世界500強CEO訪談 第19期:惠普馬克赫德 為市場創(chuàng)造需求(1)

Reporter: From an attach -rate issue, the argument out there has always been that you have to be competitive. I can put the HP peripherals or anything I want to attach to it, but if it puts me in a position where I’m trying to deliver a solution and it’s not price-competitive...

記者：大家對于附加率問題的討論一直都是，你必須要具有競爭力。我可以把惠普的外圍設(shè)備或者其他任何我想要附加的給加上，但是如果要求我提供一個解決方案，它卻不具有價格競爭力……

Hurd: Then shame on us. Because our job is to have our products competitive as point products and competitive as bundles. And frankly we want to put more energy behind that attach. Let’s say we’re going to put this economic hook in place so that you represent these poorly positioned products to the marketplace. Our objective is to say, “We think we’ve got great products, and we want to put incentives for aligning those products together to put a better configuration, a better basket of goods if you will, in front of the end customer. ”

赫德：那是我們的恥辱。因為我們的工作是使我們的產(chǎn)品無論是作為尖端產(chǎn)品還是作為捆綁產(chǎn)品都具有競爭力。坦白地說，我們希望附加上投入更多的精力。比方說，我們要落實這一經(jīng)濟政策，以便那些處于不利地位的產(chǎn)品推向市場。我們的目標是，“我們相信我們擁有偉大的產(chǎn)品，我們希望在我們的最終用戶面前，這些產(chǎn)品會齊頭并進有一個更好的商品組合以鼓勵我們不斷前進。”

Reporter: Can you talk a little bit about when you first came in here, and you were looking at the direct vs. the indirect. What were the metrics you were looking at?

記者：您能談?wù)劗斈谝淮蔚竭@里來的時候，您是如何看待直銷與間接銷售的呢?您關(guān)注的度量標準是什么呢?

Hurd: And I’ll just give you an example: A number of years ago, IBM (NYSE: IBM) did a very in-depth analysis on direct vs. indirect, just in the PC space, because everyone said direct was absolutely more profitable. And they went out and did little things like, OK, if that ad. in that newspaper is really driven to get somebody to buy direct, then we’d better assign that cost to the direct side of the business. So when they did all of that, in the PC space, they found it was less than one percentage point difference.

赫德：我來給你舉個例子：數(shù)年前，IBM公司(紐約證券交易所：IBM)在電腦空間方面作了非常深入的直銷與間接銷售的調(diào)查，因為每個人都說直銷絕對更加有利可圖。然后他們走了出去，去調(diào)查諸如此類的事情。比如：是否那家報紙的廣告，確實會讓人們直接購買他們的產(chǎn)品。那么我們就把這項花費歸之為對企業(yè)直銷的一面。因此，當他們在PC領(lǐng)域做完所有這一切時，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)這是不到一個百分點的差別。

Reporter: Obviously, you did this over a much larger product set. Are there places where you say, as you really look at the data, that the channel is more profitable for us and are there places where direct is more profitable?

記者：很明顯，你是在一個更大的產(chǎn)品范圍內(nèi)調(diào)查的。那么是否在有些場合你會就像是看著數(shù)據(jù)一樣說，這一渠道對我們更有利，在那些領(lǐng)域直銷更有利呢?

Hurd: You can find data to support any thesis. You’ve got to be careful to normalize the data. For example, it would be unfair for us to say our cost of an order direct is more expensive than the cost of an order indirect if we didn’t normalize the volume. Today, the cost of an order for us indirect is actually less expensive than the cost of an order direct. But the bulk of our business is not direct. So you have to go normalize it and say, listen, in a normalized state what would the two look like? So for example we get tremendous cash-flow turns by dealing with our partners. It’s different when you go direct because you actually have to have more people shipping and packing more orders. So when I sell you a PC one at a time, I have to go collect for that PC. When I sell you a thousand PCs and then you sell them one at a time, I’m going to send you one bill for a thousand PCs. I've lowered my administrative overhead. So you’ve got to get through all that process and understand what is the true infrastructure overhead that you’ve got to go serve that customer or that partner. We somehow had ourselves convinced that a person deployed in the marketplace had to sell direct as opposed to creating demand for Hewlett—Packard. We want people in the marketplace creating demand for Hewlett— Packard. Then we can decide what the appropriate route is to get that demand fulfilled. But in the end, we need to make sure we’ve got the marketplace covered, so that the buying points on the planet that make sense for HP have some sort of demand-creation expertise.

赫德：你可以找到數(shù)據(jù)來支持任何理論，但是你必須要仔細認真地使數(shù)據(jù)正?；?。例如，如果我們未將容量正常化就說我們的直接訂單成本比間接訂單成本更昂貴，這是不公平的。今天，我們的訂單實際上是間接成本與直接訂單成本相比要少得多。但是，我們的業(yè)務(wù)大部分不是直接的。所以你必須去正常化，在規(guī)范化的狀態(tài)上去聽去說，這兩種是什么樣子呢?因此，比如我們和合作伙伴打交道需要大量的現(xiàn)金流動。它不同于你直接的時候，因為這實際上需要有更多的人來運輸和包裝更多的訂單。因此，我一旦賣給你一臺電腦，我必須去收錢。當我賣給你1000臺個人電腦，然后你負責零售，我就直接把1000臺電腦賬單寄給你。我已經(jīng)降低了我的管理開銷。所以，你得經(jīng)歷所有的過程，了解什么是真正的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的開銷，你得去服務(wù)客戶或合作伙伴。我們都相信一個人在市場上部署的零售商必須直接銷售，不是為惠普創(chuàng)造需求。我們希望人們?yōu)榛萜盏氖袌鰟?chuàng)造需求。然后我們就可以找到合適的途徑使這種需求得到滿足。但到最后，我們需要確保覆蓋市場，使與惠普相關(guān)的全綠的購買點都具有創(chuàng)造需求的專業(yè)技能。