by Adam Hartung | May 8, 2014 | Current Affairs, Leadership
Lots of press this week about Target’s CEO and Chairman, Gregg Steinhafel, apparently being forced out. Blame reached the top job after the successful cyber attack on the company last year. But investors, and customers, may regret this somewhat Board level over-reaction to a mounting global problem.
Richard Clark is probably America’s foremost authority on cyber attacks. He was on America’s National Security Council, and headed the counter-terrorism section. Since leaving government he has increasingly focused on cyber attacks, and advised corporations.
In early 2013 I met Mr. Clark after hearing him speak at a National Association of Corporate Directors meeting. He was surprisingly candid in his comments at the meeting, and after. He pointed out that EVERY company in America was being randomly targeted by cyber criminals, and that EVERY company would have an intrusion. He said it was impossible to do business without working on-line, and simultaneously it was impossible to think any company – of any size – could stop an attack from successfully getting into the company. The only questions one should focus on answering were “How fast can you discover the attack? How well can you contain it? What can you learn to at least stop that from happening again?”
So, while the Target attack was large, and not discovered as early as anyone would like, to think that Target is in some way wildly poor at security or protecting its customers is simply naive. Several other large retailers have also had attacks, include Nieman Marcus and Michael’s, and it was probably bad luck that Target was the first to have such a big problem happen, and at such a bad time, than anything particularly weak about Target.
We now know that all retailers are trying to learn from this, and every corporation is raising its awareness and actions to improve cyber security. But someone will be next. Target wasn’t the first, and won’t be the last. Companies everywhere, working with law enforcement, are all reacting to this new form of crime. So firing the CEO, 2 months after firing the CIO (Chief Information Officer), makes for good press, but it is more symbolic than meaningful. It won’t stop the hackers.
Where this decision does have great importance is to shareholders and customers. Target has been a decent company for its constituents under this CEO, and done far better than some of its competitors. The share price has doubled in the last 5 years, and Target has proven a capable competitor to Wal-Mart while other retailers have been going out of business (Filene’s Basement, Circuit City, Linens & Things, Dots, etc.) or losing all relevancy (like Abercrombie and Fitch and Best Buy.) And Target has been at least holding its own while some chains have been closing stores like crazy (Radio Shack 1,100 stores, Family Dollar 370 stores, Office Depot 400 stores, etc.)
Just compare Target’s performance to JCPenney, who’s CEO was fired after screwing up the business far worse than the cyber attack hurt Target. Or, look at Sears Holdings. CEO Ed Lampert was heralded as a hero 6 years ago, but since then the company he leads has had 28 straight quarters of declining sales, and closed 305 stores since 2010. Kmart has become a complete non-competitor in discounting, and Sears has lost all relevancy as a chain as it has been outflanked on all sides. CEO Lampert has constantly whittled away at the company’s value, and just this week told shareholders that they can simply plan on more store closings in the future.
And vaunted Wal-Mart is undergoing a federal investigation for bribing government officials in Mexico to prop up its business. Wal-Mart is constantly under attack by its employees for shady business practices, and even lost a National Labor Relations Board case regarding its hours and pay practices. And Wal-Mart remains a lightning rod for controversy as it fights with big cities like Chicago and Washington, DC about its ability to open stores, while Target has flourished in communities large and small with work practices considered acceptable. And Target has avoided these sort of internally generated management scandals.
CEOs, and Boards of Directors, across the nation have been seriously addressing cyber security for the last couple of years. Awareness, and protective measures, are up considerably. But there will be future attacks, and some will succeed. It is unclear blaming the CEO for these problems makes any sense – unless there is egregious incompetence.
On the other hand, finding a CEO that can grow a business like Target, in a tough retail market, is not easy. Destroying KMart, while battling Wal-Mart, and still trying to figure out how to compete with Amazon.com is a remarkably difficult job. Perhaps the toughest CEO job in the country. Steinhafel had performed better than most. Investors, and customers, may soon regret that he’s not still leading Target.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 30, 2014 | Current Affairs, Innovation, Leadership
Economic growth is a great thing. When the economy booms people make more, so they pay more income taxes. They spend more, which generates more sales tax. They upgrade homes and buy bigger homes, which have higher property taxes. But even though they pay more dollars in taxes, people are happy because they have more cash, and often the percent of their income spent overall on taxes is lower.
A virtuous circle where everyone benefits. Growth helps the citizens, and the community prospers.
For the industrial era, this virtuous circle was great for Illinois. Farmlands continued to prosper with bountiful crops, while new manufacturing jobs created higher incomes for those leaving the farms. The roadways and airports grew, while income taxes remained almost paltry by national standards. And Illinois could boast some of the country’s best public schools even while property taxes were below national averages. This growth environment kept locals in the state, and attracted people from the plains, other parts of the midwest, south and northeast as well as immigrants from foreign lands. Industrial growth propelled a great environment.
Last week many people were surprised by a recent Gallup survey showing that Illinois leads the USA in people wanting to leave their home state. A whopping 50% of the population would like to leave. And Illinois was 2nd from the top with percentage of people who have high intent to actually leave (at 19%.) So if those two groups overlap Illinois could lose 10% of its population in short order!
If ever there was one, this has to be a wake-up call!
The seeds of this problem were sown many years ago. When manufacturing started going offshore, Illinois was hard hit. A Center for Government Studies report shows that between 2000 and 2010 the number of people employed in Illinois actually declined by 115,000 (1.5%). Farming, wholesale and retail trade jobs fell by 135,000. But far worse was the decline in manufacturing jobs, which dropped by a whopping 311,000. Those were jobs which had been Illinois’ growth foundation for 60 years. And they were the employers who provided the network effect of business-to-business growth that kept the state’s virtuous circle spinning.
Despite the obviousness of this shift in employment – from manufacturing to services – the state reacted timidly to replace that employment base with another growth vehicle. In an era of growing financial services, Illinois failed to develop a strong banking sector, and in fact watched First Chicago/Bank One become JPMorganChase and leave – along with almost all its other large brethren. Despite leading engineering universities (University of Illinois Chicago, University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign, Northwestern, Illinois Institute of Technology, Northern Illinois, etc.) Illinois failed to develop a vibrant angel investing or venture capital community, and digital entrepreneurs were pushed toward the coasts for funding – and increasingly the talent followed them out of state.
It did not take long for the virtuous circle to become a stagnation spiral. As jobs left the state there was lower demand for housing, so people couldn’t sell their houses – especially after 2007. The housing bust that racked America hit the Chicago area, and all of Illinois, harder than many metros. And home prices have failed to recover at anything close to the national average. Chicago still leads major metro areas in percentage of homes with underwater mortgages. To maintain money for schools and roads communities were forced to raise property taxes. Today many people, especially in the 6 Chicago “collar counties,” pay property taxes that are higher than similar homes in Los Angeles and San Francisco! Property taxes that have become among the highest in the country.
With no growth in spending, communities raised sales taxes to generate more income. Today most Illinois citizens pay between 9-10% sales tax, again amongst the highest in the country. Which encourages even greater on-line shopping, and deterioration in the local retail trade.
Road maintenance, and general funding at the state level, pushed the state to raise highway tolls. What were $.25 toll machines on major arteries in the 1990s now cost $.75 (tripled) and the rate is double that ($1.50) if you don’t install an electronic toll device in your auto (sorry out-of-state drivers.)
Lacking growth, state income tax receipts could not keep up with state demands – especially for pensions that depended on both a vibrant stock market as well as higher state income. So Illinois doubled the income tax rate in an effort to fund pensions and avoid bankruptcy.
Yet, despite seeing taxes in all areas increase, residents are subject to declining services. Potholes remain an ever-present danger for drivers. Municipal traffic services (buses and rail cars) have increased prices by multiples, yet there are fewer routes and longer waits for customers.
Which leads to an even worse element of stagnation – aging population. As the jobs for people 16-44 declined, younger people left the state and that demographic actually declined by 3.2% between 2000 and 2010. Those who remained were older, so the Baby Boomers grew by 21%! However, this aged demographic is not in its prime “spending” years, and instead is much more likely to invest for retirement. Thus further dampening the local economy.
And, an aging population means that the number of children declined – dramatically. The “baby bust” resulted in a 6.2% decline in children under age 10 in Illinois last decade. Fewer children means less demand for school teachers, and all the things related to child rearing, further shrinking the economic growth prospects. While this is good news for property tax payers generally, it’s never a good sign to see closed schools simply because there’s no need for them.
Now the spiral becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Retiring boomers on a fixed income realize that they cannot afford to live in a state with such high, and rising, property taxes. Especially when other states have fixed taxes that are 1/4 to 1/3 what they pay in Illinois. These retirees (or soon to be retirees) discover lower property tax states often have sales taxes that are half what they pay in Illinois. The economics of staying become increasingly difficult to bear – while the benefits of leaving look ever more promising.
Entrepreneurs and business leaders see little reason to move more jobs into Illinois. When looking at facility locations they realize they can receive the same tax breaks almost anywhere, but employees would prefer the lower tax environment of other states – especially sun belt states like Texas which has no income tax. As Illinois offers tax breaks to dinosaurs like Sears, desperately trying to keep jobs despite failing corporate prospects, it becomes increasingly difficult to lure anyone other than small-employing headquarters locations into the state. And personal taxes keep going up to compensate for these ill-conceived legacy company support programs.
No wonder so many people think about leaving Illinois. And we haven’t even mentioned the weather (do you know how to spell P-O-L-A-R V-O-R-T-E-X?)
Growth is a wonderful thing. Everyone prospers when economic growth provides the virtual circle of more cash. But when the market turns toward the stagnation spiral – well it sucks for just about everyone.
Just ask the folks in Detroit – who are now auctioning off empty homes for $1,000 on the internet just to stop ongoing blight that is wrecking the city like an economic tsunami.
There is no simple answer for a declining economy like Illinois. But this was a situation that took over 2 decades to create. Failure to recognize the decline in manufacturing, and shift to digital economy jobs, left political and industry leaders arrogantly thinking everything would be fine. An inability to invest in creating a replacement powerhouse industry means the state has few resources to invest in anything at all now. Unable to leverage local university innovation with a comprehensive and effective program for funding projects has created a veritable slipper-slide from Illinois to California or New York for new graduates.
The answer will take a some time to develop, and implement. But one thing is clear, if Illinois’ leaders don’t come up with something soon there will be even fewer people around, and even greater problems developing. It would be easy to dismiss this Gallup poll, or let community pride keep one from taking its implications seriously. But that would be an even worse mistake. This is a serious wake-up call.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 23, 2014 | Current Affairs, Leadership
Every quarter I have to be reminded that “earnings season” is again upon us. The ritual of public companies announcing their sales and profits from recent quarters that generates a lot of attention in the business press. And I always wonder why this is a big deal.
What really matters to investors, employees, customers and vendors is “what will your business be like next quarter, and year?” We really don’t much care about the past. What we really want to know is “what should we expect in the future?”
For example, two companies announce quarterly results. One has a Price/Earnings (P/E) multiple of 12.8 and a dividend yield of 2.05%. The other has a multiple of 13.0, and a yield of 3.05%. For both companies net earnings overall were pretty much flat, but Earnings Per Share (EPS) improved due to an aggressive stock repurchase program. Both companies say they have new products in the pipeline, but they conservatively estimate full year results for 2014 to be flat or maybe even declining.
Do you know enough to make a decision on whether to buy either stock? Both?
Truthfully, the two companies are Xerox and Apple. Now does it matter?
While both companies have similar results and forward looking statements, how you view that information is affected by your expectations for each company’s future. So, in other words, the actual results are pretty meaningless. They are interpreted through the lens of expectations, which controls your decision.
You can say Xerox has been irrelevant for years, and its products increasingly look unlikely to change its future course, so you are disheartened by results you see as unspectacular and likewise see no reason to own the stock. For Apple you could say the same thing, and bring up the growing competitor sales of Android-based products. Or, you might say that Apple is undervalued because you have great faith in the growth of mobile products sales and you believe new devices will spur Apple to even better results. Whatever your conclusion about the announced earnings, those conclusions are driven by your view of the future – not the actual results.
Another example. Two companies have billions in sales, and devote their discussion of company value to technology and the use of new technology to pioneer new markets. Both companies report they continue a string of losses, and have no projection for when losses will become profits. There are no dividends. There is no P/E multiple, because there is no E. There is no EPS, again because there is no E. One company is losing $12.86/share, the other is losing $.61/share. Again, do these results tell you whether to buy either, one or both?
What if the first one (with the larger losses) is Sears Holdings, and the latter is Tesla? Now, suddenly your view on the data changes – based upon your view of the future. Either Sears is on the precipice of a turnaround to becoming a major on-line retailer that will sell some real estate and leverage the balance of its stores to grow, so you buy it, or you think Sears has lost all relevancy and you don’t buy it. Either you think Tesla is an industry game changer, so you buy it, or you think it is an over-rated fad that will never become big enough to matter and the giant global auto companies will destroy it, so you don’t buy it. It’s your future view that guides your conclusions about past results.
The critical factor when reviewing earnings is actually not the reported results. The critical factor is what you think the future is for these 4 companies. No matter how good or bad the historical results, your decision about whether to own the stock, buy the company products, work for the company or join its vendor program all hinges on your view about the company’s future.
Which makes not only the “earnings season” hoopla foolish, but puts a pronounced question mark on how executives – especially CEOs – in public companies spend their time as it relates to reporting results.
Enormous energy is spent by most CEOs and their staff on managing earnings. From the beginning to the end of every quarter the CFO and his/her staff pour over weekly outcomes in divisions and functions to understand revenues and costs in order to gain advance knowledge on likely results. Then, for the next several days/weeks the CFO’s staff, with the CEO and the leadership team, will pour over those results to make a myriad number of adjustments – from depreciation and amortization to deferring revenue changing tax structures or time-matching various costs – in order to further refine the reported results. Literally thousands of person-hours will be devoted to managing the reported results in order to provide the number they think is most appropriate. And this cycle is repeated every quarter.
But how many hours will be spent by that same CEO and the leadership team managing expectations about the company’s next year? How much time do these leaders spend developing scenarios, and communications, that will describe their vision, in order to manage investor expectations?
While every company has a CFO leading a large organization dedicated to reporting historical results, how many companies have a like-powered C level exec managing the expectations, and leading a large staff to create and deliver communications about the future?
It seems pretty clear that most management teams should consider reallocating their precious resources. Instead of spending so much time managing earnings, they should spend more time managing expectations. If we think about the difference between Xerox and Apple, one is quickly aware of the difference the CEOs made in setting expectations. People still wax eloquently about the future vision for Apple created by CEO Steve Jobs, who’s been dead 2.5 years, while almost no one can tell you the name of Xerox’ CEO. If you think about the difference between Sears and Tesla one only needs to think briefly about the difference between the numbers driven hedge fund manager and cost-cutting CEO Ed Lampert compared with the “visionary” communications of Elon Musk.
Investors should all think long term. Investors should care completely about what the next 3 to 5 years will mean for companies in which they place their money. What sales and earnings are reported from months ago is pretty meaningless. What really matters is what is yet to happen.
What we don’t need is a lot of time spent talking about old earnings. What we need is a lot more time spent talking about the future, and what we should expect from our investments.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 15, 2014 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Leadership, Transparency
Zebra Technologies is a company most people don’t recognize. Yet, I bet every product you buy has the product on which they specialize.
Since 1982 Zebra has been the leader in bar code printers and readers. Zebra was a pioneer in the application of bar codes for tracking pallets through warehouses, items used in a manufacturing line, shipment tracking and other uses for manufacturing and supply chain management. As the market leader Zebra Technologies developed its own software (ZPL) for printing barcodes, and made robust printing and reading machines that were the benchmark for rugged, heavy duty applications at companies from Caterpillar, to UPS and FedEx, to WalMart.
Although the company dabbled in RFID technology for product tracking, and is considered a leader in that market, the new technology really never “took off” due to higher costs compared with the boring, but effective and remarkably cheap, bar code. So Zebra plodded away making ever better, smaller, cheaper, faster bar code printers. It may not have been exciting, like the nondescript headquarters in far-suburban Chicago, but it met the market needs. Zebra was an excellent operational company that was delivering on its focus.
Even if it was, well …… boring.
But, like all markets, the bar code market began shifting. Generic software companies, like Microsoft, produced drivers that would work from a cheap PC to allow
cheap generic printers, like those from HP, to print bar codes. These were cheap enough to be considered disposable. Not a good thing for the better, but more expensive, market leader. Competitive, non-proprietary software and hardware leads to lower prices and margin compression. It’s a differentiation stealer.
Worse, lots of customers stopped caring much about bar codes altogether. Zebra’s customers realized bar codes were everywhere. Nothing new was really happening. When it came to delivering on the promise of really efficient, accurate and low cost supply chain management the bar code had a place. But no longer an exciting one. When your product is boring discussions with customers easily slip toward price rather than new products. And when you’re talking about price, and how to keep existing business, relevancy is at risk. You become a target for a new competitor to come along and steal your thunder (and profits) by relegating your product to generic-doom while taking the high rode of delivering more value by changing the game.
So hand it to Zebra’s leadership team that they observed the risk of staying focused on their status quo, and took action to change the game themselves. Today Zebra announced it is buying the enterprise device business of Motorola. And this is a big bet. At a price of $3.5B, Zebra is spending an amount nearly equal to its existing net worth. And it is borrowing $3.25B – almost the whole cost – greatly increasing the company’s debt ratios. That is a gutsy move.
Yet, in this one move Zebra will nearly triple its revenues.
This decision is not without risk. The acquired Motorola business has seen declining revenues – like a $500M decline in the last year (roughly 25%.) With many products built on Microsoft software, customers have been shifting to other solutions. Exactly how the old technologies will integrate with new ones in the Motorola lines is not clear. And even less clear is how a combined company will bring together old-line printer/scanners using proprietary software with the diverse, and honestly pricey, products that Motorola enterprise has been selling, to offer more competitive solutions.
Yet, investors should be encouraged. Doing nothing would spell disaster for Zebra. It is a company that needs to re-invent itself for today’s pressing business needs — which have little in common with the top needs 30 years ago (or even 10 years ago.) In October, Zebra launched Zatar, a Web-based software that allows companies to deploy and manage devices and sensors connected to the Internet. In December Zebra purchased a company (Hart) for its cloud-based software to manage inventory. Now Zebra is looking to use these integration tools to bring together all kinds of devices the new company will manufacture to help companies achieve an entirely new level of efficiency and capability in today’s real-time manufacturing and logistics world.
We should admire CEO Anders Gustaffson’s leadership team for recommending such bold action. And the company’s Chairman and Board for approving it. Of course “there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip,” but at least Zebra’s investors, employees, suppliers and customers can now see that Zebra is really holding a viable cup, and that it is putting together a serious effort to provide better delivery to buyers lips.
This is a play to grow the company by following the trend to “the internet of things” with new solutions that are potential game changers. And there’s no way you can win unless you’re in the game. With these acquisitions, there is no doubt that what was mostly a manufacturing company – Zebra – is now “in the game” for doing new things with new technologies.
This does beg some questions: What is your company doing to be a game changer? Are you resting on the laurels of strong historical sales – and maybe a strong historical market position? Do you recognize that your market is shifting, and it is undercutting historical strengths? Are you relying on operational excellence, while new technologies are threatening your obsolescence?
Or — are you thinking like the leaders at Zebra Technologies and taking bold action to be the industry game-changing leader, even if it means stretching your financials, your management team and the technology?
Most of us would rather be in the former, than the latter, I think.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 8, 2014 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership
“Car dealers are idiots” said my friend as she sat down for a cocktail.
It was evening, and this Vice President of a large health care equipment company was meeting me to brainstorm some business ideas. I asked her how her day went, when she gave the response above. She then proceeded to tell me she wanted to trade in her Lexus for a new, small SUV. She had gone to the BMW dealer, and after being studiously ignored for 30 minutes she asked “do the salespeople at this dealership talk to customers?” Whereupon the salespeople fell all over themselves making really stupid excuses like “we thought you were waiting for your husband,” and “we felt you would be more comfortable when your husband arrived.”
My friend is not married. And she certainly doesn’t need a man’s help to buy a car.
She spent the next hour using her iPhone to think up every imaginable bad thing she could say about this dealer over Twitter and Facebook using various interesting hashtags and @ references.
Truthfully, almost nobody likes going to an auto dealership. Everyone can share stories about how they were talked down to by a salesperson in the showroom, treated like they were ignorant, bullied by salespeople and a slow selling process, overcharged compared to competitors for service, forced into unwanted service purchases under threat of losing warranty coverage – and a slew of other objectionable interactions. Most Americans think the act of negotiating the purchase of a new car is loathsome – and far worse than the proverbial trip to a dentist. It’s no wonder auto salespeople regularly top the list of least trusted occupations!
When internet commerce emerged in the 1990s, buying an auto on-line was the #1 most desired retail transaction in emerging customer surveys. And today the vast majority of Americans, especially Millennials, use the web and social media to research their purchase before ever stepping foot in the dreaded dealership.
Tesla heard, and built on this trend. Rather than trying to find dealers for its cars, Tesla decided it would sell them directly from the manufacturer. Which created an uproar amongst dealers who have long had a cushy “almost no way to lose money” business, due to a raft of legal protections created to support them after the great DuPont-General Motors anti-trust case.
When New Jersey regulators decided in March they would ban Tesla’s factory-direct dealerships, the company’s CEO, Elon Musk, went after Governor Christie for supporting a system that favors the few (dealers) over the customer. He has threatened to use the federal courts to overturn the state laws in favor of consumer advocacy.
It would be easy to ignore Tesla’s position, except it is not alone in recognizing the trend. TrueCar is an on-line auto shopping website which received $30M from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s venture fund. After many state legal challenges TrueCar now claims to have figured out how to let people buy on-line with dealer delivery, and last week filed papers to go public. While this doesn’t eliminate dealers, it does largely take them out of the car-buying equation. Call it a work-around for now that appeases customers and lawyers, even if it doesn’t actually meet consumer desires for a direct relationship with the manufacturer.
Apple’s direct-to-consumer retail stores were key to saving the company
Distribution is always a tricky question for any consumer good. Apple wanted to make sure its products were positioned correctly, and priced correctly. As Apple re-emerged from near bankruptcy with new music products in the early 2000’s Apple feared electronic retailers would discount the product, be unable to feature Apple’s advantages, and hurt the brand which was in the process of rebuilding. So it opened its own stores, staffed by “geniuses” to help customers understand the brand positioning and the products’ advantages. Those stores are largely considered to have been a turning point in helping consumers move from a world of Microsoft-based laptops, Sony music products and Blackberry mobile devices to new iDevices and resurging Macintosh popularity – and sales levels.
Attacking regulations sounds – and is – a daunting task. But, when regulations support a minority of people outside the public good there is reason to expect change. American’s wanted a more pristine society, so in 1920 the 18th Amendment was passed prohibiting alcohol. However, after a decade in which rampant crime developed to support illegal alcohol production Americans passed the 21st Amendment in 1933 to repeal prohibition. What seemed like a good idea at first turned out to have more negatives than positives.
Auto dealer regulations hurt competition, and consumers
Today Americans do not need a protected group of dealers to save them from big, bad auto companies. To the contrary, forced distribution via protected dealers inhibits competition because it keeps new competitors from entering the U.S. market. Small production manufacturers, and large ones in countries like India, are effectively blocked from reaching American customers because they lack a dealer base and existing dealers are uninterested in taking the risks inherent in taking these new products to market. Likewise, starting up an auto company is fraught with distribution risks in the USA, leaving Tesla the only company to achieve any success since the dealer protection laws were passed decades ago.
And that’s why Tesla has a very good chance of succeeding. The trends all support Americans wanting to buy directly from manufacturers. At the very least this would force dealers to justify their existence, and profits, if they want to stay in business. But, better yet, it would create greater competition – as happened in the case of Apple’s re-emergence and impact on personal technology for entertainment and productivity.
Litigating to fight a trend might work for a while. Usually those in such a position are large political contributors, and use both the political process as well as legal precedent to protect their unjustified profits. NADA (National Automobile Dealers Association) is a substantial organization with very large PAC money to use across Washington. The Association can coordinate election contributions at national and state levels, as well as funding for judge elections and contributions for legal defense.
But, trends inevitably win out. Today Millennials are true on-line shoppers. They have no patience for traditional auto dealer shenanigans. After watching their parents, and grandparents, struggle for fairness with dealers they are eager for a change. As are almost all the auto buyers out there. And they are supported by consumer advocates long used to edgy tactics of auto dealers well known for skirting ethics and morality when dealing with customers. Those seeking change just need someone positioned to lead the legal effort.
Tesla wins because it uses trends to be a game changer
Tesla has shown it is well attuned to trends and what customers want. When other auto companies eschewed Tesla’s first entry as a 2-passenger sports car using laptop batteries, Tesla proceeded to sell out the product at a price much higher competitive gas-powered cars. When other auto companies thought a $70,000 electric sedan would never appeal to American buyers, Tesla again showed it understood the market best and sold out production. When industry pundits, and traditional auto company execs, said it was impossible to build a charging grid to support users driving up the coast, or cross-country, Tesla built the grid and demonstrated its functionality.
Now Tesla is the right company, in the right place, to change not only the autos Americans drive, but how Americans buy them. It’s rarely smart to refuse a trend, and almost always smart to support it. Tesla looks to be positioning itself as much smarter than older, larger auto companies once again.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 1, 2014 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
“Hope springs eternal in the human breast” (Alexander Pope)
As it does for most investors. People do not like to accept the notion that a business will lose relevancy, and its value will fall. Especially really big companies that are household brand names. Investors, like customers, prefer to think large, established companies will continue to be around, and even do well. It makes everyone feel better to have a optimistic attitude about large, entrenched organizations.
And with such optimism investors have cheered Microsoft for the last 15 months. After a decade of trading up and down around $26/share, Microsoft stock has made a significant upward move to $41 – a new decade-long high. This price has people excited Microsoft will reach the dot.com/internet boom high of $60 in 2000.
After discovering that Windows 8, and the Surface tablet, were nowhere near reaching sales expectations after Christmas 2012 – and that PC sales were declining faster than expected – investors were cheered in 2013 to hear that CEO Steve Ballmer would resign. After much speculation, insider Satya Nadella was named CEO, and he quickly made it clear he was refocusing the company on mobile and cloud. This started the analysts, and investors, on their recent optimistic bent.
CEO Nadella has cut the price of Windows by 70% in order to keep hardware manufacturers on Windows for lower cost machines, and he announced the company’s #1 sales and profit product – Office – was being released on iOS for iPad users. Investors are happy to see this action, as they hope that it will keep PC sales humming. Or at least slow the decline in sales while keeping manufacturers (like HP) in the Microsoft Windows fold. And investors are likewise hopeful that the long awaited Office announcement will mean booming sales of Office 365 for all those Apple products in the installed base.
But, there’s a lot more needed for Microsoft to succeed than these announcements. While Microsoft is the world’s #1 software company, it is still under considerable threat and its long-term viability remains unsure.
Windows is in a tough spot. After this price decline, Microsoft will need to increase sales volume by 2.5X to recoup lost profits. Meanwhile, Chrome laptops are considerably cheaper for customers and more profitable for manufacturers. And whether this price cut will have any impact on the decline in PC sales is unclear, as users are switching to mobile products for ease-of-use reasons that go far beyond price. Microsoft has taken an action to defend and extend its installed base of manufacturers who have been threatening to move, but the impact on profits is still likely to be negative and PC sales are still going to decline.
Meanwhile, the move to offer Office on iOS is clearly another offer to defend the installed Office marketplace, and unlikely to create a lot of incremental revenue and profit growth. The PC market has long been much bigger than tablets, and almost every PC had Office installed. Shrinking at 12-14% means a lot less Windows Office is being sold. And, In tablets iOS is not 100% of the market, as Android has substantial share. Offering Office on iOS reaches a lot of potential machines, but certainly not 100% as has been the case with PCs.
Further, while there are folks who look forward to running Office on an iOS device, Office is not without competition. Both Apple and Google offer competitive products to Office, and the price is free. For price sensitive users, both individuals and corporations, after 4 years of using competitive products it is by no means a given they all are ready to pay $60-$100 per device per year. Yes, there will be Office sales Microsoft did not previously have, but whether it will be large enough to cover the declining sales of Office on the PC is far from clear. And whether current pricing is viable is far, far from certain.
While these Microsoft products are the easiest for consumers to understand, Nadella’s move to make Microsoft successful in the mobile/cloud world requires succeeding with cloud products sold to corporations and software-as-service providers. Here Microsoft is late, and facing substantial competition as well.
Just last week Google cut the price of its Compute Engine cloud infrastructure (IaaS) platform and App Engine cloud app platform (PaaS) products 30-32%. Google cut the price of its Cloud Storage and BigQuery (big data analytics) services by 68% and 85% as it competes headlong for customers with Amazon. Amazon, which has the first-mover position and large customers including the U.S. federal government, cut prices within 24 hours for its EC2 cloud computing service by 30%, and for its S3 storage service by over 50%. Amazon also reduced prices on its RDS database service approximately 28%, and its Elasticache caching service by over 33%.
To remain competitive, Microsoft had to react this week by chopping prices on its Azure cloud computing products 27%-35%, reducing cloud storage pricing 44%-65%, and whacking prices on its Windows and Linux memory-intensive computing products 27%-35%. While these products have allowed the networking division formerly run by now CEO Nadella to be profitable, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain old profit levels on existing customers, and even a tougher problem to profitably steal share from the early cloud leaders – even as the market grows.
While optimism has grown for Microsoft fans, and the share price has moved distinctly higher, it is smart to look at other market leaders who obtained investor favorability, only to quickly lose it.
Blackberry was known as RIM (Research in Motion) in June, 2007 when the iPhone was launched. RIM was the market leader, a near monopoly in smart phones, and its stock was riding high at $70. In August, 2007, on the back of its dominant status, the stock split – and moved on to a split adjusted $140 by end of 2008. But by 2010, as competition with iOS and Android took its toll RIM was back to $80 (and below.) Today the rechristened company trades for $8.
Sears was once the country’s largest and most successful retailer. By 2004 much of the luster was coming off when KMart purchased the company and took its name, trading at only $20/share. Following great enthusiasm for a new CEO (Ed Lampert) investors flocked to the stock, sure it would take advantage of historical brands such as DieHard, Kenmore and Craftsman, plus leverage its substantial real estate asset base. By 2007 the stock had risen to $180 (a 9x gain.) But competition was taking its toll on Sears, despite its great legacy, and sales/store started to decline, total sales started declining and profits turned to losses which began to stretch into 20 straight quarters of negative numbers. Meanwhile, demand for retail space declined, and prices declined, cutting the value of those historical assets. By 2009 the stock had dropped back to $40, and still trades around that value today — as some wonder if Sears can avoid bankruptcy.
Best Buy was a tremendous success in its early years, grew quickly and built a loyal customer base as the #1 retail electronics purveyor. But streaming video and music decimated CD and DVD sales. On-line retailers took a huge bite out of consumer electronic sales. By January, 2013 the stock traded at $13. A change of CEO, and promises of new formats and store revitalization propped up optimism amongst investors and by November, 2014 the stock was at $44. However, market trends – which had been in place for several years – did not change and as store sales lagged the stock dropped, today trading at only $25.
Microsoft has a great legacy. It’s products were market leaders. But the market has shifted – substantially. So far new management has only shown incremental efforts to defend its historical business with product extensions – which are up against tremendous competition that in these new markets have a tremendous lead. Microsoft so far is still losing money in on-line and gaming (xBox) where it has lost almost all its top leadership since 2014 began and has been forced to re-organize. Nadella has yet to show any new products that will create new markets in order to “turn the tide” of sales and profits that are under threat of eventual extinction by ever-more-capable mobile products.
While optimism springs eternal long-term investors would be smart to be skeptical about this recent improvement in the stock price. Things could easily go from mediocre to worse in these extremely competitive global tech markets, leaving Microsoft optimists with broken dreams, broken hearts and broken portfolios.
Update: On April 2 Microsoft announced it is providing Windows for free to all manufacturers with a 9″ or smaller display. This is an action to help keep Microsoft competitive in the mobile marketplace – but it does little for Microsoft profitability. Android from Google may be free, but Google’s business is built on ad sales – not software sales – and that’s dramatically different from Microsoft that relies almost entirely on Windows and Office for its profitability
Update: April 3 CRN (Computer Reseller News) reviewed Office products for iOS – “We predict that once the novelty of “Office for iPad” wears off, companies will go back to relying on the humble, hard-working third parties building apps that are as stable, as handsome and far more capable than those of Redmond. It’s not that hard to do.”
by Adam Hartung | Mar 25, 2014 | Current Affairs, Ethics, Leadership, Web/Tech
5:00pm, September 20, 2009 was when I got the call.
Someone’s telling me to call the Wisconsin Highway Patrol, my oldest son was in a terrible accident. Then I call the police, who tell me my son has been airlifted to a hospital. I’m in the car, madly driving 500 miles toward the hospital, talking to the doctor – hearing my son is in bad shape. It looks terminal. Continuing the drive, deep into the blackest night, in the pouring rain.
Then the call from the hospital. My son was dead.
I kept up the drive, made it to the hospital at daybreak. Yes, that is my son. Yes, he is dead.
I guess I had to see it to believe it.
Suddenly a new realization hit me. My son has two brothers. Both in college. Both 500 miles away. They had no idea what my last 14 hours were like. They knew nothing about their brother. How would they learn about this horrific news?
This accident was not a secret. It was newsworthy, even if far from a major city. My dead son had dozens of friends. And they all use Facebook. While as young men my sons don’t pay much attention to news radio or TV, they do pay attention to Facebook. And texting. How long would it take before someone went on-line and started telling the world that their brother was dead?
Do you call your sons on the phone and tell them their brother died?
Not wasting any time, I jumped in the car and started straight for my middle son’s college. He was the closest with his brother. They exchanged texts every day. He would be checking his phone and his Facebook account. I made the decision that this – this one thing – this had to be done in person. I would not call, I would not text, I was going to tell him in person.
But could I beat Facebook and texting?
I loaded up with coffee and went back onto the highway. And started another 10 hour drive. I just kept wondering “how long do I have? How long before these boys find the out – the hard way?”
I called my neighbor and told her the news. I gave her my Facebook access and told her to monitor my account, and to pay attention to any traffic from people in my son’s network. Look for anything that even hinted of bad news. I had to focus on driving and couldn’t distract myself with mobile.
Eight hours later I drove into Chicago. I was between 30 and 90 minutes to my son. Depending on Chicago traffic! But things seemed light; lighter than normal. Maybe, just maybe, I had time.
As I pulled across town I knew I was only 20 minutes from my middle son. Then my phone rang. It was my neighbor. “It’s there Adam. It’s there on Facebook. Somebody found out, and the kids are starting to spread the news. You better hurry.”
As safely, yet quickly, as possible I navigated in front of his 3 flat apartment on the south side. Luckily, a parking spot on the street. I pulled in, jumped out of the car and saw a window open in his apartment. I started calling up “hey, you up there? I need you to come unlock the door. Hey, come to the door.”
Laconically my son came to the door. I could tell by his eyes he didn’t know anything, and was curious why I was there. I went inside, put my arms around him, and told him his brother was dead.
He accused me of a bad joke. I quickly told him an accident happened, where, and that his brother didn’t make it.
Of course, he did not believe me. So he picked up his phone. He started looking for texts. He saw there were none from his brother. Then he jumped to his PC. He pulled up Facebook. He looked for his brother’s page – and then he started seeing the messages. Messages of disbelief, grief, anger and fear as expressed by so many people who are 21 or 22 and suddenly come face to face with mortality.
My son was in shock, as could be expected. But he was with me. Then it hit him “have you told my little brother?” I told him no. “We have to go tell him. Now. Before he finds out some other way.”
We then jumped back in the car and beat it to his younger brother’s college. My youngest son was far less of a social media fan. Also, college soccer kept him very busy. We knew he had been in class and soccer practice most of the day and evening, and he would not check anything until late at night. We had a very good chance that he had not heard anything.
Luckily, when we arrived at his college and found him, he confirmed he had not seen his phone or PC for several hours while at class, practice, eating and finishing homework. We told him the very, very bad news.
I’m glad my sons did not hear of their brother’s death via a text. Or via Facebook. It was a very, very, very difficult day for us. And the next several. Every minute etched forever in our memories.
As the next few days passed we all gained huge comfort from those who reached out to us via text, Facebook and Tweets. Hundreds of messages and postings came in. Social media was a tremendous way for all of us to connect and share stories about my now lost son. Young people told me things I would never have known had they been limited to telling me face-to-face, but which they were willing to share via Facebook. It was incredibly helpful.
We live in a very, very connected world.
Information, even things which may seem obscure in this large global environment, find their way to light quickly. We all want information now – not later. We want to know what, where and when – and we want to know it now. We sign up for email newsletters, Facebook pages, linked-in networks and listen to our colleagues on Twitter so we know things as soon as possible.
This is tough for those who have to communicate bad news. What’s the trade-off? Do you wait and do it personally? Or do you opt for moving quickly? Is it better someone know the information now – even if it is painful – or do you seek to inform them in a personal way to address their needs, emotions and questions? Do you broadcast the news, or keep it small? Do you send it impersonally, or personally? What is important?
Every organization is, to some extent, in the trust business
When you have to deliver bad news, how will you do it? Whether you have to announce a layoff, plant closing, industrial accident, data breach, product recall, product failure, program failure – or even a fatality – you are communicating information that is personal, and emotional. It is information that requires a sense of the person, not just the news. How will the information be received – and what does that mean for how it should be communicated?
It takes continuous effort to build trust, but it can be lost in a single, poorly constructed communication.
Malaysia Airlines had years to plan its communications for a downed plane. How would it tell the world such news? What tools would it use? A preparedness plan should contain not only the action plan, but the communications plan as well. And not only the message, but how it will be delivered. And how all touch points between the organization and the audience will be addressed.
Once flight 370 went missing Malaysia Airlines had days to plan its communications with families. There were several possible scenarios, yet all had a common theme of communicating passenger status. Passengers that are family members. The airline had significant time to plan what it would say, and how. To settle on texting families that their loved ones were forever gone was either incredibly bad planning, or indicates a significant lack of planning communications altogether.
When it was time for my sons to learn their brother was dead someone needed to be there to support them. Someone who cared. It was not news to be internalized without more discussion about what, how and why. All bad news shares this requirement, to address the human need to ask questions. Relying on email, texting, social media, newsletters or broadcast to share bad news ignores the very personal impact bad news has on the recipients.
Nobody wants to deliver bad news, but sometimes it is unavoidable. Being prepared is incredibly important if you want to maintain trust. Otherwise you can look as heartless, and untrustworthy, as Malaysia Airlines.
Connect with me on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 13, 2014 | Food and Drink, Investing, Leadership, Lock-in, Trends
Understanding trends is the most important part of planning.
Yet, most business planning focuses on internal operations and how to improve them, usually neglecting trends and changes in the external environment that threaten not only sales and profits but the business’ very existence.
Take Sbarro’s recent bankruptcy. That was easy to predict, especially since it’s the second time down for the restaurant chain. You have to wonder why leadership didn’t do something different to avoid this fate.
Traditional retail has been in decline for a decade. As consumers buy more stuff on-line, from a rash of retailers old and new, there is simply less stuff being bought at stores. It’s an obvious trend which affects everyone. But we see business leaders surprised by the trend, reacting with store closings and cost reductions, and we are surprised by the headlines:
Thousands of retail stores will close in 2014. It should surprise no one that physical retail traffic has been in dramatic decline. Large malls are shutting down, and being destroyed, as the old “anchor tenants” like Sears and JC Penney flail. Over 200 large malls (over 250,000 square feet) have vacancy rates exceeding 35%. Retail rental prices keep declining as the overbuilt, or under-demolished, retail square footage supply exceeds demand.
Business planning is about defending and extending the past.
Given this publicly available information, you would think a company with most of its revenue tightly linked to traditional retail would —- well —- change. Yet, Sbarro stuck with its business of offering low cost food to mall shoppers. Its leaders continued focusing on defending & extending its old business, improving operations, while trends are clearly killing the business.
Almost all business planning efforts begin by looking at recent history. Planning processes starts with a host of assumptions about the business as it has been, and then try projecting those assumptions forward. Sbarro began when malls were growing, and its plans were built on the assumption that malls thrive. Now malls are dying, but that is not even part of planning for the future. Planning remains fixated on execution of a strategy that is no longer viable .
No one can “fix” Sbarro – they have to change it. Radically. And that means planning for a future which looks nothing like the past. Planning needs to start by looking at trends, and developing future scenarios about what customers need. Regardless of what the business did in the past.
Planning should be about understanding trends and developing future scenarios.
For all businesses the important planning information is not sales, sales per store, product line offerings, cost of goods sold, labor cost, gross margin, rents, cleanliness scores, safety record, location, etc., etc. The important information is in marketplace trends. For Sbarro, what will be dining trends in the future? What kind of restaurant experience do people want not only in 2014, but in 2020? Or should the company move toward delivery? At-home food preparation?
Success only happens when we understand trends and build our business to deliver what people want in the future. The world moves very fast these days. Technologies, styles, fashions, tastes, regulations, prices, capabilities and behaviors all change very quickly. Tomorrow is far less likely to look like today than to look, in important ways, remarkably different.
Plan for the future, not from the past.
To succeed in today’s fast changing environment requires we plan for the future, not from the past. We have to understand trends, and create keen vision about what customers will want in the future so we can steer our business in the right direction. Before we even discuss execution we have to make sure we are going to give customers what they want – which will be aligned with trends.
Otherwise, you can have the best run operation in the country and still end up like Sbarro.
Connect with me on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.
Links:
Radio Shack is a leader… in irrelevancy… and why that’s important for you
Old assumptions, and the CEO’s bias, is killing Sears
Winners shift with trends, losers don’t – understanding Sears’ decline
The CEO problem and the failure of JCPenney
The RIGHT way to implement planning to thrive in changing markets
How to plan like Virgin, Apple and Google
by Adam Hartung | Mar 4, 2014 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, Leadership
Obamacare is the moniker for the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, a lot of people thought the last thing Obamacare would do was make health care more affordable. Yet, early signs are pointing in the direction of a long-term change in America’s cost of providing health services.
The November, 2013 White House report on “Trends in Health Care Cost Growth” provides a plethora of data supporting declining health care costs. Growth in health care cost per capita at 1% in 2011 was the lowest since record keeping began in the 1960s. Health care inflation now seems to be about the same as general inflation, after 5 decades of consistently outpacing other price increases. And Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections of Medicare/Medicaid cost as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) have declined substantially since 2010.
Of course, one could easily accuse the White House of being self-serving with this report. But at a February National Association of Corporate Directors Chicago Conference on health care,
all agreed that, indeed, the world has changed as a result of Obamacare. And one short-term outcome is American health care trending toward greater affordability.
How Obamacare accomplished this, however, is not at all obvious.
Abdication: that is the word which best desribed patient health care choices for the last several decades. Patients simply did whatever they were told to do. If a test was administered, or a procedure recommended, or a referral to a specialist given, or a drug prescribed patients simply did what they were told – “as long as the insurance paid.”
The process of health care implementation, how patients were treated, was specified by medical professionals in conjunction with insurance companies and Medicare. Patients had little – or nothing – to do with the decision making process. The service was either offered, and largely free, or it wasn’t offered.
In effect, Americans abdicated health care decision-making to others. The decisions about what would be treated, when and how was almost wholly made without patient involvement. And what would be charged, as well as who would pay, was also made by someone other than the patient. The patient had no involvement in determining if there was any sort of cost/benefit analysis, or the comparing of different care options.
Insurance companies dickered with providers over pricing. Then employers dickered with insurance companies over what would be covered in a plan, what the price would be and what percentage was paid by the insurance company and what would be paid by patients. When a patient needed treatment either the employer’s insurance company paid, after a negotiation on price with the provider, or the insurance company did not. And patients largely consumed whatever care was offered under their plan.
Or, if it was Medicare the same process applied, just substitute for “employer” the words “a government agency.”
Americans had abdicated the decision-making process for health care to a cumbersome process that involved medical professionals, insurance companies and employers. While patients may have acted like health care was free, everyone knew it was not free. But the process of deciding what would be done, pricing and measuring benefits had been abdicated by patients to this process years ago.
Obamacare moves Americans from a world of abdication to a world of accountability. Everyone now has to be insured, so the decision about what coverage each person has, at what level and cost, is now in the hands of the patient. Rather than a single employer option, patients have a veritable smorgasboard of coverage options from which they can select. And this begins the process of making each person accountable for their health care cost.
When people receive treatment, by and large more is now being paid by the patient. And once people had to start paying, they had to be accountable for the cost (higher deductibles and co-pays had already started this process before Obamacare.) When people became accountable for the cost, a lot more questions started to be asked about the price and the benefit. Instead of consuming everything that was available, because there was no cost implication, patient accountability for some of the cost has now forced people to ask questions before committing to treatments.
Higher accountability now has consumers (patients) asking for more choices. And more choices pushes providers to realize that price and delivery make a difference to the patient – who is now a decision-making buyer.
In economic lingo, accountability is changing the health care demand and supply curves. Previously there was no elasticity of demand. Patients had no incentives to reduce demand, as health care was perceived as free. Providers had no incentive to alter supply, because the more they supplied the more they were paid. Both supply and demand went straight up, because there was no pricing element to stand in the way of both increasing geometrically.
But now patients are making decisions which alter demand. Increasingly they determine what procedures to have, based on price and expected outcomes. And supply is now altered based upon provider and price. Patients can shop amongst hospitals and outpatient facilities to determine the cost of minor surgery, for example, and decide which solution they prefer. More services, at different locations and different price points alter the supply curve, and make an impact on the demand curve. We now have elasticity in both demand and supply.
A patient with a mild heart arythmia can decide if they really need an in-house EKG with a cardiologist review, or substitute an EKG detected from a smartphone diagnosed by an EKG tech remotely. With both services offered at very different price points (and a host of options in the middle,) it is possible for the patient to change their demand for something like an EKG – and on to total cost of cardiac care. They may buy more of some care, such as services they find less costly, or providers that are less pricey, and less of another service which is more costly due to the service, the provider or a combination of the two.
And thus accountability starts us down the road to greater affordability.
In distribution terms, the old system was a “wholesale system” which had very expensive suppliers with pricing which was opaque – and often very bizarre. Pricing was impossible to understand. Middlemen in insurance companies hired by employers tried to determine what services should be given to patients, and at what prices for the employers (not the patient) to pay. This wholesale distribution method of health care drove prices up. Neither those creating demand (patients) or those offering the supply (medical providers) had any incentive to use less health care or lower the price. And often it left both the patient and the supplier extremely unhappy with how they were treated by arbitrary middle men more interested in groups than individuals.
But the new system is a retail system. Because the patient no longer abdicates decision making to middle-men, and instead is accountable for the health care they receive and the price they pay. It is creating a far more rational pricing system, and generating new curves that are starting to balance both supply and demand; while simultaneously encouraging the implementation of new options that provide the ability to enhance the service and/or outcome at lower price points.
Obamacare is just beginning its implementation. “The devil is in the details,” and as we saw with the government web site for exchanges there have been many, many glitches. As with anything so encompassing and complex, there are lots of SNAFUs. The market is still far from transparent, and patients are far from educated, much less fully informed, decision makers. There is a lot of confusion amongst providers, suppliers and patients. Regulations are unclear, and not always handled consistently or judiciously.
But, America has made one heck of a start toward containing something which has overhung economic growth since the 1970s. The health care cost trend is toward greater price visibility, smarter consumers, more options and lower health care costs both short- and long-term.
In the 1960s Congress, and the nation, was deeply divided over passing the Civil Rights Act. Its impact would be significant on both the way of life for many people, and the economy. How it would shape America was unclear, and many opposed its passage. Called for by President Kennedy, President Johnson worked hard – and with lots of strong-arming – to obtain its passage after Kennedy’s death.
After a lot of haggling, some Congressional trickery, filibustering and a lot of legal challenges, the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and it ushered in a new wave of economic growth as it freed resources to add to the American economy instead of being held back. It was a game changer for the nation, and 40 years later, it’s hard to imagine an America without the gains made by the Civil Rights Act.
Looking 40 years forward, Obamacare – the ACA – may well be legislation that is seen as an economic game changer. Although its passage was bruising to many in the nation, it changed health care from a system of patient abdication to one of patient accountability, and thereby directed health care toward greater affordability for the country and its citizens.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 24, 2014 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Leadership, Transparency, Web/Tech
Facebook is acquiring WhatsApp, a company with at most $300M revenues, and 55 employees, for $19billion. That’s billion – with a “b.” An astonishing figure that is second only to HP’s acquisition of market leader Compaq, which had substantial revenues and profits, as tech acquisitions. $19B is 13 times Facebook’s (not WhatsApp’s) entire 2013 net income – and almost 2.5 times Facebook’s (again, not WhatsApp’s) 2013 gross revenues!
On the mere face of it this valuation should make the most dispassionate analyst swoon. In today’s world very established, successful companies sell for far, far lower valuations. Apple is valued at about 13 times earnings. Microsoft about 14 times earnings. Google 33 times. These are small fractions of the nearly infinite P/E placed on WhatsApp.
But there is a leadership lesson offered here by CEO Zuckerberg’s team that is well worth learning.
Irrelevancy can happen remarkably quickly. True in any industry, but especially in digital technology. Examples: Research-in-Motion/Blackberry. Motorola. Dell. HP all lost relevancy in months and are struggling. (For those who want non-tech examples think of Circuit City, Best Buy, Sears, JCPenney, Abercrombie and Fitch.) Each of these companies was an industry leader that lust its luster, most of its customers, a big chunk of its employees and much of its market valuation in months when the company missed a market shift.
Although leadership knew what it had historically done to sell products profitably, in a very short time market trends reduced the value of the company’s historical success formula leaving investors, as well as management, wondering how it was going to compete.
Facebook is not immune to changing market trends. Although it has been the benchmark for social media, it only achieved that goal after annihilating early leader MySpace. And although Facebook was built by youthful folks, trends away from using laptops and toward mobile devices have challenged the Facebook platform. Simultaneously, changing communication requirements have altered the use, and impact, of things like images, photos, charts and text. All of these have the potential impact of slowly (or not so slowly) eroding the value (which is noticably lofty) of Facebook.
Most leaders address these kinds of challenges by launching new products to leverage the trend. And Facebook did just that. Facebook not only worked on making the platform more mobile friendly, but developed its own platform apps for photos and texting and all kinds of new features.
But, and this is critical, external companies did a better job. Two years ago Instagram emerged as a leader in image sharing. And WhatsApp has developed a superior answer for messaging.
Historically leadership usually said “we need to find a way to beat these new guys.” They would make it hard to integrate new solutions with their dominant platform in an effort to block growth. They would spend huge amounts on marketing and branding to try overcoming the emerging leader. Often they filed intellectual property litigation in an effort to cause short-term business interuption and threaten viability. They might even try hiring the emerging company’s tech leader away to stop development.
All of these actions were efforts to defend & extend the early leader’s market position. Even though the market is shifting, and trends are developing externally from the company, leadership will tend to look inside for an answer. It will often ignore the trend, disparage the competition, keep promising improvements to its historical products and services and blanket the media with PR as to its stated superiority.
But, as that list (above) of companies that lost relevancy demonstrates, this rarely works. In a highly interconnected, fast-paced, globally competitive marketplace customers go where they want. Quickly. Often leaving the early leader with a management team (and Board of Directors) scratching its head and wondering how it lost so much market position, and value, so quickly.
Hand it to Mr. Zuckerberg’s team. Instead of ignoring trends in its effort to defend & extend its early lead, they reached out and brought the leader to them. $1B for Instagram was a big investment, especially so close to launching an IPO. But, it kept Facebook relevant in mobile platforms and imaging.
And making a nosebleed-creating $19B deal for WhatsApp focuses on maintaining relevancy as well. WhatsApp already processes almost as many messages as the entire telecom industry. It has 450million users with 70% active daily, which is already 60% the size of Facebook’s daily user community (550million.) By bringing these people into the Facebook corporate family it assures the company of continued relevancy as the market shifts. It doesn’t matter if these are the same people, or different people. The issue is that it keeps Facebook relevant, rather than losing relevance to a competitor.
How will this all be monetized into $19B? The second brilliant leadership call by Facebook is to not answer that question.
Facebook didn’t know how to monetize its early leadership in users, but management knew it had to find a way. Now the company has grown from almost no revenues in 2008 to almost $8B in just 5 years. (Does your company have a plan to add $8B/year of organic revenue growth by 2019?)
So just as Facebook had to find its revenue model (which it is still exploring,) Zuckerberg’s team allows the leadership of Instagram and WhatsApp to remain independent, operating in their own White Space, to grow their user base and learn how to monetize what is an extraordinarily large group of happy folks. When looking to grow in new markets, and you find a team with the skills to understand the trends, it is independence rather than integration that makes the most sense organizationally.
Thirdly, back to that valuation issue. $19B is a huge amount of money. Unless you don’t really spend $19B. Facebook has the blessed ability to print its own. Private money that it can use for such acquisitions. As long as Facebook has a very high market valuation it can make acquisitions with shares, rather than real money.
In the case of both Instagram and WhatsApp the acquisition is being made in a mix of cash, Facebook stock and restricted Facebook stock for employees. The latter two of these three items are not real money. They are simply pieces of paper giving claims to ownership of Facebook, which itself is valued at 22 times 2013 revenue and 116 times 2013 earnings. The price of those shares are all based on expectations; expectations which now require the performance of Instagram and WhatsApp to make happen.
By making acquisitions with Facebook shares the leadership team is able to link the newly acquired managers to the same overall goals as Facebook, while offering an extremely high price but without actually having to raise any money – or spend all that money.
All companies risk of becoming irrelevant. New technologies, customer behavior patterns, regulations, inventions and innovations constantly challenge old success formulas. Most leaders fall into a pattern of trying to defend & extend their old business in the face of market shifts, hastening the fall into irrelevancy. Or they try to acquire a new business, then integrate it into the old business which strips away the new business value and leads, inevitably, to irrelevancy.
The leaders of Facebook are giving us a lesson in an alternative approach. (1) Recognize the market shift. Accept it. If there is a better solution, rush toward it rather than ignoring it. (2) Bring it into the company, and leave it independent. Eschew integration and efforts to find “synergy.” (You never know, in 3 years the company may need to be renamed WhatsApp to reflect a new market paradigm.) (3) And as long as you can convince investors that you are maintaining your relevancy use your highly valued stock as currency to keep the company moving forward.
These are 3 great lessons for all leadership teams. And I continue to think Facebook is the one stock to own in 2014.
