by Adam Hartung | Oct 28, 2014 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Television
I’m a “Boomer,” and my generation could have been called the Coke generation. Our parents started every day with a cup of coffee, and they drank either coffee or water during the day. Most meals were accompanied by either water, or iced tea.
But our generation loved Coca-Cola. Most of our parents limited our consumption, much to our frustration. Some parents practically refused to let the stuff in the house. In progressive homes as children we were usually only allowed one, or at most two, bottles per day. We chafed at the controls, and when we left home we started drinking the sweet cola as often as we could.
It didn’t take long before we supplanted our parent’s morning coffee with a bottle of Coke (or Diet Coke in more modern times.) We seemingly could not get enough of the product, as bottle size soared from 8 ounces to 12 to 16 and then quarts and eventually 2 liters! Portion control was out the window as we created demand that seemed limitless.
Meanwhile, Americans exported our #1 drink around the world. From 1970 onward Coke was THE iconic American brand. We saw ads of people drinking Coke in every imaginable country. International growth seemed boundless as people from China to India started consuming the irresistible brown beverage.
My how things change. Last week Coke announced third quarter earnings, and they were down 14%. The CEO admitted he was struggling to find growth for the company as soda sales were flat. U.S. sales of carbonated beverages have been declining for a decade, and Coke has not developed a successful new product line – or market – to replace those declines.
Coke is a victim of changing customer preferences. Once a company that helped define those preferences, and built the #1 brand globally, Coke’s leadership shifted from understanding customers and trends in order to build on those trends towards defending & extending sales of its historical product. Instead of innovating, leadership relied on promotion and tactics which had helped the brand grow 30 years ago. They kept to their old success formula as trends shifted the market into new directions.
Coke began losing its relevancy. Trends moved in a new direction. Healthfulness led customers to decide they wanted a less calorie rich, nutritionally starved drink. And concerns grew over “artificial” products, such as sweeteners, leading customers away from even low calorie “diet” colas.
Meanwhile, younger generations started turning to their own new brands. And not just drinks. Instead of holding a Coke, increasingly they hold an iPhone. Where once it was hip to hang out at the Coke machine, or the fountain stand, now people would rather hang out at a Starbucks or Peet’s Coffee. Where once Coke was identified and matched the aspirations of the fast growing Boomer class, now it is replaced with a Prada handbag or other accessory from an LVMH branded luxury product.
Where once holding a Coke was a sign of being part of all that was good, now the product is largely passe. Trends have moved, and Coke didn’t. Coke leadership relied too much on its past, and failed to recognize that market shifts could affect even the #1 global brand. Coke leaders thought they would be forever relevant, just do more of what worked before. But they were wrong.
Unfortunately, CEO Muhtar Kent announced a series of changes that will most likely further hurt the Coca-Cola company rather than help it.
First, and foremost, like almost all CEOs facing an earnings problem the company will cut $3B in costs. The most short-term of short-term actions, which will do nothing to help the company find its way back toward being a prominent brand-leading icon. Cost cuts only further create a “hunker-down” mindset which causes managers to reduce risk, rather than look for breakthrough products and markets which could help the company regain lost ground. Cost cutting will only further cause remaining management to focus on defending the past business rather than finding a new future.
Second, Coca-Cola will sell off its bottlers. Interestingly, in the 1980s CEO Roberto Goizueta famously bought up the distributorships, and made a fortune for the company doing so. By the year 2000 he was honored, along with Jack Welch of GE, as being one of the top 2 CEOs of the century for his ability to create shareholder value. But now the current CEO is selling the bottling operations – in order to raise cash. Once again, when leadership can’t run a business that makes money they often sell off assets to generate cash and make the company smaller – none of which benefits shareholders.
Third, fire the Chief Marketing Officer. Of course, somebody has to be blamed! The guy who has done the most to bring Coca-Cola’s brand out of traditional advertising and promote it in an integrated manner across all media, including managing successful programs for the Olympics and World Cup, has to be held accountable. What’s missing in this action is that the big problem is leadership’s fixation with defending its Coke brand, rather than finding new growth businesses as the market moves away from carbonated soft drinks. And that is a problem that requires the CEO and his entire management team to step up their strategy efforts, not just fire the leader who has been updating the branding mechanisms.
Coca-Cola needs a significant strategy shift. Leadership focused too long on its aging brands, without putting enough energy into identifying trends and figuring out how to remain relevant. Now, people care a lot less about Coke than they did. They care more about other brands, like Apple. Globally. Unless there is a major shift in Coke’s strategy the company will continue to weaken along with its primary brand. That market shift has already happened, and it won’t stop.
For Coke to regain growth it needs a far different future which aligns with trends that now matter more to consumers. The company must bring forward products which excite people ,and with which they identify. And Coke’s leaders must move much harder into understanding shifts in media consumption so they can make their new brands as visible to newer generations as TV made Coke visible to Boomers.
Coke is far from a failed company, but after a decade of sales declines in its “core” business it is time leadership realizes takes this earnings announcement as a key indicator of the need to change. And not just simple things like costs. It must fundamentally change its strategy and markets or in another decade things will look far worse than today.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 26, 2013 | Current Affairs, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, Leadership
Both Coca-Cola and McDonald's have produced good investor returns over the last decade. From stock lows in early 2009, Coke has more than doubled. After shutting many stores and investing heavily in upgrades as well as supply chain efficiencies, over the last decade McDonald's has risen 6-fold!
But recent quarterly returns have not impressed investors as both companies failed to meet expectations. And for traders with a short-term focus both companies are off their 2013 highs. The open question now, for patient investors with a multi-year focus, is whether either, or both, companies are going to go back to long-term valuation growth (meaning they are a buy) or if their value has fizzled (meaning they are a sell)?
This question cannot be answered by looking at historical performance. As all investment documents remind us, past history is no assurance of future gains. Instead investors need to look at trends, and whether each company is positioned to take advantage of major trends as we head toward 2020.
One major trend is obesity. And not in a good way. The USA is fatter than ever, and shows no signs of thinning as one in 3 people are now considered obese. For Coke and McDonald's this is not a good thing, since their products are considered major contributors to what some call a national epidemic.
Over the last few years this trend has led schools to remove fast food and soft drink dispensers. America's first lady has started a national campaign to fight childhood obesity. And the nation's largest city's mayor has tried to make large portion sizes illegal in New York. While all of this might seem like crank activity that isn't making much difference, truth is that soda consumption per capita has been declining since 1998, and 2012 declines now put soda drinking at the lowest level since 1987!
Even if this still seems like much ado about nothing, investors should be aware of the long-term impact when products are seen as unhealthy. Cigarettes were a common consumer staple well into the 1960s, but when that product was determined to have adverse health impacts advertising was banned, consumption was restricted to adults only, dispensing was severely limited as machines were eliminated, taxes shot through the ceiling creating a 20-fold price increase and consumption was banned in buildings and many public places. None of this happened overnight, but eventually these actions caused the sales and profits of tobacco companies to decline — despite their heroic efforts to fight the trend.
If the Centers for Disease Control takse the point of view that soft drinks are a major contributor to diabetes and other obesity-related illnesses, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Coke could find itself in a situation somewhat like Phillip Morris did. If the CDC made the same determination about certain fast food items (such as double-patty burger sandwiches or large french fry orders) the amount of advertising, free toys, discounted product and super-sized packaging available to McDonald's could be severly curtailed. It could become a requirement that Coke and Big Macs have warning labels educating consumers about the possibility of long-term illness from consumption. And product sales could only be limited only to people over 18.
This may seem extreme, even bizarre, and far off into the future. But this is the direction of the trend. There seems no solution for obesity at this time, so public policy is starting to point toward doing something about consumption.
Recall that when alcohol-related deaths showed no sign of decline it didn't take long for much tougher drunk driving laws to be enacted, then for a string of adjustments lowering the level at which people were considered drunk. Public policies that took direct aim at product consumption.
Looking at the tobacco and alcohol analogies, Coke and McDonald's are behaving a lot more like the R.J. Reynolds than Miller-Coors.
Tobacco companies fought the trend, and ended up in a very expensive and long battle they inevitably lost. They denied there was any public health problem, and denied they had anything to do with the nation's, and their customers', health issues. The fight lasted a very long time. Now their customers are often ostracized, and the industry is contracting.
Liquor companies took a different approach. While not admitting anything, they aggressively promoted "responsible" consumption levels. They promoted individual abstinence (non-consumption) in group settings so there could be a "designated driver" while actively promoting product bans for people under age. They did not fight drunk driving laws, but instead worked with organizations to reduce deaths. Though far from angels, the industry players did not fight the trend, and managed to find ways to avoid the kind of bans dealt tobacco.
Coke and McDonald's today are denying the obesity problem and their contribution to it. While they both have healthier products, they remain committed to the least healthy offerings. Watch a Coke ad and you'll always see the traditional, sweetened red label product receive top billing. Likewise, you can purchase a salad at McDonald's, but the ads and promotions always feature the far less healthy burgers and fried foods which characterize the company's history.
Neither company promotes responsible consumption levels, nor does anything to discuss the importance of limiting use of their products. To the contrary, both like to promote larger package sizes and greater consumption – often beyond what almost anyone would consider healthy. Neither works aggressively to improve the quality of healthy products, nor showcases them as preferred products for customers to purchase.
One would not expect Coke or McDonald's to fail any time soon. But the trends which made them huge companies have reached an end, and new trends are headed in a direction which do not support growth. Both companies seem unwilling to recognize the new trends, and find ways to align with them. Future revenue growth is up against a difficult environement, and historical cost reduction activities leave little opportunity to improve future earnings without revenue growth. While the valuation of both companies are unlikely to remain flat, it is hard to identify the bull case for either to provide long-term investors much gain.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 4, 2013 | Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
The iPad is now 3 years old. Hard to believe we've only had tablets such a short time, given how common they have become. It's easy to forget that when launched almost all analysts thought the iPad was a toy that would be lucky to sell a few million units. Apple blew away that prediction in just a few months, as people demonstrated their lust for mobility. To date the iPad has sold 121million units – with an ongoing sales rate of nearly 20million per quarter.
Following very successful launches of the iPod (which transformed music from CDs to MP3) and iPhone (which turned everyone into smartphone users,) the iPad's transformation of personal technology made Apple look like an impenetrable juggernaut – practically untouchable by any competitor! The stock soared from $200/share to over $700/share, and Apple became the most valuable publicly traded company on any American exchange!
But things look very different now. Despite huge ongoing sales (iPad sales exceed Windows sales,) and a phenomenal $30B cash hoard ($100B if you include receivables) Apple's value has declined by 40%!
In the tech world, people tend to think competition is all about the product. Feature and functionality comparisons abound. And by that metric, no one has impacted Apple. After 3 years in development, Microsoft's much anticipated Surface has been a bust – selling only about 1.5million units in the first 6 months. Nobody has created a product capable of outright dethroning the i product series. Quite simply, there have been no "game changer" products that dramatically outperform Apple's.
But, any professor of introductory marketing will tell you that there are 4 P's in marketing: Product, Price, Place and Promotion. And understanding that simple lesson was the basis for the successful onslaught Samsung has waged upon Apple in 2012 and 2013.
Samsung did not change the game with technology or product. It has used the same Android starting point as most competitors for phones and tablets. It's products are comparable to Apple's – but not dramatically superior. And while they are cheaper, in most instances that has not been the reason people switched. Instead, Samsung changed the game by focusing on distribution and advertising!
Chart courtesy Jay Yarrow, Business Insider 4/2/13 and Horace Dediu, Asymco
The remarkable insight from this chart is that Samsung is spending almost 4.5 times Apple – and $1B more than perennial consumer goods brand leader Coca-Cola on advertising! Simultaneously, Samsung has set up kiosks and stores in malls and retail locations all over America.
Can you imagine having the following conversation in your company in 2010?:
"As Vice President of Marketing I propose we take on the market leader not by having a superior product. We will change the game from features and function comparisons to availability and awareness. I intend to spend more than anyone in our industry on advertising – even more than Coke. And I will open so many information and sales locations that our products will be as available as Coke. We'll be everywhere. Our products may not be better, but they will be everywhere and everyone will know about them."
Samsung found Apple's Achilles heel. As Apple's revenues rose it did not keep its marketing growing. SG&A (Selling, General and Administrative) expense declined from 14% of revenues in 2006 to 5% in 2012; of course aiding its skyrocketing profits. And Apple continued to sell through its fairly limited distribution of Apple stores and network providers. Apple started to "milk" its hard won brand position, rather than intensify it.
Samsung took advantage of Apple's oversight. Samsung maintained its SG&A budget at 15% of revenues – even growing it to 24% for a brief time in 2009, before returning to 15%. As its revenues grew, advertising and distribution grew. Instead of looking back at its old ad budget in dollars, and maintaining that budget, Samsung allowed the budget to grow (to a huge number!) along with revenues.
And that's how Samsung changed the game on Apple. Once America's untouchable brand, the Apple brand has faltered. People now question Apple's sustainability. Some now recognize Apple is vulnerable, and think its best times are behind it. And it's all because Samsung ignored the industry lock-in to constantly focusing on product, and instead changed the game on Apple.
Something Microsoft should have thought about – but didn't.
Of course, Apple's profits are far, far higher than Samsung's. And Apple is still a great company, and a well regarded brand, with tremendous sales. There are ongoing rumors of a new iOS 7 operating system, an updated format for iPads, potentially a dramatically new iPhone and even an iTV. And Apple is not without great engineers, and a HUGE war chest which it could use on advertising and distribution to go heads up with Samsung.
But, at least for now, Samsung has demonstrated how a competitor can change the game on a market leader. Even a leader as successful and powerful as Apple. And Samsung's leaders deserve a lot of credit for seeing the opportunity – and seizing it!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 11, 2010 | Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Television, Web/Tech
“Playboy’s Circulation drops 34%” is the Chicago Tribune headline. Is anyone surprised? If ever there was a brand, and business, that was out of step with current markets it has to be Playboy. That the business still exists is a wonder. But let’s spend a few minutes to see why Playboy has fallen on hard times, and what the alternative might have been – and could still be.
The Playboy Success Formula is really clear. Since founded by Hugh Hefner, the company has focused on titillating the male libido with a magazine that focused on pictures of naked women, videos of same (physical videos, on-line videos and television), radio talk shows about sex, and alternative lifestyle issues such as recreational drug use. At one time this was unique, and in a male dominated 1960s it was even tolerated. Although never mainstream, the business was very profitable early in its lifecycle. Thus the founder kept doing more of the same, building a small empire and eventually taking the company public.
But the market shifted. Larry Flint and others ushered in a new era of pornography altering the market for prurient, sexually oriented material. Women in the workforce – and I’d like to think a heavy dose of decency – made public toleration of such material unacceptable. You couldn’t read a Playboy at work, or on the airplane, and you wouldn’t have a business lunch at their clubs. Other magazines sprung up to deal with men’s interests in automobiles, clothing, music, sports, etc. in a more acceptable – and for most people more significant and intelligent – manner. Other lifestyle publications were developed that discussed illicit drug use and non-traditional ways of life more directly, explicitly and with greater advocacy. The advent of cable TV and then the internet increasingly made access to the key features of Playboy’s product readily available, very inexpensive (often free) and targeted at niche audiences.
Yet, despite these many market changes, Playboy’s founder and his daughter, the company CEOs for 40+ years, steadfastly stuck to their old Success Formula. They kept thinking that people wanted those “bunny eared” products. They talked a lot about the heritage of Playboy, how it broke ground in so many markets, and opened the door for lots of new competitors. But they kept doing what the company always did – including foisting upon us the ever aging founder as a “role model” for male menopause and the anti-family aged entrepreneur. Playboy today is what it always was – and there simply aren’t a whole lot of people with much interest in those products any more. Nobody mismanaged the brand, the market just walked away from it. Sort of like the demand for Geritol.
Playboy focused on its core. And now its on the edge of bankruptcy. The company keeps outsourcing more and more of the work, as the staff has dropped to nearly nothing, cutting costs everywhere possible. Sales continue to decline, and the brand looks like it will soon join Polaroid and Woolworths on the heap of once famous but floundered companies. Playboy’s fatal mistake wasn’t that it was started as a prurient men’s magazine – but rather that for 40 years its leadership kept Defending & Extending that original Success Formula despite rather dramatic market shifts. Now, today, Playboy is a sour lemon that not many a marketer would want to be stuck promoting.
But – it didn’t have to be that way. Just imagine if you’d been given control of Playboy 30 years ago. What could you have done?
As soon as Hustler hit the newsstands, and the first women’s right protests developed – including the early push for the Equal Rights Amendment – it was clear that the future of the magazine was in jeopardy. Instead of doing “more of the same” could you have considered something else?
The growth of women in the workforce meant a lot of new opportunities. Why not jump onto that bandwagon? If you’re really at the forefront of “lifestyle” issues, as the leadership claimed, then you would have identified that women in the workforce meant something new was brewing – a group of consumers that would have more cash, and more influence. And not only would that be an appealing market, but so would the men who would be adjusting to new lifestyle issues as homes became dominated by 2-worker leadership.
Playboy was well positioned to be Victoria’s Secret. At a time before anybody else was really thinking about a significant market for attractive and comfortable lingerie Playboy certainly had the leading edge. Or, even more likely, the water carrying publication for Dr. Ruth-style discussions about sexuality. There was an emerging market for information targeted at increasingly affluent women about automobiles, stereos, apartments, resume writing, job hunting and even at-work etiquette — all topics that had been the dominant discussion areas for Playboy’s historically male readership. Had the leadership at Playboy opened its eyes, and scanned the horizon for growth markets being developed as a result of the trends which were negatively impacting it, these leaders would have been able to create a bevy of scenarios that were filled with opportunities for growth.
It’s hard to imagine today Playboy being anything else. But all that stopped stopped Playboy’s evolution was a commitment to its “core” – to its old Success Formula. That the CEO for over 20 years was a well educated woman is testament to the power of “core” philosophy versus a willingness to look at market opportunities. By keeping Playboy’s Success Formula tightly aligned with her father’s founding ideas she quite literally led the company into smaller and smaller sales with less and less profit. The big loser was, of course, investors. Playboy is worth very little today as Mr. Hefner hints at making a bid to take the company private once again.
Singer was once a sewing machine company. But when Japanese products surpassed Singer’s product capabilities and achieved a cost advantage in the 1970s, Singer leadership converted Singer into a defense contractor. And Singer went on to multiply its value before being acquired by General Dynamics.
IBM was an office machine company famous for mechanical typewriters and adding machines. The founder said he would never enter computers. Fortunately for employees and shareholders the founder’s son took the company into computers and the company flourished as competitive typewriter companies such as Smith Corona – stuck on the core business – disappeared.
There’s a time for lemons – in your tea or on a salad. But when markets shift, lemons just turn sour. If you want to succeed long-term you have to shift with markets. And that might well mean making significant change. Adding water and sugar to the lemons is a good start – as lemonade is less about lemons than what you’ve added to it. After you open that lemonade stand, see where the market leads you.
No matter where you start, every day offers the opportunity to head toward new, emerging markets. No matter what your historical “core” you can literally become any business you want to become. Coke was founded by a pharmacist who wanted to boost counter sales in his store – and it was worth a lot more than the pills he was constructing. Those who develop scenarios about the future prepare for market shifts, understand the competitive changes and use them to identify the opportunities for a new future. Then they use White Space teams to move the business into a new Success Formula. Anybody can do it. You could even have remade Playboy. So what’s the plan for the future of your business? More of the same …. or …..
by Adam Hartung | Apr 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, Food and Drink, General, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness
"PepsiCo bids to buy its bottlers for $6billion," is the Marketwatch headline today. Another big Disruption, this time at the industry level, orchestrated by PepsiCo's Chairperson/CEO Indra Nooyi. Now that changes are being made with the product line, packaging and brands this latest move will allow Pepsi's beverage division to much more quickly implement changes to align with market needs. While Coke is doing little, Pepsi is disrupting the industry organization changing the marketplace and placing serious challenges onto all competitors. And without waiting for the recession to end.
Many leadership teams should pay close attention to what's going on at PepsiCo. By moving fast to align with future market needs they are catching competitors unwilling to take action due to recessionary concerns. Their Disruptions are creating changes that will help Pepsi return to the "muscle building" organization created in the days of former Chairman Andrall Pearson. And the changes coming out of White Space are helping Pepsi to develop a stronger Success Formula for competing in the post-industrial age.
Investors, employees and vendors should be encouraged by Pepsi. Competitors had better be worried. And all leadership teams can learn from the action being taken to gain share during this period of uncertainty. As companies hit growth stalls the tendency is to "wait and see". But winners react quickly to Disrupt and use White Space where they overtake delaying competitors – returning to the Rapids of growth and gaining share.
