by Adam Hartung | Sep 12, 2013 | General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
This week the people who decide what composes the Dow Jones Industrial Average booted off 3 companies and added 3 others. What's remarkable is how little most people cared!
"The Dow," as it is often called, is intended to represent the core of America's economy. "As the Dow goes, so goes America" is the theory. It is one of the most watched indices of all markets, with many people tracking how much it goes up, or down, every trading day. So being a component of the DJIA is a pretty big deal.
It's not a good day when you find out your company has been removed from the index. Because it is a very public statement that your company simply isn't all that important any more. Certainly not as important as it once was! Your relevance, once considered core to representing the economy, has dissipated. And, unfortunately, most companies that fall off the DJIA slip away into oblivion.
I have a simple test. Do like Jay Leno, of Tonight Show fame, and simply ask a dozen college graduates that are between 26 and 31 about a company. If they know that company, and are positively influenced by it, you have relevancy. If they don't care about that company then the CEO and Board should take note, because it is an early indicator that the company may well have lost relevancy and is probably in more trouble than the leaders want to admit.
Ask these folks about Alcoa (AA) and what do you imagine the typical response? "Alcoa?" It is a rare person under 40 who knows that Alcoa was once the king of aluminum — back when we wrapped food in "tin foil" and before we all drank sodas and beer from a can. To most, "Alcoa" is a random set of letters with no meaning – like Altria – rather than its origin as ALuminum COrporation of America.
But, its not even the largest aluminum company any more. Alcoa is now 3rd. In a world where we live on smartphones and tablets, who really cares about a mining company that deals in commodities? Especially the third largest with no growth prospects?
Speaking of smartphones, Hewlett Packard (HPQ) was recently considered a bellweather of the tech industry. An early innovator in test equipment, it was one of the original "Silicon Valley" companies. But its commitment to printers has left people caring little about the company's products, since everyone prints less and less as we read more and more off digital screens.
Past-CEO Fiorina's huge investment in PCs by buying Compaq (which previously bought minicomputer maker DEC,) committed the rest of HP into what is now one of the fastest shrinking markets. And in PCs, HP doesn't even have any technology roots. HP is just an assembler, mostly offshore, as its products are all based on outsourced chip and software technology.
What a few years ago was considered a leader in technology has become a company that the younger crowd identifies with technology products they rarely use, and never buy. And lacking any sort of exciting pipeline, nobody really cares about HP.
Bank of America (BAC) was one of the 2 leaders in financial services when it entered the DJIA. It was a powerhouse in all things banking. But, as the mortgage market disintegrated B of A rapidly fell into trouble. It's shotgun wedding with Merrill Lynch to save the investment bank from failure made the B of A bigger, but not stronger.
Now racked with concerns about any part of the institution having long-term success against larger, and better capitalized, banks in America and offshore has left B of A with a lot of branches, but no market leadership. What innovations B of A may have had in lending or derivatives are now considered headaches most people either don't understand, or largely despise.
These 3 companies were once great lions of their industries. And they were rewarded with placement on the DJIA as icons of the economy. But they now leave with a whimper. Their values so shredded that their departure makes almost no impact on calculating the DJIA using the remaining companies. (Note: the DJIA calculation was significantly impacted by the addition of much higher valued companies Nike, Goldman Sachs and Visa.)
If we look at some past examples of other companies removed from the DJIA, one should be skeptical about the long-term future for these three:
- 2009 – GM removed due to bankruptcy
- 2004 – AT&T and Kodak removed (both ended up in bankruptcy)
- 1999 – Goodyear, Union Carbide, Sears
- 1997 – Westinghouse, Woolworths
- 1991 – American Can, Navistar/International Harvester
Any company can lose relevancy. Markets shift. There is risk incurred by focusing on the status quo (Status Quo Risk.) New technology, regulations, competitors, business practices — innovations of all sorts — enter the market daily. Being really good at something, in fact being the worlds BEST at something, does not insure success or longevity (despite the popularity of In Search of Excellence).
When markets shift, and your company doesn't, you can find yourself without relevancy. And with a fast declining value. Whether you are iconic – or not.
by Adam Hartung | May 10, 2010 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
Did you ever carve into a tree, then return to look at the carving years later? If you did, you would have seen that the carving is the same distance from the ground. The tree grew from the outside, from its branches, not from the bottom. The roots and trunk feed the growth, which occurs where the tree meets the environment – growing toward the sun for photosynthetic feeding.
Too many organizations, however, try to grow from the bottom rather than from the branches. Instead of looking to the environment for growth, they look inside. Instead of seeing the roots and trunk as sources of water and minerals (resources for growth) the strategists and leaders spend most of their time thinking about how to protect, or even grow, the "core" source of the tree. Far too little time is spent thinking about the environment and how to push resources where greatest growth can occur.
In a recent Harvard Business Review web posting "The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody" the author points out that many CEOs are now desirous of growth. But their approach is very flawed. They are enamored with all the headcount reductions of the last few years, and want to grow revenues without adding any additional resources. They are impressed that they grew profits by cutting employees, and now want to grow revenues and profits without any new ones. They "saved the core" by pruning branches, and expect the growth to rematerialize easily.
Discussing how these CEOs came to such a surprising position, that they should be able to grow without adding new resources, the author Walter Kiechel points out that most strategy in corporations has little to do with understanding new markets, new needs – new sunlight. Instead, strategists have been trained in how to improve the efficiency of the root system and trunk supply chain. Their focus has been on optimizing what exists, cutting resources, improving efficiency. What passes for strategy today has little to do with finding new sunlight, and competing effectively with other plants to get it. Instead, strategy is almost all internal analysis to improve how the existing tree maximizes its use of the dirt. How the tree will re-bark the old carving, and sustain its old position. Even ignoring other ground plants that are leaching away minerals and moisture, and other rapidly growing trees that are interfering with sunlight – each year coming closer to the original tree and making it impossible to find sun where it used to be plentiful.
Bloomberg-BusinessWeek makes note of this phenomenon discussing the problems at Goldman Sachs in "Goldman Sachs: Failure of Innovation." Author Rick Wartzman points out that within Goldman, and almost all other banks, the very smart MBAs from Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Wharton and elsewhere really weren't developing products which would help the banks grow. They weren't developing new financing or investing opportunities that would generate economic growth. Instead, an internal focus led them to develop collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which had only the intent of reducing risk and increasing return for the existing business. These were defensive, protective products intended to Defend & Extend the old products – not create anything new. Goldman wasn't creating economic growth for its clients, or itself, with CDOs. They were implementing classic D&E behavior – trying to protect the trunk.
Growth happens from the branches. On the edge of the business, where it meets the environment. Growth happens when we focus on how to competitively acquire more sunlight, and use that to maximize the value of our resources. An efficient resource delivery system is helpful, but continued optimizing of that system does not create growth. Unless there is a robust method of identifying new markets, and pushing resources toward those, you simply cannot grow. What strategists need to do is spend a lot more time thinking about markets and competitors if they want to create growth – and a lot less time thinking about how to optimize the "core." If the bankers at Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, etc. had done that we would have a far more robust economy now. And if leaders want to start growing in 2010 and 2011 they need to change the focus of their strategy group – and figure out how to put new resources into growth areas of the environment!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
The Real Blindness Behind The Collapse
Adam Hartung,
09.14.09, 05:00 PM EDT
The exact same failing brought down Wall Street, Detroit and Main Street's real estate speculators.
"Too big to fail" is a new phrase in the American lexicon, born in the economic crisis that gave us a bankrupt Lehman Brothers and the shotgun marriage of Merrill Lynch with Bank of America.
Nobody really knows what it means, except that somehow in the banking
world, central bankers can decide that some institutions–like AIG, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and BofA–are so big they simply have to be kept alive.
This is the first paragraph in my latest column for Forbes. There is much EVERY business leader can learn from the collapse of Lehman. Learn about risk, and about how to succeed in a shifting marketplace. Please give the Forbes article a read – and put on a comment! Everybody enjoys reading what others think!
by Adam Hartung | Jun 11, 2009 | Uncategorized
"The Evolving CMO" is the Brandweek headline. According to this article, increasingly CMOs (that's Chief Marketing Officers) are becoming quite nerdly. Whereas top marketing folks were once seen as "big idea" folks, now recruiters like Heidrick & Struggles (quoted in the article) are looking for top marketers to be analytical types who pour through on-line data to discern ad effectiveness and response rates.
It's not at all clear this is a good trend.
Ever since marketing has been around it's been an easily derided function. Unlike Sales, which has hands on daily contact with customers, marketers were considered more staff-like. And much more easily let go. Especially in companies that aren't consumer goods oriented, the first people let go in a downsizing are usually marketers. Some companies, like Computer Sciences Corporation in services and many manufacturers of industrial products, don't have any marketers at all! There are a lot of executives that believe marketing is a waste of money – you just need to focus on Sales.
So how should marketers deal with this lack of respect? Increasingly, they are turning to numbers. It appears that marketers want to overcome their Rodney Dangerfield position by being more like other parts of the company. Product Development and engineering tend to be loaded with engineers, who like to push around numbers. Operations folks like to analyze the plant output and quality numbers to death. And everybody in finance tends to use numbers to make their argument. Strategists and planners obsess over trend numbers. Even salespeople talk about salescalls, orders, total revenues, margins – numbers. So it seem marketers are starting to think that to gain respect they need to adopt personal, or role, Success Formulas much like others in the organization.
The problem is that numbers tend to focus you on the past, not the future. Yes, on-line ads and click-throughs offer us a bounty of new numbers on the efficacy of ads, placements, messages, hits – all kinds of things we can run through the same analytical tools used by the rest of the company. But does studying the recent behavior, upon which we have numbers – such as ad clicks – or of links to facebook pages – or the volume of tweets – or the respondents to a Linked-in group query — do these things tell you what big trends are emerging? Do they tell you whether your product line could be made obsolete by a new competitor? That is far less likely to happen.
All this number crunching may make marketing look more scientific, but the important question is whether it helps the company grow. Unfortunately, most trend numbers tell us what worked well in the past. Yet knowing that still doesn't tell you what will work in the future. Number crunching is great for execution of a designed plan. Midway through an ad program, analysis can help you tweak it in order to catch more viewers and grab a few more sales. Midway through a promotion, analysis can help you understand the impact of a price change, or a product pairing, or a sales blitz so you can tweak it for maximum results. Analysis is great for understanding what to do right now. But we have to run our business not just for right now. We have to run businesses to position the company where the market will be in a year, two years, five years and beyond.
There's a tendency to think that the person who has the most numbers, or does the most analysis, is the better businessperson. I don't know how this proclivity developed, but it did. The desire to "engineer" a business so that it has no risk, and will generate ongoing growth and profits is a powerful desire. But reality is that we live in a highly dynamic world. We cannot predict the future. Most 3 to 5 year forecasts aren't off by 2% or 5% – they are off by 50%! Having all the numbers imaginable about the past won't give you much help for dealing with a market shift. And that's the big problem in business today – dealing with these radically shifting markets and the changes they bring so quickly. Analysis depends too much on the future being like the past, and that just isn't so. The world keeps changing.
Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Chrysler and GM were/are full of peoples deeply skilled in how to "run the numbers." Business training the last 30 years has given us thousands of skilled analysts, deeply ingrained in how to dig up and analyze vast amounts of data – using newer and more powerful computer tools every year. Yet, for all this analytical skill we aren't producing more revenue growth, nor more profits. Throughout the last 30 years growth rates have declined, and profit rates have dropped. And recently we fell off a business cliff into an amazingly deep recession. Yet, we're drowning in a sea of data and Powerpoint slides full of analysis. The link between running numbers and improving performance appears broken – if it ever existed at all.
Marketers should be all about growth. And growth comes from moving beyond executing static promotional programs on existing products. To grow you have to be flexible to enter new markets, pioneer innovation and generate new solutions. Somebody has to lead the charge to do scenario planning that opens the collective vision to doing new things – things not visible in the numbers. Somebody has to understand the behavior of competition to recognize the holes they are unable to address because of their Lock-in to past practices. Somebody has to reach beyond the numbers to offer Disruptions which allow the company to move from making computers to making consumer electronics (like Apple), or from making cars to making airplanes (like Honda). Somebody has to be willing to manage market tests that teach you how to create new markets where you have fewer competitors and higher profits as growth takes off. And all of this work is well beyond analyzing the numbers.
I advocate that all executives pull their heads out of the numbers to undertake these tasks for growth. Many CEOs of now defunct companies could memorize pages and pages of financial and market numbers. They could recite market shares, product margins, product variable costs, plant fixed costs, employee costs and segment profits from the top of their heads. Yet, the businesses are now gone (Multigraphics, AB Dick, Wang, Digital Equipment, Western Auto and TG&Y are just a few that no longer exist). Having a deep understanding of the numbers means you know the past. But unless you use that to be adaptive, to prepare for and launch Disruptions, all those numbers simply get in the way of being successful. You can know all the trees, but end up unable to save the forest.
Marketers are not given their due. Usually they see market shifts before anyone else. They are able to generate scenarios that are possible, but often ignored because they require change. They know the limits of a product, and they realize when the variations and derivatives are getting long in the tooth – causing margins to
slip as the cost of sales and new launches keeps rising. They also know the company weaknesses and how they must be addressed if the company is not to become irrelevant. They shouldn't retreat to the bastion of numbers to try and make themselves more likable. Rather, they should lead the charge to make sure planning is about the future, not the past. They need to keep executives paranoid about competitors. They need to constantly bring up company shortcomings left vulnerable due to Lock-in. And they need to champion test after test after test to keep the company growing. In these roles, they are more important than anyone else in the company. And vital to growth and viability. Without marketers and the application of their skills all companies become out of step with shifting markets and inevitably fail.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 8, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle
Unless you have a lot of time to research stocks, you probably invest in a fund. Funds can be either an index, or actively managed. People like index funds because you aren't relying on a manager to have a better idea. Index funds can only own those stocks on the index. Like the S&P index fund – it can only own stocks in the S&P 500. Nothing else. Interestingly, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is considered an index fund – even though I don't know what it indexes. And that is important if you are an investor who benchmarks performance against the Dow. It's even more important if you invest in the Dow (or Diamonds – the EFT for the Dow Industrials).
GM is now off the Dow ("What does GM bankruptcy mean for Index Funds?"). Because it went bankrupt, the editors at Dow Jones removed it. But it wasn't long ago that the editors removed Sears and Kodak. But not because these companies filed bankruptcy. Rather, the Dow Jones editors felt these companies no longer represented American business. So the Dow is a list of 30 companies. But what companies is up to the whim of these Dow editors. Sounds like an active management (judgement) group (fund) to me.
Go back to the original DJIA and you get American Cotton Oil, American Sugar, Distilling & Cattle Feed, Leclede Gas Light, Tennesse Coal Iron and Railroad and U.S. Leather. Household names – right? As the years went buy a lot of companies came and went off the list. Bethlehem Steel, Honeywell, International Paper, Johns-Manville, Nash Motor, International Harvester, Owens-Illinois, Union Carbide — get the drift? These may have been successful at some time, but the didn't exactly withstand "the test of time" all that well. Even some of the recent appointments have to be questioned – like Home Depot and Kraft which have had horrible performance since joining the elite 30. You also have to wonder about the viability of some aging participants, like 3M, Alcoa and DuPont. So the DJIA may be someone's guess about some basket of companies that they think in some way represents the American economy – but it's definitely subject to a lot of personal bias.
Like any basket of stocks, when the DJIA is lagging market shifts, it is not a good place to invest. And the editors are greatly prone to lagging. Like their holdings in agriculture and basic commodities years ago, through holding big industrial companies in the 1990s and 2000s. And the over-weighting of financial companies at the turn of the century when they were merely using financial machinations to hide considerable end-of-value-life problems. When the DJIA is holding companies that are part of the previous economy, you don't want to be there.
The Dow should not be a lagging indicator. Rather, given its iconic position, it should hold the "best" companies in America. Not extremely poorly performing mega-bricks – like GM. GM should have been dropped several years ago. And you should be concerned about the recent appointment of Kraft. And even Travelers.
Those companies that will do well are going to be good at information, and making money on information. So who's likely to fall off (besides Kraft)? DuPont, which has downsized for 2 decades is a likely candidate. Caterpillar is laying off almost everyone, and cutting its business in China, as it struggles to compete with an outdated industrial Success Formula. Bank of America has shown it is disconnected from understanding how to compete globally as it has asked for billions in government bail-out money. And the hodge-podge of industrial businesses, none of which are on the front end of new technologies, at United Technologies makes it a candidate — if people ever recognize that the company would quickly disintegrate without massive U.S. government defense spending. Even 3M is questionable as it has slowed allowing its old innovation processes to keep the company current in the information age.
Adding Cisco was a good move. Cisco is representative of the information economy – as are Verizon, AT&T (which was SBC and before renameing, GE, HP, Intel, IBM, Microsoft, Merck and Pfizer (if they transition to biologics from old-fashioned pharmaceutical manufacturing ways – otherwise replace them with Abbott). But all those other oldies – like Walt Disney (sorry, but the web has forever changed the marketplace for entertainment and Walt's folks aren't keeping up with the times), Boeing (are big airplanes the wave of the future in a webinar age?), Coke (they've kinda covered the world and run out of new ideas), P&G (anybody excited about Swiffer variation 87?), and Wal-Mart – which couldn't recognize doing anything new under any circumstances.
As an investor, you want companies that can grow and create a profit. And that's increasingly not the DJIA – even as it slowly adds a Microsoft, Intel and Cisco. You want to include companies in leadership positions like Google and Apple. Their ability to move forward in new markets by Disrupting their Lock-ins and using White Space to launch new projects in new markets gives them longevity. As an investor you don't want the "dogs" – so why would you want to own DuPont, et.al.?
Investors may have been stung by overvaluations in technology companies during the 1990s. But that was the past. What matters now is future growth ("Technology on the comeback trail"). And that can be found by investing in the future – not what was once great but instead what will be great. Invest for the future, not from the past. And that can be found outside the DJIA. Unless the Dow editors suddenly change the portfolio to match the shift to an information economy.
(For additional ideas about recomposing the DJIA, see my blog of 3/12/09 "Dated Dow")
