At Issue

Knowing when to call it quits and having a back up plan becomes crucial to survival.

by Karen Langhauser, Editor-in-chief, Food Manufacturing

The other day I came across an article online called “Top 25 Biggest Product Flops of All Time.” Not surprisingly, about 2/3 of the “winners” were food-related products. Inevitably, people are going to be extremely picky about what they put into their bodies, which puts the pressure on food manufacturers to really think through their decisions. And yet, no matter how much time and effort is put into product development and branding, sometimes things just go horribly, terribly wrong.

I noticed a few trends that seemed to contribute to product failure.

Number 1: Getting Too Creative

Sometimes, it takes awhile for food processors to find their niches. And even when they do, brand extension is still a risky endeavor. Sometimes, a trusted brand name can carry a product, and other times, its best to stick with what you do best. Number 24 on the list was Cosmo yogurt. In 1999, Cosmopolitan magazine branched into the dairy sector, launching a line of low-fat yogurt and cheese in the UK. Turns out, they should have stuck to writing fashion columns.

Number 2: Brand Amnesia

Successful food manufactures have a clear understanding of what their customers expect and aim to make buying decisions as simple as possible. They know what their brand stands for. A good example of brand amnesia from the Top 25 was Colgate’s line of Kitchen Entrees. 'Cause we all know nothing makes you want to dig into your chicken and mashed potato dinner like the thought of that minty fresh taste in your mouth.

Number 3: Forgetting Your Audience

Every food manufacturer has a customer demographic. Catering to needs and desires of these customers is pivotal to sales. Change is not always welcome. Take number 4 on the list: The McDonald’s Arch Deluxe. This burger was invented in 1996 to appeal to sophisticated diners — adults who wanted a unique tasting, classy burger option. You can imagine how well this went over with customers who went to McDonald's in search of cheap, greasy cheeseburgers and fries.

And yet, despite all the warning signs and failure-related trends out there, it is estimated that over 80 percent of new products fail. Even the largest, most successful corporations in the world are not immune to failure. Sometimes, even my editorial director and boss, Jeff Reinke, messes up.

At the start of the Yankees/Phillies series, Jeff and I placed a friendly wager on the final outcome. If the Phillies won the series, I had to spend the entire day in my office building (as a known Yankees fan) clad in Red Sox gear. If the Yankees won the series, Jeff, who works out of our Madison, Wisconsin office, had to attend happy hour at a local bar wearing a Brett Favre Vikings jersey. We all know how that bet ended, now don’t we?

Although mistakes are always expensive, it is possible for food manufacturers to survive them. This goes beyond just branding issues — plant floor initiatives, new equipment trials, new construction are all areas where chances are taken. Knowing when to call it quits, having a back up plan in place and being willing to suck it up and acknowledge error, however, become crucial to survival.

The moral of the story here is this: Without taking risks, you will seldom see rewards. However, keep in mind that big risks always carry with them the chance that you will get your butt kicked by an angry mob of Packers fans.

How has taking chances paid off for your company? How have you overcome failure? Do you know where I can get a Brett Favre Vikings jersey? Email me: Karen.Langhauser@advantagemedia.com or post your comments below.

A relationship based on mutual trust and loyalty will increase profits and reduce stress.

by Andy Kaiser, Yaskawa

I want to ask you to look at a widely accepted business relationship from a little different perspective. As a decision-maker, you are constantly interfacing with numerous vendors who are requesting your time, attention, consideration, and ultimately, a purchase order.  Eventually, you must make decisions regarding the best possible value regarding equipment and services required to either expand or maintain operations at your facility.

So, is it enough to simply have a satisfactory experience in evaluation, selection, purchase, and installation? What about through the start-up, operation, and maintenance experience? Consider for a moment that your experience goes beyond being just a satisfied customer, to the lofty level of total trust and mutual loyalty. What would this kind of a relationship look like?

A One-Way Relationship

Let’s take these steps of a traditional vendor relationship and examine them closer, with the ultimate destination of total trust and mutual loyalty between you and your vendor. You begin with the evaluation and selection process, where you would expect your specification review would be competent and complete. A quotation would be submitted to you in a clear and concise format, showing all items requested and clarifications or exceptions stated. You and your team evaluate the competitive quotations and, if necessary, a sample unit might be requested to answer some lingering questions.

With that process complete, a purchase order is ultimately issued to the successful vendor. Purchasing issues the purchase order to your selected vendor via their local distributor. During this time you have most likely negotiated and coordinated the installation and start-up of the equipment. Now you watch the calendar and hope the delivery is accurate and on-time, and that start-up will go smoothly so your project can move forward without delay.

That probably sounds like the typical satisfactory process you’ve experienced in the past. But there’s more to be found in the relationship than merely satisfactory collaboration.
 
A Mutual Relationship

Let’s now envision how this would look at a whole different level—a level that you should be able to expect—one of proactive attention, effort, and conversation.

Trust is developed when both parties look toward solving a common problem. A true partnership is tied together with mutual trust, where the evaluation and selection of a solution is determined by simply doing the right thing for the situation. The purchase is made during a relaxed transaction where there is trust that a competitive price is charged for an honest value. Details like installation and start-up are brought up by the vendor and distributor as an integral part of the discussion. If the start -up and operation phases of this effort are not smooth and timely, both parties are concerned, and both focus on solutions to get it right.

Items such as spare parts and peripherals should also be brought up in an effort to achieve ultimate success. This level of trust and loyalty in a partnership continues far beyond an initial purchase into continued operation and sustainability. This includes, but is not limited to, preventative or periodic maintenance tasks. Your factory automation partner should be suggesting ways to improve quality or reduce wear on your production line before an unscheduled shutdown can cause costly downtime. Increased efficiencies are realized and the true life cycle cost of equipment is reduced in these relationships.

This is not a wish. It can and does exist in many relationships in industry today. These relationships are forged over time and experience, where the customer, vendor, and supply chain can become true partners in striving for success. With business becoming increasingly competitive every day, a relationship based on mutual trust and loyalty will increase profits and reduce stress. Don’t you want that in your work day?

Here’s a thought, stop stealing.

by Anna Wells, Editor, IMPO

I have never stolen anything in my life. It’s not something I consider particularly notable, simply because I feel it should be intuitive; a default. I was raised by hard-working parents who themselves were raised by folks who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. I don’t think I could so much as palm a tube of lip gloss without picturing my immigrant great-grandparents in their somber, black and white photos, eeking out a life with their bare hands.

Thus my displeasure in reading a recent CNN report which highlighted a fairly significant increase in retail crimes over the past year—nearly 9 percent, in fact.

I don’t see the value in attempting to gauge the real level of desperation that exists in today’s economy… or, for that matter, the question of moral relativism that presupposes the concept of theft out of necessity. For our practical purposes, my concern lies in the trickle down effect for manufacturers. Additional costs will affect us from both a personal and professional standpoint:

This trend has cost the average American family about $435, says the article. As infuriating as this is, what’s worse is the effects these might have on your production and eventual retail prices. In a B-to-C cost structure, higher prices can often mean lower overall sales, less demand, less production… fewer necessary employees? You get it. This is not to mention the additional packaging and security costs that are required on smaller-sized goods—with the highest of retail thefts including easily re-sold electronic items such as Wiis, iPods, GPS systems, etc.

I don’t know how this situation can be remedied (other than the highly unlikely universal pact that we all agree to stop stealing), but do the current economic conditions and their associated consumer reactions simply nurture an environment where manufacturers and distributors’ hands are tied?

From another, not unrelated angle—theft is certainly not the only change we’ve seen from a consumer standpoint; people are simply buying less. Remaining competitive has been a particularly poignant struggle as of late, and it has been reflected in some aggressive and creative strategies from manufacturers who refuse to lie down and take it.

That said, I have a million questions:

Is making your product indispensible to the consumer best done with a greater focus on R&D and design enhancements, or is the onus on a strong marketing strategy?

For those of you manufacturing to a consumer marketplace: Have you been affected by an uptick in retail crime?

From a sheer competitive standpoint: How have you reached out to the consumer?

I’d also be interested in hearing from you on ways in which this tough economy has made people better, rather than worse. There’s a lot of good out there, and it’s unfortunate that much of the news exposure has to come in the way of reports on which grocery items get lifted the most (processed meats and cheeses, says CNN).

If you’d like to steal a brief moment to reflect upon some hard-working, altruistic folks in America, check out this video on a boss who donates a kidney to an employee: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/11/11/manager.donates.kidney.wfmz

I found it to be nice reminder that some folks still give more than they take.

What do you think about the increase in retail theft? Or, what are you doing to remain competitive? Send me your thought on those questions, and for the others, at anna.wells@advantagemedia.com.

I like to think that I’m pretty shrewd when it comes to marketing schemes and statistics being twisted.

by Carrie Ellis, Editor, Chem.Info

There aren’t many feelings worse than that of being duped, especially if you have an elevated estimation of your own intellectual powers. (I tested at 29 on my ACT exam, I swear.) Most of the time, I like to think that I’m pretty shrewd when it comes to marketing schemes and statistics being twisted by the most keen of spin doctors, distinctly because as an editor — trust me — I’ve seen it all.

However, in light of all the new greenwashing PR gracing my inbox, the social media, and the trade and popular consumer media at large, I feel as if things are getting greener, albeit the actual environmental benefits are hazier — at times, maybe even pseudo-green. I fell victim to one such case.

Not long ago, I received a hurried voicemail in regard to some research I’d been conducting on environmentally friendly plastic and resin alternatives. Turns out, one of the self-professed pro-environmental plastics experts I interviewed not necessarily lied, but rather thrust his products into a rose-colored spectrum of ambiguity and/or ambivalence, using language that would be particularly vexing for someone who’s not familiar with the topic at hand. (That’d be me.)

Now, I’m not sure if this greenwashing land mine is true of those just like me — those who are unable to stake a claim on the validity of provided facts given the absence of a scientific background — or the population in general, but either way, it has to stop. As individual/commercial consumers turn to green labeling to make purchasing decisions, this problem escalates in importance. How do we make the best decision when ill-informed?

Thankfully, this particular issue was brought to my attention, but in the future, to whom should I turn? Obviously commercial enterprises are not to be trusted on the merits of their own capabilities, nor their marketing cohorts. Should I just remain appalled by the audacity of those looking to contribute a quote here or there for the sake of honest journalism when I find ‘em out? Who knows? But in any case, I should definitely remain suspicious.

Regardless, here’s an abbreviated list of reliable sources, which I unearthed in my quest for finding independent or government-sponsored organizations whom you can trust (for the most part, I think) on environmental issues with verifiable information and sources: 

• Department of Energy.
• Environmental Protection Agency.
• American Society for Testing and Materials.
• Air & Waste Management Association. 
• Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association.
• Institute of Environmental Science & Technology.
• Association of Energy Engineers.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Of course, the only pragmatic way to cool something as hot, as widely varying and as pervasive as false greenwashing is through widespread education from a source that can be safely said to have no vested interests in monetizing that education.

Tell me what you think, if you have a solution (if you deem one necessary), or if you have any other recommendations for valid environmental resources via carrie.ellis@advantagemedia.com or post your comments below.

From repelling guns to Ironman suits, what’s my number one engineering concept?

by Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

Earlier this week, Product Design & Development published a news item regarding the concept of a space elevator, and a $900,000 NASA-prize winning attempt that was able to climb about 3,000 feet of the 22,000-mile distance that would be needed for it to actually arrive at the targeted destination. This struck me as an interesting idea, but one that lives only on the periphery of the real world.

Yesterday, our own Meaghan Ziemba took the concept a step further in expressing her apprehensions about such a mode of transport. This was made even more interesting as many of you offered a real-world examination of trying to accomplish such an other-worldly task with physical components, in lieu of a Star Trek-like “beam me up, Scottie” mechanism.

All the discussion got me thinking about some of the coolest product concepts I’ve seen that simply lack the minor ability for real-world engineering to actually produce them. Thankfully for Meaghan, this is kind of where I see the space elevator right now. The difference is the concepts below have some awesome real-world applications, even if they do prevent me from sneaking on to the trade show floor a couple minutes early.

The following are my top five product concepts and the simple measures that modern engineering needs to solve before they can hit the mainstream:

5. Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz’s evil Kick-inator 5000

For those of you unfamiliar with the arch nemesis of Perry the Platypus, check out the link above. But basically, the evil genius invented a special, mechanized boot that connects at the knee and covers the foot, enabling the wearer to dominate the kick ball scene by launching the ball miles with a single stroke.

Now don’t get me wrong – I held my own on the kick ball field of battle but this would still be pretty awesome for any future engineers who might want to move up the draft board when picking teams at recess. Although I’m sure the lightweight materials and mechatronic components are already available, the primary issue could come from the sensing elements in enabling the user to appropriately time the kick.

What if a leaf or some other debris got in the way of the rolled ball’s trajectory? This could only elevate any kick ball-associated issues and make the user look even worse as they not only miss the pitch, but are now open to criticism about their odd footwear.

4. Ironman suit

Come on, the whole thing is simply awesome and imagine how it would change the face of military operations, airport security and even those esteemed professionals that absolutely refuse to let anyone enter the tradeshow floor one second before the allotted time – regardless of what your badge says or how much you paid to exhibit (okay, maybe that’s my own personal issue). The problem is that even one would cost billions to make, and consume more energy than the national grid can actually support. However, I still think this concept here might be more deserving of that $900K.

3. Batman’s repelling gun

It’s a classic and relatively simple in terms of materials and overall design. My question is how do you maintain the proper pressure in ensuring that the projected grappling hook hits its mark before you do?

I’m assuming the power source is of a replaceable, pneumatic nature, but would new developments in miniaturized hydraulics or fuel cells with electronic controls be a better route in terms of performance and, more importantly, reliability? We know Bruce Wayne has the funds to support either endeavor, so maybe he’s just looking for the right design engineer to take it to the next level.

2. The nanomites from G.I. Joe

If you didn’t see the movie, at least check out the link to these bad boys in action. Miniature robotic parasites that simply consume and destroy whatever they touch. They’re fired like a bullet and can be turned “off” via a specific sound transmission. These are the things that took down the Eiffel Tower in the movie previews and actually allowed me to focus on something other than the Cobra Baroness … for a minute anyway.

Advancements in nanotechnology make the potential for these robots seem feasible, but the mechanized capabilities to go through metal or any other material, regardless of their numbers, won’t be a reality without better and even smaller-scale control functions. Additionally, the ability to wirelessly transmit on high enough frequencies to disable millions of miniature robots is a bit outside the realms of our capabilities right now. But at least you know the deal with nanomites, and knowing is half the battle.

1. Light Saber

Still the champion in my book, and before we get inundated with links associated with actual developments in producing a real light saber, the bottom line is that it’s not ready … yet. Lasers, light, etc. still can’t be harnessed in a controlled manner with an end point that bookends the source and desired end point.

The difference here is that as soon as we do, I don’t care how much it costs, I will have one and there will be a new force in carving the Thanksgiving turkey, starting the grill, lighting a cigar or even making a grilled cheese.

So what’s in your top 5? Post a comment or e-mail me at jeff.reinke@advantagemedia.com

With talks about creating a space elevator and the benefits it could bring, I’m stuck thinking about all the catastrophic possibilities, like floating in a never-ending abyss of space.

by Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

At the latest NASA Centennial Challenge, a Seattle team was awarded $900,000 for their concept robotic machine (LaserMotive) in a competition driven to develop an idea of a space elevator.

Space elevators are envisioned to provide easy access to space without spending the mullah to get there. How you may ask? Carbon nanotubes, which would be used to create a 22,000 mile cable connecting Earth to space. Scientists and engineers swear these tiny molecules are tougher than nails, and a great component for the giant elevator.

Maybe it’s my slight problem with claustrophobia, my extreme fear of heights or my stubbornness to keep things under my control; but I’m a little skeptical. While the idea reaps many benefits (and just looks super cool), especially for science fiction obsessed fans that have the light sabers ready at hand, I’m stuck thinking about all the catastrophic possibilities that could occur if some of the Carbon nanotubes decided to take a break from being extremely robust molecules.

Here’s my thought process:

• The cable breaks and the tiny capsule holding the passengers, drifts uncontrollably into a never-ending abyss of space.
• One of the wheels that attach the capsule to the cable decides to malfunction, and instantly, the passengers are experiencing an ultimate Giant Drop ride seen at the various Six Flags amusement parks in the U.S.
• There have been instances of elevators getting stuck – use your imagination, you should know where I’m going with that; and it would take more than your volunteer firefighters with a crowbar to set you free.
• Massive explosion.
• Oh, and did you catch in the beginning that the cable will be 22,000 miles? That means the capsule will be so many thousands of miles off of the Earth’s surface. Does that not intimidate anybody else? 

Yes, I fly; Yes. I love riding on roller coasters, so I know I am coming across as a huge hypocrite, but did I mention 22,000 miles…in space?

It’s great that Arthur C Clarke’s Fountains of Paradise (a book that popularized the original idea) created inspiration for scientists and engineers to discover a working concept to get everyone that much closer to space, and opened doors for other futuristic technology that could bring everyone closer to the flying cars, transports and laser shooting weapons; however, let me be the first to say, I won’t mind if I’m picked last for the experience.

Call me a coward, a closed-minded disbeliever of futuristic advancements; but I need solid evidence that such technology is safe and doesn’t involve me exploding, falling uncontrollably, or getting sucked into a black hole.

While I’m keeping my feet on the ground, I’m curious to know your thoughts. Post them below or send them to meaghan.ziemba@advantagemedia.com.

All the potential that stands to be discovered outside of our atmosphere shouldn’t have a price tag.

by Joel Hans, Associate Editor, IMPO

A colleague of mine, David Mantey (editor of Product Design and Development), wrote a column a while ago titled, “We Landed On The Moon, Big Deal.” There’s no mincing words here; it’s easy enough to tell what his stance on NASA is.

One of David’s main contentions is that NASA does not, and cannot, invoke the same soaring heroics and national pride it used to back in the moon-landing era, which is a fair assumption. We “young’uns” haven’t been exposed to any singular achievement that rallied our belief in the agency. And he’s right: only the constant threat of explosions gets people riled up and interested.

Admittedly, the angle I was originally going to take when battling David’s anti-NASA sentiment was an examination of how the agency’s innovations affect our daily lives. There’s too many to count, but I’ll throw in satellite dishes (so we can sit around not thinking about how awesome NASA is), fire-retardant suits for firefighters (so we can bash on NASA even after our house burns down), smoke detectors (see previous quip), and invisible braces (so we aren’t embarrassed when talking about how NASA is a waste of taxpayer money).

But NASA was not founded with the hope of designing new technology for American consumers, and that’s certainly not its purpose now. It’s only our luck that we can benefit from NASA’s brilliance.

The problem is that NASA’s mission isn’t particularly tangible. But it is simple: curiosity. In a material- and results-driven society, it’s hard for people to understand why we would spend money on something that might produce a positive benefit. It’s like we need to land on Mars to order to justify spending the money to get to Mars. I’m not sure what happened to our affinity for curiosity and exploration. Ever wondered what’s on the other side of that hill? Well, you go walk and see. On the other side of that big ocean? You build a boat and sail a straight course. What’s the difference?

In his column, David wrote, “We didn’t have media outlets scrutinizing the bottom line 40 years ago. Landing on the moon didn’t have a price tag.” That’s true. But all the potential that stands to be discovered outside of our atmosphere shouldn’t have a price tag, either. Who knows, maybe Mars is covered with groves of delicious Martian apples—we just haven’t found them yet.

But if we’ve fallen so by the wayside that curiosity and exploration are the first victim to the fiscal chopping block, then we’ve got more pressing issues than a generational gap and a youth that’s disinterested in our country’s space program—issues that even extend to those generations who did witness the big deal of man landing on the moon.

Manufacturing has been at America’s base for a long time now, but now I feel as though this base, in addition to the “youth” David and I both represent, have lost their sense of connection to NASA’s purpose. How is NASA any different that one of the countless manufacturers in this country, other than their source of funding? All manufacturers undergo the same processes that our space program does, from R&D to prototyping to a final product. Every company is searching for that holy grail of their industry—NASA is no different.

So why all the NASA hate? Where does the misunderstanding of NASA’s purpose come from? Is it a problem with the youth, or has our space program really become irrelevant to the modern American? Is this, perhaps, the same reason manufacturing as a whole is struggling to recruit a new generation of workers and stay in the public spotlight?

If you ask me, one cannot espouse the importance of American manufacturing while denying NASA a piece of the pie. Especially when that pie might some day be filled with delicious Martian apples.

Think NASA is a waste of money? Or are you like me, patiently waiting for your slice of that Martian apple pie? Send me your thoughts at Joel.Hans@advantagemedia.com or post your comments below.