Accenture Going for Growth

8/3/2019 Accenture Going for Growth

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/accenture-going-for-growth 1/16

Going for GrowthThe Role of Price and Cost in Driving HighPerformance in a Volatile Global Economy



IntroductionDuring the most recent recession,companies experienced what has

become standard operating procedurein downturns: a rush to slash costs inresponse to a dramatic slowdown indemand. Today, while the economy stillis characterized by volatility, improvingeconomic conditions in many parts of the world have companies once againconsidering growth (although costreduction certainly has not left theexecutive suite’s agenda). Thus, thequestion becomes: How can companiesreignite growth in a time of unevendemand while continuing to makeintelligent, and appropriate, reductionsin cost to strengthen profitability?

In Accenture’s experience, the answerto this question lies in appropriatelyaligning price and costs. When suchalignment is absent, cost decisionsnot only can impede the achievementof profitable growth, they also canwreak havoc with the quality of servicedelivered and the overall customerexperience. But when a company

develops a deep understanding of howits different customers and customersegments perceive value in what thecompany offers, and then uses thatinsight to variablize its cost structure socosts can remain in synch with revenueand value, it is better positioned togrow profitably in what is likely toremain a volatile economy for sometime to come.

To explore this issue further, Accentureembarked on a comprehensive researcheffort in which we surveyed 1,000executives in companies representing12 countries and eight industries(Figures 1-3). Our data was collectedfrom November 2010 through January2011, a period during which economicprospects were beginning to brightenfor most markets and industries,but companies still were hesitant tobelieve a full-scale recovery was underway. Today, with demand beginningto strengthen and commodity prices

surging, our survey data provides ahelpful context for companies seekingguidance on plans for 2011 and beyond.

In our survey, we asked participatingmarketing executives about their

pricing strategies, practices andcapabilities, and polled financeexecutives on their enterprise’s recentand planned cost reductions. Our surveyrevealed the following key findings:

• Most companies are planning forgrowth, but that growth is likelyto be modest.

• When it comes to pricing, companiestend to most frequently use actions bycompetitors and the balance between

supply and demand as inputs in settingprices. Comparatively fewer considervalue-based and cost-plus strategies.

• Price optimization was one of the three most important strategicpriorities in the past 18 months forseven in 10 companies in our survey,but an equal percentage of companiesdo not have what Accenture wouldconsider to be sophisticated pricingcapabilities.

• Companies face a wide range of challenges in optimizing pricing,including sales execution, inadequatepricing analytics, unclear pricingstrategy, inadequate decision support/analytics, and governance andaccountability incentives.

• In the past 18 months, 82 percent of executives globally said their companyhas undertaken a significant effort toreduce costs, and these efforts were

seen as largely effective in creatingsustained cost reduction by the vastmajority of executives.

• Companies believe there are stillopportunities to capture in costreduction and, thus, more cost cuttingis planned for the next six months(with strategic sourcing and enterpriserationalization being the most popularcost management actions).

In the following pages, we explorethese findings in more detail. We begin

by discussing how companies arepositioned to use pricing to capitalizeon emerging growth opportunities,then review how companies haveused—and plan to use—cost reductionsto maintain and improve profitability.We conclude by suggesting wayscompanies can integrate the twotypes of efforts to drive even greatercompetitive differentiation andprofitable growth in the months andyears ahead.



8%

Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

Director of Marketing

Finance Executive

Chief Marketing Officer (CMO)

21%

13%

13%

12%

8% VP Finance

Head of Finance

Marketing Executive

Head of Marketing

7%

6%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%0%

VP Marketing

SVP Marketing

5%

5%

Figure 3. Respondents’ title

3

21%

11%

7%

12%

12%

19%

10%

8%

$50 Billion or more

$5 Billion to 9.9 Billion




$500 Million to 999.9 Million



0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Figure 1. Participating companies’ annual revenue

12%

Energy

Utilities

Communications

Consumer Goods

15%

14%

14%

13%

13%Pharmaceuticals

Retail

Banking

Insurance

11%

10%

8% 10% 12% 14% 16%6%4%2%0%

Figure 2. Participating companies’ industry



Most companies participating in our

survey are anticipating revenue growthin the next 18 months, althoughtheir expectations are relativelymodest—with the weakest growthbeing expected by mostly Westernorganizations. A majority of executivesoverall (56 percent) think their revenuewill grow only by 5 percent or lessin the next year and a half. Aboutthree in 10 anticipate growth to reachbetween 6 percent and 10 percent,and only 14 percent expect growth totop 10 percent (Figure 4).

As they prepare for growth, mostcompanies appear to be operatingin a position of strength from acash standpoint. Indeed, virtually allrespondents in our survey indicatedtheir companies have enough cashto at least maintain their currentlevels of production. Twenty-sevenpercent of companies reported havingadequate cash on hand to fund currentoperations, 47 percent said they have

optimal levels of cash for deliveringon their strategy, and 22 percentsaid they have excess cash and areconsidering the best way to deploy it.

Only 2 percent said they are struggling

with liquidity (Figure 5).

There was no consensus acrosscompanies globally on how theywould spend excess cash if they hadit, or how they would raise money if they needed it. If they had additionalcash, 36 percent said they wouldearmark it for capital investment,36 percent indicated they woulduse if to fund required operationalactivities, 36 percent reported theywould direct it toward investments inR&D and 34 percent said they woulduse the excess cash to fund newinvestments. Between 16 percent and18 percent said they would servicedebt obligations, save it for future use,increase compensation to employeesor buy back company stock.

Conversely, if companies foundthemselves in need of additional cash,most would either look to borrowthe needed money (27 percent),

recapitalize (24 percent), or implementtighter control of working capital (23percent). Smaller percentages would

opt to sell some assets (15 percent) or

otherwise squeeze their balance sheet(8 percent).

Cash position notwithstanding, inan economic environment that,while improving, is still quite volatileand uncertain, understanding andmaximizing the factors that drivegrowth becomes even more importantthan during more predictable androbust economies. Specifically,companies must identify and buildon those things that differentiatethemselves from competitors froma revenue (or demand) and cost (orsupply) perspective, and that enablethem to more strongly connectwith fickle customers before othercompetitors do. However, as oursurvey found, while companies haveexperienced some success in usingthese levers to make themselvesmore competitive and attractiveto customers, they still face somesignificant challenges in making those

successes sustainable over the longerterms.

A Renewed Focus on Growth



1%

2%

12%

42%

29%

14%

6-10%3-5%Negative growthMore than 10%

1-2%0%

Figure 4. Companies’ growth expectations in the next

18 months

22%

47%

28%

2%

1%

Have excess cash and considering the best way to deploy itHave optimal levels of cash (to deliver on our strategy, etc.)Have adequate cash (to fund current operations but not much more)

Short on cash (struggling with liquidity)None of the above

Figure 5. Companies’ current cash position



Pricing is a critical tool for positioning

differentiation from competitors andmaking offers attractive to customers.And for many companies, optimizingthe way they make and execute pricingdecisions is among their key strategicpriorities. However, enterprisesalso face a number of challengesthat prevent them from optimizingpricing and, for the most part, do notbelieve their pricing capabilities aresophisticated. Thus, opportunities doexist for companies to strengthen theiruse of pricing to help drive growth.

Service, innovation andpricing are the mostcommon levers for drivingcompetitive advantageWhen seeking to drive competitiveadvantage and boosting revenue,companies have many options at theirdisposal.

According to companies in our survey,three of the most popularly used levers

for driving competitive advantage areservice, innovation and pricing (Figure6). But companies tend to use morethan one lever, and those levers tendto be strongly interrelated. Servicewas seen by the largest percentageas the primary or strongest factor (54percent), but was followed closely byinnovation/product differentiation(53 percent) and price position/pricepoint (51 percent). Factors named byslightly less than half of respondentsas a primary factor were marketing/brand (48 percent) and valueproposition (47 percent).

These findings echo what Accenture

has seen in its work with influentialcompanies around the world. Asproducts become more commoditized,enterprises are turning to service as away to attract and retain customers.

Yet in that drive to create value-addedservices, companies are finding thatit’s difficult to strike the right balancebetween “giving the people what theywant” and ensuring that doing sodoesn’t erode profitability.

Similarly, remaining relevant tocustomers and differentiated fromcompetitors requires companies tocontinually develop attractive newofferings. Yet in doing so, they needto excel in delivering meaningfulinnovation at an acceptable cost—andat a price that customers ultimatelywill pay.

Driving Growth via the Revenue or DemandLever



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Value proposition

Marketing/Brand

Price Position/Point

Innovation/Productdifferentiation

Service

Primary Factor Somewhat Strong but not Primary

47%42%

48%36%

51%38%

53%32%

54%30%

Figure 6. Strength of factors in driving companies’ competitive advantage

Figure 7. Companies’ pricing strategies

Competitive and supplyfactors are used mostoften to set pricesWhen it comes to pricing, ourstudy found that companies tendto most frequently use actions by

competitors and the balance betweensupply and demand as inputs insetting prices—each of which wascited by approximately two-thirdsof executives. Just about half saidthey use value-based and cost-plusstrategies (Figure 7).

Business units andmarketing are most likelyto make pricing decisionsBusiness units and the marketingdepartment tend to be the two mostinfluential groups in determining acompany’s pricing. In 72 percent of companies, the business unit is alwaysinvolved in making pricing decisions,followed closely by the marketingdepartment (70 percent). Executivesor executive committees (60 percent)and product managers (58 percent)are always involved in making pricingdecisions in about six in 10 companies,

while the finance department is alwaysinvolved in setting pricing in onlyabout half of companies (52 percent)in the survey.

Several challenges impedepricing optimizationWe found companies face a widerange of challenges that make itdifficult for them to optimize pricing(Figure 8). Among the challenges cited

as having an extensive or moderatenegative impact by a large percentageof respondents include challengesin sales execution (71 percent),unclear pricing strategy (70 percent),inadequate pricing analytics (69percent), inadequate decision support/analytics (64 percent), and governanceand accountability incentives (66percent).

Figure 8. Extent to which various challenges impede companies’ ability to bemore successful in pricing

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Risk based

Cost-plus

Value based

Market based (supply/demand balance)

Competitive based

70%

25%

48%

50%

65%

66%

0% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 45%

Inadequate pricinganalytics

Wrong strategy

Challenges in salesexecution

Governance andaccountability

incentives

Inadequate decisionsupport/analytics

Unclear pricing strategy

15% 25% 35%

Mode rate ly Ex te nsive ly

42%27%

32%23%

43%28%

41%25%

41%23%

42%28%



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Test underlyingassumptions

Experiment and testhypotheses

Execute and monitorimpact of pricing decisionson the marketplace

Generate insights

Make pricing decisions

70%

None of the above

49%

50%

52%

56%

66%

1%

Figure 11. How companies use analytics

Price optimization is apriorityGiven the importance of pricingto many companies’ competitivepositioning, and the major challengesthey face in optimizing pricing, it’sperhaps not surprising that priceoptimization was one of the threemost important strategic prioritiesin the past 18 months for nearlythree-fourths of companies in oursurvey. Thirteen percent ranked priceoptimization first, 34 percent cited itas second and 24 percent indicated itwas third (Figure 9).

Pricing capabilities lacksophisticationHowever, despite the strongimportance of price optimization,overall only about one-quarter of participating companies describedtheir pricing capabilities as“sophisticated” (Figure 10). One areathat seems to present a particularlystrong challenge for companies ispricing technology. Three-fourths of companies do not have sophisticatedpricing technology—meaning, they donot use ERP-class optimization and

execution software for pricing. In fact,36 percent said their pricing tools tendto be highly manual and fragmented,with the remainder stating theyuse automated tools but ones thattypically are not integrated.

We found a similar situation withregard to pricing governance. Sevenin 10 companies do not have clearaccountability for pricing decisionsand use rewards and incentives todrive the desired outcomes. Fullyone-quarter said they generally haveconflicting or unclear accountabilityfor price and employ incentivesthat are not aligned to the desiredoutcomes.

In terms of pricing strategysophistication, more than three-fourths of companies indicatedthey do not have a pricing strategyfor different marketing situationsnor is their pricing strategy tightly

aligned with their overall businessstrategy—characteristics that describea sophisticated strategy. Conversely,

24 percent said they have one pricingstrategy that fits all customers andthat that strategy is not connected tothe overall business strategy.

Overall, the fact that approximatelythree-fourths of companies do nothave sophisticated pricing capabilitiessuggests most companies haveconsiderable room for improvementin their pricing strategies, tools,analytics, processes, organization andgovernance.

Analytics are important,but not coreFor the vast majority of companies,analytics plays some role in theirability to optimize pricing, although

it is not core to price optimization

initiatives in a majority of companies.Forty-one percent of executivessaid analytics are core to their priceoptimization programs or initiatives,while 52 percent said analytics are oneof several inputs.

In general, participating companiesuse analytics for a wide range of activities, the most popular of whichare making pricing decisions (cited by66 percent of respondents), generatinginsights (56 percent), and executingand monitoring the impact of pricingdecisions on the marketplace (52percent). About half said they useanalytics to experiment and testhypotheses or to test underlyingassumptions (Figure 11).

Figure 9. Rank of price optimization among companies’ strategic priorities

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Fifth

Fourth

Third

Second

First

35%

Sixth or higher

12%

12%

24%

34%

13%

3%



Figure 10. Sophistication of key pricing capabilities (using a scale of 1 to 5)

5% 15% 20% 25% 35%

1=Use highly manualand fragmented tools

2

3=Tools are automated,but not integrated

4

5=Use ERP classoptimization andexecution software

24%

13%

29%

11%

24%

10%0% 30%

Pricing Technology

5% 15% 20% 25% 35%

1=One strategy fits allcustomers; notconnected to overallbusiness strategy

2

3=Targeted pricing forsome select situations;loosely connected tobusiness strategy

4

5=Targeted pricingstrategy for differentsituations; aligned withbusiness strategy

11%

14%

35%

13%

27%

10%0% 30%

Pricing Strategy

5% 15% 20% 25% 35%

1=Limited insight intoprice performance;limited link to strategyand operations

2

3=Price performanceis understood; link tostrategy and operationsis weak

4

5=Predictive analyticsused; analytics tied tooperations and strategy

13%

15%

31%

16%

25%

10%0% 30%

Pricing Analytics

5% 15% 20% 25% 35%

1=Pricing processesand technology are adhoc and lack rigor

2

3=Pricing processes areend-to-end, and partlytechnology enabled

4

5=Processes arerigorous, repeatable andtechnology enabled

11%

15%

35%

17%

22%

10%0% 30%

Pricing Processes

5% 15% 20% 25% 35%

1=No formal pricingorganization. Pricingcapabilities are oftennot current

2

3=No formal pricingorganization. Pricingcapabilities are notcutting edge

4

5=Appropriate balanceof central v. local pricingcapabilities. Right statureas C-suite imperative

14%

14%

29%

17%

26%

10%0% 30%

Pricing Organization

5% 15% 20% 25% 35%

1=Unclear priceaccountability;Incentives do not alignto outcomes

2

3=Price accountabilitynot completely clear;incentives looselyaligned to outcomes

4

5=Clear accountability;incentives drive thedesired outcomes

14%

13%

29%

17%

28%

10%0% 30%

Pricing Governance



Past 18 months Next six months

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

S e r v i c e l e v e l r e d u c t i o n s

E m p l o y e e c o m p e n s a t i o n r e

d u c t i o n

T e c h n o l o g y

i n f r a s t r u c t u r e

o u

t s o u r c i n g

M a n u

f a c t u r i n g c a p a c i t y r e

d u c t i o n

E m p l o y e e

b e n e f i t s r e d u c t i o n

V a r i a

b l e c o s t s t r u c t u r e

i m p l e m e n

t a t i o n

S e l f - s e r v i c e o p t i o n s

f o r c u s t o m e r s

A p p l i c a t i o n o u

t s o u r c i n g

E m p l o y e e

l a y o f f s a n

d / o r j o b

e l i m i n a t i o n s

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n r a

t i o n a l i z a t i o n

C r o s s - f u n c t i o n c o s t c a

t e g o r i e s

B u s i n e s s p r o c e s s o u

t s o u r c i n g

F a c i l i t y / r e a l e s t a t e r a t i o n a

l i z a t i o n

I n v e n t o r y r e d u c t i o n

A d v e r t i s i n g r e d u c t i o n

S t a n d a r d i z e d s o f t w a r e s o l u

t i o n s

a d o p t i o n

J o b e l i m

i n a t i o n s

P r o d u c t r e d e s i g n

P r o d u c t r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n

C u s t o m e r r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n

I n t e g r a t e d

b u s i n e s s s e r v i c e s a s a

c o n c e p t

P a y a

b l e s / r e c e i v a b l e s o p t i m

i z a t i o n

S t r a t e g i c s o u r c i n g

R a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f

t h e e n t e r p r i s e

9%

11%

13%

14%

17%

19%

13%

19%

13%

20%

15%

21%

19%

21%

26%

23%18%

24%

23%

25%

23%

25%

22%

26%

24%

26%

21%

27%

21%

27%

16%

27%

22%

28%

23%

29%

24%

30%

21%

31%

26%

33%

25%

36%

31%

36%

31%

49%

Figure 12. Cost management actions companies have implemented in the past 18 months and those they plan toimplement in the next six months

10

While companies appear to be

struggling with building and leveragingpricing capabilities to strengthengrowth and profitability, their trackrecord in using the cost lever tostabilize their operations appearsto be considerably better. Nearly allcompanies have reduced costs in therecent past, with many describingthose efforts as successful in creatingsustained cost reduction. However,many companies also believe they haveadditional opportunities to captureand, thus, cost-reduction efforts areplanned to continue in the near future.

Companies haveundertaken significantcost reductionsGiven the ongoing challenges witheconomic recovery in many parts of the world, it’s not surprising that alarge majority of companies in thesurvey have been focused on reducingcosts. Indeed, in the past 18 months,82 percent of executives globallysaid their company has undertaken asignificant effort to reduce costs.

These cost-reduction efforts tookmany forms (Figure 12): Forty-ninepercent of executives said theircompany has rationalized someaspect of their enterprise in the past18 months, which could include suchactions as redesigning processes orconsolidating back-office activitiesthrough global business services

or integrated business services,

shared services, or outsourcing.Cited by approximately one-third of participants were initiatives such aspayables/receivables optimization,strategic sourcing and integratedbusiness services as a concept. A widevariety of initiatives were reported asimplemented by between 20 percentand 30 percent of respondents.

For most organizations globally,competitive pricing pressures havehad some influence on the level of strategic cost reduction measuresthey have taken. About six in 10 (57percent) said the impact has beenmoderate, while 35 percent describedit as extensive.

Driving Growth via the Cost or Supply Lever





Cost-reduction effortshave generated positiveresultsIn most companies, cost-reductionefforts are viewed as having been aqualified success (Figure 13). Fifty-

five percent of executives said theirefforts have been at least somewhatsuccessful in creating sustainedcost reduction—i.e., a permanentshift in their cost base and mindsetabout costs instead of a temporarychange that will revert to formerlevels at some point in the future.Thirty-seven percent described suchefforts as very successful and 7percent indicated they were extremelysuccessful. One measure of success

is the fact that in most companiesglobally, executives believe they havecaptured the majority (45 percent) orvirtually all (13 percent) cost reductionopportunities. That said, four in 10executives believe there are stillopportunities to capture.

Cost changes in specific functionalareas in the past 18 months,however, were not consistent acrossorganizations globally—with costsrising in some area and declining inothers.

Cost decreases tended to be centeredin the supply chain and procurement:Approximately four in 10 respondentssaid they have decreased costs inthese two key functions in the pastyear and a half. Thirty-seven percentreported having reduced costs inoperations/ production and 33 percentsaid they cut costs in corporategeneral management during thatperiod.

On the other hand, increased spendingwas seen most frequently in R&Dand IT, with 36 percent of executivesreporting they have increased costs inthe former and 34 percent saying theyhad boosted spending in the latter.Other functions, including marketing

and sales, customer service, strategy,and risk, were cited by between 20percent and 25 percent of respondentsas having experienced cost increases.

Cost reductions areexpected to continueDespite the success of companies inreducing costs, the focus on cost likelywill continue in the foreseeable future.The next six months will see morecost cutting, with strategic sourcingand enterprise rationalization beingthe most popular cost managementactions—each of which was cited by31 percent of respondents (Figure 12).

1%

55%

37%

7%

Not at all suc ce ssful Somewh at succ essf ul Ve ry SuccessfulExtremely successful

Figure 13. Success of cost reduction efforts in creating

sustained cost reduction

53%38%

6%

3%

We understand cost-to-serve in great detail and actively manage our servicelevels based on customer type or segment

We may understand different customers are more or less expensive to do businesswith, but we don't reflect this in our commercial relationship with them

We have very poor visibility into the differing cost to serve

All our customers cost us about the same to serve

Figure 14. Extent to which companies understand cost to

serve customers



Companies fall short inunderstanding their truecost to serveWhile many companies participatingin our survey actively try to matchservice levels with a customer’s cost to

serve, a large percentage are missingpotential opportunities to improvemargins by reflecting cost to servein how customers are treated andmanaged.

Only about half of participatingexecutives said their companiesunderstand cost-to-serve in greatdetail and actively manage theirservice levels based on customer typeor segment (Figure 14). A nearly equalpercentage of executives said theircompanies either do not reflect thecost to do business with differentcustomers in their commercialrelationship with these customers—despite understanding differentcustomers are more or less expensiveto do business with (38 percent)—orhave very poor visibility into differingcost to serve customers (6 percent).



The most recent recession wasdifficult for enterprises around the

world and spurred an intense seriesof cost reductions—which took theform of significant layoffs in manydeveloped-market countries. However,with the economy now improving,albeit unevenly, in most parts of theworld, companies generally are nowmore optimistic about their prospectsfor growth in the short and long term.

However, to capitalize on growthopportunities, companies will need toaddress some shortcomings in theirpricing capabilities. Indeed, accordingto our survey, while enterprises haveexperienced some success with pricinginitiatives, their pricing capabilitylevels remain average at best andlack full integration into key toolsacross the organization. Furthermore,although many functions or roles areinvolved in the pricing process, cleargovernance remains an issue and abalance between central versus localdecision making is still lacking in a

majority of cases. And companiesneed to increase their focus on howpredictive analytics can help improvethe accuracy and efficacy of theirpricing decisions, especially at atime when volatility is the rule andbenchmarks are scarce.

We also found that most companiesemploy a competitive-match pricingstrategy or use it to balance supplyand demand—but few are usingvalue-based strategies and fewer stillare approaching innovation with a“design to price” mindset. As a result,competitive actions—and, in essence,fear—have to some extent driven pricechanges and, therefore, cost reduction.This has placed companies in anunattractive position of being reactiveand having their own moves dictatedto them by other companies.

From a cost perspective, it’s clearthat although past cost reductions

have been effective, companiesgenerally feel there’s still more “gold”

to be mined from their operations.Thus, cost cutting is expected to

continue for the foreseeable futureto help companies ensure more stableoperations and higher margins.

But even if companies shore up theirpricing capabilities and are successfulin wringing more efficiencies fromtheir operations, a company can onlyimprove cost (or supply) and revenue(or demand) levers independently of one another so much until growthstalls. In our experience, achievingrobust, sustainable profitable growthrequires understanding how to useboth levers simultaneously. In otherwords, during the recession, companiescut costs with an axe, and growthsuffered as a result. Now, they needto fine-tune costs with a scalpel bygathering and acting on insight fromthe demand side to pursue profitablegrowth.

For example, instead of using a blanketapproach to pricing, a company shoulduse segmentation to understandwhich part of the business should bea competitive match on price, whichshould be cost-plus, which should bemarket-based, and which should bevalue-based. It also should implementcapabilities that can help it understandthe true cost to serve each customersegment—and where changes can bemade in how each segment is servedto reduce costs while enhancing value.And it should create a more variablecost structure based on companyperformance to help avoid the typicalcycle of hiring and laying off inconcert with economic swings.

Once a company gains a clearunderstanding of how variouscustomer segments differ in theirpricing needs, identifies the true costto serve these segments, targetsthe right pricing approach to thosesegments, and increases its agilityby variablizing its cost structure, it is

ready to further improve profitabilityby managing the business portfolio.

By this we mean shifting resources tofocus on higher-margin areas of the

business to drive growth and awayfrom those areas that are a drag ongrowth and profitability.

There’s no question that price is aleading competitive lever. It’s one of the main points that affect customers’buying decisions. But raising prices inthe current environment—especially inthose markets where the economy isstill somewhat fragile—will not boostsales, nor will dropping prices improvemargins. Similarly, reducing costs—while important to many companies’survival during the recession and vitalto ongoing profitability—eventuallycan have a deleterious effect on acompany’s ability to support growthinitiatives. We believe the companiesthat are best positioned to capitalizeon the growth opportunities todayare those that use insights from thedemand side to drive appropriate cost-reduction efforts on the supply side.These enterprises will be the ones

setting the agenda for competitivedifferentiation, profitable growthand, ultimately, high performancein a volatile world.

Conclusion





Copyright©2011 Accenture

All rights reserved.

Accenture, its logo, andHigh Performance Deliveredare trademarks of Accenture.

About AccentureAccenture is a global managementconsulting, technology servicesand outsourcing company, withmore than 223,000 people servingclients in more than 120 countries.Combining unparalleled experience,comprehensive capabilities across allindustries and business functions,and extensive research on the world’smost successful companies, Accenturecollaborates with clients to help thembecome high-performance businessesand governments. The companygenerated net revenues of US$21.6billion for the fiscal year endedAug. 31, 2010. Its home page iswww.accenture.com.

ACC11-1584/ 9-0210

Documents

Accenture Going for Growth