Archive for August 22nd, 2008

Energy – Thinking about $4 per gallon gas …

August 22, 2008

Most folks wonder why the pump price of gas surged this year.

I ask a different question: why didn’t the oil companies — branded by most folks as evil profit grubbers — push the price up into the $4 /gallon  range a year or two ago?

In my pricing course, I harp on a basic point: marketers should be respectful of costs (i.e. never sell stuff below “fully-loaded  cost” plus an acceptable profit), but they MUST price to the market.  That is,  they should determine the price that the market will bear, and then adjust accordingly to maximize profits — taking into account downward sloping demand curves and volume-related cost functions.

It’s starting to look like $4 per gallon gasoline  is about what the market will bear.  That’s the price point where folks started to cutback in gas consumption the past couple of months.

* * * * *

Question: Why did the oil companies wait for the cost of crude to push up gas prices? To me, it seems that the oil companies have actually showed restraint over the past couple of years.

* * * * *

Here’s a crude analysis (pun intended):

Simply divide the price of a barrel of crude over the past couple of years by 42 (since the are 42 gallons per barrel), and compare the result to the retail price of gasoline (which is usually expressed per gallon). 

The difference — gasoline’s “back of the envelope” mark-up over crude prices — is plotted below. 

Note that for the past 9 months, or so, the crude mark-up been about $1 per gallon — at the low end of the historical range.

image

* * * * *

Since the cost of a barrel of crude has skyrocketed over the past couple of years, the percentage mark-up has trended down. Hmmm.

image

* * * * *

Bottom Line:

It certainly looks like the oil companies price gasoline using some sort of  “cost plus” formula. 

I think the oil companies left a lot of profits on the table during the past couple of years — the retail gas market would probably have borne higher prices.

Now, I’m betting that retail gases will be “sticky” — there will be a “ratchet effect” and gas prices will come down proportionately slower than crude oil prices.

And, I predict that if the oil companies get hit with a windfall profits tax, they’ll just pass the tax along into retail gas prices.  Just watch.

* * * * *

Analytical note:

The “real” calculations re: the economics of converting crude oil  into gasoline are way more complicated than the above simple analysis (e.g. only about 1/2 of a barrel of crude is made into gasoline, there are refining and distribution costs, the 1/2 barrel that doesn’t go into gas earns other profits).

My bet: the conclusions drawn from a more precise analysis would be directionally the same, and probably pretty  close to the $1 per gallon — which has a certain memorable ring to it.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Brands – Reviving those oldies but goodies …

August 22, 2008

Excerpted from NYT, “Those Shelved Brands Start to Look Tempting”, Aug. 21, 2008

During economic downturns, consumer products marketers takiw stock of brands they already own to see if any can be revived or renewed. It can cost significantly less to bring back a brand — or restore the luster to a faded one — than to develop a new product, because spending huge sums to generate awareness is not necessary.

For instance, in considering a comeback for Eagle snacks, research found that “6 out of 10 adults remember the brand” … Reserve Brands is reintroducing Eagle in stores and vending machines … plans to reintroduce Eagle include new snacks under names like Bursts and Poppers, to “modernize the brand and contemporize it.”

“It would take $300 million to $500 million to recreate that brand awareness today.”

Eagle is among scores of products that marketers abandoned because of declining sales, stronger competitors or a desire to focus on newer brands deemed more contemporary.

Marketers are also taking another look at products that are still in production but have been forgotten or neglected, known as ghost brands or orphan brands.

Makers of such products usually cut advertising budgets in the face of declining sales. That slows sales further, which leads to more budget cuts — creating a downward spiral, difficult to avoid, that can land a ghost or orphan in the netherworld of once-popular, now-deceased trademarks.  

To keep some of its venerable brands fresh — brands like Aleve, Alka-Seltzer, Bayer, Flintstones and One A Day vitamins, and Phillips’ Milk of Magnesia — Bayer HealthCare is pursuing a strategy … focused on “marketing innovation, product innovation and technology innovation.”

For instance, new advertising campaigns for Alka-Seltzer draw on its heritage while at the same time updating brand catch phrases like “I can’t believe I ate the whole thing” and “Try it; you’ll like it.”

There are also new products being brought out under the umbrella of the well-known brands, among them Alka-Seltzer Wake-Up Call, a hangover treatment, and Phillips’ Colon Health, a probiotic supplement in caplet form.

Other older brands may be ripe for revival because “as the population ages, there are certain brands that really resonate with consumers.”

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/business/media/21adco.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=business&adxnnlx=1219320567-FO5ND1sKBcpwsKMnC8H6nQ

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *