by Adam Hartung | Mar 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Those of you who follow my blog should have noticed a new look and feel today! If you receive this missive in your email box via an RSS feed, I encourage you to stop by www.ThePhoenixPrinciple.com to see the new look.
As most of you know, I'm quite serious about helping organizations realize that they all can rejuvenate. It's a mission I started in 2004, and devoted my life to in 2007 when I started writing Create Marketplace Disruption. And now, in the midst of this terrible recession, it is clearer than ever that we need to realize that different phases of the lifecycle take different management approaches. And for most companies today, old fashioned notions of "focus" and "hard work" simply won't pull them out of this recession and toward better returns.
So I've rededicated myself to this mission. And part of that rededication is hiring some professional help with this website! Thanks to Public Words for the new design – and this is just a small part of what they will be doing to help me over the next year to increase the awareness of this mission and expand the base of people who want to help their organizations recharge, reignite and regrow! I'm also spending more time public speaking to companies, leadership teams, industry events and multi-company conferences about what we need to do so we can get back to growing! (If you know of groups, please let them know how The Phoenix Principle and Adam Hartung can help them get growing again.)
So, let me know what you think of the new look and feel! Your comments can help the site be more productive for us all. If you want things added, speak up! I read all comments, whether here or emailed my way, and my new team will consider them all. In addition to the look and feel, please offer your ideas for how I can drive more links, and attract more readers to our mission. Some of you offered great ideas recently (special kudo to reader Bob Morris for his insightful recommendations) about how to better use tags, technoroti tags and trackbacks. Please keep telling me places I need to link, and other things which can help grow readership. Your help in spreading the word is greatly appreciated.
Also, if you haven't noticed I'm not twittering. So you all are invited to reach out to me on Twitter – there's even a link to twitter me on the blog now! I'll be getting my facebook page up soon as well.
I read a fascinating report published today you can dowload from Bank of America claiming that this recession actually began in 2000 – and we're somewhere between 60% and 70% of the way through. Real estate could decline another 15%, and the big equity averages may drop another 20-40%! Whether that's true, or maybe we're closer to "the bottom", for most of our organizations to be prosperous again will take a different approach to management. One that overcomes Lock-in to outdated Success Formulas (often created in a previous industrial era) by obsessing about competitors to learn about market trends, never fearing disruption – internal or in the marketplace – and utilizing White Space to test new business ideas which can create better, higher return Success Formulas that fit newly evolved markets.
"Hiring Plans or Firing Plans" is the headline on Marketwatch.com. Previously, the lowest number achieved for "net hiring plans" was in 1982 when a net 1% of firms were planning to hire. But in the entire 47 years of the Manpower hiring survey (since 1962) never was the index a negative – where more firms plan to lay off than hire!!! That was until now, with the index at -1%. Just one year ago the number was +17%! (Find the complete Manpower Employment Outlook Survey at this link to their site.) More of the same "ain't going to cut it". Instead of looking for reasons to lay off workers, we have to realize that there are a lot of reasons to hire more! If we follow the right management principles – The Phoenix Principle – we can get going again! If we encourage Disruption and keep White Space alive we can continue to grow!
A past client of mine recently discovered a way to introduce a new line of products with 80% less development cost. But the new product is being delayed because the CEO feels he must lay off workers and slow down product launches – due to what he's reading about the economy. The CEO is afraid that a new product launch, which would cement the company's #1 position ahead of competitors gnawing at their position the last 4 years, would be a tough sell to the Board of Directors. The CEO is clearly focusing on the wrong thing – because his Board would be happier with growing sales and profits, and a reinforced #1 market position, than anything else! Especially now! But this company is almost afraid to grow, locked in fear of what to do next. Instead of reallocating resources to growth projects, and jettisoning "sacred cow" products that are low-profit and declining in sales volume, management prefers to follow today's popular wisdom of cutting costs, cutting new product introductions, even cutting revenues by sticking with historical products nobody is buying - so that's what they will do!!!
So, please be a part of this journey. Participate, don't just be a spectator. Provide your feedback and comments. And share the word! Nothing is more valuable than debate. Great ideas are developed in the marketplace, not in someone's head! Pass along the message, and get others involved.
This blog can now be reached directly via:
by Adam Hartung | Mar 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Science
The headlines scream for an answer to when markets will bottom (see Marketwatch.com article from headline "10 signs of a Floor" here) . But for Phoenix Principle investors, that question isn't even material. Who cares what happens to the S&P 500 – you want investments that will go up in value — and there are investments in all markets that go up in value. And not just because we expect some "greater fool" to bail us out of bad investments. Phoenix Principle investors put their money into opportunities which will meet future needs at competitive prices, thus growing, while returning above average rates of return. It really is that simple. (Of course, you have to be sure that other investors haven't bid up the growth opportunity to where it greatly exceeds its future value — like happened with internet stocks in the late 1990s. But today, overbidding that drives up values isn't exactly the problem.)
People get all tied up in "what will the market do?" As an investor, you need to care about the individual business. For years that was how people invested, by focusing on companies. But then clever economists said that as long as markets went up, investors were better off to just buy a group of stocks – an average such as the S&P 500 or Dow Jones Industrials. These same historians said don't bother to "time" your investments at all, just keep on buying some collection (some average) quarter after quarter and you'll do OK. We still hear investment apologists make this same argument. But stocks haven't been going up – and who knows when these "averages" will start going up again? Just ask investors in Japan, where they are still waiting for the averages to return to 1980s levels so they can hope to break even (after 20 years!). These historians, who use the past as their barometer, somehow forgot that consistent and common growth was a requirement to constantly investing in averages.
When the 2008 market shift happened, it changed the foundation upon which "constantly keep buying, don't time investing, it all works out in the end" was based. Those days may return – but we don't know when, if at all. Investors today have to return to the real cornerstone of investing – putting your money into investments which will give people what they want in the future.
Regardless of the "averages," businesses that are positioned to deliver on customer needs in future years will do well. If today the value of Google is down because CEO Eric Schmidt says the company won't return to old growth rates again until 2010, investors should see this as a time to purchase because short-term considerations are outweighing long-term value creation. Do you really believe internet ad-supported free search and paid search are low-growth global businesses? Do you really believe that short-term U.S. on-line advertising trends will remain at current rates, globally, for even 2 full years? Do you think Google will not make money on mobile phones and connectivity in the future? Do you think the market won't keep moving toward highly portable devices for computing answers, like the Apple iPhone, and away from big boxes like PCs?
When evaluating a business the big questions must be "is this company well positioned for most future scenarios? Are they developing robust scenarios of the future where they can compete? Are they obsessing about competitors, especially fringe competitors? Are they willing to be Disruptive? Do they show White Space to try new things?" If the answer to these questions is yes, then you should be considering these as good investments. Regardless of the number on the S&P 500. Look at companies that demonstrate these skills – Johnson & Johnson, Cisco Systems, Apple, Virgin, Nike, and G.E. – and you can start to assess whether they will in the future earn a high rate of return on their assets. These companies have demonstrated that even when people lose jobs and incomes shrink and trade barriers rise, they know how to use scenario planning, competitor obsession, disruptions and white space to grow revenue and profits.
You should not buy a company just because it "looks cheap." All companies look cheap just prior to failing. You could have been a buyer of cheap stock in Polaroid when 24 hour kiosks (not even digital photography yet) made the company's products obsolete. Just because a business met customer needs well in the past does not mean it will ever do so again. Like Sears. Or increasingly Motorola. Or G.M. These companies aren't focused on innovation for future customer needs, they prefer to ignore competitors, they hate disruptions and they refuse to implement White Space to learn. So why would you ever expect them to have a high future value?
Why did recent prices of real estate go up in California, New York, Massachusetts and Florida faster than in Detroit? People want to live and work there more than southeastern Michigan. For a whole raft of reasons. In 1920 the price of a home in Iowa or Kansas was worth more than in California. Why? Because an agrarian economy favored the earth-rich heartland over parched California. In the robust industrial age from 1940 to 1960, the value of real estate in Detroit, Chicago, Akron and Pittsburgh was far higher than San Francisco or Los Angeles. But in an information economy, the economics are different – and today (even after big price declines) California homes are worth multiples of Iowa homes. And, as we move further into the information economy, manufacturing centers (largely on big bodies of water in cool climates) have declining value. The market has shifted, and real estate values reflect the shift. Unless you know of some reason for lots (like millions) of health care or tech jobs to develop in Detroit, the region is highly over-built — even if homes are selling for fractions of former values.
We seem to have forgotten that to make high rates of return, we all have to be "market timers" and "investment pickers." Especially when markets shift. Because not everyone survives!!!!! All those platitudes about buying into market averages only works in nice, orderly markets with limited competition and growth. But when things shift – if you're in the wrong place you can get wiped out!! When the market shifted from agrarian to industrial in the 1920s and '30s my father was extremely proud that he became a teacher and stayed in Oklahoma (though the dust storms and all). But, by the 1970s it was clear that if he'd moved to California and bought a house in Palo Alto his net worth would have been many multiples higher. The same is true for stock investments. You can keep holding on to G.M., Citibank and other great companies of the past — or you can admit shift happened and invest in those companies likely to be leaders in the information-based economy of the next 30 years!
by Adam Hartung | Jan 26, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Do you remember when Home Depot was a Wall Street – and customer – darling? Home Depot was only 20 years old when its incredible growth story vaulted it onto the Dow Jones Industrial Average 9 years ago, replacing Sears. Unfortunately, that youthful ascent turned out to be the company crescendo. Since peaking in value within a year, Home Depot has lost more than 2/3 of its value (see chart here). Things have not been good for the company that "changed the rules" on home do-it-yourself sales.
Along the way, Home Depot changed its CEO a couple of times. And it opened some White Space type of projects. But today, the company announced it was shutting down those projects (Expo Design Centers, YardBIRDs, HD Bath) cutting 5,000 jobs - and an additional 2,000 jobs in a "streamlining" efforts (read article here). In the process, it affirmed revenue will decline 8% this year while earnings per share will drop 24%.
Amidst this background, the stock rose 4.5%.
Home Depot is a company with a very strong Success Formula. That Success Formula met the market needs so well in the 1980s and 1990s that the company excelled beyond all expectations. But like most companies, Home Depot was a "one trick pony." It knew how to do one thing, one way. Then in the early 2000s, competitors started catching up. And Home Depot didn't have anything new to offer. The market started shifting to competitors with lower price – or competitors with even better customer service – leaving Home Depot "stuck in the middle" decent at both price and service not not best at either. And with nothing really knew to attract customers.
So Home Depot launched Expo Design Centers. It was leadership's effort to go further upmarket – to sell even higher priced home items. This was a failed effort from the start:
- Leadership did not tie its projects to any committed scenario of the future where Expo would create a leadership position. There was no scenario planning which showed a critical need for Home Depot to change.
- Expo did not learn from competitors, nor did it set any new standards that exceeded competitors. KDA and others had long been doing what Expo did – and even better! Rather than obsessing about competitors in order to realize where Home Depot was weak, and finding new ways to grow the market, Home Depot decided to launch its own idea without powerful competitive information.
- Thirdly, Home Depot did not Disrupt at all. Although Expo existed, it was never considered important to the company future. Leadership never said it needed to do anything different, nor that it felt these new projects were critical to company success. Instead, leadership let all the employees believe these projects were merely trial balloons with limited commitment.
- And, for sure, Expo and other projects did not meet the real criteria of White Space because they lacked the permission to violate Home Depot Lock-ins and the resources to really be successful.
Now, years later, with the company in even more trouble, Home Depot is closing these stores. It appears management is taking a page from Sears – the company they displaced on the DJIA – which closed its hardware and other store concepts to maintain its focus on traditional Sears. And we all know how that's worked out. Leadership is wiping out growth opportunities to save cost, in order to Defend its now poorly performing Success Formula, rather than using them to try developing a solution for declining revenues and profits. So easy to simply quit. Instead of re-orienting the projects along The Phoenix Principle to try and fix Home Depot, leadership is killing the growth potential to save cost with hopes that some miracle will return the world to the days when Home Depot grew and made above-average returns.
What do Home Depot leaders want employees, investors and vendors to anticipate will turn around this company? Even though Home Depot was a phenomenal success, once it hit a growth stall it fell amazingly fast. Not its historical growth rate, nor its size, nor its reputation was able to stop the ongoing decline that befell Home Depot once it hit a growth stall. (By the way, 93% of those companies that hit a growth stall follow the same spiraling downward path as Home Depot). As Sears has shown, a retailer cannot cost-cut its way to success. Refocusing on its "core business" will not return Home Depot to its halcyon days. And these cuts further assure ongoing company decline.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 16, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Sprint's prepaid mobile unit, Boost Mobile, announced today a new pricing plan. Customers can get nationwide unlimited calling, text and web access – with no roaming charges. The company President said "This plan is designed to be disruptive." (read article here)
That's a poor choice of words. All this new plan does is lower price. And the predominant reaction is that this may spur a deepening price war. There's nothing new being offered. Just a lower price. Offering more at a lower price isn't disruptive. It might challenge competitors to match that price, and hurt profits, but it isn't disruptive. It doesn't offer a new technology curve that can provide better service at lower pricing long term, it's just another step along a price discount curve.
This change might be very good for consumers. But it's not as good as a really Disruptive action. For example, cell phones were disruptive because they offered a service never before available – mobile telephoning – and offered an entirely new cost curve. In the beginning they were more expensive, so limited only to those who really needed the service. But as time went along and volume increased it became possible for wireless telephony to eclipse old fashioned land-line service. In many emerging countries wireless is the phone service – just as it is for many younger people who have no land line service in their homes relying entirely on mobile phones.
If the CEO at Sprint Mobile wants to be Disruptive he has to come up with a new solution that creates the opportunity for entirely new users who are under- or even unserved. Perhaps telephony that is free because it's linked to a simple radio. Or perhaps a telephone that can translate languages for international use. Or perhaps a phone that can scan documents and send as emails in popular applications like MSWord. Or maybe phones that offer free netmeeting services with document transport and manipulation operating simultaneously with voice service. Or these might just be new features down the road for existing phones – and not even disruptive themselves.
Disruptive innovations are not just price discounts or changes in pricing structures. They bring in new customers and offer the opportunity for dramatically lower pricing because of a different technology or solution format. And they require White Space to develop new customers that can effectively use the new technology and prove its value.
Therefore, we can expect competitors to quickly match the new pricing offered at Boost Mobile. And profits to be curbed.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership
It was only 2003 when Ed Zander joined Motorola as its new CEO. In the midst of lost market share and declining revenue, analysts were calling for massive layoffs. But, Mr. Zander layed off no one. Instead, he eliminated the executive dining room, focused all executives on customers (even staff positions) and emphasized new product releases. It wasn't long before Motorola spit out the RAZR, a product tied up in product release, and a revitalized Motorola started growing again.
The easiest thing Mr. Zander could have done was increase the already extensive layoffs. Analysts and investors were all calling for more reductions. Instead, he Disrupted long-held lock-ins at Motorola that kept products from making it to market. And Mr. Zander was rapidly named "CEO of the Year." Yes, the RAZR predated him, and he was not a new product genius. But he did unleash new products on the marketplace that created new growth and pushed Motorola back into the forefront of wireless competitors. And his push for White Space created joint product development projects with Apple, and new design centers from Brazil to Bangalore.
Unfortunately, Mr. Zander did not stick to his Diruption and White Space programs. When an outsider bought up company stock and attacked Motorola for continuing its investment in new products, Mr. Zander was cowed. He retrenched. And quickly – very quickly – Motorola found itself without exciting new product introductions. The RAZR was not replaced with additional new products. And innovations remained stuck in R&D and product development instead of making it to market. As the old joint project with Apple allowed the iPhone to hit the market, Mr. Zander found results down and himself on the market as well.
Now, Motorola is cutting heads again. Despite decades of leadership in product development in markets from two-way land mobile radios (like police radios) to television DVR boxes to mobile infrastructure towers to mobile handlhelds you would now think there are no longer any new ideas coming out of Schaumburg, IL. The replacement leadership is taking the easy road. After laying off some 3,000 employees recently Motorola has announced it intends to lay off 4,000 more (read article here). You would think there are no new product ideas at Motorola, as company leadership does what's easy — cutting costs with layoffs. Introducing new products, especially now that Apple has lost its iconic leader Steve Jobs, might produce better results. But since analysts expect layoffs, why not simply do what's easy?
Similarly, Google has announced it is laying off 100 workers (read article here). Google is the fastest growing large company in America; and possibly on the globe. Google has continued hiring new workers, expanding into cell phones and other new markets as competitors have made highly qualified employees readily available. But The Wall Street Journal has been calling for Google to stop hiring and launching new products, pointing out the economy is in a recession. Like Google is un-American for trying to continue growing when other companies are stalled. How dare they!
So now Google is laying off some of its recruiters. On the surface, it would be easy to say this is immaterial. 100 is only .5% of the 20,000+ Google employees. But why is Google doing this? Does it simply feel it must? Does it feeled compelled to lay off workers just because it can? Or because other large companies are doing so? Is this "hey, as the new kid on the block maybe we're missing something and need to play follow-the-leader"? It makes little sense why Google would want to jeapardize its future when it has an incredible opportunity to continue muscle-building its organization with some of the best and brightest folks available – only because old employers (like Motorola) aren't smart enough to take advantage of the talent.
Growth is necessary for all profit-making companies. Without growth, the business stalls and really bad things happen. When competitors start to retrench, it opens opportunities for successful companies to push forward with new growth projects. As long as the population grows, demand for products and services grows as well. Even in recessions, successful businesses grow. Layoffs are never a good thing for any company. Layoffs indicate you can't grow, and if you can't grow you simply aren't worth much. Why should you have a P/E (price/earnings multiple) of 45, or 30, or 20, or 15, or even 8 if you can't grow?
It's incredily easy to lay people off. In America, there are precious few laws preventing it. And almost no longer is there any social stigma. If you have a bad quarter, or even just a bad product launch, you can lay-off some people claiming its for the good of the business. Leaders regularly hide their bad decisions behind layoffs claiming "market conditions" are to blame for weak results. But what investors, employees, vendors and customers want from leaders isn't layoffs. They want new products, new services, new markets, new innovations that spur increased demand from added value. They want growth. Growth may not be easy, but it's necessary.
Instead of laying off 100 workers, why isn't Google deploying them into new business opportunities? Are there simply no new growth areas that could use the talent of these people Google hired out of the thousands of applicants that sought these jobs? And the same is true at Motorola. The new mobile devices CEO was hired from Qualcomm at millions of dollars expense – why isn't he putting all these engineers and product development experts to work? Why isn't he launching new products that increase the capabilities of wireless services so consumers do more calling, texting, emailing and application sharing? The easiest thing he can do is fire 3,000, 4,000 or 7,000 employees. Anyone can do that. But is it going to help Motorola grow? If not, why isn't he doing what will take the company to better competitiveness and an improved market position versus competitors? Is he simply doing what's easy, instead of what's necessary?
by Adam Hartung | Jan 14, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
Yesterday Yahoo! announced it was replacing its old CEO with Carol Bartz, former CEO at Autodesk. Interestingly, most analysts aren't very excited – because they don't think Ms. Bartz brings the right experience to the challenge (read article on analyst reaction here.) The complaint is that Ms. Bartz is not steeped in consumer goods or advertising experience, so she's not the right person for the significant challenges facing Yahoo!
Yahoo! does not need "more of the same." Yahoo! needs to adapt to the technology requirements necessary to succeed in on-line ad placement. Google is way, way out front in internet advertising sales, and there's not a single executive at Google with experience in ad sales or consumer goods! Google has changed the game in advertising largely because it has not been Locked-in to old notions about advertising, and has instead created new competitive approaches leaving old players in the dust. And largely because its executives have eschewed historical advertising lore in favor of creating new solutions.
Yahoo! doesn't need someone with advertising experience. Yahoo! needs someone that will Disrupt the organization and change its Success Formula. And for this, Ms. Bartz may well be exactly the right person. While she led Autocad the company which changed the world of CAD/CAM (Computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing software), and in the process brought down a large GE division (Calma) and in the end crippled DEC (Digital Equipment Corp.) which was extremely dependent on CAD/CAM workstation sales. Autocad was supposedly a "toy" running on cheap PCs, but it became the software used by many engineers that was a fraction of competitor's cost and operated on machines a fraction of those needed to run competitor software.
In the process, Ms. Bartz became known as "one tough cookie." A CEO who understood that competitors gave nothing easily, and it takes a very tough smaller competitor to unseat market leaders. Year after year she led a company that brought forward new products which challenged competitors – all better financed, with larger market share and long lists of large, successful customers. And after 15 years or so Autocad emerged as the premier competitor. Isn't that the experience most needed by Yahoo!?
Meanwhile, one of the old leaders in ad sales – Chicago Tribune – is now changing its format from broadsheet to tabloid (read article here). For those not steeped in newspapers, broadsheets (like Wall Street Journal or USAToday) have long been considered "quality" journals, while tabloid format (like a magazine) has been considered a lower quality product. Although this switch is a cost saver, and any implication on journalistic quality is largely symbolic, the reality is that Tribune Corporation has slashed its journalistic staff in Chicago, L.A. (L.A. Times) and other markets to a shadow ghost of the past. In just a few years, a leading news organization has become almost irrelevant – and left two of America's largest cities with far too little journalistic oversight. Now it's trying to save itself into success (read article here).
Yahoo! is changing its CEO, and appears to be putting in place someone ready to Disrupt and install White Space. Tribune Corporation has slashed cost, slashed cost, slashed cost, increased its debt, and turned itself into a shell of what it used to be. Now the company is taking actions to lower paper cost – in an effort to again save a few more pennies. After watching its local classified advertisers go to CraigsList.com, and its display ad customers go to Google, its new leader, Sam Zell, remains unwilling to Disrupt and invest in White Space to become an effective internet news organization. Today even HuffingtonPost.com is able to offer more news on more topics faster than any news properties at Tribune Corporation to an avid internet news readership.
Following the Tribune lead, Gannett – publisher of USAToday – has announced it intends to force everyone in the company to work for one week for no pay (read article here). Apparently not even color pictures and feel-good journalism can attract advertisers. Probably because not even hotel guests care any more about getting a newspaper. Not when they log on to the wireless internet upon awakening to check e-mail and news alerts before they even open the room door to go to breakfast. Gannett will have no more success trying to save its business by forcing employees to work for free than Tribune has had with its cost cuts. Ignoring market shifts is not successfully met by trying to do more of the same cheaper.
What Gannett, Tribune Corporation and other news organizations need is their own Carol Bartz. Someone who may not be steeped in all the tradition and experience of the industry – but knows how to Disrupt the status quo and use White Space to launch new products and move toward products customers want.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 8, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
"You never get a second chance to make a first impression." I'm not sure who said that first, but it's appropriate for the speech given by Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's head, at the current Consumer Electronics Show.
Almost 2 years ago, after almost 2 years of delay, Windows launched its new operating system named Vista. In the past, such announcements caused great excitement as customers looked forward to upgraded capability. But when Vista came out, it was like the old joke "he threw a party, and nobody came." Customers ignored the release, preferring to keep keep using Microsoft XP. New PC buyers even requested that vendors supply their computers with XP instead of Vista. And competitor Apple had an advertising field day making fun of the complaints PC customers had about Vista as Apple promoted its Macintosh. Microsoft simply didn't offer customers the necessary innovation to make Vista interesting.
Now Microsoft (chart here) has announced it intends to launch Windows 7 (read article here). What struck me most about the announcement was its lack of interest. On Marketwatch.com, the article wasn't even on the first page – you have to scroll down to find it. The equivalent of "not making it above the fold" in old newspaper lingo. Worse, Microsoft's announcement didn't even get top billing regarding the CES show – as its announcement took second fiddle to the article lead about Palm's announcement of a new device and operating system.
Clearly, reporters are savvy to what's important in information techology these days. And efforts to Defend & Extend the PC platform is not where the excitement is. Customers are quickly moving from the PC to handheld devices and remote applications. Interest about what you can do on your handheld is now eclipsing what you can do on a bigger, heavier PC. It's clear to most people, even if not to Microsoft leadership, that Defending & Extending the PC platform is suffering diminishing returns.
Simultaneously, folks woke up today and realized that "not failing" is not the same as succeeding.
As retailers went through the worst holiday season in possibly forever, some folks kept talking about how good Wal-Mart (chart here) was doing. In reality, at best Wal-Mart was possibly holding even or slightly growing. Wal-mart wasn't failing, like Circuit City, Bed Bath & Beyond, Linens & Things and Sharper Image – but it wasn't doing well. Sales at Wal-Mart have been stagnant for years. Now, even Wal-Mart has admitted its sales for December and the fourth quarter were below forecast (read article here). So the stock dropped 7.5%
Really. What did folks expect? Wal-Mart hasn't done anything new to attract customers in well over a decade. The ASSUMPTION analysts kept making was that because Wal-Mart was synonymous with cheap, in a bad recession Wal-mart would do well. But consumers showed that there's more to being a good retailer than being cheap. And gift giving is about more than giving any gift. People still want a good shopping experience, even when unemployed, and the concrete floors and cheap merchandise at Wal-Mart doesn't make them feel any better. Many decided it was better to go on-line looking for values, where overhead is even lower than at Wal-Mart, and where merchandise quality was top rate and wide brand selection was available.
Both Microsoft and Wal-Mart were great companies. They made huge differences as leaders in their industries. But both are now trying to Defend & Extend out of date Success Formulas. And even in a recession – maybe especially in a recession – that does not excite people. Customers want innovation, not just more of the same, but finally working right or at a cheaper price. And when dimes get tight, innovation speaks even louder. Customers want to know how innovation can create greater satisfaction – not just how the same old thing can be — cheap. Until Microsoft and Wal-Mart disrupt their Lock-ins and open White Space there is no reason to be optimistic about their futures.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership
The New York Times Company is in a heap of trouble (see chart here). Long the #1 daily newspaper in the USA, advertising revenues fell 21% versus a year ago in November – a feat similar to its revenue decline in December, 2007. NYT is in a growth stall – and shows no signs of making a turnaround. The decline in ad revenue and subscriptions is horrific. The company has recently slashed its dividend 74%, and is taking out a $225million loan against the value of its headquarters location raising cash to keep its newspaper operations going. The company is running television ads in most major markets – like Chicago and LA – to seek out new subscribers. And now the newspaper is placing ads on its page 1 – an act that is a big deal to people in the newspaper business. (Read about New York Times front page ads here.)
So by taking these actions, is the New York Times Company preparing itself for change? After all, the problem with newspapers is that increasingly people want their news via the internet – not a paper. So even though the management at "the Times" is distressed over the actions they have taken, investors should be asking if these actions are likely to turn around the company. Value fell 67% in 2008 – and is down practically 90% for the last 5 years.
Long term successful companies Disrupt their Lock-ins – those behaviors, decision-making practices and policies that keep the company doing what it always did. As businesses grow, developing their Success Formulas, they figure out ways to Lock-in that Success Formula so it repeats. While the market is growing, and the Success Formula is meeting customer needs, these Lock-ins help the business focus on execution and grow with the market. Lock-ins are great, helping people do more, better, faster.
That is, until markets shift. When external markets shift – because of new technology, new services, new competitors or other factors – the Success Formula loses its advantage. The solution to market shifts isn't to continue optimizing the Success Formula. Returns are declining because the Success Formula is becoming obsolete. The solution is to migrate the business to a new Success Formula which supports market needs and regain growth. And that migration happens after the old Success Formula is Disrupted – through attacks on the Lock-ins – demonstrating to everyone that the company is serious about advancing to meet new market needs.
Unfortunately, far too many companies claim they are Disrupting – and preparing for the future – when in fact they are merely disturbing the Success Formula. Layoffs, financial adjustments, asset sales and outsourcing may be painful, but they don't attack the old Lock-ins nor alter the Success Formula. People are often dramatically disturbed by the changes, but the Success Formula is unaffected. When this happens, the business keeps deteriorating despite the actions.
And that's what's happening at the New York Times Company. Leadership has not taken the actions necessary to demonstrate to customers, employees, vendors or investors that they have to change. They have not Disrupted. To be a world leading news organization now requires deep expertise and success on the internet – yet NYT is in no way a major player on the web. And they have shown no signs of investing there in a major turnaround effort. NYT has not Disrupted its operations to set the stage for new White Space where a powerful new Success Formula can be developed (similar to the major programs like MySpace.com at News Corp., for example). To the contrary, the actions taken by the New York Times Company are directed at trying to preserve an outdated past. Advertising on page 1 is almost unimportant to the vast majority of readers – and completely unimportant to internet news mavens. It's not even newsworthy.
Like Tribune Corporation (owner of The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times as well as other papers), New York Times Company is focused on the wrong things. And as a result, is just as likely to end up in bankruptcy. Even Tribune management invested in Careers.com, Cars.com and Food Network along the way – each of which show demonstrably more promise for growth than any of the newspaper companies. But because management won't Disrupt – won't attack old Lock-ins – these companies keep hoping for a return to the days when newspapers were central to life. And that isn't going to happen. The world has moved onward. So, like Tribune, New York Times will eventually run out of resources and find itself in bankruptcy as well.
Unwillingness to Disrupt is a key indicator of a company likely to fail. Over time, all markets change. New competitors create new products that serve customers differently. Old Success Formulas see their returns evaporate as customers move to the new market solutions. And these companies end up, like Polaroid, being companies with a great past – but no future.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 4, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
2009 starts in earnest for businesses this week. And for many leaders and managers, the focus will be about "what should I do now?" Things were tough in 2008, and many are wondering if 2009 will be even worse. So the tendency is to look at how things have been done, talk to existing customers, and see if there's a way to keep doing things but possibly with fewer resources. Many businesses are looking for some new way to Defend & Extend the old business – even as leaders realize the returns are declining.
And that just might make you a target for competitors – thus worsening your situation.
Think about what's gone on in Detroit. GM, Ford and Chrysler have kept focusing on what they should do. In the process, they've paid precious little attention to competitors. As a result, they've kept slipping share year after year, while profits have disintegrated. Now, each American company keeps focusing on its own problems, and trying to find a way to deal with them. Meanwhile, as the Wall Street Journal is reporting (link to article here), competitors such as VW and BMW – at the least – are targeting the U.S. Big 3 automakers.
Recognizing how weak these U.S. companies have begun, the German manufacturers are taking aim. The other German manufacturers, as well as Japanese, Korean and Indian are doing the same, we can be sure. And why not? In business, the best time to attack your competitor is when they are ignoring you and focusing on themselves. All the layoffs, reorganizations, pay cuts, plant shut-downs and other internal actions give the company a false sense of "doing something" to solve their problems, when in fact it makes them a target for more market-aware competitors. By focusing internally, even if talking to existing customers, these companies make themselves targets for those who understand their Success Formulas and have developed ways to attack it.
Woolworth's was a leader in American retailing for decades – until they were displaced by more aggressive retailers they chose to ignore. But after going bankrupt in the U.S., the chain lived on in the U.K. until this week – where after 99 years the chain will close on Tuesday (see video about Woolworth's failure here). Woolworth's spent its energy trying to figure out what it should do in a weak market environment, and it missed more aggressive competitors who moved faster to liquidate inventory at lower prices and keep customers coming in the store as sales declined. Yet, Sears and its KMart subsidiary keep trying to find ways to "resurrect" their out-of-date business – oblivious to more aggressive competitors such as Kohl's that are rapidly making Sears obsolete. How long will Sears survive ignoring the aggressive actions of competitors that would like to drive it out of business?
It's tempting, especially in a tough economy, to look inward. Phrases like "cut the fat" and "get lean" sound very appealing. It makes managers think solving problems is all about improving execution of the old Success Formula. But it's the Success Formula itself that needs addressing – not execution! When markets shift, it's competitors that make the Success Formula value decline. It's competitors that create the market evolution obsoleting your business. Competitors generate the "Creative Destruction" which pushes down results.
Competitors are what makes for tough business conditions. Instead of talking to ourselves, and customers that know us only for what we've been in the past, we should be a lot more focused on competitors and what they are doing. The competitors that act quickly to introduce new products, new technologies, new services and new customer programs are the ones that will steal share in these tough times. It's competitors that deserve a lot more of our attention – because they are the ones who are causing our market share to decline, our prices to stagnate and our profits to drop.
Phoenix Principle companies obsess about competitors. They eschew spending lots of planning time on what they used to do, and what the old plans were. Instead, they spend time talking about actions taken by competitors – and then figuring out how those competitors accomplish those actions. Competitors show us new technologies to introduce, new features and variations desired by customers, and new ways to improve sales and profits. As the chairman of Intel, Andrew Grove, once said about competitors "only the paranoid survive."
No one wants to get chewed up in this recession. But focusing internally makes you a target – like GM, Ford, Chrysler, Woolworth's U.K. and Sears have become. While they obsess internally, competitors are taking innovation to market. Those who want to not only survive, but thrive, in 2009 will be the ones who look at competitors to understand the actions they take, and to move competitively to thwart those actions. As they understand competitors, they will launch actions intended to make competitors' lives miserable – thus stealing share from them. Winning in 2009 is about being a tough competitor, not waiting for someone to bail you out.
Success rarely comes from doing more of the same – even if better, faster or a touch cheaper. Success comes from developing and launching new offerings that steal sales from competitors. To hold onto your share, you have to fight off competitors. To grow, you have to outdo competitors. And in 2009, with things as tough as they are, those companies who will avoid having a target on their backs will be the ones who focus on competitors, rather than themselves.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 29, 2008 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
2008 was quite a year. Many businesses came out far worse than they dreamed possible when the year started. The Wilshire 5000 (one of the broadest measures of U.S. equity values) declined 40% – losing some $7trillion dollars of value. More than 1.2million jobs disappeared in the USA. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are at record levels. Although we'd like to think this has been a very recent phenomenon, bankruptcies and business failures took a dramatic turn upward in 2000 (to what were then record levels) and remained at rates far above any historical norms for the decade. Not only small, but very large companies (those with assets greater than $1B) have been failing at rates exceeding 10x the failures of almost all decades in the 1900s. 2008 was more the climax of a trend than really something totally new.
So, what should you do about it? One option would be to cut costs and try to "survive the downturn." Unfortunately, that approach is very likely to doom the business. Firstly, the recovered economy won't look like the previous economy. Macro shifts in competitiveness and required capabilities to succeed have been happening since the 1990s, so the recovery will not benefit those who did well (and certainly not those who were mediocre performers) in previous times. Second, more innovative competitors who are better aligned with current markets will steal sales, customers and share while you retrench. Innovation doesn't stop during weak economies, and retrenching companies fall further behind while in survival mode to those who embrace the shifts and alter their Success Formulas. Just look at previous recessionary cost cutters like Xerox, DEC and Montgomery Wards.
With companies like Circuit City, Bed Bath & Beyond, The Bombay Company and Sharper Image failing while WalMart sales increased 3% in November, it might be tempting to say that now is the time simply to grow by doing more of what you've previously done. Or by focusing on ways to cut costs. But that would ignore the underlying trends that caused these companies to fail – and WalMart to stagnate with wickedly weak performance the entire last decade. While the credit crisis pushed the failures over the brink, their troubles were tied to broader themes in consumer demand and retail expectations. These companies were doing poorly long before the credit crisis emerged. And customers didn't flock to WalMart. 3% growth isn't what would be called spectacular. When WalMart looks good only because it isn't failing, it tells us that the future opportunity isn't to be like WalMart (which is the retail leader in low cost operations) – but instead to lead customers in new trends. Customers don't want all retailers to be like WalMart (which happened to be in the right place when this once in a lifetime crisis happened). They want innovation which will attract them.
Darwin himself said, "It is not the strongest that survive, nor the smartest…It is the most adaptable."
Increased use of digitization opened the floodgates to greater globalization. The search for "low cost" went global seeking the cheapest labor and lowest currency values. But it has also opened doors for more innovation. Companies in the U.S., Europe, India and China all have the opportunity to bring forward innovation in new products and new services to delivery value. The search for lower cost does not create growth, merrely lower cost. Innovation leads to real growth. Those companies which will emerge much stronger will be those who identify opportunities for real growth in these changed markets – by looking internally and externally for innovation.
If you find it hard to get excited about Delta, which is now the largest airline since merging with Northwest, don't feel bad. Just because higher fuel prices pushed some airlines over the brink, and left others (like United) badly crippled doesn't mean Delta is going to be a leader. Lower fuel prices short term, combined with decreased capacity due to failures, may increase short-term airline profits, but does not mean customers are any happier flying now than before. To the contrary, now that customers have to pay for their own soft drinks and sandwiches (at incredibly expensive prices, by the way), pay extra fees for checking bags, have to take connecting flights more often with longer travel times and greater risks of delays, and deal with unhappy airline employees who are working for less pay, benefits and pension means customer satisfaction is at an all-time low. It's not likely that Delta will lead people back onto flights. Instead, customers are looking for a supplier that will use innovation to provide a better experience and value — possibly Virgin America?
If we all go into 2009 with plans only to cut costs and "wait it out" then 2009 will not be a good year. What are we waiting out? How can we expect things to "get better"? But if we use 2009 to identify innovation which can better meet customer needs, we have every reason to be optimistic. Now, more than ever, it is time to Disrupt our Lock-ins to old behaviors. We don't need "more of the same, but cheaper". We need to be aware of the limits in our existing Success Formulas by Disrupting. And we need to explore White Space where innovations can be tested. White Space will create new Success Formulas which will create growth – and that could make 2009 into a great year for those companies focused on the future and willing to adapt to this latest market shift.
