Twenty Third Floor
Technical Business Advantage

The New York Times has a fascinating article about “Why are so many people in their 20s taking so long to grow up?“. It deals with the broader issue of how and when young adults move through phases of adulthood and how this has changed over the last 40 years.

It’s based on US research, so the parallel to South Africa isn’t perfect. On the other hand, it may prove predictive for our population.

A few snippets (it’s a long article, but well worth reading the whole thing):

1. The median age at first marriage in the early 1970s was 21 for women and 23 for men; by 2009 it had climbed to 26 for women and 28 for men
2. Definitions of adulthood vary widely – people can vote at 18, but in some states they don’t age out of foster care until 21. They can join the military at 18, but they can’t drink until 21. They can drive at 16, but they can’t rent a car until 25 without some hefty surcharges. If they are full-time students, the Internal Revenue Service considers them dependents until 24; those without health insurance will soon be able to stay on their parents’ plans even if they’re not in school until age 26, or up to 30 in some states.
3. Definitions of adulthood are clearly not just a function of age. (and so our marketing to them should consider more subtle measures than simply age ~ David Kirk) (more…)

Moneyweb has an interview with Eskom CFO. For me, the point made about the reasons for differences between retail and industrial tariffs is worth highlighting. This is another example of where common perception is off.

(Incidentally, Eskom tariffs are currently 68 cents for residential, 28 cents for big industrial)

From the moneyweb interview:

PAUL O’FLAHERTY: What is one of the myths of this industry is that the key industrial user does subsidise the residential user – that’s a fact. And the reason for it, even though it seems on the tariff that you quoted, that can’t be – it is true because the cost of delivering electricity to someone living out in the sticks is a lot more than delivering it to a transmission station right next to a mine, for example. So there’s a significant cost differential in actually getting electricity out there, and therefore the key industrial users do actually subsidise the residential users.

Interconnect fees and the reasons for their reduction are possibly the most misunderstood “big” news story over the last twelve months.

The hype and hoopla around this topic is fueled by our feelings as consumers of being charged too much big big monopoly companies. So I should start by saying that I’m not saying that we are paying too much. I’m not saying that because I don’t know enough about the costs of providing cellular services in South Africa. Maybe we are, maybe we’re not. Also, I’m not saying there aren’t monopolistic practices in the market – again I simply don’t know. Given the other stories torn from inside companies by the sharp teeth and salivating jaws of the Competition Commission, it’s understandable that many suspect consumer-unfriendly play by most large South African companies, particularly those in industries with a small number of players.

What I am saying is that most of what you read in the news about interconnect is horribly misguided.

The biggest misconception is that interconnect fees are an expense for cellular providers, and that the removal of this expense would allow them to reduce tariffs to consumers. Well, it is an expense, but it is also a source of revenue. Every time one company pays an interconnect fee, another company is receiving it.

Interconnect does not change the total amount of profit within the cellular industry. It may redistribute it a little, and there may be negative medium term competitive implications arising from interconnect, but lower interconnect won’t automatically increase profits that could allow competitive price lowering for the benefit of consumers.

TechCentral has an interesting article: Bain warns consumers not to expect cellular price cuts.  Of course, it also include some done-to-death flawed statements (whether from Bain or inserted by the zealous staff writer) such as:

Because new players have few customers at first, most calls on their networks will be to networks of other operators. High interconnection fees make it difficult for them to enter the market.

It’s not that this statement is incorrect (it is in fact correct) it’s just that it is horribly misleading because it only presents one side of the story. I’ve reworded it to provide the stunning insight: (more…)

After my last post around common misunderstandings of how medical schemes operate,  I saw a Fin24 article on South African medical schemes that are below the required minimum solvency.

What Fin24 readers had to say

Nolulamo Matutu from Fin24 writes:

Acting CEO of the CMA Patrick Matshidze told MPs 18 schemes have fallen below the prescribed solvency ratio of 25%.

Clearly, these 18 schemes cannot pay all the claims we all would like in an ideal world.

However, more interesting to me than the article itself (fairly balanced and factual) were some of the comments written below. Clearly the misconceptions are still strong!

Fed Up had some strong views:

I’d like to see them look at medical aids the other way and see how many of them are making huge profits, some make billions are rands profit which in my opinion is really just ripping people off, medical aids should be non-profit as the less they pay out the more people suffer. Also medical aid is such a bad word, it should be called what it is medical insurance.

I wonder who be the one to break the news that medical aids are non-profit? (more…)

photo credit: richardmasoner

It’s been widely reported that the Competition Commission has been proving an alledged bicycle cartel. Retailers alledgedly agreed to increase prices to improve margins. This is not a strongly competitive market, which makes it quite an attractive market and good margins and profits should be available.

photo credit: shareski

Vodacom  and Cell C have joined MTN in offering discounted calls in a pre-paid price war. The was the result expected from Virgin with their rather unsuccessful foray into our market, with promises of shaking up the industry and cutting prices. I don’t know how much credit they deserve, but this shows that strong competition is brewing in this market.

Cellphone penetration in South Africa is very high by any standard. Thus the market growth from here on out will be moderate. With increasing competition, decreasing margins, limited growth prospects, the significant barriers to entry don’t seem like enough to keep strong returns to this sector.

As an aside, Vodacom  reported increased spend per subscriber on their prepaid book, but more cautious spending on the postpaid or contract base. It will be interesting to see how this develops over time as our market characteristics change.

So, in spite of regular complaints from forum posters (not this website) that cellphone companies (along with banks and motor distributors) aren’t competitive, it seems there is at least some clear evidence of intense competition in the mobile telephone market.

photo credit: pablo/T

Chavez is promising to take over rice processing plants in Venezuela because they have been refusing to sell rice at the price set by government.

Hyperinflation is starting to show it’s head, as a function of government policies around money supply. The article I referenced claimed that that is the reason for supply shortages and queues, although I don’t quite understand the direct link. Chavez’s response is to impose price controls to ensure citizens can purchase staples such as rice at an affordable price.

What, like price restrictions haven’t been analytically and empirically proven to increase shortages? Chavez is just another in a line of South American leaders to draf their countries into poverty and economic malaise. For all his popular support, he will ruin Venezuela.

Moneyweb has an article describing the failure of the South African insurance industry to provide insurance to the wider population, including lower income markets such as the banking sector has done.

There are some interesting points to discuss here, and I’m certainly not saying the industry could not do more. However, there are some fairly fundamental social, pyschological and technical reasons that need to be overcome first. I’ve repeated some comments on the article below. I don’t claim this to be an exhaustive list, but I suggest that it lists some more likely suspects for the causes of imperfect penetration of the insurance market.

Sorry Felicity, but this article doesn’t even get into the details and shows a lack of understanding of the drivers of the need for insurance, and the perceived need for insurance.

Life Insurance
Comparing insurance to banking is disingenuous. Transactional banking makes your life easier, now. Basic savings account can work towards short-term goals. Life insurance will always seem less pressing.

1. Savings products will not work for lower income policyholders through an insurance policy because of the assumed average tax rate of 30%. It is a good deal for welathy investors in high marginal tax brackets, but awful for poor people. This is a function of the tax system not the insurers.
2. Life insurance requires payment of a premium now for a possible future benefit to dependents. There is no way this will ever be a priority need. This is human nature. Even if policies are sold, they will be lapsed very quickly and “better” uses are found for the premiums.
3. Lower income market segments typically have greater reliance on extended family for support. Thus, the need is lower for insurance. This is typical of developing countries, and declines as wealth and education increase (along with smaller families, later first children and less support from the extended family).

4. Funeral insurance may be sold through non-traditional outlets, but it is still exactly life insurance. Just that here the need is better appreciated and understood. Therefore it sells. Or do you want insurers to sell products for which there isn’t a need. (hey, easy on the comments that they already do… I don’t think insurers are angels!)
5. Credit life is required to protect the lenders from the death of the borrower. Again, there is a clear need and this form of insurance is quite widespread. Incidentally, funeral insurance and credit life are, unfortunately, typically quite profitable business lines. This might be a better line of attack against the insurance industry.
6. Insurance in South Africa has remarkably high penetration as measured by insurance premiums as a percentage of GDP and compared to other countries. This shows the succes of the industry, and also explains the limited growth prospects. Life insurance is typically less prevalent than short-term insurance in developing economies – if the problem isn’t restricted to South Africa maybe we should look for broader reasons?

7. I know several insurers who are targeting lower income markets with mixed success. The typical complaint against insurers is that they are overly profit-seeking. If (if!) this is true, then one can’t also complain that they aren’t following up on profitable opportunities? Again, maybe the reason is broader than you’ve implied.

Short-term insurance
Several other commentors have already described valid reasons for why short-term insurance take-up is lower than might be hoped. In many countries, third party liability cover is a legal requirement to drive a vehicle, and with good reason. This is the case in Lebanon, another country where I understand a bit about the insurance industry.

Losses on equity portfolios for our short-term insurers don’t really translate to a requirement to provide insurance to new markets. Maybe it suggests a requirement for less reliance on equity bull markets for performance in good years.

Short-term insurance in South Africa would be considered competitive by most standards. If there were large, profitable, untapped markets out there (with sufficient volumes, limited fraud and low enough claims frequencies and severities to make the premiums affordable to the target market) I expect they would be aggressively pursued. The thing about third party liability cover is that it isn’t greatly a function of the value of your vehicle. That makes it relatively expensive compared with the value of a car typical of a lower income target market. Being insured against someone else’s costs, when you would have no way to pay them otherwise and therefore it would be pointless to be sued, doesn’t sound like a very likely expenditure item.

The expenses of adminstering a policy are also not related to the size of policy or the value of insured property. One can argue whether current efficiency levels are right, but that is a separate argument (and one likely to suggest job cuts…).

The propotion of South Africans with short-term insurance should also be compared against those with sufficient assets to make it sensible. Direct comparisons against the populatio as a whole are close to meaninless.

Ok, I think I have done more than enough rambling and ranting. However, let me conclude with one observation on a quote from the article:

“And the plain fact is that local insurers have done way too little to develop products that offer value for the vast majority of South Africans. This is self-evident; precious few South Africans use insurance products.”

Just saying something is a fact doesn’t make it a fact. And please don’t abuse “self-evident”. Just because one item could be a cause of something does not make it the cause, or the only cause, or the primary cause. Especially not when you have just laid out a few of the reasons I also covered as to why insurance is a hard sell.

I wonder whether I should have mentioned the bad debts on house and car loans that are stacking up based (only partially!!) on pressure to lend to households with little wealth for large deposits and strained financials?

Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) is an unfortunately necessary part of driving traffic to discover a website. Good content is necessary but not sufficient.

Why SEO is necessary

A large percentage of web traffic is directed by search engines. After all, this is how Google has become the giant company that it is. I tried to track down some hard statistics on this, but they varied widely and didn’t seem all that credible. Nevertheless I think it is clear that this traffic is signficant.

Search engines use algorithms and automated scripts (“spiders”) to understand the importance, quality, relevance and popularity of content on the web. A radiographer takes xrays without being able to see directly the same picture as the xray will produce. A photographer taking black-and-white photographs needs to ignore the colour in the viewfinder and imagine the light and shadows and shapes of the final photograph.

If your website has excellent content, but structures it in a way that is not readily accessible to a search engine’s spiders, then the spider will pass on by without sending humans to visit your site. Two easy examples may help:

1. Flash content – the content may look great and be ground-breaking and useful, but since most spiders don’t currently “understand” Flash content, it will be ignored.
2. Login, registration and forms – if large parts of a website are accessible only after filling information in a form or registering and logging in, the spiders won’t get in the door.

There are other considerations that are postulated to be relevant:

• Duplicate content “dilutes” the scores of any individual page
• Many links to irrelevant, poorly rated pages can suggest that your site is not providing useful info to the user. This effect is stronger since search engines try to separate “link farms” and rings and other methods to make a collection of websites appear more connected than they are in reality.
• Poor choice of keywords that searchers may often use, or targeting terms that are widely targeted by a range of other websites.

A typical SEO strategy is quite complex and takes times, effort and money

A typical SEO strategy would cover analysing the target audience of a site, understanding the site content, understanding the site structure, doing keyword analysis, checking out competitors, generating a few good quality inbound links if applicable, possibly generating some linkbait content, installing appropriate tools (e.g. Google Analytics) to monitor traffic and then repeating the cycle once the customer behaviour is better understood. Key metrics are site traffic generated, low bounce rates, long time on the site, repeat customers, higher sales (or more contacts if online sales aren’t part of your service) and higher search rankings.

All of this takes time (both from the SEO but also from the website owner). There are many fly-by-night organisations claiming to do SEO with neither the knowledge or the business ethics to get it right. It is probably because it is a poorly understood, sometimes arcane speciality, that these companies get into business with low starting capital costs.

How not to do SEO in ten easy steps

I received an unsolicited email from Zenteq recently. I’m not providing a link to their website as I have no reason to believe they can deliver anything useful.

1. Sending unsolicited email (aka SPAM). This is typically a bad idea. Best case scenario you get a few new customers. Worst case scenario you irritate a huge block of potential customers, have your mail server and/or IP blocked as a source of spam, have your ISP close down your website for abuse and so on.
2. Use bright (as in reflective safety wear) green text and truly ugly formatting. Not a professional image by far.
3. Offer to “SEO” the website by submitting to 600,000 search engines monthly. This is irrelevant and a giant waste of money.
4. Charge R350 per month. In the short-term, this is far too little. The work involved at the outset of optimising a website for search engines requires several full days of work. However, in the long-run, this may well be too much. Since there appears to be no reason for the client to stay with Zenteq, we have a familiar problem where the business model doesn’t make sense for a serious operator and thus it’s likely that it isn’t a serious operator. (on trawling their webpage I see there is a R1000 upfront fee as well. Nice not to include this in the email. It still isn’t enough for serious upfront work)
5. No description of other components of SEO strategy, or examples of prior successful work.
6. “From” email is marketing@fire-equipment.org, “Reply to” is newheights70@telkomsa.net but the content directs the reader to info@zenteq.co.za. So which is it?
7. Structure your email so that it gets stopped by the spam filter built into both Thunderbird and Apple’s Mail application.
8. Include icons on their site claiming valid XHTML code, but then fail the test when the button is clicked.
9. Analysis of google results shows no links to zenteq.co.za.
10. And my favourite – a search on google for “seo site:za” which searches for the top websites relating to “seo” within the “za” domain doesn’t have zenteq listed in the top ten pages. A first-page listing is almost an requirement if you expect any number of click-throughs.

So who guards the guards, and who optimises the optimisers?