Answer: According to a study done by Cisco … 60%.
That’s why companies like Accenture are going to “hoteling”, why more hotels are putting in business suites, and why Starbucks is adding conference rooms in some locations.
= = = = =
What are the bigger implications?
= = = = =
HITS: HomaFiles Ideas To Share
Punch line: Relatively small increases in price can generate large increases in profitability … that’s called price-profit leverage. And, relatively small increases in prices are low hanging fruit for practically all products and companies since consumers have “zones of price indifference” or, in other words, a “latitude of price acceptance”.
* * * * *
Price-profit Leverage
According to McKinsey Increases in price typically have 2 to 4 times the effect on profitability as proportionate increases in volume.
More specifically, given the cost structure typical of large corporations, a 1% boost in price realization yields a 5% to 15% net income gain.
* * * * *
Latitude of Price Acceptance
Customers have a latitude of price acceptance — a range of possible prices within which price changes have little or no impact on their purchase decisions.
Customers frame their LPAs from the price range that they observe, say, in-store vs. online, or regular vs. sale prices.
LPAs vary for different categories of products that customers buy.
A McKinsey & Co. study shows that LPAs can range widely: from 17% for branded consumer health and beauty products to 10% for engineered industrial components and apparel to only 2% for some financial products.
The 2% for financial products may seem paltry, but the McKinsey study indicates that a financial services company moving from the middle to the top of a 2% LPA band for personal loan products would generate an 11% increase in operating profits for those products.
* * * * *
Buyer behavior & LPAs
Scanner panel data analyses for sweetened and unsweetened drink categories support the presence of a region of price insensitivity around a reference price.
* * * * *
Takeaway: Know the LPA … then go for it … don’t leave easy $$$ on the table.
The Fordham Institute evaluated the power of state teacher unions along thirty-seven different variables grouped into five broad areas:
Area 1: Resources and Membership
Internal union resources (members and revenue), plus K–12 education spending in the state, including the portion of such spending devoted to teacher salaries and benefits.
Area 2: Involvement in Politics
Teacher unions’ share of financial contributions to state candidates and political parties, and their representation at the Republican and Democratic national conventions.
Area 3: Scope of Bargaining
Bargaining status (mandatory, permitted, or prohibited), scope of bargaining, right of unions to deduct agency fees from non-members, and legality of teacher strikes.
Area 4: State Policies
Degree of alignment between teacher employment rules and charter school policies with traditional union interests.
Area 5: Perceived Influence
Results of an original survey of key stakeholders within each state, including how influential the unions are in comparison to other entities in the state, whether the positions of policymakers are aligned with those of teacher unions, and how effective the unions have been in stopping policies with which they disagree.
= = = = =
Answer: Hawaii and Oregon have the strongest teacher unions … Florida has the weakest.
See the report for details by state.
The Homa Files 