by Adam Hartung | Mar 3, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Sears has been heading for the end of its game for several years. It's in the Whirlpool now, and we can be sure it won't come out. We can go back to when Sears dropped its catalog to see the first sign of putting costs before customers, and completely missing how competitors were changing and leaving Sears without an advantage. But the next big hurt happened when customers found out they could get credit for purchases from banks – via credit cards like MasterCard and Sears – that made it unnecessary to get a line of credit from Sears, or a Sears credit card (which eventually became Discover.) Increasingly, what made Sears stand out became difficult to find. And Sears lost market share year after year to the discounters (KMart, Target and Wal-Mart) as well as lower-priced soft goods retailers (J.C. Penney and Kohl's) and then DIY retailers that offered mowers and tools (Lowe's, Home Depot and Menards).
Why anyone would shop at Sears became a lot less clear – yet Sears kept trying to do more of what it had always done in its effort to stay alive. So hedge-fund jockey Ed Lampert swooped in and bought Sears with lots of hoopla about turning it around. But his approach was to do less of the same, not more, and he had no ideas for how to be more competitive. As he cut inventory, and cut costs, and closed stores it became easier and easier for customers to shop somewhere else. Sears was shrinking, not growing, and all the focus on the bottom line, in an effort to manage earnings rather than the business, just kept making Sears less relevant to customers, investors, vendors and employees.
Sales keep declining – down some 13% in the recent quarter (see article here). Increasingly, Sears is looking for distinction by going further down the credit quality spectrum. It's most promising "bright spot" was an increase in lay-away. Lay-away, for those not accustomed to the concept, is when people who can't get credit at all offer to put down 30-50% of the value of an item (say $100 on a $300 washer) and ask the retailer to hold it (literally, hold it in the back room) until the customer can come up with the rest of the money. Sometimes buyers will come in multiple times dropping off $10 or $20 until they come up with all the money for the washer, or a new suit, or a dress, or some tools. Only people that can't get credit at all buy on lay-away. For retailers it has the downside of increasing inventory as they wait for payment. It's the bottom-of-the-barrel for retailers that can't keep up with merchandise trends, and often requires they raise prices to cover the cost of increased inventory holding.
Increasingly there is little else Sears can do. The company has closed another 28 stores, and sales in stores remaining open the last year have declined on average more than 8% for each store (see article here). Net income has plunged 93%. Five years ago, about when Mr. Lampert took over the company, it was worth just about what it is worth today (see chart here). At that time, investors were thinking Sears (which had recently been de-listed as a Dow Jones Industrial Average component) might not survive. But those investors had a lot of dreams about Mr. Lampert turning around the company. They saw the shares increase 6-fold as analysts talked-up Mr. Lampert and his supposedly "magic touch." But all that value has disappeared. Mr. Lampert would like to blame the economy for his lack of success, but reality is that the economy only made more visible the Lock-in Sears has maintained to its outdated business model and the complete lack of Disruption and White Space Mr. Lampert has allowed during his personal direction of the company. Sears has had no chance of success as long as it remained Locked-in to a retail business model tied to the 1960s. And as retail crashed in 2008/2009 it's made obvious the complete lack of need for Sears to even exist.
Note: I was delighted with responses I received from many readers about their views on newspapers. Mostly folks told me they found the value gone, or dissipating quickly, from newspapers. Although there is still ample concern about where we'll find high-quality journalism once they disappear. Folks seem less confident in broadcast and network television – and wholly uncertain about the quality control of on-line news sources. I think we're all wondering how we'll get good news, and aware that there is bound to be a period of market disruption as the newspapers keep declining. But please keep your eyes open, and let myself and all readers know what quality news sources you find on the web. Keep the comments coming. During these periods is when new competitors lay the groundwork for new fortunes. I'd watch HuffingtonPost.com, and don't lose track of the big on-line investments News Corp. has made.
Likewise, please give me some comments (here on on the blog or via email) about where you are shopping today! Have readers all become Wal-Mart single-stop shoppers? With retail sales numbers down almost everywhere, where do you concentrate your shopping? Are you doing more on-line? Are you finding alternatives you favor during this recession. Let's share some info about what we see as the future of retailing. There are a lot of execs out there that seem in the dark. Maybe we can enlighten them!
by Adam Hartung | Feb 28, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Weblogs
In my last blog I commented about the failure of the newspaper in Denver, and discussed how we'll all have to start relying increasingly on news from additional sources – such as blogs. Then I went on to comment about how easy it is for a business to miss a market shift – just as the newspapers have. They could have invested more in .com sites and bloggers for the last decade – but didn't because they kept thinking their market would return to the old ways of behaving.
I would like YOUR COMMENTS. This blog tends to be my rants about all the things I see wrong in industries and companies – with the occasional catch of someone doing something right. But I would really enjoy hearing more about what all of you think. So, building on the newspaper blog, I would really enjoy having people comment along a couple of tracks:
- How do you get your news? Are you still using newspapers a lot, or not? Do you think newspapers will remain important, or not? If you're starting to use the web more for news – where do you find information that is valuable? Where do you get important news?
- Do you think your business is soft – or do you think perhaps your market is shifting and therefore will require
changes in your Success Formula to be successful in the future? How much of your business issues are due to the market, and how much are do to market shifts? Could you be in the position newspapers were in 2000 without admitting it?
I look forward to hearing from you. Please comment here on the blog, you don't have to register. Or send me your comments via email.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
The Rocky Mountain News has folded up shop. After 150 years, no more newspaper in Denver, CO. (read article here). This is newsworthy because of the size of Denver, but the trend has been obvious. The newspaper's owner (Scripps) closed the Albuquerque Tribune and Cincinnati Post last year. And this is just the beginning. Hearst has already said it may well have to close the San Francisco Chronicle within weeks. Tribune Company, parent of The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times has filed for bankruptcy, as has Philadelphia Newspapers which publishes the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily Journal. The American Society of Newspaper Editors has cancelled its annual convention for 2009 (read article here.)
Just as I predicted in this blog months ago, when Sam Zell leveraged up Tribune in his buyout, the odds of any particular newspaper surviving is not very good. It was 3 years ago when I was talking to the CFO at the LATimes about the future of newspapers. He felt sure that cost cutting would get the company through "a tough stretch" and then things would get better. When I asked him if he was planning to increase spending in LATimes.com or other on-line media to make sure his projection was true – he asked me what the .com had to do with the paper. He felt the paper would soon recover. Even though there were no indicators that subscriptions would reverse trend and start growing, and even though advertisers were literally saying they never intended to return on-line ad spending back to newspapers, he felt sure the paper would succeed. When I asked why, he said "if we don't report the news, who will? Bloggers??????" and with that exasperation he reinforced in his own mind that there was no option to a successful city newspaper so no need for further discussion. He could not imagine a "democratized" newsworld without editors and publishers that controlled content and writers that were limited by that control.
February 6 I gave a speech in Chicago about growth strategies in this economy. One attendee asked me "what newspapers do you read?" As I formulated my answer, my discussion with the old LATimes CFO came to mind. "I don't read newspapers any more" I had to admit. Good thing I wasn't running for vice-president! But I realized that I'd quit reading newspapers and now picked up most of my alerts from bloggers! I am signed up to various web sites, including blogs, which send me ticklers all day long and aid my web searching for news. I get more information, faster today than ever before – and reading a newspaper seems like such a waste of time! And if that's my behavior, at age 50, I'm a joke compared to people under 30 who can use the web 10x faster than me with their better tool use.
The newspapers are going the way of magazines. That is clear. When we all started watching TV, LOOK, LIFE and The Saturday Evening Post lost meaning. Not all magazines disappeared, but the general purpose ones did. Now, even those have little value. In a connected, 24×7 world newspapers simply quit making sense a decade ago. It just took longer for everyone to realize it. While the newspapers would like to blame the recession for their failure, that's simply not true. The world shifted and they became obsolete – an anachronism. People today consume more news than at any time in history – including pre-recession years like 2007. The recession has not diminished the demand for news or journalism. And advertisers are reaching out for customers just like before. But neither readers nor advertisers are going to newspapers. The action is now all on the web – which continues growing pages at double digit rates every quarter!
So where will you get your news? If you read this blog, you likely already get most news from the web. And others will also do so. Increasingly, editors that have strong opinions (be they conservative or liberal) will have less influence on what is reported. Those who can find and report the news will themselves determine what's out there to be found – and they will capture that value themselves. To use 1990s language, Bloggers are "disintermediating" publishers. And with Google able to push ads to their sites (be they on computers or handhelds), these journalists will be able to capture the ad value themselves. If you want to see the new aggregator of the future, go to www.HuffingtonPost.com. Or www.Marketwatch.com for business info. By ignoring traditional printing and distribution, they can produce multiples of the news content of old aggregators, invest in technology to keep it updated in real time 24×7.
While people are bemoaning the decline of newspapers, take heart in the benefits. How much less newsprint will be created, reducing the demand for pulp from trees? How much less recycling of old newsprint will be required? What benefits to the ecology will come? How much more access will you have to find out all sides of various issues – rather than the point of view taken by the local newspaper publisher who mostly dictated what you used to hear about an issue? How much better educated will you be? Why, given the benefits of on-line news, would anyone want to go back to newspapers?
Bemoaning the loss of newspapers is like bemoaning the decline in rail travel – it may have romantic remembrances of a previous time, but who would ever want to give up their car and wait on trains again? As you look at YOUR business – do you blame the recession for troubles when in fact there's been a market shift? Have things "softened in the short-term," or have customers moved on to seeking new solutions that better fit their needs? It's easy to act like the LATimes CFO and project a return to old market conditions. But will that really happen? Or has the market you're in shifted, leaving you with a weak future? Will you act like Sam Zell and "double down" on a business that the market is shifting away from?
In today's economy, we can all too easily let hope for a return to the good old days keep us from using more realistic explanations. If so, we can end up like those who made kerosene for lamps (expecting electricity to be too hard to install), coal for heating, and passenger cars for trains. Be careful how easily you may think that tomorrow will look like yesterday – because most of the time it won't.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 18, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
Yesterday Crain's Chicago Business reported that Kraft expects its sales volume to fall 5% this quarter (read article here). Kraft lost market share to competitors in 75% of its businesses! Do you suppose the demand for food is declining? How about the demand for groceries? To the contrary, reports have been that people are eating less at restaurants – leading to the failure of a few chains, and the closing of several units by others – and eating more at home. We've been led to believe that sales of frozen foods and basics are up due to the poor economy and movement toward thrift. If so, why would the purveyor of many basics and frozen food say volume is expected to decline more than the economy is contracting? Why would it be losing share?
The Chicago-area Kraft executives would like to blame this good management decisions to close unprofitable lines. But do you believe that? Why would any business voluntarily cut revenues in this kind of economy? This rings more as an excuse than a real explanation of the problems within Kraft.
What we know is that Kraft has been woefully short on new products for a decade. What was the last new product you remember from Kraft? In fact, it was only a couple of years ago Kraft was selling growth businesses to "consolidate" its business behind its largest brands – like Velveeta and Mac & Cheese. Then the company raised prices last year, blaming rising commodity costs, opening the door for branded and private label competitors. Kraft is a company with very old products, and higher prices, and no indication of any innovation.
You would think with the economy moving its way, Kraft could capitalize. But when companies hit a growth stall, they lose the ability to capitalize. As they focus on optimizing old products, brands and business practices they increasingly become out-of-step with the marketplace. As markets shift, they miss shifts as they maintain internal focus on the old processes which once produced good returns, but deteriorated. The more they focus, the bigger the gap between what they do, and what the market wants. As returns keep struggling, they continue doing more of what they always did – and explain away poor results.
Kraft is a huge corporation, a recent addition to the Dow Jones Industrial Average. But the company focus is all from the past, not about the future. The company insufficiently studies competitors, and clearly eschews Disruptions. And you can look all over company documents and not find a whiff of White Space to try new things. Without innovation, and no sign of a process to lead them toward innovation, it would be a mistake to expect better performance. Even if Kraft is one of the largest consumer goods companies in America.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
In Create Marketplace Disruption I talk about how Sun Microsystems (see chart here) became wedded to a Success Formula which was tied to selling computers. In its early days Sun had to build its own systems, workstations and servers, to make its techology available to customers. As the company grew, it continued pushing the hardware, even though increasingly all of its value add was in the software. One of its more famous innovations was a software product called Java – now used all across the web. But because Sun could not figure out how to sell hardware with Java the company literally gave the product away – on the theory that growing internet use would increase demand for servers and workstations.
But like most Locked-in Success Formulas, Sun's fell into diminishing returns. The market shifted. First it's biggest buyers, telecom companies, fell into a depression early in the century. And corporate buyers struggled to maintain old IT budgets, increasingly transfering work offshore and demanding lots more performance at lower prices. Secondly, an emerging software standard, Linux, started competing with Sun at a much lower price point, and corporate buyers found this a viable solution. And thirdly, Linux and Microsoft both improved performance operating on somewhat "generic" PC hardware that was considerably cheaper than Sun's hardware, further augmenting corporate movement away from Sun.
But Sun continued to push forward with its old Success Formula. Now analysts are confused about Sun's direction, and largely think the company less likely to survive (read article here). With most analysts recommending investors sell Sun Microsystem shares, as one analyste (Rob Enderle) put it "They seem like a software company, but they are sort of like a hardware company." He added that after years of giving software away for free in efforts to entice hardware buyers Sun Microsystems is on the verge of being obsolete.
Sun Microsystems is just another example of a company so busy focusing on doing what it always did that it didn't evolve to what the market demanded – and rewarded. As software became the value, Sun did more but didn't figure out how to evolve its Success Formula to charge for it. The company remained Locked-in to its old practices, and refused to Disrupt and open White Space where it could find a more valuable Success Formula for the future. Too bad for employees, vendors and investors.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
GM is in intense negotiations with bondholders, employees (via the union) and the government over its future. At stake is nothing less than the future of America's largest auto company. A company that saw revenue decline more than 40% in January after deciding in December to idle most of its manufacturing plants.
The negotiations are focusing on whether GM can be competitive. But, unfortunately, GM seems to be directing that discussion toward cost reductions (read article here). As if all GM needs to do is somehow lower costs and it will be competitive with Toyota, which displaced GM atop the global auto industry as the world's largest in January. What customers globally know is that the issue at GM isn't just about cost (which can pretty much be translated into "union contract busting.") Customers want quality products that fit their needs, produced at high quality, with low service costs, and low cost of use (interpret – higher mileage.) It's been 20 years since the yen/dollar valuation gave Japanese manufacturers lower cost of production – and yet year after year Toyota, Honda, Subaru and Suzuki keep growing share while U.S. manufacturers keep declining.
One of the more difficult to understand articles this week was the lauding of GM's vice-chairman Bob Lutz. Mr. Lutz is more than 70 years old! He might well have been a great executive 35 years ago (in 1974) when he was an up-and-coming executive. But my how the world, and the auto industry, has changed since then. I'll never forget watching him interviewed on television about the Tesla (the electric sports car) and seeing him laugh. He literally dismissed Tesla as unimportant – not up to the standards of GM and it's industry leadership. At the time my thought was "I think you'd be a lot smarter to listen to these new guys than be so smug and ignore them." Of course, in short order, Toyota's hybrid vehicles helped lead Toyota past GM, and the approach of Mr. Lutz was looking less and less viable. Good bye, and good riddance, would be a better report for an executive who not only stayed around too long and didn't "save" GM, but ignored powerful competitors while trying to defend an outdated Success Formula.
It is time for GM, and the other domestic auto competitors, to move on. The old Success Formula has failed. It's not about just doing less well, with GM stock valued at $2.70 and the negotiation about converting bondholders to equity holders in order to get more government bailout money — the game is over. What worked for GM in the 1950s, and most of the 1960s, doesn't work any more. And the success of Toyota and Honda demonstrates that. America doesn't need Bob Lutz (and his compadres) any more – may he enjoy his retirement (which is a lot more secure than the thousands of GM retirees that weren't executives). If investors, employees and vendors of the American auto industry are to avoid even more downfall it is time to develop an entirely new game – with new leaders.
GM (and its brethren) need to quit villifying unions as the "boogeymen" causing all their problems. Management signed those union agreements – and if they weren't viable management should have dealt with them. The employees of GM - and all the citizens of Detroit, southeastern Michigan and northwester Ohio as well as the extended midwest – have a vested interest in the succes of this industry. They will agree to leadership which helps them succeed. Continue the old "company vs. union" battles will do no good. Leadership needs to be focused on offering an approach to delivering products that will energize employees and ucstomers alike.
GM must define a new future. Not one based upon a series of cost cuts – which will be matched by competitors. GM needs to demonstrate it can change its view of R&D, product development, customer finance and distribution to meet current customer needs. For GM to be viable, management must demonstrate it knows that tweaking the old model is insufficient. It's time to develop an "entirely new car company" as Roger Smith said when he funded the launch of Saturn. And America's banks, investors and auto buyers all know this.
Increasingly at GM, Disrupting the old business model seems unlikely. Current management is so Locked-in it continues searching for ways to Defend the old model, in spite of deteriorating results at the nadir of failure. If America is to invest in this company, it deserves new management which is able to develop a new company that can truly compete. It is time to demand new leaders who are not the "old guard", but instead leaders who are able to bring new products to market that are competitive by implementing White Space where these new products can be launched through new distribution. For America to keep supporting GM the company needs to move beyond old arguments about labor costs, and get serious about changing its product line and distribution system as well as its legacy employment costs. It's possible to turn around GM – but only if management will abandon its Defend & Extend Management practices and instead use Disruptions to open White Space for a better company to emerge.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, Leadership
The second step in following The Phoenix Principle to achieve superior returns is to study competitors. Better, obsess about them. Why? So you can learn from them and position your products, services and skill sets in a way to be a leader. We would hope that studying competitors would not lead a company to take on battles it's almost assured of not winning. Too bad nobody told that to Mr. Schultz at Starbucks, who seems intent on killing Starbucks since his return as CEO.
Starbucks become an icon by offering coffee shops where people could meet, talk and share a coffee – while possibly reading, or checking their email. One of the most famous situation comedies of recent past was "Friends", a show in which people regularly met in a coffee shop not unlike Starbucks. People could order a wide range of different coffee drinks, and the ambience was intended to reflect a more European environment for meeting to drink and discuss. This combination of product and service found mass appeal, and rapid growth. Meanwhile, the previous CEO rapidly moved to seize the value of this appeal by stretching the brand into grocery store sales, coffee on airlines, liquor products, music sales, various retail items, some food (prepared sandwiches and high-end snacks, mostly), artist representation and even movie making. He knew there was a limit to store expansion, and he kept opening White Space to find new business opportunities.
But then Mr. Schultz, considered the "founding CEO" (even though he wasn't the founder) came roaring back – firing the previous expansion-oriented CEO. He claimed these expansion opportunities caused Starbucks to "lose focus". So he quickly set to work cutting back offerings. This led to layoffs. Which led to closing stores. Which led to more layoffs. The company fast went into a tailspin while he "refocused."
Meanwhile competitors started having a field day. Dunkin Donuts launched a campaign lampooning the drink options and the special language of Starbucks, appealing for old customers to return for a donut – and get a latte too. And McDonald's, after years of study, finally decided to roll out a company-wide "McCafe" in which McDonald's could offer specialty coffee drinks as well. While Starbuck's CEO was rolling backward, competitors were rolling forward – and in the case of McDonald's rolling like a Panzer tank.
Now, with a big recession in force, McDonald's is making hay by siezing on its long-held position as a low cost place. Like Wal-Mart, McDonald's is in the right place for people who want to seek out brands that represent "cheap." With sales up in this recession, the company is now launching a new program to highlight its McCafe concept directly aimed at trying to steal Starbucks customers (readarticle here).
So, here's Starbucks that has "repositioned" itself back as strictly a "coffee company". And the company has been spiraling downward for over a year. And the world's largest restaurant company has its sites set right on you. What should you do? Starbucks has decided to launch a "value meal" (read article here). Starbucks is going to go head-to-head with McDonald's. Uh, talk about walking in front of a truck.
Far too often company leadership thinks the right thing to do is "focus, focus, focus" then define battles with competitors and enter into a gladiator style war to the death. And that is just plain foolish. Why would anyone take on a fight with Goliath if you can avoid it? At the very least, shouldn't you study competitors so you compete with them in ways they can't? You wouldn't choose to go toe-to-toe when you can redefine competition to your benefit.
But that is exactly what Starbuck's has done. Starbucks spent its longevity building a brand that stood for being somewhat "upmarket." You may not be able to afford a Porsche, but you could afford a good coffee in a great environment. Sure, you might cut back when the purse is slim, but you still know where the place is that gave you the great, good-inside feeling you always got when buying their product or visiting their store. Now the CEO of that company has taken to comparing the product, and the stores, to the place where kids are jumping around in the play pit – and you can smell $1.00 hamburgers cooking in the background. He's decided to offer values which compare his store, where you remember the cozy stuffed chairs and the sounds of light jazz and the smell of chocolate – with the place where you sit in plastic, unmovable benches at plastic, unmovable tables while listening to canned music bouncing off the tile (or porcelain) walls where you can wipe down everything with a mop.
You study competitors so you can be fleet-of-foot. You want to avoid the bloody battles, and learn where you can use strengths to win. Instead, Starbucks' CEO is doing the opposite. He has chosen to go head-to-head in a battle that can only serve to worsen the impression of his business among virtually all customers, while tacitly acknowledging that a far more successful (at this time) and better financed competitor is coming into his market. His desire to Defend his old business is causing him to take actions that are sure to diminish its value.
Let's see, does this possibly remind you of — let's see — maybe Marc Andreeson's decision to have Netscape go head-to-head with Microsoft selling internet browsers? How'd that work out for him? His investors? His employees? His vendors?
Studying competitors is incredibly important. It can help you to avoid bone-crushing competition. It can identify new ways to compete that leads to advantage. It can help you maneuver around better funded competitors so you can win – like Domino's building a successful pizza business by focusing on delivery while Pizza Hut focused on its eat-in pizzerias. But you have to be smart enough to realize not to try going headlong into battle with competitors that can crush you.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 8, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership
General Electric's (chart here) future earnings and valuation were recently lowered by an analyst at J.P. Morgan (read article here). Reviewing the difficulties facing GE he commented, "Former [Chief Executive Jack] Welch built a culture of earnings management that was unsustainable." One of the few times I've ever heard an analyst make excuses for management. Unfortunately, he could not be more wrong. Investors have every reason to expect GE's earnings growth to continue.
There is no doubt that the real estate bust has led to lower consumer spending, as well as big troubles for banks struggling with reserve requirements as they mark down loans. There is a "wall of worry" among consumer and business spenders alike. Yet, GE's task is to find ways to grow – even in the face of market challenges. When companies fall into a growth stall they have only a 7% chance of ever again growing at a mere 2%.
At GE we're seeing first stages of a growth stall. Why? Despite the very aggressive culture at GE, when Mr. Immelt replaced Mr. Welch he did not maintain the level of Disruption and White Space that his predecessor maintained. For whatever good reasons he had, Mr. Immelt steered GE on a course that was more predictable – and far less likely to make hard turns and hold leaders accountable. GE was very strong, and the company could continue to build on past strengths. And doing so, Mr. Immelt sustained GE largely by Defending & Extending historical practices. Along the way, acquisitions and divestitures were very predictable actions – not openings into new markets that could develop a new Success Formula.
Then the markets shifted. Very hard. And a long-term GE business called GE Capital was suddenly in a lot of trouble. This was not entirely unpredictable – but GE Capital had fallen into Defending & Extending its old business rather than really assessing what might happen. They had real estate investments, and complex hedging products that made real estate losses worse. GE Capital's reserves began disappearing overnight. Simultaneously, NBC was seeing declining revenue as ad demand fell through the floor. Again, not unpredictable given the inroads Google was making in the ad market since 2002. But NBC had fallen into believeing it could Defend & Extend its traditional business, rather than use scenarios to point out the potential shift of advertisers to the web. Even though Mr. Buffet at Berkshire Hathaway jumped in with financing, the reality was that GE had not prepared for the scenario unfolding. By slowing its Disruptions and White Space, GE fell into the same problems many of its other big company brethren fell into. Something the company had avoided under "Neutron Jack" who kept the company eyes firmly on the future while avoiding complacency in existing businesses.
Part of what made GE the incredible earnings machine it was under Mr. Welch was its extensive scenario planning which led the company to get out of businesses, and get into new ones. Under Mr. Welch GE implemented Disruptive techniques like focusing on market share (#1 or #2 was one Disruptive technique) or implementing Destroy-Your-Business.com teams to prepare for internet-based competition. But under Mr. Immelt GE did far less changing of its businesses. GE remained largely in industrial businesses, it's financial business and traditional media. Although it had extensive business interests in India, GE itself was not deeply involved in new internet-based or information-based businesses. It spun out its biggest IT business (GENPAC), reaping a huge reward which the company mostly invested in additional industrial businesses - like water production.
GE is a great company. It's the only company to be on the Dow Jones Industrial Average since the index was created. But not even GE can escape market shifts. GE was one of the first to pick up on the shift to globalization and was an early investor in offshore operations. But the last few years GE's fortunes have stymied as the company spent more energy Defending & Extending its old businesses instead of doing more in new markets. No company, of any size or age, can afford to depend on its old businesses. All businesses must prepare to compete in the future, on the requirements of future customers and against future competitors willing to maximally leverage current and developing opportunities for improvement via technology, business model or any other factor.
GE has a lot of resources, and a long-term culture of Disruption and using White Space. GE has the built-in skills to attack its old Lock-ins, find competitive opportunities and rapidly gear itself in the direction of growth. And that's what GE needs to do. Some analysts are worried that GE may have to reduce its dividend – and well GE should!!! When markets shift as rapidly as has happened this last year, its more important to develop new market opportunities than Defend a dividend payout. GE needs to move quickly to re-establish itself in growth markets for products and services that can push GE into the Rapids and pull the company out of this growth stall. Right now, investors should be demanding that Mr. Immelt act more like Mr. Welch, and push hard for Disruptions that open new White Space projects. That Mr. Immelt is on Mr. Obama's new business economic team (read article here) is not important to investors, employees and suppliers. Right now, all hands and minds need to be focused on finding new markets to regain growth for GE.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Quotes, Web/Tech
Dell had a tough day Thursday when J.P.Morgan downgraded the stock to the equivalent of a sell (read article here). The stock continues its relentless slide – despite the return of Mr. Dell as CEO (chart here). Some quotes:
- "Our downgrade … focuses squarely on the potential that Dell's PC exposure..could force the company to seek revenue offsets" interpretation – revenues should go down
-
"looking for revenue from other sources, Dell could face new costst and competition that could destabilize margins and cause the company to dip into its cash reserves." interpretation – entering new markets isn't free, and new competitors will make the road tough so expect Dell to go cash negative
-
"Dell gets around 60% of its total revenue from PC sales, which is an example of how exposed the company is to a market that is widely expected to shrink this year…PC unit shiptmets to fall this year by 13.5% from 2008" interpretation – this is primarily a one product company and that product is not going to grow
-
"the enterprise replacement cycle … could be deferred to next year … Dell will be hard-pressed to maintain its profit margins this year as the company faces more-entrenched consumer-market competitors in Acer and Hewlett-Packard" interpretation – Dell sells mostly to companies, who are not replacing PCs, and in the consumer market Dell will find tough sledding competing with Acer and HP
-
"Dell is on track with its plan to cut $3billion in costs by 2011" interpretation – Dell is cutting costs, not growing revenue
To steal from an old Kentucky Fried Chicken ad "Dell did one thing, and did it right." Dell's Success Formula worked really well, and the company grew fantastically well as it improved execution while the corporate PC market was growing. But the market shifted. Dell had not developed any White Space to enter new markets, so it was unprepared to keep growing. When revenue growth slackened, the company did not Disrupt its Success Formula, but instead kept trying to do more, better, faster, cheaper. And lacking revenue growth opportunities, the company is slashing costs in its effort to Defend its bottom line and old business model. And all that has resulted in another downgrade – and a company worth a lot less than it was worth before. Just as you would expect for a company that fell out of the Rapids and into the Swamp.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 2, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Leadership, Lock-in
The U.S. banks are asking for more bailout money – and Congress is resisting (read article here.) Most people don't understand why banks are failing, and lots of them are ready to say "let them fail." But why they are failing is important – because the solution has to be linked to the diagnosis, don't you think?
Back in the old days of hyper-inflation (think 1970s) corporations developed a perverse problem. They had buildings on their balance sheet for $1million, but inflation had made the land, buildings and other assets worth $10million (or $20million). The corporations weren't allowed to mark up their assets to market value. So the banks couldn't lend them more money. As a result, fellows like T. Boone Pickens created a new business opportunity. They simply went to banks and borrowed money based on the real value of the underlying assets, and bought the corporations. Having no desire to run these companies, they often sold off the assets to pay off debt and kept the profits and the companies (and their employees) went away. They were called corporate raiders. And their existence could be traced to accounting.
When banks lend money they are required to have reserves which back up the loans. Banks can lend multiples of their reserves. They have leverage, because every dollar of reserves can create several dolalrs of new loans. As the reserves go up, they can loan more money. If they raise reserves by $1, they can loan out, say, $6.
But today, the bank loans already on the books (not new loans) - especially real estate loans – are going down in value (it's more complicated than this because of various bond offerings and insurance products on the mortgages, but the idea is pretty close). There is an accounting rule which says if a loan goes down in value, the bank has to estimate the new value of the loan and mark the loan down to market value (mark-to-market accounting). So, as real estate tumbles, the loan value tumbles. Every dollar of loan value comes straight out of reserves. This is called reverse leverage. Because if a loan goes down in value by $1, and $1 comes out of reserves, suddenly the bank has to reduce its total loan portfolio by $6 – get that? Instead of one loan being affected, suddenly a lot of loans are affected. Because one loan has to be marked down, in order to cover its reserve requirements, the bank may have to call up the local retailer and ask her to cut her inventory loan by 30% – because the bank no longer has sufficient reserves to cover all her debt. Ouch!!! One bad apple sort of starts spoiling the barrel – to use an old expression.
Suddenly, the reverse of the T. Boone Pickens opportunity happens. A few write-offs eliminate the reserves, making new lending impossible and actually (because real estate has cratered so badly) causing banks to call in perfectly good loans to cover their reserve requirements. (By the way, miss your reserve requirement and, by law, you go into default and the regulators take over your bank.) "But," you might say, "this means perfectly good debts are being called, and perfectly good loan opportunities are being ignored, just because of an accounting convention." And you would be right.
How far would you like the economy to stagnate because of an accounting convention? Sure, there was good reason for this rule. It was intended to keep banks from making questionable loans. But not many banks – not many economists – and not many accountants – expected real estate to drop 20% in value across the U.S.A.
The Japanese came across this problem in the middle-1990s. Their economy exploded in the 1980s. Real estate in Tokyo became the most expensive in the world. Ginza retail property was worth $1M per square foot! And middle-class Japanese discovered homes they had purchased for $80,000 were worth $1M! Young Japanese families buying new homes spent the $1M, and went deeply into debt. Then, the Japanese economy cooled. And real estate values tumbled.
But Japanese regulators would not let the banks write off these loans. They said "either this loan is repaid, in full, or you must write down your reserves." Banks quit lending. The Japanese economy nosedived into recession. And it has still not recovered. Stock prices, real estate prices, prices of everything have remained stuck. And the economy has not grown. After more than 12 years, the Japanese are still in a recession. You may not care, after all you don't live in Japan. But if you live in Japan you've struggled for a raise, you've struggled to pay bills, and if young you've struggled to find a job for 12 years. There are thousands of stories of highly qualified young Japanese college graduates who have never been able to find a job, thus never married – effectively never started their adult lives. Stuck. Families stuck by an extended recession as old debts are slowly, painfully slowly, repaid.
So what should America now do? Should we stick with the old accounting rules? Should we mark down loans, creating bank reserve problems? We know this means banks will ask for bailout funds – to get reserves back up. But we don't want to cover those reserve requirements – for fear the money will be spent on private jets and big bonuses. Maybe, just maybe, we should change the accounting rule.
By the way, I'm not the first with this idea by a long shot. Steve Forbes, a noted conservative, is one of the leaders for this change. He spoke to it on Meet the Press yesterday. This isn't really a hard question, is it? Why would anyone extend a recession, or create a depression, when an accounting rule is very close to the center of the problem? Something as easy to change as an accounting rule.
The issue is Lock-in. Our old enemy of the stuck corporation. Lock-in to past practices that causes the company to keep doing what it always did – even though everyone agrees there has to be change. Lock-in keeps the company on a path to sure destruction. The old accounting rules were based upon what used to be true. Thirty years ago, it was rampant inflation that gripped the U.S. economy. Double digit inflation screwed up everything business leaders and regulators had ever been taught. At one point, in 1978, President Carter went through 3 heads of the Federal Reserve (that's Bernanke's job) in under 1 year! Old accounting conventions were turning business upside down, and destroying healthy corporations. And mark-to-market (rather than acquisition cost), which allowed companies (and banks) to bring assets to "current value" was critical to a healthy economy and the management of healthy businesses.
But who's more Locked-in than economists and accountants? Not exactly known as a "progressive" group of people. Yet, the future for America is totally clear if we keep doing what's been done in the past. The government and industry forecasters have a trend that's very predictable. Without change, liquidity remains hampered, the economy remains on a downward tilt, layoffs continue and problems worsen. Something fundamentally needs to change.
So, using The Phoenix Principle, we know what's needed. Firstly, we can learn from our competitors. The Japanese situation has been studied to death, and the results are well documented. Universally, economists have demonstrated that Lock-in to old practices has hampered the Japanese economy dramatically. As the other developed countries struggle with falling real estate, the first to take action will come out the big winner. The first to find a way to move forward gets an advantage.
We now need to Disrupt! Someone has to help us stop and realize that more of the same has a clear future – and that future is not pleasant. Something has to change. Then we need to create White Space. Instead of changing the rules for all banks, we need to carve out some healthy but jeapardized banks in which to test the practice. We need to allow them to change their accounting, and watch the results. If it works, we can learn and replicate. Don't test on Citibank and Bank of America, which are huge and possibly unable to survive. Test where we can learn what works, and FAST.
Nobody wants another depression. And most people don't want to keep putting tax dollars into banks shoring up reserves. So maybe, just maybe, we should try something new. Like changing the accounting rule. Let's give it a shot, test it with some banks that are strong but struggling, and see if we can't figure out how to apply changes in a way that can get the economy going again!
