The Blog
It Ain't What You Do - It's the Way That You Do It
Posted: 11 June 2014
We are often - no sometimes - no quite rarely really - but we do actually get asked about our research "method". Usually it has to be said by people filling in procurement questionnaire boilerplate, occasionally by some fellow buy side analysts or competitors who are afraid they're missing out on summat, and every now and then by someone who is wondering whether there really is method behind the annual scramble for strategy "guff" that firms eventually call strategic planning. So here's the "gen":
RBP research is focused on what economists call the Supply-Side research. We do not presume to know what B2B budget holders will spend their money on next. We have asked them many times, and we have found that what they say they'll do and what actually they do are entirely different things. So the purpose of our research is to (a) identify all those in or seeking to carve a position within often frankly very blurry and fluid B2B markets; and (b) to see how the suppliers segment themselves and what they use to claim differentiation in the eyes of clients and prospects; and then (c) we dig deep into the numbers from Companies House, etc to see how it all stacks up financially.
We use benchmarks from very close competitors to estimate the performance of those firms who report only abbreviated balance sheets as well as the judgement of experts in the field to assess the most probable performance levels for those who hide the data. We prioritise estimating financials for small firms (especially sub £5m in sales and even sub £1m) and we actively seek out all new entrants, be they start-ups or new divisions from neighbouring companies. It really matters strategically and most blue-chip analysts simply don’t get it. We are continually frustrated at the inability to quantify or predict when in-house enterprises from commerce or the public sector will break away or be "privatised" but we monitor all such eventualities. We don’t do this for this market today, then look at sales of Micro Breweries tomorrow and French Baguette futures tomorrow. We stick to what we know - and we’ve been doing these compliance and interrelated legal services markets for two decades now. We know them backwards. We know where it is not perfect; we also know it is better than anyone else’s guesses out there currently by some way. We do not make assumptions about the size of the market based on extrapolations from a few listed company analysts estimates, and we do estimate divisional performance for firms which hide it (or more typically simply don't report it in that way). We apply where possible the latest findings and disciplines from strategic and economic research (where they have stood the test of time). Take a bow Messrs Schumpeter, Porter and Grimm et al.
We take a longer than 3 business cycles approach to estimating future performance (that?s usually 3x7 years or more: ie 21-25 years+). We study balance sheet data; track business model and investment preferences - in effect we track every corporate finance event of any significance, but we also overlay it with the experience of line directors and experts from the market. More to the point our analysts are not number crunchers, they’re the people who’ve made decisions on this data in the past at Board level - they know ’significance’ when they see it - and they especially know how to read the gaps, the omissions, ’between the lines’. Relying on 3 year snapshots or project projections for 3-5 years when clearly the market is actually operating in 5-8 year cycles is key; we deliberately seek to see beyond the manager's lifecycle to the market one - hence the 1995-2020 approach.
We do not publish confidential data. Everything here is available from the public domain and this serves an important function. There is no perfect market for information yet, here or elsewhere. But it is important to see how others see both you and your market. This is what bankers, investors, creditors, rivals, competitors and colleagues see when they dig deep for long enough. We try to find ways of summarising a company or division?s financial and competitive character strategically. These are the essential building blocks of business and then corporate strategy.
We started doing this when we needed market data for our own business planning purposes, then for regulatory negotiations at OFT/CMA and EU Competition Commission levels, then to back numerous acquisition and divestment decisions, and finally to ensure that as a non-executive (NED) we could ensure the "big picture" could be summarised for those not necessarily familiar with the nuances of the market. We learned our economics from the EU Commission, not just a text book - and when tens of millions hang on it, you learn quickly.
The research has been used in most M&A deals in the market over the past two decades. It has been tested in the fire of EU Competition Commission negotiations, divestment and acquisition projects and even disputes resolved at Cabinet Office.
We do not pretend to have a future in sight; we do not believe in the "end of" anything, especially here. We are not futurists or thought leaders. We simply provide a still small voice which more often than not says: "but the numbers are actually doing this". We like to think people don’t need to reinvent the wheel all the time; but we also like to think that when you understand Game Theory, Behavioural Economics, Strategic Competitive Dynamics, Military Strategy and frankly any other discipline that can help - the decisions you make will be of a better quality.
The beauty of this approach is that it is not prescriptive. Every two people looking at this can and should come to different conclusions - every Board should argue it out and apply their particular energy and resources to their aim.
Then because life's just too short - we throw in some visual stimuli to reinforce a point - or lighten the mood; we take the work very seriously - ourselves, not so much?
Enjoy.
RBP research is focused on what economists call the Supply-Side research. We do not presume to know what B2B budget holders will spend their money on next. We have asked them many times, and we have found that what they say they'll do and what actually they do are entirely different things. So the purpose of our research is to (a) identify all those in or seeking to carve a position within often frankly very blurry and fluid B2B markets; and (b) to see how the suppliers segment themselves and what they use to claim differentiation in the eyes of clients and prospects; and then (c) we dig deep into the numbers from Companies House, etc to see how it all stacks up financially.
We use benchmarks from very close competitors to estimate the performance of those firms who report only abbreviated balance sheets as well as the judgement of experts in the field to assess the most probable performance levels for those who hide the data. We prioritise estimating financials for small firms (especially sub £5m in sales and even sub £1m) and we actively seek out all new entrants, be they start-ups or new divisions from neighbouring companies. It really matters strategically and most blue-chip analysts simply don’t get it. We are continually frustrated at the inability to quantify or predict when in-house enterprises from commerce or the public sector will break away or be "privatised" but we monitor all such eventualities. We don’t do this for this market today, then look at sales of Micro Breweries tomorrow and French Baguette futures tomorrow. We stick to what we know - and we’ve been doing these compliance and interrelated legal services markets for two decades now. We know them backwards. We know where it is not perfect; we also know it is better than anyone else’s guesses out there currently by some way. We do not make assumptions about the size of the market based on extrapolations from a few listed company analysts estimates, and we do estimate divisional performance for firms which hide it (or more typically simply don't report it in that way). We apply where possible the latest findings and disciplines from strategic and economic research (where they have stood the test of time). Take a bow Messrs Schumpeter, Porter and Grimm et al.
We take a longer than 3 business cycles approach to estimating future performance (that?s usually 3x7 years or more: ie 21-25 years+). We study balance sheet data; track business model and investment preferences - in effect we track every corporate finance event of any significance, but we also overlay it with the experience of line directors and experts from the market. More to the point our analysts are not number crunchers, they’re the people who’ve made decisions on this data in the past at Board level - they know ’significance’ when they see it - and they especially know how to read the gaps, the omissions, ’between the lines’. Relying on 3 year snapshots or project projections for 3-5 years when clearly the market is actually operating in 5-8 year cycles is key; we deliberately seek to see beyond the manager's lifecycle to the market one - hence the 1995-2020 approach.
We do not publish confidential data. Everything here is available from the public domain and this serves an important function. There is no perfect market for information yet, here or elsewhere. But it is important to see how others see both you and your market. This is what bankers, investors, creditors, rivals, competitors and colleagues see when they dig deep for long enough. We try to find ways of summarising a company or division?s financial and competitive character strategically. These are the essential building blocks of business and then corporate strategy.
We started doing this when we needed market data for our own business planning purposes, then for regulatory negotiations at OFT/CMA and EU Competition Commission levels, then to back numerous acquisition and divestment decisions, and finally to ensure that as a non-executive (NED) we could ensure the "big picture" could be summarised for those not necessarily familiar with the nuances of the market. We learned our economics from the EU Commission, not just a text book - and when tens of millions hang on it, you learn quickly.
The research has been used in most M&A deals in the market over the past two decades. It has been tested in the fire of EU Competition Commission negotiations, divestment and acquisition projects and even disputes resolved at Cabinet Office.
We do not pretend to have a future in sight; we do not believe in the "end of" anything, especially here. We are not futurists or thought leaders. We simply provide a still small voice which more often than not says: "but the numbers are actually doing this". We like to think people don’t need to reinvent the wheel all the time; but we also like to think that when you understand Game Theory, Behavioural Economics, Strategic Competitive Dynamics, Military Strategy and frankly any other discipline that can help - the decisions you make will be of a better quality.
The beauty of this approach is that it is not prescriptive. Every two people looking at this can and should come to different conclusions - every Board should argue it out and apply their particular energy and resources to their aim.
Then because life's just too short - we throw in some visual stimuli to reinforce a point - or lighten the mood; we take the work very seriously - ourselves, not so much?
Enjoy.
Citation
One of the better known brands in regulatory consulting, Citation offer employment law and safety compliance systems to smaller SMEs in the main with a number of trade association relationships in place too.
Employment Law and Employee Relations
There may be over 4000 employment lawyers in the UK, but there are only are 150 law firms focusing around 2200 solicitors and fee earners on employment law services for UK business as a core service nationally. There are also 170+ consultancy businesses doing so now too. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and this report highlights how this market now works, how it will perform to 2020, and more importantly what GCs expect from it irrespective of who is supplying it.
For law firms - is version 1.0 of client marketing enough any more, or will version 5.0 deliver now? Having the best people may no longer be enough and the Who?s Who guides take you only so far. Segmenting clients by size and type is key, and this report shows the competitive dynamics involved at each level. What are the 20+ firms who just do employment law up to now? How successful are law firms at delivering HR consulting solutions too? Why are Irwin Mitchell and others tackling the regulatory consultancy market head on now? And how should it be done?
From the core market economics to what GCs will and won?t outsource - and all points in between - the competitive axes in play are spelt out in detail. The 5 key issues (and the components of them) behind a commercial employment law service are examined in rigorous detail. This then informs assessing what to do next with the content marketing strategies, whether to bring an HR function in-house, what the critical mass is for a national team, the role of IT and many more questions are addressed. It need not be a matter of matching the millions behind teams like Riverview, but you do have to know how to play it smartly. This is the evidence you need to make your choices - all based on hard economic facts. Comparative corporate finance approaches to investment are clarified so you can see how steep the hill could be for your chosen strategy.
Summarising 70 of the leading players in terms of their market share from 1995 and projected to 2020, you can see at a glance how the main consulting players are doing too. Unique market share charts covering decade of performance for suppliers show who is struggling, who?s just swimming with the tide and who?s setting the pace. Dismiss these challengers at your peril, they are already represented on some of the major blue chip legal panels and they want more.
Every supplier is listed and click throughs from logos and innovative infographics enable GCs and purchasers of employment law services to assess each supplier directly.
This major Report is comprehensive and full of surprises - the largest employment law specialist is no longer a law firm - 9 of the top 20 suppliers are consultancies, not law firm Big brands... Perhaps most important of all: it really is no longer an "Us v Them" choice in the mind of even professional buyers any more - GCs are as likely to buy from a consultancy as a law firm now. The costs of market entry also favour the innovators - be they solicitor led or not - with teams like 3HR, HCR, Law at Work, Outset and rRadar showing how its done and done well.
This is indispensable reading and research for any legal services team looking at developing in employment law. The evidence bundle for your strategic away day - all of the key issues for teams managing a future in employment law are critically examined and the evidence presented.
Then it?s your call - we can?t promise you more sales, but we can level the playing field, and we can certainly save you a vast amount of time in collating the facts you need to make your plays effective and lasting.
Employment Tribunal list and fee changes hit law firms hard too. On top of PI business dwindling, it has made the more commercial firms get real. To help you up your game - get your copy of this Report today.
Price: £1250 |
File Type: ODP |
File size: 28,941.55 Kb