by Adam Hartung | Apr 21, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Harley-Davidson (see chart here) has had one heck of a 20 years. If you put $100 in Harley stock in 1986, it would be worth $23,000 today. Profits have gone from $4.3million to $1billion in 2007. As boomers got older and richer they gained disposable income, and many spent a lot on Harley motorcycles.
In 2001 through 2005 Harley had to increase production every year. But last week Harley announced it’s revenue was declining 13%, and thus it is laying off 700 of its 9,000 employees and looking to possibly idle a plant (read article here). Of course management says this is just a short-term phenomenon created by the lack of easy credit and impending recession. Investors should just wait and things will work out. With the company value down about 50% since early 2007, leadership claims Harley will return to provide great investor returns. That would be an investment mistake.
While revenue has gone up, so has the average age of a Harley buyer (read background on Harley here). From age 35 in 1987, the typical Harley buyer today is 47 (read info on aging buyers here and here see chart on average age of buyers here). The typical customer earned $38,000 in 1987. By 1997 (almost a decade ago) the average income had risen to $83,000 (read income information here). By dealer statements, the bet is that today the average income is over $100,000. The reality is that Harley’s customers are slowly marching into retirement. These stats bode for a lot of troubles – retirement is not the best age for selling motorcycles. Just how old and wealthy can Harley hope to attract buyers? It’s not like Harley is selling a Rolls Royce.
For 25 years Harley has built its brand reputation for one type of motorcycle. Officianados will point out there are actually 4 kinds of Harley’s – but to most people all Harleys are variations on a simple theme of big V-Twin motorcycles that are – well – loud. For most motorcycle riders, Harleys are also incredibly expensive. Go to the #1 producer of motorcycles, Honda, and you can purchase a bike almost identical to a Harley for $8,000 to $12,000 – but most Harley’s cost north of $20,000 – some as high as $40,000! That sort of branding led to some incredible pricing which has created great profits. But it also priced out of the market more than 85% of all potential customers.
So what are 25-35 year old customers buying? Not Harleys. And as they age, why would Harley expect them to convert? Did boomers grow up and want to buy their dad’s Oldsmobile – or did they choose to purchase Mercedes and BMWs? So it is with younger buyers today. They are buying Hondas, Suzukis, Kawasakis and Yamahas – and they have no plans to ever buy a Harley. Harley’s CEO has felt he had to protect what Harley historically stood for, at the expense of attracting younger – and more – buyers. He chose to "milk" the brand of its value, and now that brand is about to see the udder go dry. Sure, there are a lot of older guys out there with Harley logos tattoed on their bodies – a testament to a great historical brand – but that’s not what’s getting tattooed on young people today. And Harley’s are not what they are riding when they make those first couple of motorcycle purchases.
The odds are not good that Harley will come roaring back with more volume, higher prices and more profits in 2 or 3 years as the recession wanes. They’ve had a great run, but their customers are aging, just like the technology in most of their products. Their product line is limited, their dealers are dedicated to rather out-of-date brand nostalgia, and their technology is frankly quite aged. Yes, Harley has done some things to attract new buyers, like launching its V-Rod with an engine designed by Porsche, but the company never Disrupted itself and the V-Rod has been an after-thought that has not built a following and has not kept up with competitive motorcycles in its class. There’s been no White Space in Harley, instead only efforts to Defend & Extend the old brand and products. That worked well for a long time – but all Success Formulas have a half-life. For Harley, this downturn will most likely be a permanent ratcheting down of volume – meaning negative growth. And for investors that is definitely not good news.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 11, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Microsoft (see chart here) is huge and has a lot of cash. So do you care? What made Microsoft an incredible company was how it managed to aid the growth of PC technology, making the machines every day parts of our lives. Microsoft products ranged from operating systems to desktop applications to the prolific Internet Explorer web browser. Along the way Microsoft grew incredibly fast, literally won every marketing war it engaged in, dominated its markets and made huge amounts of money. What a great past.
But what is Microsoft doing now? It’s latest operating system (Vista) took 6 years to develop, got to market almost 3 years late, and is not even adopted by half the current customers. A year after launch, Microsoft has to strong-arm PC manufacturers to load the product rather than the older version (XP). Meanwhile both Linux and Macintosh are stealing operating system share from Microsoft – a very bad sign. Users aren’t clamoring for new versions of office automation software, and growth has stymied. And after dominating the market with IE, Microsoft is now contending with Firefox in the browser market. Quite simply, Microsoft isn’t growing. It is sitting on a huge pile of cash, but can’t figure out how to invest it to generate additional growth. And investors haven’t seen any growth in company equity value the last 5 years!
So, Microsoft has offered to buy Yahoo! But why? Microsoft hasn’t offered any new insight to what it’s ownership of the #2 browser will do for customers or investors. Microsoft has merely said it has the money to spend – like a teenager with last week’s paycheck burning a hole in his pocket. If there’s no plan to launch new products, or otherwise generate growth, why spend the money on a company that is far, far behind the #1 player Google? If Yahoo! can’t maintain or grow share versus Google, what is Microsoft planning to do to change the situation? Merely owning Yahoo! won’t help Microsoft be a better company.
Microsoft slipped into the flats four years ago. Now it’s trying to Defend & Extend its past glory, but to not much success as it is losing little bits of share all over. It has a huge war chest to fight this defensive battle. But wouldn’t investors be better off if Microsoft handed out huge dividends? Why not let investors take the money and buy shares of Cisco, Google, RIMM, Oracle or other higher growth companies? Why should Microsoft management burn this cash? No one is fooled by this action – today’s Chicago Tribune headline ran with "Is Yahoo deal set up for failure?" (read article here) and the last paragraph reads "No matter who ends up with Yahoo, the people involved are not innovators" – quoting Marc Benioff CEO of Salesforce.com. "They are followers. This is not a deal about the future of the Internet. It’s about the problems of not executing in the past against Google."
If companies don’t grow, then why do they exist? Without growth, the company should be milked for maximum cash and the money given to investors who can invest in other high growth opportunities. Microsoft had a great past – but it has not maintained its focus on markets and new opportunities. It missed the networking wave – which largely went to Cisco. It missed the PDA wave (personal digital assistants) which has gone to RIMM and Palm. It missed the digital music wave which has gone to Apple. It missed the internet search and advertising wave – which has already gone to Google.
Microsoft started Defending & Extending its personal computer business, and it lost its growth. Bill Gates demonstrated a knack for developing future scenarios and identifying emerging markets. But he almost missed the web – and it took a herculean effort on his part to get the company refocused and out with IE. Mr. Gates did not build an organization that valued Disruption and invested in White Space seeking new markets early and experimenting with new Success Formulas. He relied on himself. Mr. Balmer is a classic D&E manager – not a Disruptor nor investor in White Space. So now Microsoft leadership is doing things that will just waste our time and investor money.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 9, 2008 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
Great companies don’t only get into new businesses, they know when to get out. Look at GE – a company that sells almost as many businesses as it buys every year. Another company following this practice is Philips (see chart here). In the U.S. few people know much about Philips – although it is a global company with many successful products in multiple businesses.
Philips sells consumer products, like radios, telephones, monitors, DVD players, cameras, webcams, Sonicare toothbrushes, Norelco razors, MP3 players and televisions. It also sells medical systems – like CT scanners, ultrasound machines and heart defibrilators. It sells lighting systems which includes everything from home light bulbs to interior designs to products for lighting the exterior of office skyscrapers or religious temples. Philips was a pioneer in developing compact disc technology and optical storage devices and is a leader in high tech plastics and printed circuit board technology. (Read about Philips at its company web site here.)
Philips generated 2007 revenues of $39billion. Founded and run out of the Netherlands, this is pretty remarkable. The Netherlands has only 16.5million people! The whole country’s population is about 2x the five buroughs of New York City – or the same as the New York metropolitan area. Yet this company is bigger than DuPont, Intel, 3M and Merck – all members of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Founded in 1891, Philips has met the test of time, entering new markets, and growing both revenues and profits, for several decades. Well resourced, Philips has created and implemented White Space to grow for longer than almost any company in the U.S.A.
Yet, today Philips announced it was going to quit making televisions for North America (read article here). A pioneer, and leader, in flat panel televisions – a high growth product line in the consumer-centric U.S. market – Philips is abandoning manufacturing this $1.7Billion product line, shutting its Althanta headquarters. Manufacturing for the Philips and Magnavox brands will transfer to Tokyo based Funai (which makes Emerson brand as well.)
Phoenix Principle companies not only are quick to Disrupt and implement White Space, they are quick to get out as well. And here we see a large company, with big resources, walk away from manufacturing a product line that is huge WHILE GROWTH IS GOOD. Long before the business slips into the Swamp Philips is looking ahead and changing course. Rather than get trapped in a low-profit business as growth slows, they are getting out on the way up to maximize the value – while focusing precious resources on other opportunities.
All companies of all sizes can be fleet of foot. Even large and aged ones. It requires the discipline to be forward-focused on markets and opportunities rather than history focused. It requires not getting blinded to think big businesses need Defend & Extend behavior – but rather the flexibility to move fast as markets move. It requires a willingness to not rely on your own internal focus – and your own resource pool – when making decisions about future investments. It requires the skill to realize that not all White Space is worth additional investment, and there are times to get out.
Long term success requires overcoming Lock-in. Not only by consistently setting up new White Space, but knowing when to get out of White Space rather than Lock-in on its efforts. Constantly getting into new opportunities means, by definition, that not all are worth pursuing. Some get out early, and others later. It takes discipline to overcome Lock-in – and Philips has shown the knack for 10 decades.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 8, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Last night ABC’s Nightline program featured an article on Starbucks (see print version here). This is not the first time Nightline has discussed Starbucks. The program previously chided management about it’s competition with McDonald’s (see video on YouTube here) saying Starbuck’s coffee wasn’t any better than the fast food giant. Nightline’s recent feature was that Starbucks needs to "regain its focus" under the return of early CEO Howard Schulz. Something he was happy to support. Even Marketwatch kicked-in its review of the "retro-strategy" being taken to rejuvenate the company by launching a new coffee blend (read article here).
Wrong. Do we need a lot more Starbucks? At 15,000 units, one could easily argue that it’s sensible to expect less growth. And, as in all markets, competitors are figuring out how to duplicate Starbucks original idea – from other "shops" such as Caribou Coffee to mass chains like McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts. ALL Success Formulas have a half-life. ALL Success Formulas grow tired, and lose their ability to maintain above average growth and profits. And that is happening now to Starbucks. Starbucks did the right things to grow like crazy as an early pioneer in its largest business. But doing more of the same – possibly better, faster or cheaper – is not going to get Starbucks back on the growth path. That’s just Defend & Extend activity which is already demonstrating declining marginal value.
Mr. Schulz was obviously the right guy to get things growing 20 years ago at Starbucks. Out of the Wellspring he took the coffee shop idea into the Rapids. He built systems that helped Starbucks Lock-in on all the things that could help the company grow. Imagine the skill it took to consistently open 6 new units a day!!! He was the right guy in the right place and he helped create an empire.
But that’s not what Starbucks needs today. For at least 3 to 5 years it has been obvious there would be a limit to the growth in Starbucks traditional business. Starbucks has been tailing off the Rapids, and heading into the Flats. And now it is rapidly falling into the Swamp of low growth. It was obvious the demand for shops was going to become saturated, and competitors were bound to get sharper and better. So the last CEO Disrupted Starbucks – saying the company was not just a coffee company. He got into music production, movie production, performer management, liquor production and consumer goods. He also started expanding the stores to offer sandwiches and many other products besides coffee. He actively promoted and funded White Space to find new revenue opportunities. And that is what Starbucks needs more than anything – more sources of revenue.
Starbucks is blessed with a name that does not mean anything. Starbucks doesn’t have to think of itself as a coffee company. Think about Nike – which didn’t have to be a shoe company. Only by moving beyond shoes did Nike become the megapower brand it is today. For Starbucks to now make an about-face and try to find the future in its past is lunacy. That’s trying to catch last night’s dream. The competitive market which supported rapid coffee shop growth is gone, and a new one is in its place. Focusing energy on a slugfest with its competitors will only result in price wars, lower margins, declining growth, store closings, laid off workers and lower returns for shareholders (who already know this and have knocked 50% off the company value in the last year – see chart here.)
The appeal of "back to basics" is so strong. We’ve seen too many executives fall prey to the call. It seems so logical to think that if we "focus" on "core competencies" we will somehow return to previous greatness. But that simply isn’t true. Watch old prizefighting clips, and it is amazing. Rocky Marciano looks like an out of shape thug compared to the athleticism of Joe Forman or Muhamed Ali – who look like they need another year in the weight gym compared to Mike Tyson and today’s belt competitors. Each wave of winners creates yet another round of competitors who are different – and that changes the game. Doing more may have worked for Rocky Balboa – but he had the help of a dozen script writers to make his dream come true. In the real world, we cannot capture the old glory but rather have to find new places and ways to compete as our markets become crowded from those seeking our success.
Starbucks is in for some really big trouble – worse than already seen – if Mr. Schulz stays in place and continues with his plans. For investors, its highly unlikely to be a pleasant ride. Starbucks can succeed if it realizes that its future growth is not about the coffee. It’s about finding ways to change other markets the way it changed the last one. And that means avoiding focus on past successes and instead using White Space to develop a new Success Formula that can grow and prosper – achieving past results but in new ways.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 4, 2008 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle
Today the press announced that the U.S.’s #1 music retailer is iTunes (read article here.) This is actually pretty amazing, given that Apple’s (see chart here) iTunes is only 5 years old. To reach this position Apple climbed over Target, Best Buy and finally Wal-Mart. Companies generally considered pretty good retail competitors. And iTunes did it with a handicap. Those who track the stats count songs – so iTunes had to sell 12 tunes to get the credit the traditional retailers get for selling 1 album – so as for number of music transactions iTunes clearly dominates.
You have to ask, why did Wal-Mart (see chart here) and Best Buy (see chart here) let this happen? They arent without resources, and music is profitable. Why didn’t they get out there 4 years ago with web sites that attacked iTunes offering product at great prices? If Wal-Mart is "Always low prices" why didn’t they put out digital music at a discount to Apple? With best guesses now that Apple has 19% market share, to Wal-Mart’s 15%, why didn’t Wal-Mart react to declining CD sales and invest in its own digital music site to slow Apple and get it’s fair share?
Wal-Mart and Best Buy are too busy trying to get people into the store. Those big old buildings are what management thinks about. These buildings are a testament to the company. Management is fixated on keeping people going to the stores. As retail goes on-line, and music has been an early leader, Wal-Mart isn’t about retail. Wal-Mart is about it’s stores. Rather than figuring out how to be a great retailer, thus giving customers what they want, when they want it, at a price they will pay, Wal-Mart is all about trying to get people into those stores by selling things cheap. The decor is allowed to remain lousy, the advertising looks cheap, the products in many cases aren’t stylish or alluring – and in the case of music the product isn’t even what’s growing (digital) but rather they rapidly dying CD.
Wal-Mart doesn’t care any longer about retailing. Wal-Mart is fixated on Defending & Extending its Success Formula, which it has closely tied to those incredibly ugly stores. Wal-Mart is about doing more Wal-Mart. And, unfortunately, Best Buy isn’t a whole lot better. Their approach to on-line sales is to get you to place an order, and then pick it up in the store. Again, all about the physical store – not about retailing. The goal has long been forgotten as the organization fixates on it’s stores as sacred cows they have to justify.
So Apple, which is a well run company, didn’t really have much competition the last 5 years. Apple has been allowed to grab the lions share of the market, while prime, well-funded competitors have ignored it. Not only retailers, but look at Sony – which has all the pieces (a recording company and a leading position in consumer electronics) to mount a considerable competitive attack. But Sony can’t get beyond Defending & Extending its old businesses, completely missing the opportunity to be a leader in the fast growing digital music sales arena. And Apple just keeps growing, and practically minting profits, with ease.
Southwest Airlines did the same thing 30 years ago. There was no reason Southwest should have been allowed to grow so fast, and make so much money. There were lots of airlines. But many went broke (Pan Am, Eastern, Braniff, Continental) and the others lost billions of dollars trying to Defend & Extend their business rather than simply get in and really compete with Southwest. So, like Apple, Southwest grew fast and profitably – and did it with seeming ease.
So who is threatening Apple? MySpace is jumping in, and we all know MySpace is very savvy about internet users. But note that MySpace is a division of News Corporation (see chart here). NewsCorp was once a newspaper company. But today it has interests in not only newspapers but radio, TV, cable TV and the web. Chairman Rupert Murdoch is a leader, like Steve Jobs, who is not afraid to Disrupt – nor is he afraid to invest in White Space. As a result News Corporation has flourished while other companies started as newspapers (Tribune Company, New York Times Company, McClatchey, etc.) have struggled and are floundering.
Businesses that focus on Defend & Extending their past investments become obsolete. Like SS Kresge, Montgomery Wards and Woolworths’s – Wal-Mart’s stores are not a protection against competition. D&E management likes to think big assets (like The Chicago Tribune or New York Times) make them indestructible. Instead, they can easily become albatrosses.
New competitors need not fear large, entrenched competitors. They are most often unlikely to do anything about a successful new competitor. Early entrants not only get in the Rapids, but are often allowed to stay there an amazingly long time (and they longer they continue Disrupting and using White Space the longer they can stay).
by Adam Hartung | Mar 29, 2008 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
Boy oh boy did the Chicago press decide to beat up on Motorola (chart here) this week. With the company’s announcement that Motorola does intend to split into two seperate entities – by spinning off the mobile handset business – the press decided it was time to unload. Headlines: "Pulling wings apart a risk for Motorola" (link here) – "Expert’s advice: Cut red tape and deliver" (link here) – "Motorola breakup ends comeback effort" (link here) – "Motorola must think beyond its batwings" (link here). Reading these articles, you would think the people running Motorola were dullards and miscreants with limited skills and poor business sense. But do you really believe that?
The management at Motorola is filled with very bright, hard working people. Most of them have been quite successful inside Motorola or from outside and recruited in. So the question becomes, if they aren’t stupid, how can this happen? As I’ve blogged before – leadership did a decent job of Disrupting initially, and all of Motorola opened White Space that launched new projects and products. Growth followed. But in mobile handsets leadership allowed the early success of Razr to succumb to old-fashioned notions of maximizing product revenue and profit. Management wasn’t stupid, it just listened to the siren’s song of "maximize profits by seeking market share and using volume to seek lower costs in manufacturing, sales and distribution." Who would argue with that? It made a lot of money really fast. It just left the company vulnerable to competitors – who acted fast and leapfrogged Motorola. And it allowed Defend & Extend practices, well entrenched in Motorola, to re-instill themselves.
So if management wasn’t stupid, what’s next?
First, Motorola does need to split. One business needs to keep doing the right things in DVRs, WiMax, headsets and 2-way radios. It needs to keep the funds from its success to re-invest in more White Space projects and not divert money as well as management attention into cellular handsets. The first business is Motorola – always has been – and justifies its brand image. This business is in the Rapids. This business has found ways to Disrupt its old Lock-ins, sell off busineses (like auto products) that don’t perform, bring in new acquisitions and set up White Space to find new growth markets.
The handset business needs to get out on its own – and either fail or turn around. Literally. Whereas the other part of Motorola got itself from the Swamp back into the Rapids, handsets isn’t just in the Swamp, it’s in the Whirlpool. The business would have gone into bankruptcy already if not supported by the rest of Motorola. These two businesses are in very different parts of the lifecycle, and require very different management solutions. So push it out the door and give it a chance, albeit a small one, to turn around.
The handset business needs to start over. New name, and a new leadership team willing to Disrupt abruptly. The key requirement is to so Disrupt the business that old practices are quickly abandoned – since they are what is causing the company to falter. The people, who know they are in trouble, have to see that old Lock-ins to practices like product reviews and technology stability – practices that are seen as good management – are what has gotten them into trouble and they have to be ignored. Those who have administered the best management practices – the Status Quo Police – have to be removed. Those who reinforced abiding by old practices have to go so that new best practices can be created around faster product launches and more market participation.
New handset leadership needs to very quickly give Permission for these bright people to unleash their skills. Permission has to be granted to rethink the technology, the products, the distributors — all aspects of the business. Handsets can’t win by doing what it did before, better. The business has to transform and that requires Permission to break all the rules – and White Space in which to try new things and see what works. Fast.
Great companies learn to let go early and fast. Quite simply, not all ideas pan out. Some products are huge successes, and some aren’t. Great companies keep Disruptions and White Space alive – launching new products and services. But if expectations aren’t met they cut quickly. They review why things didn’t work out as planned, and move on. Maybe too early, or too late, or wrong technology. But move on. Get over it, quit spending where its not making money. Love your launches, but don’t marry them. Keep nimble. Look at the businesses GE has entered, and exited, over the last 20 years. But Motorola, filled with truly innovative employees, spent too much energy on the "selection" process, launching too few products for the market to evaluate, and tried forcing them into success far too long. Does anyone remember Iridium (the failed effort at a satellite-based mobile phone network)? The faster the current distraction (handsets) is thrown over the wall the faster the rest of Motorola can get back to Disrupting and growing new Success Formulas in new markets.
And those in handsets have to learn to launch new products while existing products are still growing – and to let the customers decide what technologies and products are good rather than internal vetting and management. Whatever you call your company – you can’t move too fast finding a new Success Formula. With the size of ongoing losses, you’re in the Whirlpool fast on the way to extinction. It will take serious outside-the-box launches (like Apple launching itself into the music business with iPod and iTunes) to turn around your business. Only by Disrupting – recognizing the depth of your horrible situation publicly and as a team- then giving yourself Permission to overcome all the old Lock-ins and using White Space to redefine a new company can you hope to turn around.
It’s not about whether management is stupid. That is almost never the case. The issue is about managing, and overcoming, Lock-in. Those who learn to manage Lock-in by using Disruption and White Space keep themselves in the Rapids. It’s really, really easy, however, to follow the siren’s call of maximizing profits by letting Lock-in promote reduced innovation, reduced new product launches, reduced distribution experiments while maximizing sales and profits of existing products and services. Only by ignoring those calls can leadership turn around businesses by refocusing on Disruptions, giving Permission for truly different behavior and using White Space to develop new Success Formulas.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 27, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
We all find ourselves watching the news, or reading a newspaper, then shaking our head and saying "Why’d they do that?" When it all seems so obvious, why do leaders take action that seems counter to their goals?
Take the recent case at Wal-Mart (see chart here). A 52 year old employee gets hit by a truck and brain damaged. Wal-Mart’s insurance pays out $470,000 in health care costs. Yea! Great PR story for how WalMart sticks by employees that sign up for health insurance. But that wasn’t the story printed in the newspaper. When the family, at their own expense, sued the trucking company for lost future wages, pain and suffering and future care needs – winning $417,000 after expenses. But, that still wasn’t the story getting attention. No, what got a lot of attention was when Wal-Mart sued the now invalid and institutionalized former employee to get back its $470,000, won, and admitted it was taking the money away from her! (Read account of story on CNN.com here.)
Let’s just skip over whether Wal-Mart was right or wrong – legally or ethically. More practically, how much does Wal-Mart spend on Advertising and PR every year? Let’s see, $360B revenue at just 1% would be over $3B. So Wal-Mart wants customers to think well of the company and shop there.
As a result of the company’s lawsuit it gets back $470K – that’s .013% of its ad/PR budget. About enough to buy a couple of major market TV ads. Meanwhile, the airwaves (and blogsphere) get flooded with the story and its negative sounding impacts. MSNBC on its Countdown show labels Walmart "the worst person in the world" (see video here.) CNN puts the video onto its hourly loop for everyone to see (see video here). Anderson Cooper makes it a feature discussion on his television show. Even the L.A. Times writes a negative opinion about it in the newspaper (read here.) What would all of that PR cost WalMart to acquire for a positive story? Millions if not tens of millions of dollars. But it could have avoided all that cost for a mere $470,000.
Today WalMart is far from being a beloved company. There are those who like Wal-Mart, but there are those who don’t. For shareholders and employees, converting those that don’t like Wal-Mart into someone who does is beneficial, as it can raise sales, margins, future expectations for performance and even the stock price. As a simple business decision, why would anyone at WalMart decide to go after $470,000 when the risks are so enormous? Why not let this one go? Why do that (make the decision to sue this woman)?
Unfortunately, Locked-in organizations have no choice. When the Lock-in becomes too great, no options really present themselves. There is no room for creative thinking – even if that thinking were intended to help reach the goal. Behavior is no longer goal driven, but instead becomes executing the Locked-in Success Formula no matter what the potential outcomes. Just read this quote from Wal-Mart’s spokesperson (taken from the above referenced CNN article) "Wal-Mart’s plan is bound by very specific rules… We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank’s case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan." No room for flexibility, no matter the impact or outcome.
If every employee donated $.40 it would recover all the money Wal-Mart apparently saved by suing the damaged woman. But did Wal-Mart ask its employees if they would rather donate $.40 or sue her? Did anyone at Wal-Mart say "you know, this could cost us $10million in damaging PR – maybe it would be more valuable to our employees if we skipped this lawsuit." Obviously not.
When you wonder "Why did they do that?" remember this story of Wal-Mart. Locked-in organizations completely lose sight of their objective when making decisions that serve to Defend & Extend the Lock-in. And once decisions are made, the Status Quo police and all the rest of the organization jump to its defense — rather than think through what was going on. All any executive had to say was "oops, I think we blew this one. Let’s tell that to the press, drop the suit, and give this woman a $20,000 bonus while offering her husband a job in janitorial" and the bad press would have been diffused – possibly leading to a positive spin. But that’s not how Locked-in organizations behave – and that’s Why They Did That.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 23, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Most management planning processes are designed to perpetuate the past. They are designed to figure out how to do what happened last year, or quarter, only a little bit better. In a high growth environment, no problem. Doing more is a good thing. And if markets were stable, it would be OK in any market. But too few companies compete in high growth markets, and no markets are stable any longer. Simply doing more of the same better, faster or cheaper isn’t enough.
Stuff happens. Just take for example some facts recently published in The Chicago Tribune (read full article here.) VCRs in 1978 were advertised at Sears for $795 ($2,500 in today’s money). A basic 5-cycle washer sold for $320 ($1,000 in today’s money), priced equivalent to a top-of-the-line washer today. Fifty years ago families spent almost 20% of income on food; today that has fallen to about 10%. But insurance premiums have gone up almost 80% in just the last 5 years. Today attendance at many private colleges – like jesuit or other private schools, not merely ivy league – costs more than the average family has as gross income in a year. My favorite — a 2008 Honda Accord produces more horsepower than a 1990 Porsche 911 Carrera.
All right, so we all know this. But we completely forget about it when planning. Yet, they all had really important implications. In 1978 most of us still watched movies in theatres – now many adults haven’t been in a theatre for years (hurting revenues and profits at everything from movie producers to theatre chains) because home entertainment systems and purchases/rented movies are so cheap. Meanwhile "big box" electronic/appliance stores have come on the scene wiping out mom-and-pop TV/appliance stores and probably Sears. In the 1970s laundromats were very popular for new families and people in small homes, but today it is a rare married couple living outside of an apartment that doesn’t have their own washer and dryer, making laundromats practically a concept of the past. I grew up tending to a family vegetable garden, and most families used part of their backyards growing vegetables to save on groceries. Today it’s cheaper to buy corn, green beans, tomatoes, carrots, potatos and broccoli than grow and preserve them at home – good for consumer goods companies and bad for seed vendors like Burpee as well as home canning suppliers like Ball and Kerr. While every working person in the U.S. had health insurance in the 1960s, today more than 40% of working adults have no health insurance. My older sister, like many girls in the 1960s, attended a Christian college paid for by my father who was a school teacher in a rural 5,000 person town and the only breadwinner in our home. Today, that college is long gone as are more than half the private colleges which used to exist in America – or they’ve been converted to satellites of state university programs. And I can well remember when I, working part time as a minimum wage college student, would earn over $2,000 a year and could buy a brand-new American made car (Ford Maverick anyone?) for less than that amount. Now new car sales are stagnant/down, and people are driving cars many more years creating opportunities for auto repair, auto parts and used car sales.
The competitors in all these businesses changed dramatically over just the last 50 years. And in each industry, the early leaders have been displaced. Why, planners kept trying to perpetuate the past rather than focus on the future. Companies failed to keep White Space alive that tracks market changes adapting the Success Formula to meet emerging Challenges.
Today we can look at eggs. I remember when every Easter eggs were on sale, usually at 50 cents/dozen. Not this year. Eggs are up 30% – and now over $2.00. Why? Many factors (read full article here), such as new regulations to improve the health of chickens has increased their personal space by about 10% but has led to taking millions of hens out of production. A new industry council focusing on improving hen welfare has caused most farmers to invest in new technology, siphoning funds for expansion into updating old facilities but without improving production. A national focus on increasing renewable energy has raised corn prices (for ethanol production) to record heights, increasing chicken feed cost 70% (remember when we referred to small amounts as "chicken feed") which accounts for 60% of egg cost. And the current financial crisis is causing lenders to hold back on loans to farmers, making investment dollars for new facilities very scarce and very expensive.
The result, egg prices have doubled in two years. But who planned for that? Practically no one. Is it a big deal? Well yes if you are Denny’s, IHOP or any other restaurant chain that focuses on breakfast. Or how about bakers, who need eggs for cakes, bagels and many breads. Or dairy companies that depend on eggs for a significant portion of their revenues, as demand declines due to price. It may seem trivial, the price of eggs, but it can make a big difference on businesses – and how many of them developed scenarios to prepare for this kind of change? Those that didn’t find their planning, based on Defending & Extending the past, not worth very much as they scramble (excuse the pun) to adjust to changing market conditions.
Good companies build scenarios of the future for planning. Not just "most likely" scenarios, but scenarios that could make a big diffference even if considered unlikely. It’s not what we plan for that hurts our businesses, but rather what we don’t plan for. The things that surprise us. Companies that survive for decades, and make above average returns, are ones that plan for unlikely events – and prepare themselves for conditions that are unlike the past. And they keep White Space alive to rapidly learn from these Challenges providing Success Formula adaptations that can keep the winning company out front and making above average returns. These are Phoenix Principle companies.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 19, 2008 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Openness
We all are surrounded by so much Lock-in and Defend & Extend Management that sometimes it can be hard to find White Space.
On 3/19 the Chicago Tribune reported the creation of some White Space that could be very valuable (read article here.) Microsoft and Intel each invested $10million to open research centers at the University of Illinois in Champaign, and a like amount at the University of California in Berkeley. These centers have the openness to pursue new approaches to parallel computing which could improve everything from solving complex problems to identifying your most important text messages.
The key attributes of this White Space include: (1) permission to pursue any solution likely to succeed. Located at universitites, these projects are not hide-bound to previous company technology investments. University based research gives the profs and grad students the lattitude to seek out solutions which could well be overlooked in a traditional R&D organization. (2) Resources to actually make a difference. Regularly I hear about small companies trying to raise $200,000 or $500,000 for research. Today, that money goes only a short distance. $10million provides enough funds to really seek out a solution. And, (3) not all the eggs are in one basket. Investors selected 2 different locations to pursue the objectives, allowing failure while not completely jeapardizing results. Investing in 2 universities demonstrates recognition that no one can predict where success will occur, so it’s smart to have multiple approaches.
You could challenge these investments as perhaps lacking sufficient Return on Investment justification. But, recall that Internet Explorer was a product developed as a direct result of Mosaic, developed at the University of Illinois, and eventually licensed to Microsoft through a company called Spyglass. And IE had an extremely favorable ROI for Microsoft. White Space should not be a "throw away your money" pursuit. But it is OK to invest in areas where you cannot fully predict the result – and rather just the direction. If the outcome from this $20million (which was matched by $16million of state funding) is even 1/20th as successful as IE the value will be HUGE.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 17, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Almost since I began this blog I’ve talked off and on about newspapers. Living in Chicago, I’ve taken more than a few pot shots at the local establishment – Tribune Company, owner of The Chicago Tribune. Don’t get me wrong, I love "the Trib," as we call it in Chicago. For decades a great newspaper. And because I’m over 49, I still like reading papers. Heck, I very frequently put links in these blogs to the Trib’s web site. Good product at a good price. In fact, in today’s economy, probably too good a product for what I have to pay as a discount subscriber and on-line reader.
Even though all of us are used to the daily newspaper – including the travelers that pick up USA Today and those who just get the Sunday paper for "the ads" – it will disappear. Or at least change form so drastically it won’t appear like it used to be. That may be hard to accept – but then again, do you remember listening to 33’s, 45’s (and if that means nothing to you don’t worry, you’re just young) and LP records; Or 8-tracks, or cassettes? And soon, even CD’s will disappear to the growingly popular MP3 player. Nowhere is it given that we deserve a daily printed newspaper, and in today’s world it’s existence is becoming less viable by the month (read CBS Marketwatch on "Death Knell for Newspapers" here.)
You may be surprised to know that newspaper readership peaked in the 1950s. But you shouldn’t. After all, radio, television and cable TV all ate into newspapers’ share as a source of entertainment and news. The internet is just the latest competitive technology – but it is the one which has pushed the industry into the Whirlpool from which it won’t return. Newspapers have used their resources in many valuable ways, but they have little to none left they can use to become the next Google or Marketwatch. Most are overleveraged (read my past missives on the debt ladening of Tribune by Sam Zell), and all are short the cash (or debt capacity) to catch up with those who invested heavily into web growth a decade ago.
Defend & Extend Management never stops believing there is some way to save a dying business. But businesses do become obsolete. Mail order catalogs were once great, but in an internet world? Printed stock prices were valuable until on-line brokers came along. Heck, I remember when we used to have television repairmen – and they even came to our house and picked up the TV then returned it after repairing! Now we throw the thing away – and I don’t know where you’d find a repair person. My parents helped make the Kerr and Ball companies a lot of money by home canning vegetables they grew in the family vegetable garden -but what is the current market for companies making quart jars and home canning lids? Would you believe that we used to have operator manned printing presses in corporations to make copies of business documents? And carbon paper for multiple copies out of typewriters? Obsolescence happens, but D&E managers never see it. They are paid to follow a "never say die" approach to markets.
Only by constantly Disrupting and maintaining White Space can we hope to keep our companies long lived. No manager has a crystal ball for the future. Predicting the demise is very hard to do. It’s smarter to keep looking for growth, and be optimistic in finding it. Constantly looking for the direction to go is far better than trying to defend a business bound to shrink. Now that even the newspaper industry’s own study group is saying the industry won’t come back investors should start thinking about where they are putting their resources. No, it may not be commonplace to take a laptop in for the "morning constitutional" – but we’re bound to lose that broadsheet sooner than most people think.
