More stories

  • in

    A battle of rickshaw apps shows the promise of India’s digital stack

    IN INDIA’S STARTUP capital of Bangalore, auto-rickshaw drivers are no less prized than software engineers. Given the city’s chaotic traffic, rickshaws are sometimes the fastest way to get around. But finding one isn’t easy. Threats, pleas and moral appeals are necessary before a driver accepts a ride. The experience is no better with Ola and Uber, two ride-hailing firms which offer rickshaw services for a commission. Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More

  • in

    Can a Czech billionaire rescue Casino?

    It is something of a revolution in the country which once deemed yogurt-making to be a strategic industry. For the first time in the history of the fifth republic one of France’s big retail chains will be in foreign hands. Daniel Kretinsky, a Czech tycoon who made his fortune investing in coal and natural gas, is on the verge of taking control of the Casino group, which includes a chain of hypermarkets, as well as Monoprix and Franprix, two other retail chains, and convenience stores.Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More

  • in

    Workplace advice from our agony uncle

    Dear Max, I am an extremely nervous public speaker and I was told long ago that it can help to imagine that my audience is naked. I casually mentioned this piece of advice to another member of staff the other day and have now been reported to HR for inappropriate behaviour. What should I do?Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More

  • in

    The winners and losers from the $69bn Microsoft-Activision mega-deal

    THE GAME is on. Or so ruled an American appeals court on July 14th when it threw out another effort by the Federal Trade Commission to block Microsoft’s $69bn acquisition of Activision Blizzard, a games developer, which a federal judge had cleared three days earlier. A few days later Sony and Microsoft agreed to keep “Call of Duty”, Activision’s hit first-person shooter, on Sony’s PlayStation console, increasing the pressure on Britain’s trustbuster, the last holdout, to approve the merger.Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More

  • in

    Hollywood’s blockbuster strike may become a flop

    Munching popcorn, a crowd of glamorous movie people and somewhat less glamorous journalists gathered in a London cinema on July 13th for the premiere of “Oppenheimer”, a new film from Universal Pictures. As the audience waited for the entrance of the movie’s stars—Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon and others—they were greeted instead by an apologetic Christopher Nolan, the film’s director. His cast had just gone home, he announced. “They’re off writing their signs, to join the picket lines.”The strike called moments earlier by America’s Screen Actors Guild, which coincides with one by the Writers Guild of America that began in May, has detonated a nuclear blast under America’s entertainment industry. The fallout will travel much farther: nine of the ten biggest box-office hits worldwide last year were American-made, and American streaming services now reach into living rooms everywhere. As the stars face off against the studios, the world’s great entertainment machine has ground to a halt.The last time writers and actors went on strike together Ronald Reagan was president—not yet of the United States, but of its actors’ union. The argument then, in 1960, was about television, and how big-screen actors should be compensated when their work was replayed on the small screen. Today’s confrontation is also about new technology.One concern is artificial intelligence. Writers and actors want guarantees that it won’t be used to churn out scripts or clone performers. The bigger argument is over streaming. The “streaming wars” have seen a surge in content spending, as century-old studios compete for subscribers with deep-pocketed new rivals like Apple and Amazon. Worldwide, TV and film companies spent more than $230bn on programming last year, nearly double their expenditure a decade earlier, estimates Ampere Analysis, a research firm. Jobs in American show business are growing about twice as fast as the workforce overall. Some “talent” still feel short-changed. Streamers make generous upfront payments, but they offer a smaller share in their projects’ future success. So whereas an appearance in a flop is much better paid than it was a decade ago, being part of a smash hit no longer means being set up for life. And although the streamers’ output tends to be creatively fulfilling, with more potential for awards than broadcast TV, their shorter seasons make work precarious. Actors and writers want higher minimum wages and a success-based payment when shows are released.On the face of it they are in a strong position. Without writers, the creative pipeline is empty. Without actors, works-in-progress like Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” sequel have been shut down. Even completed films will struggle without stars to promote them. Disney had to rustle up entertainers in Mickey and Minnie costumes to walk the red carpet at the premiere of “Haunted Mansion” on July 15th. The Venice film festival next month will be a lonely affair. The Emmy awards, in September, could be derailed; some wonder if the strike might even last until the Oscars, next March. Unsurprisingly, the striking stars are also proving better at communicating their concerns than the suits in the studios. Fran Drescher, current president of the actors’ union, drew on her years starring as “The Nanny” to scold “disgusting” studio chiefs for their fat salaries. Bob Iger, Disney’s boss, responded with an interview from a Sun Valley getaway known as “billionaires’ summer camp”; around the same time news leaked that he recently commissioned a new yacht.Yet the stars will struggle more than they did when Reagan was in charge. Strikes are less disruptive to TV schedules now that there is no longer a schedule to disrupt. The on-demand era means viewers face a sea of choice on opening their apps; any gaps are less obvious. Streaming has also made Hollywood less reliant on America, both in terms of its audience and in terms of production. Netflix is the most extreme example: more than two-thirds of its 230m subscribers live overseas, and nearly two-thirds of the shows it commissioned in the past 12 months are being made abroad, according to Ampere Analysis. (It may even be happy to shift its viewers’ consumption away from expensive American productions and towards to these lower-cost shows, speculates one sometime rival.)In a world dominated by franchises, actors also wield less economic clout than they used to. Last month Warner Bros replaced its Superman; Sony has fielded multiple Spider-Men (the most recent is animated). As Anthony Mackie, who plays Captain America, has put it: “The evolution of the superhero has meant the death of the movie star.” And as audiences tire of superheroes, studios are finding new franchises. This year’s highest-earning movie so far is Universal’s animated reboot of “Super Mario Bros”.Cut! Cut costs!Above all, the distressed state of the entertainment business means studios are in no shape to increase their outgoings. Big titles like “Indiana Jones” continue to fizzle at the box office, which this year is expected still to be a quarter lower than before the pandemic. The broadcast and cable-TV businesses are in terminal decline. In his Sun Valley interview Mr Iger was frank about their future: “The business model that forms the underpinning of that business, and that has delivered great profits over the years, is definitely broken,” he said. Wall Street has begun to demand that streamers deliver not just growth but profit, causing an almighty rush to trim costs. Even before the strike, projects were being cancelled. Last year Warner Bros canned a completed “Batgirl” film. The industrial action provides helpful cover for more cost-slashing: “A lot of shareholders and executives are happy to clean up their balance-sheets,” says one former streaming executive. The actors are delivering Oscar-worthy performances at the picket lines. This time, they face a tough crowd. ■ More

  • in

    Tesla’s surprising new route to EV domination

    IN 2011 TESLA stated an aim of becoming “the most compelling car company of the 21st century, while accelerating the world’s transition to electric vehicles”. At the time this was easy to dismiss as crackers. In the eight years since its founding in 2003 it had manufactured a piddling 1,650 EVs. Its first big-selling car, the Model S, had yet to hit the road. Today it is almost as mad to argue that Elon Musk, the carmaker’s boss since 2008, has not achieved that goal. His company, a rare insurgent in an industry with formidable barriers to entry, has grown at neck-snapping speed. In the first quarter of 2023 Tesla’s Model Y mini-SUV was the world’s bestselling car. In the second quarter it delivered a total of 466,000 cars, beating analysts’ forecasts (see chart 1). Mr Musk’s promise of 2m sales this year, up from 1.3m in 2022, no longer seems fanciful. On July 15th its first Cybertruck, an angular, retro-futuristic pickup, rolled off the production line. Tesla is about to publicly unveil an expansion plan for its German factory, where it wants to double capacity to 1m vehicles per year. Besides almost single-handedly reimagining the car, Mr Musk has done the same to the car industry. His focus on streamlined manufacturing of only a handful of models has kept costs at bay. Last year Tesla boasted operating margins of 17%; among non-niche carmakers only Porsche, which churns out fewer than 1m cars annually, matched its performance. Mr Musk’s ambition to dominate the auto business—making 20m cars a year by 2030, double the current output of today’s top manufacturer, Toyota, and creating the go-to self-driving system—certainly compels investors, who value Tesla at over $900bn. That is down from more than $1trn in early 2022 but still more than the next nine most valuable carmakers put together. Incumbents are scrambling to electrify their product ranges and to copy Mr Musk’s vertically integrated approach to production, while fending off a wave of EV newcomers, many of them Chinese, all trying to be the next Tesla.Yet the question now is whether Tesla can keep growing as fast and as profitably as it has. On July 19th it is expected to report margins of around 12%, roughly what it eked out in the first three months of the year, as it slashed prices in order to compete with cheaper rivals (see chart 2). Its advantages as a disruptive tech firm with a Silicon Valley mindset are in danger of being eroded. To make even 5m-6m cars a year this decade, a more realistic target than Mr Musk’s goal of 20m, would require “embracing the techniques of legacy auto”, observes Dan Levy of Barclays, a bank. In order to remain a disruptive force, Tesla may, paradoxically, need to become a bit more like the stodgy car business it has disrupted.Off the marqueTesla maintains a lead over its more established rivals in batteries, software and manufacturing productivity, notes Philippe Houchois of Jefferies, an investment bank. But competitors are catching up. In some areas, like marketing and product planning, they have overtaken it, notes Mr Houchois. When it launched the Model S—large and pricey with big batteries and a long range—it had the EV market largely to itself. Nowadays motorists can choose between 500 or so EV models from dozens of marques. Bernstein, a broker, estimates that around 220 new models may be launched this year and another 180 in 2024 (chart 3). For Tesla to grow fast in the face of all this competition will be difficult.Unlike incumbent carmakers’ “something for everybody” approach, Tesla manufactures just five models (if you count the Cybertruck) and relies heavily on two of them. The Model 3, a small saloon, and the Model Y account for 95% of the vehicles Tesla shifts. By comparison, Toyota’s two bestsellers, Corolla and RAV4, make up just 18% of the vehicles sold by the Japanese firm. For Tesla to hit its target of selling a combined 3m-4m Model 3s and Model Ys, each model would need to control 50% of the cars in its class ($40,000-60,000 mass-market cars and $45,000-65,000 SUVs, respectively). According to Bernstein, no carmaker has ever had more than 10% in those two segments. And both models are ageing. The Model Y is three years old and the Model 3 has just turned six, which makes them less desirable in a business where novelty has historically counted for a lot. Carmaking’s rule of thumb to keep sales chugging along is to refresh models every two to four years and redesign them completely every four to seven years. Tesla’s planned “refresh” of the Model 3’s styling and its tech innards this year looks late by industry standards. The company will need to go well beyond its current strategy of offering frequent software updates that improve some of its cars’ features or add new ones. That may have done the trick for its original customer base of early-adopter techies but is unlikely to cut it with the average motorist. One solution is to offer more options for its existing range. Barclays estimates that the Model 3 comes in 180 configurations, compared with 195,000 for a comparable (petrol-powered) BMW 3 Series saloon. But that would introduce the sort of complexity that Mr Musk has hitherto shunned. Another route to higher sales is to launch new models, like the Cybertruck, or a low-cost mass-market vehicle—unofficially called the “Model 2” and with prices starting at $25,000—which Mr Musk has promised to start selling in the next couple of years. But new models come with new challenges. The relevant pickup market, with global sales of 1.3m, according to Bernstein, is relatively modest—and the Cybertruck’s bold styling may limit its appeal. And though low-cost Teslas could expand the company’s market beyond America, China and Europe, they will almost certainly generate lower margins, depressing the company’s overall profitability. Moreover, granting regional ventures greater autonomy to manage regional differences in taste, as established carmakers have long done, again adds complexity and costs. Mr Musk may be unable to avoid other expensive industry practices. One is marketing. In contrast to all other big carmakers, which are thought to spend princely sums on ads, Tesla has depended on word-of-mouth and Mr Musk’s own larger-than-life persona to promote its products. Barclays reckons that eschewing ads and, by selling directly to buyers, bypassing dealers, currently saves the company $2,500-4,000 for every car it sells. As it seeks new customers, and as Mr Musk sullies his personal brand with his polarising stewardship of Twitter, his $44bn side-project, Tesla is likely to forgo some of those savings. Mr Musk has conceded as much, saying that, for the first time, his company might “try a little advertising”. Another carmaking staple to which Tesla has belatedly come around is price cuts. Mr Musk had pledged never to offer discounts or allow inventory to build up. His company has lately done both. Production exceeded sales in the past five quarters. After growing at an average annual rate of 60% for years, quarterly sales volumes expanded by an average of only 30-40% between the second quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023. To shift more vehicles Mr Musk began slashing prices late last year, by up to 25% on some models. Sales duly ballooned, by more than 80% in the second quarter, compared with a year ago. The flipside was that margins duly contracted. Investors have tolerated Mr Musk’s price cuts more than in the case of his rivals: on July 17th Ford’s share price fell by 6% after the Detroit giant announced hefty discounts on its F-150 pickup. But they may not stay so forgiving for ever.As its various costs rise, Tesla will try to keep cutting them elsewhere, notably in manufacturing. In March it unveiled what it called the “unboxed process”, designed to make cars “significantly simpler and more affordable” by streamlining or even eliminating stages of the production process. It is unclear what exactly he has in mind. Despite his record of engineering ingenuity, at least one previous attempt to up-end car manufacturing, by replacing people with robots for the Model 3, led to what Mr Musk himself described as “production hell” and near-bankruptcy in 2018. Mr Musk’s last new challenge—another one he shares with incumbent Western carmakers—is China. Tesla, which makes more than half its cars at its factory in Shanghai, no longer seems to hold its privileged position in the country. It was allowed to set up without the Chinese joint-venture partner required of other foreign carmakers, at a time when China needed Mr Musk to supply EVs for Chinese motorists and, importantly, to encourage the country’s own EV industry to raise its game. That has worked too well. Tesla is thought to have sold 155,000 cars in China in the second quarter, 13% more than in the previous three months. But China Merchants Bank International Securities, an investment firm, reckons its market share may have slipped below 14%, from 16% in the preceding quarter, as buyers switched to fast-improving home-grown brands. In a sign that Tesla now needs China more than China needs Tesla, the company was obliged to sign a pledge on July 6th with other car firms to stop its price war and compete fairly in line with “core socialist values”. Tu Le of Sino Auto Insights, a consultancy, recounts rumours that the authorities are pushing back against Tesla’s efforts to increase manufacturing capacity in China. And that is before getting into the increasingly fraught geopolitics of Sino-American commerce.If Tesla is to sell 6m cars a year at an operating margin of 14% by 2030, which Mr Levy of Barclays thinks possible, it probably needs to avoid at least some of these pitfalls. It would be foolish to dismiss that eventuality, given Tesla’s knack for confounding sceptics. It could, for example, offset part of the decline in sales growth with new revenue streams, such as recent deals to open its charging network to Ford and General Motors customers. As brands become defined by the digitally intermediated experience of driving rather than the body shell or handling, its superior software—including, one day, self-driving systems—may allow it to keep offering fewer models than its rivals. Mr Le thinks Tesla will mitigate the China risk by manufacturing more of its cars in Germany and other countries, including low-cost ones. Tesla has been by far the most compelling car company of the early 21st century. If it is to hold on to that title, it has its work cut out. ■ More

  • in

    CEO whisperers

    IN A DOCUMENTARY from 2004, “Metallica: Some Kind of Monster”, members of the titular heavy-metal band hire a “performance-enhancement coach” to help them resolve their disagreements. The musicians cannot stand him and end up bonding over their decision to get rid of him. When an ex-banker, after years of working at Lehman Brothers and UBS, hired a coach to discuss his next steps, the nugget of wisdom he acquired in the course of half a dozen 40-minute sessions setting him back almost $8,000 was that he should seek a role where he would be “paid for his experience”. It is tempting to paint executive coaching as one more status symbol inflating a sense of high-powered managers’ already-ample sense of self-importance. Yet the practice—which combines management advice with therapy—does not have to be an expensive exercise in platitudes. Few executives remain static in their careers, and many need guidance at moments of transition, when relying on an internal monologue is not enough. The covid-19 pandemic, which heightened the anxiety felt by high-performers, increased the need for skilled coaching. A study from 2019 by Angel Advisors, a professional training service, found that coaching in America is now a $2bn industry—large for what might seem like a niche business. The existence of such demand strongly suggests that professional grooming has its uses.Many executives, especially CEOs, find it difficult to discuss the challenges they face. Hierarchy makes it tricky to share problems with employees as it can undermine the boss’s authority. At the same time, confidentiality forbids executives from discussing company problems with random outsiders. Robert Pickering, former boss of Cazenove, an investment bank since swallowed by JPMorgan Chase, wrote about his experience in his memoir, “Blue Blood”. “Running a firm is largely command and control, and there are very few insiders with whom you can share gripes and frustrations,” he explains. Working with a coach helped him develop coping strategies, as well as command the boardroom. Coaches can understand the executive mindset better if they were once executives themselves. Herminia Ibarra of London Business School notes that many professionals with industry expertise and people skills eventually tire of operational roles. Some find coaching to be a meaningful second act. Take Ana Lueneburger, who left the corporate world to coach company founders and the C-suite. Her approach, outlined in “Unfiltered: The CEO and the Coach”, a book she co-wrote with one of her clients, focuses on maximising strengths rather than fixing weaknesses. Your columnist, a guest Bartleby, decided to consider her own game plan by going to a private club in Mayfair for an ad hoc coaching session with Ms Lueneburger. Preparation consisted of filling extensive questionnaires, including the Hogan Leadership Forecast (a psychometric assessment of “derailers and personality-based performance risks”, since you ask).The coach customarily asks the client to describe impediments to happiness and development (from difficult peer relationships and a tough inner critic to withered motivation and drive). Given the time constraints, Bartleby discussed a personal issue which troubles her at work. Two hours sipping tea and sparkling water passed in a flash and then the session was over. Coaching is not a scientific operation, jargon du jour notwithstanding. But if you strip away all the talk of circling back to 360-degree change from your comfort zone, you do end up with an intuitive, collaborative process, the success of which depends on chemistry between the coach and the client. Ms Lueneburger neither appealed to the siren song of self-care nor merely told Bartleby what she wanted to hear. Instead she shifted the angle of the problem, which is not easy to do unaided for most clients themselves, many of whom operate on autopilot at work and elsewhere. According to the VIA character questionnaire (filled out alongside the Hogan), Bartleby scores poorly in leadership but highly in speaking the truth. With these new credentials, her message is: if you are a member of a C-suite, get yourself a coach. It does not have to revolve around a crisis or a fork in your career path. At its best, it can illuminate snags executives face. The worst that can happen is spending time with a well-meaning, and typically intelligent, interlocutor, who can help consolidate common sense. If you can put the fee on your expense account, what’s not to like?■Read more from Bartleby, our columnist on management and work:How white-collar warriors gear up for the day (Jul 6th)The potential and the plight of the middle manager (Jun 29th)“Scaling People” is a textbook piece of management writing (Jun 22nd)Also: How the Bartleby column got its name More

  • in

    Executive coaching is useful therapy that you can expense

    IN A DOCUMENTARY from 2004, “Metallica: Some Kind of Monster”, members of the titular heavy-metal band hire a “performance-enhancement coach” to help them resolve their disagreements. The musicians cannot stand him and end up bonding over their decision to get rid of him. When an ex-banker, after years of working at Lehman Brothers and UBS, hired a coach to discuss his next steps, the nugget of wisdom he acquired in the course of half a dozen 40-minute sessions setting him back almost $8,000 was that he should seek a role where he would be “paid for his experience”. Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More