Saturday, April 30, 2016

Photo
Hamdi Ulukaya, founder of Chobani, handed over to his employees stock worth around 10 percent of the company when it is sold or goes public. CreditAlexandra Hootnick for The New York Times
NEW BERLIN, N.Y. — The 2,000 full-time employees of the yogurt company Chobani were handed quite the surprise on Tuesday: an ownership stake that could make some of them millionaires.
Hamdi Ulukaya, the Turkish immigrant who founded Chobani in 2005, told workers at the company’s plant here in upstate New York that he would be giving them shares worth up to 10 percent of the company when it goes public or is sold.
The goal, he said, is to pass along the wealth they have helped build in the decade since the company started. Chobani is now widely considered to be worth several billion dollars.
“I’ve built something I never thought would be such a success, but I cannot think of Chobani being built without all these people,” Mr. Ulukaya said in an interview in his Manhattan office that was granted on the condition that no details of the program would be disclosed before the announcement.
“Now they’ll be working to build the company even more and building their future at the same time,” he said.
Chobani employees received the news on Tuesday morning. Each worker received a white packet; inside was information about how many Chobani shares they were given. The number of shares given to each person is based on tenure, so the longer an employee has been at the company, the bigger the stake.
Two years ago, when Chobani received a loan from TPG Capital, a private equity firm, the company’s value was estimated at $3 billion to $5 billion. At the $3 billion valuation, the average employee payout would be $150,000. The earliest employees, though, will most likely be given many more shares, possibly worth over $1 million.
Rich Lake, lead project manager, was one of the original group of five employees Mr. Ulukaya hired for the plant in New Berlin. Mr. Lake said on Tuesday that he did not expect Chobani shares to change his life much. “I’m not one for living outside my means,” he said.
Rather, he said, the shares are an acknowledgment of what he and the other employees have put into Chobani.
“It’s better than a bonus or a raise,” Mr. Lake said. “It’s the best thing because you’re getting a piece of this thing you helped build.”
Photo
“It’s better than a bonus or a raise,” said Rich Lake, an employee at Chobani. “It’s the best thing because you’re getting a piece of this thing you helped build.” CreditAlexandra Hootnick for The New York Times
The transfer of money by Mr. Ulukaya touches on a hot-button economic issue: the rapidly expanding gap in pay between executives and average workers. The United States has one of the widest pay gaps, and the topic has played a prominent role in this year’s presidential race, particularly among the Democrats.
Some other executives have also taken this issue on themselves. A founder of Gravity Payments, a Seattle-based credit-card payment processing firm,last year promised to pay a minimum wage of $70,000 to his 120-person staff within three years.
The shares given to Chobani employees are coming directly from Mr. Ulukaya. The shares can be sold if the company goes public or is bought by another business, neither of which seems imminent. Employees can hang onto the shares if they leave or retire, or the company will buy them back.
The unusual announcement comes before TPG Capital, whose $750 million loan helped bail out Chobani, can buy a stake in the company. Tension between Mr. Ulukaya and TPG about the direction of the company emerged shortly after the loan deal.
TPG has warrants to buy 20 percent or more of Chobani’s shares, depending on targets set in the original deal it struck. But that percentage would now be calculated from the 90 percent of the remaining shares, after the 10 percent given to the employees, essentially diluting TPG’s potential stake.
TPG declined to comment on Tuesday.
In addition, a year ago Mr. Ulukaya settled a lawsuit with his ex-wife, who had sought a stake in the company. The terms of the settlement were not released.
This sort of transfer of shares to employees is rare in the food industry. In one of the few notable examples, Bob Moore, the founder of Bob’s Red Mill, a grains and cereals company, handed control of the company to its employees in 2010 with the creation of an employee stock ownership program.
Technology start-ups often pay employees partly in shares to help recruit them or to compete in a company’s early days for in-demand workers. Early employees of Google and Facebook became overnight multimillionaires thanks to such compensation.
But unlike many of those tech companies, Mr. Ulukaya is giving his employees a piece of the company after its value is firmly established.
“It’s very uncommon and rare, especially in this industry, for these kinds of programs to be rolled out,” said Jessica Kennedy, a principal at Mercer, the large human resources consulting firm that worked with Chobani on the new program.
Photo
Employees at Chobani’s plant in New Berlin in upstate New York. The company was valued at $3 billion two years ago, which would make the average payout $150,000 in the event of a sale.CreditAlexandra Hootnick for The New York Times
Mr. Ulukaya has played a hands-on role in the company since 2005, when he bought a defunct Kraft yogurt plant here with an $800,000 loan from the Small Business Administration. Two years later, he began selling Greek yogurt, setting off a heated competition in what had been one of the sleepier refrigerated cases in grocery stores.
Chobani pays employees above the minimum wage and offers full-time employees health benefits and other benefits. Early on, Mr. Ulukaya established a 401(k) plan for employees and pushed them to participate.
“I preached and nagged and tried to force them to do it,” he said. “Unfortunately, not all did, and I’ve continued to worry about them in retirement.”
A few years ago, though, the company ran into financial problems after spending almost half a billion dollars to build the largest yogurt processing plant in the world, a one-million-square-foot facility in Idaho. The new plant allowed the company to expand into new products, like a children’s yogurt packed in a tube and tiny cups of dessert-like yogurts.
But the company struggled to get lines up and running smoothly, and public health officials identified mold contamination in some products.
“It was a wake-up call for us,” Mr. Ulukaya said soberly. “It made me realize that I needed to get this right, and so I’m glad it happened.”
The company had to close lines and invest in improving its food safetyregimens. It also took the loan from TPG Capital to help build operations better suited to the billion-dollar business Chobani had become.
In a presentation to investors, though, TPG boasted about how it had waited until the last minute to come to Chobani’s rescue with the loan, thus allowing it to negotiate better terms in a deal that it estimated could increase the company’s value to as much as $7 billion. In addition, rumors circulated that TPG wanted to replace Mr. Ulukaya with a new chief executive, which rankled him.
But in the last year or so, business has rebounded, thanks in large part to new products made at the Idaho plant.
Mr. Ulukaya will still own the vast majority of the company, though his portion will be diluted as well. He said that giving his employees a stake in the company’s success was among the terms he demanded when the deal with TPG was struck.
“To me, there are two kinds of people in this world,” he said on Tuesday. “The people who work at Chobani and the people who don’t.”

Friday, April 29, 2016

Which Omnichannel Retailing Services Need Improvement?

Overall, pick up in-store options are popular among consumers

April 28, 2016 | Retail & Ecommerce

Retailers in North America offer a variety of omnichannel services, like buying items online and picking them up in-store. And while these services are available, many believe there&rsquo s room for improvement, according to December 2015 research.
Omnichannel Retailing Services Offered by Retailers in North America, Dec 2015 (% of respondents)



Boston Retail PartnersManhattan AssociatesAptosDemandwareOmnico and UTC Retail surveyed more than 500 retailers in North America and asked them which omnichannel retailing services they offer.
Some 18% of respondents said they offer buy online and pick up in-store services that are available and working well. Nearly a quarter of retailers, however, said that the buy online and pick up in-store service is available, but needs improvement. Others are not currently offering the service. For example, 20% of retailers surveyed said that buy online and pick up in-store will be available within the year, and 14% of respondents said it will be available in one to three years.
Omnichannel services like accepting returns across channels, inventory visibility across channels and special order from any channel are also offered by retailers. However, many believe there&rsquo s room for improvement there. For example, 16% of retailers said accepting returns across channels is available and working well. Still, almost half (46%) of respondents said that while the service is available, it needs improvement.
Additionally, while 48% of retailers said that inventory visibility across channels is available and offered, it needs improvement as well.
Buy Online/Pick Up In-Store Share of US Retail Ecommerce Sales, 2015 (% of total retail ecommerce sales)
Generally, pick up in-store options are gaining traction, especially among consumers. Research from King Retail Solutions revealed that more internet users across nearly all demographics like to purchase products digitally and pick them up in-store compared to a year ago.
And a separate survey from Slice Intelligence found that in-store pickups account for significant ecommerce sales. Indeed, buy online and pick up in-store sales made up almost a third of Sam&rsquo s Club total ecommerce sales in 2015. This purchasing option also made up 22.6% of Kmart&rsquo s total retail ecommerce sales.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

ROBOTS READY TO REVOLUTIONIZE RETAIL 

Gary Hawkins

image

A key message I have been focused on driving across the industry is that technology-fueled innovation is transforming retail at an increasing pace. The corollary to this is that innovation moves from ‘isn’t that interesting’ to widespread adoption much faster than the vast majority of people in the industry are aware of. Nowhere is this more true than with robotics.
Robotic innovation is poised to transform and disrupt retail from several directions - and that’s just based on what is happening today. We’re seeing companies creating self-navigating robots that cruise store aisles to constantly monitor merchandising, alerting store personnel to out-of-stocks, misplaced products, and other issues. Other companies are aggressively testing and conducting real-world pilots of delivery robots for use in cities and neighborhoods. Yet other companies are developing robots to serve customers in restaurants and to use in manufacturing. The day a self-driving delivery van pulls into your driveway and a robot rolls out to deliver your groceries to your front door is coming soon.
Imagine the use of robots in commissaries and food production, an area that is ripe for the application of this technology. Imagine you step up to a deli counter in the store to order a sandwich for lunch… and a machine actually makes it, wraps it, prices it, and hands it to you. Imagine robots stocking store shelves; not much of a reach when you consider the use of robotics today in distribution centers. And for those readers that are laughing to themselves as they read this thinking it will never happen: Reread the first paragraph.
The application of robotics to retail related functions and capabilities is increasing. With it comes a need for those in the industry to consider the implications involved. The ability of a robot to help reduce out of stocks is a no-brainer. The use of robotics to prepare and serve a sandwich may be a positive development in terms of accuracy and consistency but there are issues related to that capability replacing a human in that role. I think we not only as an industry, but also as a society, need to start focusing on and considering the implications of the innovation explosion we are experiencing. Technology advancement and innovation are not going to slow down and it is certainly not going to go away - and I am not suggesting it should. I am suggesting we as an industry should start thinking more about the implications of what is coming at us.

The Driverless Truck is Coming, and It’s Going to Automate Millions of Jobs

Recently, a convoy of self-driving trucks drove across Europe and arrived at the Port of Rotterdam. No technology will automate away more jobs—or drive more economic efficiency—than the driverless truck.
Shipping a full truckload from L.A. to New York costs around $4,500 today, with labor representing 75% of that cost. But those labor savings aren’t the only gains to be had from the adoption of driverless trucks.
Where drivers are restricted by law from driving more than 11 hours per day without taking an 8 hour break, a driverless truck can drive nearly 24 hours per day. That means the technology would effectively double the output of the U.S. transportation network at 25% of the cost.
And the savings become even more significant when you account for fuel efficiency gains. The optimal cruising speed from a fuel efficiency standpoint is around 45 miles per hour, whereas truckers who are paid by the mile will drive much faster. Further fuel efficiencies will be had as the self-driving fleets adopt platooning technologies like those from Peleton Technology, allowing trucks to draft behind one another in highway trains.
Trucking represents a considerable portion of the cost of all the goods we buy, so consumers everywhere will experience this change as lower prices and higher standards of living.
In addition, once the technology is mature enough to be rolled out commercially we will also enjoy considerable safety benefits. This year alone more people will be killed in traffic accidents involving trucks than in all domestic airline crashes in the last 45 years combined. At the same time, more truck drivers were killed on the job, 835, than workers in any other occupation in the U.S.
Even putting aside the direct safety risks, truck driving is a grueling job that young people don’t really want to do. The average age of a commercial driver is 55 and rising every year, with projected driver shortages that will create yet more incentive to adopt driverless technology in the years to come .
While the efficiency gains are real—too real to pass up—the technology will have tremendous adverse effects as well. There are currently over 1.6 million Americans working as truck drivers, making it the most common job in 29 states.
The loss of jobs representing 1% of the U.S. workforce will be a devastating blow to the economy. And the adverse consequences won’t end there. Gas stations, highway diners, rest stops, motels, and other businesses catering to drivers will struggle to survive without them.
Last week’s demonstration in Europe shows that driverless trucking is right around the corner.  The primary remaining barriers are regulatory. We still need to create on- and off-ramps so that human drivers can bringtrucks to the freeways where highway autopilot can take over. We may also need dedicated lanes as slow-moving driverless trucks could be a hazard for drivers. These are big projects that can only be done with the active support of government. However, regulators will be understandably reluctant to allow technology with the potential eliminate so many jobs.
Yet the benefits from adopting it will be so huge that we can’t simply outlaw it. A 400% price-performance improvement in ground transportation networks will represent an incredible boost to human well-being. Where would we be if we had banned mechanized agriculture on the grounds that most Americans worked in farming when tractors and harvesters were introduced in the early 20th century?

One Regulation Is Painless. A Million of Them Hurt.

868

“In one year,” wrote Warren Meyer in 2015, “I literally spent more personal time on compliance with a single regulatory issue -- implementing increasingly detailed and draconian procedures so I could prove to the State of California that my employees were not working over their 30-minute lunch breaks -- than I did thinking about expanding the business or getting new contracts.”
Meyer is the owner of a company that runs campgrounds and other recreational facilities on public lands under contract from the government. It doesn’t seem like regulatory compliance should be eating up so much of his time; he is not producing toxic chemicals, operating a nuclear facility, or engaged in risky financial transactions that might have the side effect of sending our economy into a tailspin. He’s just renting people places to pitch a tent or park an RV, or selling them sundries. Nonetheless, the government keeps piling on the micromanagement lest some employee, somewhere, miss a lunch break.
I know what you’re going to say: Employees should have lunch breaks! My answer is “Yes, but.…” Yes, but putting the government in charge of ensuring that they get them, and forcing companies to document their compliance, has real costs. They add up.
An economy with but one regulation -- employees must be allowed a 30-minute lunch break, and each company has to document that it has been taken -- would probably not find this much of a drag on growth. But multiply those regulations by thousands, by millions, and you start to have a problem.
new working paper from the Mercatus Center attempts to document the cumulative cost of all these regulations. It finds that the growth of regulation between 1977 and 2012 has shaved about 0.8 percent off the rate of growth, costing the nation a total of $4 trillion worth of GDP.
Stories like Meyer’s are the tangible face of the economic theory. As is the fact that in the annual small business survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, taxes and government red tape are far and away the biggest issues that business owners cite as their most important problems. Forty-three percent of those surveyed cited one of the two as their top issue.
That matters, and not just because of business owners’ headaches. The burden of regulation is not distributed symmetrically. It falls heaviest on firms that deal with dangerous substances, yes. But it also falls most heavily on smaller businesses, which cannot afford staffs of pricey compliance specialists to make sure that their desk chairs meet the new California workplace seating requirements. This may help explain why the number of firms is falling, and markets are consolidating.
Even within those businesses, the burden will tend to be disproportionately concentrated. Employment conditions are heavily regulated, so firms that employ a lot of workers to get a given level of output will have more regulatory overhead. And firms that employ a lot of low-wage labor get hit from every direction: Businesses like fast food and retail tend to have thin profit margins, so they don’t have a lot of room to absorb the extra cost, and they also can’t really cut wages to reflect the higher cost of labor, because they’re already operating at or close to the statutory minimums. A consulting firm that has five employees, on the other hand, will probably have a higher compliance cost per employee, but also much more room in pricing and profit margins to absorb that cost.
How much does this matter? Well, if you want to camp at Meyer’s rec sites, but can’t afford to pay Hilton prices to do so, it probably matters to you a lot. But it also matters to the rest of us, because when you add that burden up, it potentially has big effects:
  1. Regulations can knock the lowest-skilled workers out of the labor force, at which point they’ll struggle to get a better job. It’s fashionable to say that these are terrible jobs anyway: hard labor and they don’t pay enough, so who cares? But those jobs are where people learn the basics of work: showing up on time, being nice to the customer, attending to every detail, and so forth. The regulatory burden is effectively a cost wedge between the amount you pay your worker, and the amount it costs you to employ them; the bigger that wedge, the more likely it is that some people simply won’t be able to find employment. The result is a great human capital loss to the economy, and the devastation of unemployment.
  2. Small businesses are vital to the economy. They’re sort of like the engine oil that lubricates the economy, because a lot of things aren’t profitable at a larger scale. For example, a few years back, I interviewed the owner of a wire basket maker in Baltimore, who was making racks for a car manufacturer to store their parts in on the assembly line. These were a cog in a great industrial enterprise, but he was turning them out in tiny batches -- six at a time, or a dozen. That sort of job simply wouldn’t be profitable for a major manufacturer, because the cost of retooling a big assembly line, and the bureaucratic controls needed to run a large firm, would eat all the profit margin. An owner-operator of a smaller business has a lot more flexibility, and the cushion provided by that flexibility is absolutely necessary.
  3. Regulations can make it unprofitable for small businesses to grow. Let’s say your firm has room to scale, and might even become a big business someday. That’s great! But now we run into the problem of small business carveouts. A lot of laws, including Obamacare, have them, so that politicians can claim their policy won’t affect small firms. The problem is that when you hit one of the thresholds, there is an absurdly high marginal cost to hiring the next employee, or taking in the next dollar of revenue. That can retard growth, which is not something the U.S. can currently spare
All of these costs have to be carefully weighed against the benefits of regulations -- and not just on a regulation-by-regulation basis, as is currently done, if such cost-benefit analysis is done at all. Each hour of a firm’s time that is sucked up by compliance is an hour that is not spent growing the firm, improving the product, better serving the customer. And as the number of the hours so spent increases, and the number of precious hours spent on growth and operations shrinks, each added hour we take is more costly to both the business and to the rest of us. With labor markets lackluster and growth underwhelming, that’s a cost that none of us can well afford.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Once Bustling Trade Ports in Asia and Europe Lose Steam

From Shanghai to Hamburg, container-shipping industry is gripped by economic undertow


Empty storage racks at a Shanghai warehouse last year. Once bustling trade routes and ports are falling quiet as the flow of goods slows between Asia and Europe.ENLARGE
Empty storage racks at a Shanghai warehouse last year. Once bustling trade routes and ports are falling quiet as the flow of goods slows between Asia and Europe.PHOTO: JOHANNES EISELE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
At a logistics park bordering Shanghai’s port last month, the only goods stored in a three-story warehouse were high-end jeans, T-shirts and jackets imported from the U.K. and Hong Kong, most of which had sat there for nearly two years.
Business at the 108,000-square-foot floor warehouse dwindled at the end of 2015 after several Chinese wine importers pulled out, said Yang Ying, the warehouse keeper, leaving lots of empty space. The final blow came after a merchant turned away a shipment in December at the dock.
“The client told the ship hands, just take the wine back to France,” Ms. Yang said. “Nobody wants it.”
Pain is increasing among the world’s biggest ports—from Shanghai to Hamburg—amid weaker growth in global trade and a calamitous end to a global commodities boom. Overall trade rose just 2.8% in 2015, according to the World Trade Organization, the fourth consecutive year below 3% growth and historically weak compared with global economic expansion.
The ancient business of ship-borne trade has been whipsawed, first by a boom that demanded more and bigger vessels, and more recently by an abrupt slowing. That turnabout has roiled the container-shipping industry, which transports more than 95% of the world’s goods, from clothes and shoes to car parts, electronic and handbags. It has set off a frenzy of consolidation and costs cutting across the world’s fleets.
On Friday, the Hong Kong Marine Department reported throughput for its port in the first quarter was off 11% from the first three months of last year. Throughput for all of 2015 also dropped 11%.Ashore, it is also slamming ports and port operators, the linchpin to global commerce. Nowhere is the carnage more painful than along the Europe-Asia trade route, measuring roughly 28,000 miles round trip. A cooling Chinese economy and a high-profile crackdown by Beijing on corruption has damped demand for everything from commodities like iron ore to designer scarves and shoes. Meanwhile, Europe’s still sputtering recovery from the global economic crisis is hitting the flow of goods in the other direction.
“It is the first time you see people in shipping being really scared,” said Basil Karatzas, of New York-based Karatzas Marine Advisors and Co.
Chinese imports from the European Union fell nearly 14% in 2015. Chinese exports to Europe were down 3%. This year isn’t starting any better. In the first quarter, Chinese imports from the EU fell 7% from a year earlier, a decline matched by exports to Europe.
Jonathan Roach, a container-shipping analyst at London-based Braemar-ACM Shipbroking, said some 100 Asia-to-Europe sailings were canceled last year, or 10% of regularly scheduled voyages on the route.
“Drastic fleet management strategies have been implemented by liner operators to reduce their exposure on oversupplied Asia-Europe trades,” Mr. Roach said.
ENLARGE
Last November, Maersk Line, the world’s biggest container operator, said it would lay off 4,000 employees and pushed back new ship orders to weather collapsing freight rates. In Asia, South Korean shippersHyundai Merchant Marine andHanjin Shipping Co. are in talks with creditor Korea Development Bank to restructure debts.
There are many reasons for the global slowdown, including a yearslong commodities-price rout, generally slower growth in Asia and an anemic recovery in much of Europe. Economic and political crises have roiled big markets, including Russia, Ukraine and Brazil. And policy makers blame a dearth of big trade deals, like Nafta, which have spurred big global trade gains in the past.
Not everyone is suffering. U.S. ports from Los Angeles to New York are pursuing expansions in anticipation of higher volumes, thanks to a relatively robust American economy. But even in those ports, retailers are sitting on large amounts of unsold goods, and could cut back on ordering more from overseas if inventories don’t come down.
At the biggest ports in Asia and Europe, there are few signs of a near-term rebound. Last year, Shanghai International Port (Group) Co., China’s top port, handled more containers, but total cargo fell to 513 million tons, down 5% from 2014. Through March this year, volumes were down 4% from the year-earlier period.
Willy Lin, chairman of the Hong Kong Shippers’ Council, said car parts imported from Europe and assembled in China fell by at least 13% by volume in 2015. Shipments of luxury goods, including high-end clothes, shoes and apparel, from Europe were down around 15% last year.
“It is 30% fewer boxes coming in and around 10% [fewer] going out” of Chinese ports, Mr. Lin said.
The pain is just as bad in Europe. A recent study by the European Shippers’ Council, which represents around 25,000 exporters and importers, found a 12% decrease in Northern European port calls by all shipping lines between the second half of 2014 and the second half of last year. The study showed a doubling of skipped port calls between Europe and Asia over the same period.
You can see it at the docks, which at times are empty.
Fernanda Van Opstal, APM Terminals
At the Belgian port of Zeebrugge, a major European transshipment hub for container ships and dry-bulk vessels, cargo volumes have dropped to less than half over the past 15 months.
“You can see it at the docks, which at times are empty,” said Fernanda Van Opstal, a sales manager in Zeebrugge for port operator APM Terminals, owned by Danish shipping giant A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S.
Ms. Van Opstal said exports to China, including timber, fertilizers, metal and plastic scrap, and heavy machinery, continue, but volumes over the past year are down by up to 30% in most categories. So-called “Triple E” vessels, the world’s largest container-carrying ships, are coming and going less frequently, and often less than full.
In Hamburg, Europe’s third-busiest port behind Rotterdam and Antwerp, container traffic with China fell last year to its lowest since 2009. Klaus-Dieter Peters, chief executive of Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG, which runs three out of the four container terminals in Hamburg, blames China’s slowing economy and the crises in Russia and Ukraine.
Cranes at the Yangshan Port Container Terminal in Shanghai late last year. ENLARGE
Cranes at the Yangshan Port Container Terminal in Shanghai late last year. PHOTO: DING TING/XINHUA/ZUMA PRESS
“The challenging environment…was felt particularly in seaborne container handling,” he said. HHLA’s container throughput fell 13% in 2015.
At the Zhanghuabang Terminal in Shanghai, near the mouth of the Yangtze River, roads are lined with idle trucks, with chain-smoking drivers waiting for loads. Inside the terminal on a recent afternoon, 45-year-old driver Sun Shihong was helping other workers unload half-ton, U-shaped coil units made by Shanghai Electric Group for use at power plants
In 2010, Mr. Sun said the company was using more than 40 trucks, each of which made the run between the factory and the port three times a day.
“I earned 12,000 yuan (about $1,850) a month three years ago,” he said. “And now, 6,000 yuan to 7,000 yuan.”