by Adam Hartung | Aug 19, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
"Want to stir up controversy? Bring up health care. Everybody has a
story to tell–something that went wrong, someone left in the cold,
something the government or an insurer failed at. Everybody has an
opinion about all the current proposals too. And everybody has a
solution they'll happily (or angrily) defend all night long."
That's the opening paragraph for my latest article as a columnist for Forbes "Fixing Health Care: It's Time to Experiment". I recommend using White Space projects to let market participants determine a better approach to paying for health care in America. Since businesses pay for most health care, given our largely employer-paid system, the biggest burden is on American business. If we don't develop a better solution that controls cost, America's competitiveness could seriously falter.
Why would we want lawyers to try "designing" a better answer, when we could let all of us participate in solution development if we open up some market tests? What we need from the government is permission to work around existing rules allowing the tests, and some resource commitment to conduct them. America's health delivery system isn't bad – if you have access to it and can afford it. The broken part has to do with access and cost – not the capability of providers to do a decent job. Those are business problems, not health care problems. We aren't talking about "product" problems, we're talking about "distribution" and "pricing" problems. If we use good business practices, especially White Space to foster creativity, we could develop a new and uniquely American solution that is far better than the current accident of history.
Hope you enjoy. And hopefully we'll be able to move from our currently Locked-in, and amazingly expensive, health care payment system to something that meets more people's needs while bringing rationality back to cost.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
For almost 3 years this blog has discussed how newspapers, and most traditional media, have ignored the changes being created by shifting markets for news readers and advertisers. Unfortunately, not a lot has changed in how newspapers, magazines and traditional media companies operate. They still don't put enough energy into using the web, for distribution or revenue generation. They keep trying to Defend & Extend their old models – and these companies keep going bankrupt. So much the worse for investors, employees and suppliers.
Today the Chicago Sun Times reported "Everyblock acquired by MSNBC.com." The sort of short article you could easily miss. Because the Sun Times, and most traditional media, still don't like to talk about the web. But this is a pretty big deal.
Everyblock was started 2 years ago by a 28 year old in Naperville, Il. He acquired $1M on a Knight Foundation grant to see if he could build a reporting engine that would supply information at the local level to web sites. An ambitious undertaking. Something you would think every major newspaper would try to do. But they didn't. They were so Locked-in to their old business model that they kept crying about the decline in subscriptions and print ads – but didn't do anything beyond cost cutting. That's what Lock-in will do to you – leave you crying about the past but taking no affirmative action to deal with shifting markets. They left the market for on-line local reporting available for someone more ambitious. Someone age 28 who really wanted to see if he could make it work.
After Everyblock hired some folks and figured out this would work you'd think Tribune Corporation would be all over how to apply this in order to build its on-line business. Guess again. Mr. Zell is so Locked-in to his big debt deal that he's too busy trying to sell the Cubs and otherwise raise money. He doesn't have a dime to invest in building the future. Same at the Sun-Times where leadership is still realing from the old owner's plundering of traditional assets with no game plan for how to succeed long-term. Both companies are well into the Whirlpool. So close to failure they've lost track of any plan to grow. So they ignored the local talent, cutting costs to prolong the ride instead of investing smartly.
Now MSNBC.com is going where the newspapers wouldn't go. It's acquiring the Everyblock business, one that's desperate for cash to grow, in order to expand its footprint. MSNBC.com is ready to develop a new model for local news coverage. Good for them. We all know the day will come when we can get local news from the web, and it's good to see MSNBC set up the White Space to explore how to make it happen. MSNBC.com is in the Rapids of growth, building on growth of its cable TV partner. It's good news for GE shareholders, who could benefit from the next big thing since Google or Twitter. All for the mere investment of a few million dollars. Less than Mr. Zell spends on personal jets every year.
The world keeps changing. Too many businesses are simply trying to do the same thing, only cheaper or faster or somehow better. They aren't reacting to shifts by actually Disrupting their approach and setting up White Space to learn. At the media companies the impact is sevee as fewer and fewer magazines get printed, and newspapers get thinner, and more companies file for bankruptcy. But the smart ones do something – like MSNBC. And MSNBC could just end up being the one taking it to the bank!
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 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership
I've long been a fan of GE. The only company to be on the Dow Jones Industrial Average for more than 100 years. A company that has transitioned through countless businesses, willing to get into and out of many opportunities in order to find ways to keep growing. Buried deep in the heart of this company's operating principles are tools which keep it from becoming too Locked-in. The constant 360 degree evaluations, the demand for results, the willingness to disagree, the acceptance of Disruptions, the investments in White Space. These have done GE well for years, allowing the company to evolve its Identity, Strategy and Tactics.
But recently, GE has been more disappointing. The stock crashed to $6/share earlier in 2009. And now Forbes reports "Accounting Tricks Catch Up With GE". One of the misguided tools of Defend & Extend Managers is using financial machinations – in effect generating profits out of thin air by playing with the accounting rules rather than making and selling something. I talk this through at length in "Create Marketplace Disruption" (FT Press, 2008) because for the CEO of a publicly traded company, it's an easy route to take. By playing with the accounting a business looks better, allowing the CEO to do more of the same instead of more deeply investigating market shifts that jeopardize the future.
I was deeply disappointed to read where GE allowed this to happen. They counted as revenue, and profit, sales of locomotives to financial institutions – rather than end users. And the use of derivatives at GE was an outright D&E practice to try making money on financial investments that weren't so good. I've decried the use of derivatives loudly – even by Warren Buffett – in previous blogs because they are a tool designed to make weak financial practices look better. This isn't what made GE great, but apparently these were the tools of "modern management" current executives used to prop up sales and profits – instead of focusing on the business. And now the SEC has forced GE to pay a fine for its actions.
Investors, employees and vendors need to be very wary of this. It could mark a sea-change in GE. For years, top executives made their mark by developing new businesses that were attuned to shifting markets. Jet engines and NBC are just a couple of huge businesses GE entered as a result of recognizing shifting markets and the huge opportunity being created. And GE has always been quick to pull the trigger on selling a business when a market shift meant the growth was starting to slow.
But now we can see that GE has used financial machinations to make some businesses look better. These kind of D&E actions are telltales of a company slipping from Phoenix Principle actions – which help you grow – into a company that could stall. And growth stalls are deadly. Only 7% of stalled companies every consistently grow at a mere 2% ever again.
So far, we know that these actions have hurt GE pretty badly. Firstly, there's the $50million fine. You may think this is chump change to GE – but it's money that didn't go into developing a new water filtration system, for example, which could make money down the road. Or invested into a new business plan that could turn into something big. Secondly, its use of financial instruments, including derivatives, and the SEC mark has dramatically eroded investor confidence. Like I said, over $150billion in market cap eroded (about 50%) in the last year alone – and that's after a recovery from $6 to nearly $15 per share (chart here).
High performing companies do NOT resort to D&E Management. It's a Siren's song, straight from Homer's travels, to lure the company ship onto the rocky shores. It seems so simple, and it is, to protect the existing business with financial adjustments that make it look better. But reality is that these poor returns indicate the market is shifting, and that action is needed to reconnect with the shifted marketplace. Whenever executives use D&E practices, including financial machinations (even legal ones) to make the business look better they are ignoring market shifts – which undermines the organization's ability to develop new scenarios, understand the impact of emerging competitors, disrupt old practices and develop White Space projects that can help the company move forward and meet market needs.
It was the willingness to resort to D&E Management that started GM on its long path to bankruptcy. Read "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes" for more info on how easy it is to slip into a rut wiping out future returns.
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 | Aug 4, 2009 | Innovation, Investing, Leadership, Software
A typical headline from last week read "Microsoft, Yahoo to Begin Joint Assault on Google". After a year of negotiating, the behemoth Microsoft finally came up with an accord to get some Yahoo technology in order to be more effective with its search engine product. "Microsoft to Tap 400 Yahoo Workers in Partnership" is the Marketwatch headline today trumpeting the plan to bring Yahoo engineers to Microsoft.
Will it make a difference? If we look at the trend, it looks doubtful (slide courtesy Silicon Alley Insider):
Of course, lots of folks think this isn't a very good idea. (Cartoon Courtesy DenverPost.com):
As John Dvorak pointed out in his column: "Microsoft and Yahoo Bring Google Good News." After all, the Google's competitors just went from 2 to 1 – a 50% reduction. What's more, the remaining player is not known for expertise in internet technology – merely its money hoard. Moreover, when it used its money hoard in the past it has rarely (never?) resulted in a success. No wonder BusinessWeek headlined "Microsoft and Yahoo: Too Little, Too Late, Too Hyped."
What's more intriguing to me is what this deal says about Microsoft. The company has already missed the market shift in search and ad placement. Search is "yesterday's news". Microsoft is still trying to fight the last war, not the next one. As it has done far too often, Microsoft remained Locked-in to its old Success Formula — all about the desktop and personal computing. It has not been part of the market shift to new applications and new ways of personal automation. That has been going to RIM, Apple, Oracle and other players. Microsoft has sat on its market share in the old market, piled up cash, but not taken the actions to be a winner in the next market – the next battle for growth. Now it's joint venture with Yahoo will strip out engineers, attempt to convert them to Microsoft ways of thinking, and put them into battle with not only the largest player in search and on-line ad placement – but the only one making money. And the one introducing new technologies and products on a regular basis.
Someone asked me last week "Who's the next GM?" I think they meant "who's the next big bankruptcy." But the better question here is "Who's the giant company that everyone thinks is competitively insurmountable, but at great risk of falling from market leadership into the Whirlpool – and eventual bankruptcy?" To that I say keep your eyes on Microsoft.
The comparisons between Microsoft and GM are striking:
- Early market leaders
- Developed near monopolies
- Challenged by the trust busters
- Created very high growth rates and huge cash hoards
- Considered a great place to work, with great longevity
- Bought up competitors
- Bought up technologies, and often never took them to market
- Became arrogant to customers
- Implemented a strong Success Formula that everyone was expected to follow
- Strong leaders that kept the companies "focused"
- Dominated their local geography as employers
- Tended to talk a lot about their past, and how what they've previously accomplished
- Tended to ignore competitors
- Avoided Disruptions – late to market with every product. Tried using marketing and money to succeed rather than being first with great products and solutions
- Never allowed White Space to develop anything new
This joint venture is not White Space. Microsoft may want to be in Search and ad sales, but the company is still relying on its old business to "carry it through." They have ignored Google and other competitors, and are trying to use the old Success Formula to compete with a much nimbler and more market-attuned competitor. They have ignored Disruptive innovations, and not developed any new solutions themselves. They have refused to allow White Space to develop new solutions for shifting market needs – instead trying to push the market to buy their solutions based on old ways of doing business. Don't forget that MSN and it's search engine have been in the market since the beginning – it's not like they just woke up to discover the market existed. Rather, they just started hinting that maybe, after 15 years of failing, they aren't doing the right things.
If you still own Microsoft stock, I predict a really bumpy ride. They won't go bankrupt soon. But GM spent 30 years going sideways for investors before finally going bankrupt. That looks like the future at Microsoft. If you're a vendor, expect poor returns to create a procurement environment intending to suck all profits out of your business. If you're a customer, expect "me too" products that are late, expensive and at best "lowest common denominator" in appearance and performance. If you're an employee, expect increased turnover, lot of infighting, increased internal politics, promotions based on reinforcing the status quo rather than results, and few opportunities for personal growth.
Employees, vendors and investors of Microsoft should read the free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes." Everyone who has to deal with shifting markets needs to.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 3, 2009 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
"Honda's New CEO is Also Chief Innovator" is the recent Businessweek headline. Think of the contrast with GM. Both companies have seen their auto sales hurt this year. Although the downdraft at GM is about 130% of that at Honda. But the reactions to the weakness could not be different.
GM kept trying to sell more of its existing cars until it finally declared bankruptcy, dropping half its models and all its obligations. Then the same people that lead GM into bankruptcy remained in place. While the Chairman was forced out of a job in order to obtain government loans to stay alive, he was replaced by his own #2 who is just as Locked-in as the old Chairman was. Even worse, to me, was bringing back a 77 year old industry veteran to head marketing. He may have been one of the more creative of the "old guard" but he was every bit as much "old guard" as anyone — to the point of belittling Tesla and those succeeding today with electric and hybrid vehicles.
Honda reacted by replacing the CEO of Honda Motors. But the person put into the job comes from a background in R&D. Rather than trying to do more of the same, Honda's approach is to get product developers closer to customers — even at the very top job. Honda isn't leaving the same people in charge, nor even people with the same backgrounds. Honda is planning, from the outset, to use product innovation (rather than financial engineering) to get Honda Motors back on track.
And this aligns with Honda's approach to business. Where GM was once a company with multiple businesses (IT in its ownership of EDS and aviation electronics in Hughes) GM leadership sold off those assets, using profits to subsidize the ailing auto business. Comparatively, Honda has thriving businesses in robotics, factory automation, motorcycles, small yard equipment and new ventures in aircraft and elsewhere. GM reacts to market shifts by ignoring them, and trying to do what it's always done better, faster and cheaper. GM behaves as if its returns will do better if it can just do what it has always done – but more. Honda reacts to market shifts by entering new markets, developing new products and getting itself aligned with market requirements. Honda develops new solutions to changing market needs.
There is no doubt which approach is more sensible, and into which you might consider investing. Honda uses its scenarios about the future to help it develop new products and solutions. Honda obsesses about competition, offering new products for almost every niche opportunity and learning how to be profitable across the market spectrum. Honda is very open to Disrupting its old Success Formula, getting into new businesses that will help it grow even when not "core" to the company's history or its current capabilities. And Honda gives its new business leaders the White Space to succeed, with permission to do what the market requires even if different that the past and the resources to develop new solutions through ongoing market tests.
If you have any doubts about who will grow share over the next 5 years, and who will lose share, check out the free new ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How to Avoid Its Mistakes." Pay attention to the results of America's "Cars for Clunkers" program to see who comes out a winner. It will be important to see if this raises sales at the American companies – or elsewhere.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
"Pfizer reports lower profit, revenue" is the Marketwatch headline. Unhappy news has become the norm for Pfizer shareholders. Since peaking in 2000 at just under $50/share, the stock has gone nowhere but down for the entire decade – going below $13.00 in 2009 (see Yahoo Finance chart here). You have to go back to 1997 to find the last time Pfizer was valued this lowly. Despite its ownership of several well known, branded drugs – like Viagra and Lipitor – Viagra cannot regain revenue growth or investor interest.
Leadership has done a lot of things the last 10 years to try and improve the business. In 2000, at the valuation peak, the company bought Warner Lambert. In 2002 Pfizer bought Pharmacia (the merged Upjohn/Searle company). In 2005 they spent massively on legal work to protect the remaining patent life on Lipitor. In 2006 they sold the consumer products business to Johnson & Johnson. Across the last 4 years the company has dramatically cut R&D costs for both human and animal products. And earlier this year they agreed to pay a premium to buy Wyeth. But none of this has increased valuation for the last 8 years. To the contrary, value has continued to step down again, and again, and again – losing about 70%.
The problem at Pfizer is management built a Success Formula many years ago, and keeps trying to defend it. They believe in the model of finding, or buying, blockbuster drugs – meaning a product with wide appeal. And selling this only if it has patent protection in order to generate a huge price premium. This made Pfizer huge and profitable long ago. And the company keeps trying to find a way to replay that tune, hoping to achieve the old results.
But the world has shifted. The science of pharmacology has been mined for nearly 100 years. Today, most new drugs have as many problems as benefits. Increasingly, improvement happens only in narrow population niches where genetics align with the chemical additive. Pharmacology is running out of gas. Medical science has shifted to biologics. Instead of looking for a chemical solution, the focus is on nano-tech to isolate product delivery directly to diseased cells. Or engineering to alter genes through cell modification for superior healing performance. These bio-engineering solutions are now offering far better results at far lower cost – while the costs of pharmacology skyrocket amidst diminishing returns.
Pfizer has not shifted. Pfizer management keeps trying to Defend & Extend its old business. Locked-in to the old Success Formula, leadership looks for new drugs, new therapy programs, new solutions that "fit" its approach to the market. But it simply isn't paying off. And everyone from investors to employees to suppliers is at risk. Desperately, leadership is willing to overpay for Wyeth to avoid falling into oblivion when existing drugs come off patent protection in the next few years. But everyone knows this game is nearly over. This may extend the senior leader's jobs, and their pay, it doesn't provide a return to shareholders. Unless leadrship changes the Success Formula Pfizer will never again be as profitable as it once was, or grow as it once did.
Even though it is located in New Jersey, not Michigan, and is full of phramacology Ph.Ds and medical doctors rather than mechanical engineers, Pfizer is more like GM than it would ever admit. It developed a Success Formula, and it is doing everything possible to keep it alive – rather than shift with the market. As GM has shown, no matter how big you are if you don't shift with the market eventually you go bankrupt. Size is no protection from market shifts. Too bad for investors and employees that size is the only thing leadership is trying to use to protect itself.
Don't forget to download the free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
