The case for strategic account investment
This brings us to a critical question – if strategic accounts may be less profitable for a sup-
plier and impose higher levels of risk on the supplier’s business, then how is it possible to
make a case for increasing dependence on such accounts, and to invest in SAM systems to
further reinforce the dependence of the company on low-profit, high-risk business? There
may be no choice, certainly in the short term, other than to meet the requirements of
dominant customers for special treatment, but to regard this element of the business as
the highest investment priority for the longer term may be questionable. Indeed, the more
rational course might be to find ways of ring-fencing such customers and diverting resources
to develop other, more profitable, parts of the customer portfolio.
SAM strategy also carries the substantial opportunity cost that heavy management focus
on key accounts reduces the attention given to other customers, who in reality offer higher
margins and lower risk. Indeed, there is a significant danger that having invested in SAM
with a customer, even as the account becomes progressively less profitable because of excess
demands, inertia and reluctance to admit failure may easily cause the supplier to cling to
the key account relationship regardless of disappearing margins.
There is a strong, and for some companies urgent, argument that investment priorities
should be reconsidered in many customer relationships, with an emphasis on long-term
profitability and balanced risk exposure, and less on the short-term characteristics of exist-
ing markets. The logic is that if the business model has failed, then the issue becomes one
of searching for and developing a new business model, not persisting with the old model
until commercial failure ensues. The goal is to invest in strength and enhanced future earn-
ings, not to invest in positions of weakness and to maintain the status quo, only to enjoy
progressively reduced earnings.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |