by Adam Hartung | Aug 13, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership
"It's Hard to Like Sara Lee" was the Barrons headline this week. And how could you, after the company reported its third straight quarter with sales and earnings below expectation. Check out this quote "Failed expansion has become a hallmark of Sara Lee in recent years, as
the company entered and exited businesses more frequently than tourists
passing through Grand Central station."
Meanwhile, over at Businessweek the headline is "Sara Lee, Why Investors Won't Bite." The company keeps focusing on cost cutting. "Sara Lee Chairman and Chief Executive Brenda Barnes
said on Aug. 12 that she expects annual cost savings of $350 million to
$400 million by 2012." I wonder how far revenues will fall during that same period? Since Ms. Barnes took the helm 5 years ago, Sara Lee's value has shrunk 54% (chart here). Yet, her biggest plan remains more sales of existing businesses – now focused on selling the "houesehold and body care segments." Although after all the sales the last 4 years the takers keep getting thinner and thinner, and the prices lower and lower. Buyers recognize when a business has been stripped of its value and is nothing more than a shell of its previous self – no longer able to grow and produce cash flow.
Meanwhile at Sara Lee there are no real plans to sell any new products or services, so the P/E just keeps falling. Now at 11, it's one of the industry's lowest. But when you expect revenues and profits to keep getting smaller, you can't justify much of a P/E now can you? It takes growth to increase your P/E multiple.
Forbes tried putting lipstick on the pig with its headline "Sara Lee Sees Meaty Growth." The writer tried to focus on hopes the company has for selling more sausage and lunch meat. But there's no innovation. Just a hope that low commodity prices will improve the margins on these products – and the commodities will stay low so the margins don't dip. Sara Lee hasn't launched a new product since Ms. Barnes took the helm. Crain's summarized the situation more bluntly "Investors Find Little Tasty in Sara Lee."
Business is about creating shareholder value, not destroying it. And Ms. Barnes has been going the wrong way her entire tenure leading Sara Lee. As I pointed out in her first year of leadership in this blog, and have repeated often, Ms. Barnes has not developed any new products for the future, she has not identified competitive opportunities for growth, nor has she been willing to Disrupt old patterns and use White Space to develop and launch new revenue opportunities. Instead, she has slowly and painfully sold off one asset after another – and none of that money has come back to shareholders. Today all shareholders have as a result of her leadership is a smaller and less profitable declining company. And no cash to compensate for the shrinkage.
If we want to come out of this recession we have to replace leaders who are so wrong headed. There's no value in quarter after quarter of cost cutting. There's no value in selling off assets for one time gains to cover ongoing losses. There's no value in shrinking a company without distributing proceeds to the owners for investing elsewhere. Thus, there's no value to the leadership at Sara Lee. What's needed is someone at the helm willing to look to the marketplace for new product ideas and then use White Space to innovate those new solutions. Someone who will put energy and resources behind growth.
The employees, shareholders and vendors at Sara Lee have a lot of scars for waiting – and nothing good. Even the suburban Chicago town of Downer's Grove, IL is hurt by the loss of jobs. To get America going again we have to start growing – and there's no better place to start than Sara Lee. Before it disappears into oblivion – like the onetime Chicago retailer Montgomery Wards!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 12, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Weblogs
GM. Those two letters call up a lot of emotion these days. People ask,
"What went wrong?" "How could a company that large, that successful, go
bankrupt?" The less polite say: "General Motors' leadership is
corrupt." "They ignored customers." "The union killed them."
"Government interference." "Idiots."
This is the first paragraph of my new column on Forbes.com. You can read it, and future articles, in the Leadership section – Link Here.
I'm very excited to find new audiences for discussing what's caused the latest round of business problems – and failures. As well as spreading the message about how businesses can start growing again. Check out the column.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 7, 2009 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Food and Drink, General, Leadership, Lock-in, Music, Openness, Television
"Pepsi Launches Own Music Label in China" is the BusinessWeek headline. Clearly, the Pepsi staff has some new ideas. Recently Pepsi's Chairperson, Ms. Nooyi, made a trip to China for 10 days. Apparently frustrated, she commented to the Wall Street Journal in July that she didn't see enough Disruptive thinking on the part of her folks in China. She indicated the market was robust, but it was different and would take a different approach. It now sounds like her China leadership got the message.
In addition to launching a music label, Pepsi is producing a "Battle of the Bands" show in China. It's almost like a reformatted page from the aggressive growth years of Starbucks. Instead of just expanding into a new geography (China) with the same old playbook (like the floundering WalMart), Pepsi is figuring out how to be a big success. And that may mean producing television, producing music and making people into stars. China's culture is unlike anything in the U.S. or Europe. So doing new and different things will be critical to success. When you see a business developing its own scenarios about the future, taking actions its competitors (Coke) are too hide-bound to try, acting Disruptively to compete and using White Space projects to test new ideas you simply have to be excited!
On the other hand, "Tide Turns 'Basic" for P&G in Slump" is the Wall Street Journal headline about the latest "new" product at P&G. Please remember, the departing P&G CEO was lauded for creating an innovative culture at P&G. But it appears the legacy is a culture of sustaining innovations intended to do nothing more than Defend & Extend the old P&G brands. Now slumping, P&G needs to identify market shifts more than ever, and create new solutions that help it move with market trends. Instead, the company is rushing into reverse! Management not only seem to be driving the bus looking in the rear-view mirror, but actually driving it that way as well!
Tide has been around a long time. Ostensibly a very good product. For reasons explained in the article, managers at P&G felt the best way to sell more product was to make it less good. Really. They removed some of the chemicals that help you get clothes clean, renamed it "Basic" and launched the product at a lower price. It's not "new and improved." It's not even "better." It's literally less good – but cheaper. Sort of like store brands, or private label – only maybe not as good? Doesn't that sort of obviate the whole notion of branding?
People don't ever like to go backward. We like to grow. To learn and get more out of life. When we find a product that works, why would we want a product that works less well? And the folks at P&G missed this. Only by being insanely internally focused, terribly Locked-in, can you think this is a good idea. Looking inside a person could say "well, we want to jam the shelves with more of our branded product. We want to have the word 'Tide' smeared everywhere we can. We think people so identify with 'Tide' that they'll take a worse product just to get the name brand. We're willing to create a less good product thinking that we will get sales simply because it's cheaper than the stuff people really want to buy." Seem a little mixed up to you?
When you want to grow you figure out new ways to Disrupt the marketplace. You develop new solutions, new entry points, new connections with shifting market trends. You figure out how to be the best at the right price. You don't try to give people less, and tell them they are cheap. And Pepsi clearly gets it. They are willing to expand into music recording and TV production. Stuff P&G did when it was really creative and innovative – after all, that's why we call daytime TV "soaps", because P&G produced them just to sell soap. Now we see Pepsi applying that kind of scenario planning and competitive obsession, along with White Space, to develop new market approaches. Unfortunately we can't say the same for P&G — clearly stuck on trying to cram more stuff with the word "Tide" on it through distribution.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, eBooks, General, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
"Sony Unveils Pocket Size Electronic Book Reader" is the Los Angeles Times headline. According to Silican Alley Insider the new Apple tablet is a GREAT book reader. Although Steve Jobs thinks book publishers are incredibly screwed up and he's less optimistic about book sales than he was music sales when he launched iTunes. And Amazon has sold out its Kindle e-readers since they started manufacturing them two years ago.
With all these announcements, you'd think everyone knows about e-readers and the market shift happening in publishing – from books to magazines to newspapers. Even I've blogged about this for months – and the positive impact this has had on book sales as well as Amazon's revenues and profits. But:
(Link to chart and Forrester Discussion here)
Half of all people surveyed in 2Q 2009 still haven't seen or heard about e-readers.
This is important. Imagine it's 1983, and you weren't aware about personal computers and their benefits – even though the IBM PC was Time magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1982. We now know that early adopters of PCs developed new solutions for many problems – from analysis to word processing to advertising development to commercial graphics to in-house publishing to communicating via email — on and on and on. Those who understood this technology early, recognized the shift it demonstrated, had early advantages on competitors. You didn't have to compete in technology, or be a technology officianado, to take advantage of this computing shift for your advantage.
Today, ereaders are another serious market shift that early adopters can leverage. Soon newspapers and magazines will be hard to come by, or so thin (due to printing and distribution cost) that their content will be much less than desired. But ereaders allow you to keep up with journals you've come to trust. And advertisers need to be prepared to follow them onto this platform – to reach people they otherwise would miss.
If you've quit reading books because you don't have the money to spend (at $20+ apiece), desire to carry them, or the time to read them, ereaders allow you to buy and carry 350 or more books at a fraction of previous prices. You even can buy pieces of books (chapters for example) that give you what you want. Think of the shift from long-play albums/CDs to iTunes sales of single songs as an analogy. You can get the benefits of books without many of the reasons you may have quit reading them.
Would you like a repository of information you can call upon for your daily work? With e-readers you can carry an entire library, something you'll not do in paper. Or on your laptop.
Speaking of laptops – this will all be on a laptop you say – so forget ereaders. Do you really think we'll all be carrying these 7 pound monsters around in 5 years? Look at college kids today. How many do almost all their work on a phone? They use the computer only when forced to – for typing papers or building spreadsheets. Laptops are increasingly becoming much more than people want – too big, too heavy, too hot, too power hungry, too short battery life, too complicated, too much software, too many bugs, too many viruses, too expensive. Laptops will soon be like mainframes. Look at the trend. Sales of big screen laptops have cratered as netbooks, with tiny screens, have taken off. People are moving away from laptops to smaller and easier to use products – like ereaders.
Why make your salesforce, or customers, or training techs carry a laptop when an ereader will give them everything they need? They cost less, are easier to keep working, and don't get hindered with personal apps like MS Money that you didn't put on the laptop in the first place but couldn't stop. Given ereader prices, you might be able to consider an ereader disposable in 5 years. Literally, you could give a customer an ereader with all the training, specs, history, design elements, etc. of your product the way we now use a brochure. It literally might be cheaper than a 10 page glossy brochure costs to print and distribute – but with everything they need to design in your product, or operate it, or service it. Imagine an ereader in your car glove box rather than the owner's manual you never use – but the info will be catalogued, searchable, and linked to the internet so it's always current with service information.
Market shifts affect us all. Too often we say "oh that shift is obvious, and I'm surprised the current competitors aren't jumping on that." Then we ignore the shift ourselves. Competitors that make higher rates of return, and prolong those rates of return, observe these market shifts and immediately build them into future scenarios. They think about how to use these shifts to improve their competitive position, and create White Space to test the opportunities – even when they represent Disruptive change. These are Phoenix Principle companies – and the kind you want to be – because they grow more, make more money and have longer lives.
Learn how to spot market shifts and leverge them for your advantage. Don't end up like GM – out of touch and into bankruptcy. Read the new, free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Jul 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Lock-in
"Deeper Recession Than We Thought" is the Marketwatch headline. As government data reporters often do, today they revised the economic numbers for 2008. We now know the start to this recession was twice as bad as reported. The 3.9% decline was the worst economic performance since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The consumer spending decline was the worst since 1951 (58 years – a very low percentage of those employed today were even born then.) Business investment dropped a full 20%. Residential investment dropped 27%. Stark numbers.
How did business people react? Exactly as they were trained to react. They cut costs. Layed people off. Dropped new products. Stopped R&D and product development. They quit doing things. What's the impact? The decline slows, but it continues. Just like growth begets growth, cutting begets more decline.
Then really interesting bad things happen.
"ComEd loses customers for first time in 56 years" is the Crain's headline. There are 17,000 fewer locations buying electricity in the greater Chicago area than there were a year ago. That is amazing. When you see new homes being built, and new commercial buildings, the very notion that the number of electricity customers contracted is hard to fathom. People aren't even keeping the lights on any more. They've gone away.
In the old days we said "go west." But that hasn't been the case. Everyone remembers the dot.com bust ending the 1990s. "Silicon Valley Unemployment Skyrockets" is the Silican Alley Insider lead. Today unemployment in silicon valley is the highest on record – even higher than the dot bust days. When even tech jobs are at a nadir, it's clear something is very different this time.
The old approaches to dealing with a recession aren't working. While optimism is always high, what we can see is that things have shifted. The world isn't like it was before. And applying the same approaches won't yield improved results. "For Illinois, recession looking milder – but recovery weaker" is another Crain's headline. Nowhere are there signs of a robust economy.
We can't expect an economic recovery on "Cars for Cash" or "Clunker" programs. By overpaying for outdated and obsolete cars we can bring forward some purchases. But this does not build a healthy market for ongoing purchases. These programs aren't innovation that promotes purchase. They are a subsidy to a lucky few so they pay significantly less for an existing product. To recover we must have real growth. Growth from new products that meet new customer needs in new ways. Growth built on providing solutions that advantage the buyer. Only by introducing innovation, and creating value, will customers (businesses or consumer) open their wallets.
Advertising hasn't disappeared. But it has gone on-line. Today you don't have to spend as much to reach your target. Instead of mass advertising to 1,000 in order to reach the 100 (or 15) you really want, today you can target that buyer through the web and deliver them an advertisement far cheaper. I didn't learn about Cash for Clunkers from a TV ad, I learned about it on the web. As did thousands of people that rushed out to take advantage of the program at its introduction – exceeding expectations. It no longer takes inefficient mass advertising through newspapers or broadcast TV to reach customers – so that market shrinks. But the market for on-line ads will grow. So Google grows – double digit growth – while the old advertising media keeps shrinking. To get the economy growing businesses (like Tribune Corporation) have to shift into these new markets, and provide new products and services that help them grow.
I live in Chicago. Years ago, in the days of The Jungle Chicago grew as an agricultural center. There was a time the West Side of Chicago was known for its smelly stockyards and slaughter houses. But Chicago watched its agricultural companies move away. They moved closer to the farms. They were replaced by steel mills in places like Gary, IN and Chicago's south side. But those too shut down, moved to lower cost locations offshore. These businesses were replaced with assembly plants, like the famous AT&T Hawthorne facility, and manufacturers such as machine tool makers. Now, for the last decade, these too have been moving away. With each wave, the less valuable work, the more menial work, shifted to another location where it could be done as good but cheaper and often faster.
Historically growth continued by replacing those jobs with work tied to the shifting market – jobs that provided more value. So now, for Chicago to grow it MUST create information jobs. The market has moved. Kraft won't regain its glory if it keeps trying to sell more Velveeta. Kraft has not launched a major new product in over 9 years. Sara Lee has been shedding businesses and cutting costs for 6 years – getting smaller and losing value. McDonalds sold its high growth business Chipotles to raise money for defending its hamburger stores by adding new coffee machines. Motorola has let mobile telephony move to competitors as it remained too Locked-in to old technologies and old products while new companies – like Apple and RIM – brought out innovations that attracted new customes and growth.
Growth doesn't come from waiting for the economy to improve. Growth comes from implementing innovation that gives us new solutions. Every market, whether geographic or product based, requires new solutions to maintain growth. If we want our economy to improve, we must change our approach. We can't save our way to prosperity. Instead we must create solutions that fit future scenarios, introduce new solutions that Disrupt old patterns and use White Space to help customers shift to these products.
If we change our approach we can regain growth. Otherwise, we can expect to keep getting what we got in 2008.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 21, 2009 | Current Affairs, eBooks, General, In the Rapids
I've blogged before about the decline in book readership. In fact, the number of book stores has dropped some 20% in the last 3 years. It's not that people don't want to be learned. Rather, people no longer prefer to carry around a full length paper book. What was no big deal has become large, cumbersome and heavy. This isn't how we described books until we started reading everything imaginable on electronic devices. The new solutions made the old approach less desirable. The market shifted. And if books weren't available electronically, people would read other things which are available electronically.
Amazon wisened up and launched Kindle to meet this market shift. Good move, it allowed Amazon to keep growing while traditional format product sales declined. Now "Barnes & Noble launches on-line Kindle challenge" is the Financial Times headline. While Amazon keeps pushing new content onto Kindle, including newspapers and magazines, Barnes & Noble is maximizing the platforms it can reach electronically. Their solution, more software than hardware today, allows them to immediately offer 700,000 titles electronically. They now boast the largest on-line book store – somewhat eclipsing Amazon's early success. And their hardware device is yet to come.
Should Amazon be worried. I don't think so. The market for e-reading is growing extremely fast. With each new product generation the traditional market share shrinks as more people convert. At this stage, these companies are merely helping the market grow rather than competing with each other. That's the wonderful part about growth markets, – about being in the Rapids – there's so much new demand that it's less about competing head-to-head than about expanding the market by meeting more and more needs. Instead of slogging it out in trench warfare – which is the traditional book selling market – you can offer more features and ways to differentiate – thus growing the market. For both Amazon and Barnes & Noble this is a very, very good thing. It breathes growth into their businesses by moving into the shifted market space.
Borders was actually first to this market, linking up with the proprietary eReader from Sony. But Borders didn't move hard into the new market. As the weakest of the 3 leading book retailers, Borders should have moved fast to get out of the dying brick-and-mortar stores. Then used those resouces to take an early lead in the new market space. But the leaders at Borders kept trying to Defend & Extend the old business, and moved too slowly on the new business. Instead of getting out of the dying business, and becoming #1 in the growing business, they waited. Oops. Now Borders is again the weak competitor – and at grave risk of extermination.
The market is shifting. Congratulations to Amazon and Barnes & Noble for moving into the shifted market space. Quickly we'll be seeing fewer and fewer book stores on the street, as this business (similar to music) will become largely an on-line business. And better for us all. With cheaper books and other reading materials, maybe we'll continue to be even better read than previous generations.
Soon publishers and authors will have to step up to this shift. We all know that newspapers and magazines have been slow to adjust to this market shift. They should be begging for distribution on the Kindle device – and pushing B&N to get their device out even faster so periodicals can be distributed to them. Or maybe get their issues into the B&N software so people can read them on their laptops, netbooks or iPhones. The publishers, from newspapers to books, have been slow to understand this changed market. They, like recording publishers, are locked-in to the physical product (the CD for music, and paper for publishers). The winners will be those who move fastest to the new market. Sure, some people will always want print. But the market for digital is simply going to be lots, lots bigger. Best to get into that market today and figure out the new business model.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, eBooks, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Years ago there was a TV ad featuring the actor Pauly Shore. Sitting in front of a haystack there was a sign over his frowning head reading "Find the needle." The voice over said "hard." Then another shot of Mr. Shore sitting in front of the same haystack grinning quite broadly, and the sign said "Find the hay." the voice over said "easy." Have you ever noticed that in business we too often try to do what's hard, rather than what's easy?
Take for example The New York Times Company, profiled today on Marketwatch.com in "The Gray Lady's Dilemma." The dilemma is apparently what the company will do next. Only, it really doesn't seem like much of a dilemma. The company is rapidly on its way to bankruptcy, with cash flow insufficient to cover operations. The leaders are negotiating with unions to lower costs, but it's unclear these cuts will be sufficient. And they definitely won't be within a year or two. Meanwhile the company is trying to sell The Boston Globe, which is highly unprofitable, and will most likely sell the Red Sox and the landmark Times Building in Manhattan, raising cash to keep the paper alive.
Only there isn't much of a dilemma here. Newspapers as they have historically been a business are no longer feasible. The costs outweigh the advertising and subscription dollars. The market is telling newspaper owners (Tribune Corporation, Gannett, McClatchey, News Corp. and all the others as well as The Times) that it has shifted. Cash flow and profits are a RESULT of the business model. People now are saying that they simply won't pay for newspapers – nor even read them. Thus advertisers have no reason to advertise. The results are terrible because the market has shifted. The easy thing to do is listen to the market. It's saying "stop." This should be easy. Quit, before you run out of money.
Of course, company leadership is Locked-in to doing what it always has done. So it doesn't want to stop. And many employees are Locked-in to their old job descriptions and pay – so they don't want to stop. They want to do what's hard – which is trying to Defend & Extend a money-losing enterprise after its useful life has been exhausted. But if customers have moved on, isn't this featherbedding? How is it different than trying to maintain coal shovelers on electric locomotives? This approach is hard. Very hard. And it won't succeed.
For a full half-decade, maybe longer, it has been crystal clear that print news, radio news and TV news (especially local) is worth a lot less than it used to be. They all suffer from one-way communication limits, poor reach and frequently poor latency. All problems that didn't exist before the internet. This technology and market shift has driven down revenues. People won't pay for what they can get globally, faster and in an interactive environment. As these customers shift, advertisers want to go where they are. After all, advertising is only valuable when it actually reaches someone.
Meanwhile, reporting and commentary increasingly is supplied by bloggers that work for free – or nearly so. Not unlike the "stringers" used by news services back in the "wire" days of Reuters, UPI and AP. Only now the stringers can take their news directly to the public without needing the wire service or publishers. They can blog their information and use Google to sell ads on their sites, thus directly making a market for their product. They even can push the product to consolidators like HuffingtonPost.com in order to maximize reach and revenue. Thus, the costs of acquiring and accumulating news has dropped dramatically. Increasingly, this pits the expensive journalist against the low cost journalist. And the market is shifting to the lower cost resource — regardless of how much people argue about the lack of quality (of course, some [such as politicians] would question the quality in today's "legitimate" media.)
Trying to keep The New York Times and Boston Globe alive as they have historically been is hard. I would contend a suicide effort. Continuing is explained only by recognizing the leaders are more interested in extending Lock-in than results. Because if they want results they would be full-bore putting all their energy into creating mixed-format content with maximum distribution that leads with the internet (including e-distribution like Kindle), and connects to TV, radio and print. Pricing for newspapers and magazines would jump dramatically in order to cover the much higher cost of printing. And the salespeople would be trained to sell cross-format ads which run in all formats. Audience numbers would cross all formats, and revenue would be tied to maximum reach, not the marginal value of each format. That is what advertisers want. Creating that sale, building that company, would be relatively much easier than trying to defend the Lock-in. And it would produce much better results.
The only dilemma at The New York Times Company is between dying as a newspaper company, or surviving as something else. The path it's on now says the management would rather die a newspaper company than do the smart thing and change to meet the market shift. For investors, this poses no dilemma. Investors would be foolhardy to be long the equity or bonds of The New York Times. There will be no GM-style bailout, and the current direction is into the Whirlpool. Employees had better be socking away cash for the inevitable pay cuts and layoffs. Suppliers better tighten up terms and watch the receivables. Because the company is in for a hard ending. And faster than anyone wants to admit.
Don't miss my recent ebook, "The Fall of GM" for a
quick read on how easily any company (even the nation's largest employer) can be
easily upset by market shifts. And learn what GM could have done to avoid
bankruptcy – lessons that can help your business grow!
http://tinyurl.com/mp5lrm
by Adam Hartung | Jul 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership
Business leaders too often react to a recession by cutting costs, stopping spending, discontinuing new product launches — and waiting. The theory is that the market is bad, so it's an uphill slog to try doing anything new. Supposedly, a smart leader waits until things improve before spending again.
An example of this thinking is at GM. The retired executive brought back to head marketing, Bob Lutz, supports killing off the Pontiac brand to make GM smaller and leaner. But he realized this week that there was a car in the Pontiac lineup called the G8 which was selling pretty good. Designed in Autralia, this 2 passenger sports car had sales up 56% from last year – something no other GM car could boast. So Lutz said he'd find a way to keep making and selling the car. But now, Lutz has reversed position and in "GM's Lutz Makes another U-Turn" from the Wall Street Journal he says "upon further review and careful study, we simply cannot make a business
case for such a program. Not in today's market, in this economy, and
with fuel regulations what they are and will be." In other words, we can interpret these comments as "we at GM want to save money and try selling the cars we've got – whether you like them or not – rather than move forward with a car you may really want." This kind of thinking is not the way to grow out of a recession.
On the other hand, we have Tesla Motors. The company Mr. Lutz laughed at a few months ago claiming it wasn't a serious car company. Tesla has one car for sale today, a superfast 2 seater sports car that is 100% electric. Today in Marketing Daily we read "Tesla Plugs Dealership into Manhanttan's Chelsea". Tesla is selling 100% of its production, and it is supporting that by opening a new, stylish dealership in Manhattan. While GM is eliminating a hot seller, Tesla continues to promote theirs. While GM closes dealerships, Tesla opens a new one. Tesla is making a car, albeit a low production model, that people want. It is going where the market is shifting. That's how you get out of a recession, you give customers what they want.
I met another great example last week at Morgan Aircraft. You've never heard of this company unless you've been to an air show. While the makers of private aircraft like Cessna and Gulfstream are shutting down production, Morgan has raised millions of dollars while developing a new aircraft slated for market introduction in about 4 years (flying in tests today, still needing FAA approval). But the Morgan isn't a typical plane as you know it – what's called a "fixed wing" aircraft. The Morgan is able to take off vertically, like a helicopter, then fly horizontally like a plane. This dramatically improves the use of a plane by eliminating airport runways, and thus the commuting requirements to/from airports for business flyers. Morgan has identified the early users of their aircraft, which will allow successful introduction as it expands the market for its technology. Morgan brings to market something new, something different, something that gives buyers a reason to buy – better economics and improved ease of use. That's how you raise money and build a business in a recession – by offering something new that creates demand for your product.
Perhaps even Starbucks' new leadership is getting the idea. After months of doing "the wrong stuff" (as reported in this blog), The Seattle Times reports "Starbucks Tests New Name for Stores." Only this is way beyond a name test. The new stores have a different menu, including liquor, a different ambiance, and even different coffee making equipment. This is something new. Will it matter? We don't yet know, because (a) we haven't heard of any Disruptions in Starbucks to make us think this is a really serious initiative that could displace the earlier commitment to "coffee", (b) we don't know how much permission the developers of the new idea have to really do something new – like maybe not sell coffee at all, and (c) we don't know if there are any significant resources committed to the project. So it's too early to know if this is really White Space. But at least it's not another flavor of coffee or repackaging of coffee or more of the same – which was killing Starbucks. If the leadership really starts creating some White Space projects to develop new stores then even the beleagured Starbucks has the opportunity to grow itself out of this recession.
Recessions dramatically bring home market shifts. Those clinging to old Success Formulas are exposed as very weak (like GM) and are targets for failure. Those who reach out to provide solutions to new market demands can not only grow during the recession, but upstage older competitors. They can change market competitiveness to favor themselves, and grow dramatically by overtaking the Locked-in competition. Recessions end when businesses launch new products and services that meet the needs of a shifted market. So if you're waiting on the recession to end – just keep on waiting. When it ends you just might find you are so out of the market you aren't competitive any longer. Instead, get with moving toward the new market needs today so you strengthen your business and become a leader in the near future.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 13, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Is Bob Lutz the right guy to run GM Marketing?" is the question headlined on Advertising Age. I'm sure you know I think the answer is a resounding "NO."
I'll never forget a few months when Mr. Lutz, being interviewed for a national magazine, said the Tesla sports car and the company that developed it was a joke. He said it wasn't a real car, nor was Tesla a real car company. He said the leadership at Tesla didn't know what it meant to be a professional auto company, and to be professional auto executives. He was condescending and rude as to the future of Tesla.
Let's see, Tesla has made a 100% electric car, sold 100% of its output, has investors that aren't the federal government, has never been bankrupt and has never asked for a bailout to stay in business. Meanwhile, the former vice-chairman of GM was a stanch critic of the electric car, saying it would never meet the driving needs of the American public, and fully supported GM killing its electric car program. While he was a leader at GM, the company couldn't even keep 100% of its capacity in operation, much less sell 100% of the output, the company begged the federal government for money to keep it in operation when private investors would no longer invest, and then wiped out the equity holders entirely – and over 80% of the value of bondholders, by leading the company into bankruptcy.
Mr. Lutz was an executive at GM. But that doesn't make him a good executive. In fact, given the performance of GM since 1975 (nearly 35 years) it might be more of a disqualifier than a qualifier. Why would anyone want to hire an executive who stayed in one industry for over 40 years, during which the companies he worked for lost share, saw their margins decline, led in no new technology categories, was perennially late introducing new products, saw their costs spiral out of control, had the lowest job satisfaction in the industry by its employees, had some of the lower quality scores among consumers in the industry and and eventually had to declare bankruptcy?
America loves to glorify, make heroes even, of business executives. Usually of large companies. But few of these executives actually made a significant positive impact on their companies, employees, investors or suppliers. Executives rise because they are very good at supporting the Success Formula, not because they produce significantly better results. As long as the manager turned director turned V.P. keeps reinforcing the Success Formula, in fact many mistakes can be overlooked. Especially if the executive's style is similar to the top brass at the company (same school, same degrees, same geographic origin, same religion, same politics, same views.) What gets an executive promoted at GM (and most large companies) is simply not results. It is consistent reinforcement of a Success Formula, burnishing and amplifying it, even in the face of deterioriating results. Like Mr. Lutz.
There is no popular election of executives. In this case, perhaps there should be. Given how disgusted most people are with GM, I doubt many people would vote to keep the original management in place. And I doubt fewer still would vote to place a 77 year old executive who was part of the long term industry decline and recent failure in a top position. And even fewer would say that a 77 year old is prepared to take on marketing leadership in a world where traditional advertising has declining value, and the best companies are creatively using all kinds of internet marketing programs. Not just because of his age – but because he's never developed the remotest skill to do the work. Many 30 year olds could explain in deep detail how to get viral campaigns working – while all Mr. Lutz could say is he's seen a YouTube! video and read a blog or two. And he gets to manage the 4th largest ad budget in the USA? Isn't that how GM got into this mess – having people in top jobs who were out of step with current market realities?
Businesses exist to put resources to effective use. We measure that effectiveness with cash flow and profits. We ask that the leaders who borrow money from investors (equity and debt) return that principle with a positive rate of return. And we ask that the executives honor their commitments to the employees and vendors. In the case of GM, the executives eliminated the investments made by investors, reneged on the employee commitments and left vendors holding the bag on long-term contracts the company will no longer honor. Even old customers can no longer hold the company accountable for its defective products. By all measures, these leaders failed. And yet someone thinks it's a good idea to keep the same people running this company?
GM needs new leadership. Leadership willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to develop a new Success Formula. Asking Mr. Lutz to be the head of marketing is not a Disruption. It is an action specifically intended to remain Locked-in to the old Success Formula and maintain the re-invention gap between GM and the marketplace. With this kind of decision making, GM will find itself back in bankruptcy court a lot faster than any of the experts even think.
Don't miss the new ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Jul 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Tribune Company Profitability Continues to Deteriorate" is the Crain's headline. Even though Tribune filed for bankruptcy several months ago, its sales, profits and cash flow have continued deteriorating. The company is selling assets, like the Chicago Cubs, in order to raise cash. But its media businesses, anchored by The Chicago Tribune, are a sinking ship which management has no idea how to plug. While the judge can wipe out debt, he cannot get rid of the internet and competitors that are reshaping the business in which Tribune participates. Bankruptcy doesn't "protect" the business, it merely delays what increasingly appears to be inevitable failure.
"GM Clears Key Hurdles to Bankruptcy Exit" is the BusinessWeek headline. In record time a judge has decided to let GM shift all its assets and employees into a "new" GM, leaving all the bondholders, employee contracts and lawsuits in the "old" GM. This will wipe out all the debt, obligations and lawsuits GM has complained about so vociferously. But it won't wipe out lower cost competitors like Kia, Hyuandai or Tata Motors. And it won't wipe out competitors with newer technology and faster product development cycles like Toyota or Honda. GM will still have to compete – but it has no real plan for overcoming competitive weaknesses in almost all aspects of the business.
It was 30 years ago when I first head the term "strategic bankruptcy." The idea was that a business could hide behind bankruptcy protection to fix some minor problem, and a clever management could thereby "save" a distressed business. But this is a wholly misapplied way to think about bankruptcy. In reality, bankruptcy is just another financial machination intended to allow Locked-in existing management to Defend & Extend a poorly performing Success Formula. Bankruptcy addresses a symptom of the weak business – debts and obligations – but does not address what's really wrong - a business model out of step with a shifted marketplace.
The people running GM are the same people that got it into so much trouble. The decision-making processes, product development processes, marketing approaches are all still Locked-in and the same. GM hasn't been Disrupted any more than Tribune company has. Quite to the contrary, instead of being Disrupted bankruptcy preserves most of the Locked-in status quo and breathes new life into it by eliminating the symptoms of a very diseased Success Formula. Meanwhile, White Space is obliterated as the reorganized company kills everything that smacks of doing anything new in a cost-cutting mania intended to further preserve the old Success Formula.
Everyone in the bankruptcy process talks about "lowering cost" as the way to save the business. When in fact the bankrupt business is so out of step with the market that lowering costs has only a minor impact on competititveness. Just look at the perennial bankruptcy filers – United Airlines, American Airlines and their brethren. Bankruptcy has never allowed them to be more competitive with much more profitable competitors like Southwest. Even after 2 or 3 trips through the overhaul process.
Bankruptcy does not bode well for any organization. It's a step on the road to either having your assets acquired by someone who's better market aligned, or failure. Those who think Tribune will emerge a strong media competitor are ignoring the lack of investment in internet development now happening – while Huffington Post et.al. are growing every week. Those who think the "new" GM will be a strong auto company are ignoring the market shifts that threw GM to the brink of failure over the last year. Both companies are still Defending & Extending the past in a greatly shifted world – and nobody can succeed following that formula.
Don't forget to download the ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes" for a primer on how to keep your business out of bankruptcy court during these market shifts.
