America.

Mr. Balsillie said that next week the company would unveil a variety of new phones at its annual trade show that would allow it regain market share against the iPhone and phones running Google’s Android software in the high end of the market.

“The entry-level products do a fine job for us,” Mr. Balsillie said. “But we also need these higher-end, newer products and we need them in the market.”

RIM, which is based in Waterloo, Ontario, said it expected to post diluted earnings of $1.30 to $1.37 a share when the quarter comes to a close at the end of May. Late in March, it forecast profits of $1.47 to $1.55 a share.

Shaw Wu, an analyst with Sterne Agee in San Francisco, said RIM’s sales in the United States had fallen for five consecutive quarters. Growth in overseas markets and in Canada, he said, had been offsetting that trend.

“Now we’re concerned that the international growth will start to slow,” Mr. Wu said.

At one point Mr. Balsillie gently mocked critics who found the PlayBook to not be “all polished” and argued that no one had disputed the potential capabilities of the device.

The PlayBook introduced a new operating system for RIM that allowed it to make devices with features similar to those found on the iPhone and iPad while also supporting Adobe Flash, software which is widely used for video on the Web but is not supported by Apple’s mobile products.

RIM plans to use that operating system in its new phones, something which Mr. Balsillie suggested was a factor in the delays.

Mr. Wu said that while he expected RIM to again offer competitive products, re-establishing the company’s former prominence in the smartphone market would be difficult and take time.

“When you do a transition like this, it creates hiccups,” he said.

Shares of RIM rose 1.8 percent to close at $56.59 in regular trading. In after-hours trading, it dropped as low as $50.21.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f8228078cff5059b123011f7c1857c76

You’re the Boss: Should I Give My Employees a Bonus

Staying Alive

Thanks again to all who took time to comment on my three problems. Last week, I further addressed the issue of whether I should toss my aging servers and move my data to the cloud and the issue of whether I should buy a building or continue renting. And now, finally, the employee bonus versus investing in the company question.

What I asked: Should I spend $20,000 investing in new machinery or rewarding my workers with an unexpected bonus?

Consensus advice: Buy the machine — but if I want to reward the workers, do it with a gift of some sort instead of with cash.

My thoughts: I agree that the sensible thing to do is to buy the machine: It’s a great deal and will lead to enhanced productivity and future profits. I can’t explain why I felt I should give out a bonus.

The desire to shower riches on my people is an impulse that I have consistently felt in all of my years as a boss. Is this some defect peculiar to me, or is it behavior left over from prehistory, when tribal chiefs were expected to spread the wealth around? Whichever, I know it is a dangerous proclivity. So I’m glad I asked the question, because my readers were unanimous (has that ever happened before?). I received a wide variety of suggestions for modest thank-you gifts that would communicate my gratitude at a much lower cost than $20,000. Good advice!

There seemed to be some disagreement as to whether a surprise bonus should be cash or some kind of gift. I know which I’d want: cash. Personally, I hate shopping for gifts, so maybe that’s why I prefer to get and give money. Quite a few people suggested tickets to sporting events. But is giving my money to the local sports millionaires a better idea then letting my workers choose how they would like to use their bonus?

As business improves, and our cash position becomes more comfortable, I have been mulling whether to give raises. My employees are still making about 10 percent less than they were in 2008 (the ones still with me, anyway). I know that a few of them feel bad about that. But were the 2008 wages appropriate then, and are they appropriate now?

I was losing money then, and I’m making it now. I believe that the adjustment in my costs was very important in keeping the company alive. Nevertheless, if you have never looked employees in the eye and cut their pay, challenging them to take it or quit, you might find my desire to be generous hard to understand. There are aspects of the boss-employee relationship that reveal a naked power imbalance. Some people might revel in the power, but I find it distasteful. (Firing people is another power that is quite distressing to exercise.) Maybe I wanted to give that bonus as a kind of apology for the pain I put them through. Not that I had any choice and not that I would do it differently if we hit hard times again.

I don’t want to give out pay raises as a matter of course. I think I’m paying people more than they could get in any other local shops. No one has left for another job; no one has asked for a raise. But I would like to hold out the possibility of more pay. I’d want a raise to be explicitly tied to increased productivity, and in particular to the efforts of the workers to improve operations. For example, when I bought a specialized veneer-splicing machine, our productivity went up about 10 percent. I don’t feel that I should reward the workers for that.

The sander is another investment of this type. But if one of my people comes to me and tells me of a better way to glue panels, one that would increase output by 5 percent, that person should be rewarded. I’ve been asking for new ideas at every Monday meeting but have received few suggestions. Maybe a system that explicitly rewarded real increases in output would shake more innovation loose. Or possibly just get people moving faster.

What I did: I bought the sander. Took a quick trip to Utah to take a look at it, and it was everything I was hoping for. It will be here next week. I’m also going to spend more time trying to design a bonus system that creates incentives for the innovation I’m looking for.

Paul Downs founded Paul Downs Cabinetmakers in 1986. It is based outside of Philadelphia.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=55a1e25b1e562ed05ed1325caaca9882