【哈佛知識分享 - 六大行業推動力】UA院線結業對做生意面對行業有什麼啟示?
相信大家最近都聽到UA院線停業嘅消息,當然大家都覺得好可惜。 我都曾經去UA睇過唔少電影。
但我好想重做生意角度同你分析下UA停業嘅啟示。我只想講實話。
哈佛其中一個最出名嘅商學院教授 Michael Porter, 佢話做任何生意都要留意 Competitive Six Forces 《六種行業競爭推動力》。
這六種動力, 就奠定了成個行業的定利潤潛力。 如果六個都係差嘅,你有一個叫做 6-Star Crappy Business. You have an untenable position。 中文翻譯做「六星級垃圾生意」, 你有個「站不住腳」的位置。
邊6個?
(1) Bargaining Power of Buyers 買家的議價能力。 買家唔好襯你,容唔容易幫襯第二個? 相信喺戲院嘅行業,唔去呢間,就去另一間㗎喇。 加上張單是一次性,又唔係收月費/年費,亦都冇合約綁住, 因此買家議價能力好強。 第一個 BAD!
(2) Bargaining Power of Suppliers 供應商的議價能力。戲院五成嘅成本去咗租金, 霎時間佢要搬走亦都唔鍾意, 喺香港幾大發展商話晒事, 因此戲院供應商的議價能力又係好強。第二個 BAD。
(3) Barriers to Entry 入行門檻。 你同我好少話突然間會開間戲院,但好多地產發展商都會投資做戲院。 技術水平唔需要高, 又冇話乜嘢特別版權, 問發行商攞電影就得啦, 門檻一啲都唔高。 炒碟餸你都要炒得好味啲, 但純粹播放電影,套電影又唔係你拍㗎, 你唔需要太多知識,有地方就得啦。第三個 BAD。
(4) Threat of Substitutes 代替品的威脅。 正如商舖最大嘅代替品就係網購。 去戲院睇戲最大嘅代替品,就係喺屋企睇或者甚至乎唔睇,打機上網youtube 算數。第四個 BAD。
(5) Internal Rivalry 內部競爭的激烈程度。 香港好多戲院,背後老闆都係大財團或地產發展商。 例如MCL 係麗新林建岳嘅,英皇院線就係楊受成嘅。 大財團大把錢, 獨立嘅院線真係好難做。第五個 BAD。
(6) Availability of Complements 互補商品的存在。 多咗馬路,就會多咗車。 馬路係車嘅 complement. 上網快咗,就多啲人睇 youtube 。 網絡嘅速度就係 youtube 嘅 complement. 越多互補效應,對個行業越好。 但戲院睇戲? 互補效應咁多年嚟都冇乜改變過,反而個個係 屋企睇電視螢幕大咗, 上網快咗, 音響靚咗,因此想睇戲,個個都少咗出街,留喺屋企睇好過。不進則退, 戲院嘅互補商品,第六個都係 BAD。
根據哈佛教授 Michael Porter 嘅 Competitive Six Forces 理論,香港做戲院就係一個 6-Star Crappy Business. You have an untenable position。 「六星級垃圾生意」, 你有個「站不住腳」的位置。I'm sorry, you can hate, 你鬧爆我 it's OK,但這是事實。 因此近年幾乎無一間院線賺到大錢, 一個浪冚埋來,就好容易全線倒閉。 就好似好多年前嘅卡拉OK咁, 當個個人係屋企都唱到歌或者多咗其他娛樂, 好多卡拉OK連鎖店都會結業。
你做生意都要諗下, 你個行頭以上嗰六種動力又點呢? Michael Porter 話你唔需要個個中曬, 嗰六個動力唔係一個計分制。你只係需要中致命嘅一個就已經可能玩完。
例如華為手機,過份依賴美國晶片供應商的話, 一受制裁,就好容易站唔住腳。 我做商舖基金都一樣,過份依賴某一個投資者亦唔健康。Bargaining power of one buyer 會太大。
要抗衡以上六種力量,如果你做生意醒目嘅話,就應該盡量推出啲新產品或新經營模式,將嗰六種動力由 BAD 轉做 GOOD,由 GOOD 成為 GREAT! 點轉? 有機會喺我嘅早餐會再同你小組詳談更多, 短短幾分鐘講唔曬。總之記住 UA 院線結業, 可能只係一個開始。 有好多行業以上六種力量都是差的話, 要扭轉乾坤,就必須馬上改變。Good luck!
李根興 Edwin
聯絡李根興 Edwin whatsapp (+852) 90361143
www.edwinlee.com.hk
#做生意的六大動力 #UA戲院結業啟示
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過4萬的網紅李根興 Edwin商舖創業及投資分享,也在其Youtube影片中提到,【哈佛知識分享 - 六大行業推動力】UA院線結業對做生意面對行業有什麼啟示? 相信大家最近都聽到UA院線停業嘅消息,當然大家都覺得好可惜。 我都曾經去UA睇過唔少電影。 但我好想重做生意角度同你分析下UA停業嘅啟示。我只想講實話。 哈佛其中一個最出名嘅商學院教授 Michael Porter...
「untenable」的推薦目錄:
untenable 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的精選貼文
Jenna Cody :
Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.
This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.
So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.
Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).
Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.
Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.
Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.
What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.
So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.
It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.
This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.
In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.
After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.
Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.
In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).
In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.
Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.
It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.
Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.
This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.
*
Now, as I said, none of this matters.
What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.
Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.
Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.
Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.
So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.
And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.
The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.
A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.
There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…
…well, that’s already settled.
The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.
Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.
If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.
untenable 在 Apple Daily - English Edition Facebook 的最佳貼文
#Opinion by Hong Kong Holocaust and Tolerance Centre|"The author of the aforementioned article draws an unacceptable and untenable paral lel between the temporary pandemic-related lockdowns of small areas of Hong Kong with Jewish ghettos during the Holocaust. I am frankly shocked about the historical ignorance and the lack of sensitivity this opinion piece displays."
Read more: https://bit.ly/3rkYpWH
____________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP
#AppleDailyENG
untenable 在 李根興 Edwin商舖創業及投資分享 Youtube 的最佳貼文
【哈佛知識分享 - 六大行業推動力】UA院線結業對做生意面對行業有什麼啟示?
相信大家最近都聽到UA院線停業嘅消息,當然大家都覺得好可惜。 我都曾經去UA睇過唔少電影。
但我好想重做生意角度同你分析下UA停業嘅啟示。我只想講實話。
哈佛其中一個最出名嘅商學院教授 Michael Porter, 佢話做任何生意都要留意 Competitive Six Forces 《六種行業競爭推動力》。
這六種動力, 就奠定了成個行業的定利潤潛力。 如果六個都係差嘅,你有一個叫做 6-Star Crappy Business. You have an untenable position。 中文翻譯做「六星級垃圾生意」, 你有個「站不住腳」的位置。
邊6個?
(1) Bargaining Power of Buyers 買家的議價能力。 買家唔好襯你,容唔容易幫襯第二個? 相信喺戲院嘅行業,唔去呢間,就去另一間㗎喇。 加上張單是一次性,又唔係收月費/年費,亦都冇合約綁住, 因此買家議價能力好強。 第一個 BAD!
(2) Bargaining Power of Suppliers 供應商的議價能力。戲院五成嘅成本去咗租金, 霎時間佢要搬走亦都唔鍾意, 喺香港幾大發展商話晒事, 因此戲院供應商的議價能力又係好強。第二個 BAD。
(3) Barriers to Entry 入行門檻。 你同我好少話突然間會開間戲院,但好多地產發展商都會投資做戲院。 技術水平唔需要高, 又冇話乜嘢特別版權, 問發行商攞電影就得啦, 門檻一啲都唔高。 炒碟餸你都要炒得好味啲, 但純粹播放電影,套電影又唔係你拍㗎, 你唔需要太多知識,有地方就得啦。第三個 BAD。
(4) Threat of Substitutes 代替品的威脅。 正如商舖最大嘅代替品就係網購。 去戲院睇戲最大嘅代替品,就係喺屋企睇或者甚至乎唔睇,打機上網youtube 算數。第四個 BAD。
(5) Internal Rivalry 內部競爭的激烈程度。 香港好多戲院,背後老闆都係大財團或地產發展商。 例如MCL 係麗新林建岳嘅,英皇院線就係楊受成嘅。 大財團大把錢, 獨立嘅院線真係好難做。第五個 BAD。
(6) Availability of Complements 互補商品的存在。 多咗馬路,就會多咗車。 馬路係車嘅 complement. 上網快咗,就多啲人睇 youtube 。 網絡嘅速度就係 youtube 嘅 complement. 越多互補效應,對個行業越好。 但戲院睇戲? 互補效應咁多年嚟都冇乜改變過,反而個個係 屋企睇電視螢幕大咗, 上網快咗, 音響靚咗,因此想睇戲,個個都少咗出街,留喺屋企睇好過。不進則退, 戲院嘅互補商品,第六個都係 BAD。
根據哈佛教授 Michael Porter 嘅 Competitive Six Forces 理論,香港做戲院就係一個 6-Star Crappy Business. You have an untenable position。 「六星級垃圾生意」, 你有個「站不住腳」的位置。I'm sorry, you can hate, 你鬧爆我 it's OK,但這是事實。 因此近年幾乎無一間院線賺到大錢, 一個浪冚埋來,就好容易全線倒閉。 就好似好多年前嘅卡拉OK咁, 當個個人係屋企都唱到歌或者多咗其他娛樂, 好多卡拉OK連鎖店都會結業。
你做生意都要諗下, 你個行頭以上嗰六種動力又點呢? Michael Porter 話你唔需要個個中曬, 嗰六個動力唔係一個計分制。你只係需要中致命嘅一個就已經可能玩完。
例如華為手機,過份依賴美國晶片供應商的話, 一受制裁,就好容易站唔住腳。 我做商舖基金都一樣,過份依賴某一個投資者亦唔健康。Bargaining power of one buyer 會太大。
要抗衡以上六種力量,如果你做生意醒目嘅話,就應該盡量推出啲新產品或新經營模式,將嗰六種動力由 BAD 轉做 GOOD,由 GOOD 成為 GREAT! 點轉? 有機會喺我嘅早餐會再同你小組詳談更多, 短短幾分鐘講唔曬。總之記住 UA 院線結業, 可能只係一個開始。 有好多行業以上六種力量都是差的話, 要扭轉乾坤,就必須馬上改變。Good luck!
李根興 Edwin
聯絡李根興 Edwin whatsapp (+852) 90361143
www.edwinlee.com.hk
#做生意六大動力,#戲院結業啟示
untenable 在 India Hits Back at China | Remarks on De-facto border 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>