The Day TV Died – Winners and Losers (Comcast, Disney, CBS)

Remember when almost everyone read a daily newspaper

Newspaper readership peaked around 2000.  Since then printed media has declined, as readers shifted on-line.  Magazines have folded, and newspapers have disappeared, quit printing, dramatically cut page numbers and even more dramatically cut staff. 

Amazingly, almost no major print publisher prepared for this, even though the trend was becoming clear in the late 1990s. 

Newspapers are no longer a viable business.  While industry revenue grew for
almost 2 centuries, it collapsed in a mere decade.

Newspaper ad spending 1950-2010
Chart Source: BusinessInsider.com

This market shift created clear winners, and losers.  On-line news sites like Marketwatch and HuffingtonPost were clear winners.  Losers were traditional newspaper companies such as Tribune Corporation, Gannett, McClatchey, Dow Jones and even the New York Times Company.  And investors in these companies either saw their values soar, or practically disintegrate. 

In 2012 it is equally clear that television is on the brink of a major transition.  Fewer people are content to have their entertainment programmed for them when they can program it themselves on-line.  Even though the number of television channels has exploded with pervasive cable access, the time spent watching television is not growing.  While simultaneously the amount of time people spend looking at mobile internet displays (tablets, smartphones and laptops) is growing at double digit rates.

Web v mobile v TV consumption
Chart Source: Silicone Alley Insider Chart of the Day 12/5/12

It would be easy to act like newspaper defenders and pretend that television as we've known it will not change.  But that would be, at best, naive.  Just look around at broadband access, the use of mobile devices, the convenience of mobile and the number of people that don't even watch traditional TV any more (especially younger people) and the trend is clear.  One-way preprogrammed advertising laden television is not a sustainable business. 

So, now is the time to prepare.  And change your business to align with impending new realities.

Losers, and winners, will be varied – and not entirely obvious.  Firstly, a look at those trying to maintain the status quo, and likely to lose the most.

Giant consumer goods and retail companies benefitted from the domination of television.  Only huge companies like P&G, Kraft, GM and Target could afford to lay out billions of dollars for television ads to build, and defend, a brand.  But what advantage will they have when TV budgets no longer control brand building?  They will become extremely vulnerable to more innovative companies that have better products and move on fast lifecycles. Their size, hierarchy and arcane business practices will lead to huge problems.  Imagine a raft of new Hostess Brands experiences.

Even as the trends have started changing these companies have continued pumping billions into the traditional TV networks as they spend to defend their brand position.  This has driven up the value of companies like CBS, Comcast (owns NBC) and Disney (owns ABC) over the last 3 years substantially. But don't expect that to last forever. Or even a few more years.

Just like newspaper ad spending fell off a cliff when it was clear the eyeballs were no longer there, expect the same for television ad spending.  As giant advertisers find the cost of television harder and harder to justify their outlays will eventually take the kind of cliff dive observed in the chart (above) for newspaper advertising.  Already some consumer goods and ad agency executives are alluding to the fact that the rate of return on traditional TV is becoming sketchy.

So far, we've seen little at the companies which own TV networks to demonstrate they are prepared for the floor to fall out of their revenue stream.  While some have positions in a few internet production and delivery companies, most are clearly still doing their best to defend & extend the old business – just like newspaper owners did.  Just as newspapers never found a way to replace the print ad dollars, these television companies look very much like businesses that have no apparent solution for future growth.  I would not want my 401K invested in any major network company.

And there will be winners.

For smaller businesses, there has never been a better time to compete.  A company as small as Tesla or Fisker can now create a brand on-line at a fraction of the old cost.  And that brand can be as powerful as Ford, and potentially a lot more trendy. There are very low entry barriers for on-line brand building using not only ad words and web page display ads, but also using social media to build loyal followers who use and promote a brand.  What was once considered a niche can become well known almost overnight simply by applying the new dynamics of reaching customers on-line, and increasingly via mobile.  Look at the success of Toms Shoes.

Zappos and Amazon have shown that with almost no television ads they can create powerhouse retail brands.  The new retailers do not compete just on price, but are able to offer selection, availability and customer service at levels unachievable by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers.  They can suggest products and prices of things you're likely to need, even before you realize you need them.  They can educate better, and faster, than most retail store employees.  And they can offer great prices due to less overhead, along with the convenience of shipping the product right into your home. 

And as people quit watching preprogrammed TV, where will they go for content?  Anybody streaming will have an advantage – so think Netflix (which recently contracted for all the Disney content,) Amazon, Pandora, Spotify and even AOL.  But, this will also benefit those companies providing content access such as Apple TV, Google TV, YouTube (owned by Google) to offer content channels and the increasingly omnipresent Facebook will deliver up not only friends, but content — and ads. 

As for content creation, the deep pockets of traditional TV production companies will likely disappear along with their ability to control distribution.  That means fewer big-budget productions as risk goes up without revenue assurances. 

But that means even more ability for newer, smaller companies to create competitive content seeking audiences.  Where once a very clever, hard working Seth McFarlane (creator of Family Guy) had to hardscrabble with networks to achieve distribution, and live in fear of a single person controlling his destiny, in the future these creative people will be able to own their content and capture the value directly as they build a direct audience.  A phenomenon like George Lucas will be more achievable than ever before as what might look like chaos during transition will migrate to a much more competitive world where audiences, rather than network executives, will decide what content wins – and loses.

So, with due respects to Don McLean, will today be the day TV Died?  We will only know in historical context.  Nobody predicted newspapers had peaked in 2000, but it was clear the internet was changing news consumption behavior.  And we don't know if TV viewership will begin its rapid decline in 2013, or in a couple more years. But the inevitable change is clear – we just don't know exactly when.

So it would be foolish to not think that the industry is going to change dramatically.  And the impact on advertising will be even more profound, much more profound, than it was in print.  And that will have an even more profound impact on American society – and how business is done. 

What are you doing to prepare?

 

 

Are You More Like Rupert Murdoch Than You Think?


Bernie Ebbers (of WorldCom) and Jeff Skilling (of Enron) went to prison.  Less well known is Conrad Black – the CEO of Sun Times Group – who also went to the pokey.  What do they have in common with Rupert Murdoch – besides CEO titles?  The famous claim, “I am not responsible” closely allied with “I’ve done nothing wrong.” While Murdoch hasn’t been charged with crimes, or come close to jail (yet,) there is no doubt people at News Corp have been charged, and some will go to jail.  And there is public outcry Murdoch be fired.

Investors should take note; three bankruptcies killed 2 of the organizations the ex-cons led and investors were wiped out at Sun Times which barely remains in business. What will happen at News Corp? Given the commonalities between the 4 leaders, I don’t think I’d want to be a News Corp. stockholder, employee or supplier right now.

How in the world could something like this happen?

Like the infamous trio, Rupert Murdoch was, and is, a leader who defined the success formula of his company.  As time passed, the growing organization became adroit at implementing the success formula, operating better, faster and cheaper.  Loyal managers, who identified with, and implemented intensely, the success formula were rewarded.  Those who asked questions were let go.  Acquisitions were forced to conform to the success formula (such as MySpace) even if such conformance created a gap between the business and market needs.  Business failure was not nearly as bad as operating outside the success formula. Failure could be forgiven – but better yet was finding a creative way to make things look successful.

Supporting the company’s success formula – its identity, cultural norms and operating methods – using all forms of ingenuity became the definition of success in these companies.  This ingenuity was unbridled, even rewarded! Even when it came to skirting the edge of – or even breaking – the law.  Cleverly using outsiders to do “dirty work” was an ingenious way to create plausible deniability. Financial machinations were not considered a problem if there was any way to explain changes.  Violating accounting conventions not really an issue if done in the pursuit of shoring up reported results.  Moving money wherever necessary to avoid taxes, or fines, and pay off executives or their friends, not really a big deal if it helped the company implement its success formula.  Any behavior that reinforced the success formula, as the leader expressed it, made employees and contractors successful. 

Do the ends justify the means?  Of course! As long as the results appear good, and the leader is taking home a whopping amount of cash, everything appears “A-OK.” 

Is this because these are crooks?  Far from it.  Rather, they are dedicated, hard working, industrious, smart, inventive managers who have been given a clear mission.  To make the success formula work.  Each small step down the ethical gangplank was a very small increment – and everyone believed they operated far from the end.  If they got away with something yesterday, then why not expect to get away with a little more today?  What are ethics anyway?  Relative, changeable, difficult to define.  Whereas fulfilling the success formula creates clear, measurable outcomes!

What is the News Corp’s Board of Directors position?  The New York Times headlined “Murdoch’s Board Stands By as Scandal Widens.”  Mr. Murdoch, like any good leader implementing a success formula,  made sure the Board, as well as the executives and managers, were as dedicated to the success formula as he.  Through that lens there are no difficult questions facing the Board. Everything was done to defend and extend the success formula.  Mr. Murdoch and his team have done nothing wrong – except perhaps a zealous pursuit of implementation.  What’s wrong with that?  Why should the Board object?

Could this happen to you, and your organization?  It may already be happening.

Answer this option, what’s more important to you and your company:

  1. Focusing on and identifying market trends, and adapting your strategy, tactics, products, services and processes to align with emerging future trends, or
  2. Focusing on execution.  Setting goals, holding people to metrics and making sure implementation remains true to the company’s history, strengths and core capabilities, customers and markets? Rewarding those who meet metrics, and firing those who don’t?

If it’s the latter, it’s an easy slide into Murdoch’s very uncomfortable public seat.  Very few will end up with an Enron Sized Disaster, as BNET.com headlined.  But failure is likely.  Any time execution is more important than questioning, implementation is more important than listening and conforming to historical norms is more important than actual business results you are chasing the select group of leaders exemplified today by Mr. Murdoch.

Here are 10 questions to ask if you want to know how at risk you just might be.  If even a couple of these ring “yes,” you could be confidently, but errantly,  thinking everything is OK :

  1. Is loyalty more important than business results?  Do you have people working for you that don’t do that good a job, but do exactly what you want so you keep them?
  2. Do you hold certain aspects of your business as being beyond challenge – such as technology base, meeting key metrics, supporting historical distributors (or customers) or operating according to specified “rules?”
  3. Do you ask employees to operate according to norms before asking if they have a better idea?
  4. Does HR tell employees how to do things rather than asking employees what they need to succeed?
  5. Do employee and manager reviews have a section for asking how well they “fit” into the organization?  Are people pushed out that don’t “fit?”
  6. Are “trusted lieutenants” moved into powerful positions over talented managers just because leaders aren’t comfortable with the newer people? 
  7. Are certain functions (finance, HR, IT) expected (perhaps enforcers?) to make sure everyone operates according to the historical status quo?
  8. Is management meeting time spent predominantly on internal, versus external, issues?  Talking about “how to do it” rather than “what should we do?”
  9. Is your advisory board, or Board of Directors, filled with your friends and co-workers that agree with your success formula and don’t seek change?
  10. Do your customers, employees, or suppliers learn that demonstrating dissatisfaction leads to a bad (or ended) relationship?

 

How Harry Potter predicts Success for AOL


Evolution doesn’t happen like we think.  It’s not slow and gradual (like line A, below.)  Things don’t go from one level of performance slowly to the next level in a nice continuous way.  Rather, evolutionary change happens brutally fast.  Usually the potential for change is building for a long time, but then there is some event – some environmental shift (visually depcted as B, below) – and the old is made obsolete while the new grows aggressively.  Economists call this “punctuated equilibrium.”  Everyone was on an old equilibrium, then they quickly shift to something new establishing a new equilibrium.

Punctuated EquilibriumMomentum has been building for change in publishing for several years.  Books are heavy, a pain to carry and often a pain to buy.  Now eReaders, tablets and web downloads have changed the environment.  And in June  J.K. Rowling, author of those famous Harry Potter books, opened her new web site as the location to exclusively sell Harry Potter e-books (see TheWeek.comHow Pottermore Will Revolutionized Publishing.”) 

Ms. Rowling has realized that the market has shifted, the old equilibrium is gone, and she can be part of the new one.  She’ll let the dinosaur-ish publisher handle physical books, especially since Amazon has already shown us that physical books are a smaller market than ebooks.  Going forward she doesn’t need the publisher, or the bookstore (not even Amazon) to capture the value of her series.  She’s jumping to the new equilibrium.

And that’s why I’m encouraged about AOL these days.  Since acquiring The Huffington Post company, things are changing at AOL.  According to Forbes writer Jeff Bercovici, in “AOL After the Honeymoon,” AOL’s big slide down in users has begun to reverse direction.  Many were surprised to learn, as the FinancialPost.com recently headlined, “Huffington Post Outstrips NYT Web Traffic in May.” Huffpo beats NYT views june 2011
Source: BusinessInsider.com

The old equilibrium in news publishing is obsolete.  Those trying to maintain it keep failing, as recently headlined on PaidContent.orgCiting Weak Economy, Gannett Turns to Job Cuts, Furloughs.” Nobody should own a traditional publisher, that business is not viable.

But Forbes reports that Ms. Huffington has been given real White Space at AOL.  She has permission to do what she needs to do to succeed, unbridled by past AOL business practices.  That has included hiring a stable of the best talent in editing, at high pay packages, during this time when everyone else is cutting jobs and pay for journalists.  This sort of behavior is anethema to the historically metric-driven “AOL Way,” which was very industrial management.  That sort of permission is rarely given to an acquisition, but key to making it an engine for turn-around. 

And HuffPo is being given the resources to implement a new model.  Where HuffPo was something like 70 journalists, AOL is now cranking out content from some 2,000 journalists and editors!  More than The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal.  Ms. Huffington, as the new leader, is less about “managing for results” looking at history, and more about identifying market needs then filling them.  By giving people what they want Huffington Post is accumulating readers – which leads to display ad revenue.  Which, as my last blog reported, is the fastest growing area in on-line advertising

Where the people are, you can find advertsing.  As people are shift away from newspapers, toward the web, advertising dollars are following.  Internet now trails only television for ad dollars – and is likely to be #1 soon:

US Adv rev by market
Chart source: Business Insider

So now we can see a route for AOL to succeed.  As traditional AOL subscribers disappear – which is likely to accelerate – AOL is building out an on-line publishing environment which can generate ad revenue.  And that’s how AOL can survive the market shift.  To use an old marketing term, AOL can “jump the curve” from its declining business to a growing one.

This is by no means a given to succeed.  AOL has to move very quickly to create the new revenues.  Subscribers and traditional AOL ad revenues are falling precipitously.

AOL earnings

Source: Forbes.com

But, HuffPo is the engine that can take AOL from its dying business to a new one.  Just like we want Harry Potter digitally, and are happy to obtain it from Ms. Rowlings directly, we want information digitally – and free – and from someone who can get it to us.  HuffPo is now winning the battle for on-line readers against traditional media companies. And it is expanding, announced just this week on MediaPost.comHuffPo Debuts in the UK.”  Just as the News Corp UK tabloid, News of the World,  dies (The Guardian – “James Murdoch’s News of the World Closure is the Shrewdest of Surrenders.“)

News Corp. once had a shot at jumping the curve with its big investment in MySpace.  But leadership wouldn’t give MySpace permission and resources to do whatever it needed to do to grow.  Instead, by applying “professional management” it limited MySpace’s future and allowed Facebook to end-run it.  Too much energy was spent on maintaining old practices – which led to disaster.  And that’s the risk at AOL – will it really keep giving HuffPo permission to do what it needs to do, and the resources to make it happen?  Will it stick to letting Ms. Huffington build her empire, and focus on the product and its market fit rather than short-term revenues?  If so, this really could be a great story for investors. 

So far, it’s looking very good indeed. 

 

 

 

The End of Management – Wall Street Journal


Summary:

  • The Wall Street Journal is calling for a dramatic shift in how business is managed
  • Most corporations are designed for the industrial age, and thus not well suited for today’s competition
  • Change is happening more quickly, and organizations must become more agile
  • CEOs today are concerned about dealing with rapid, chronic change – and obsolescence
  • Resource deployment, from financial to people, must be tied more closely to market needs and not defending historical strengths

A FANTASTIC article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The End of Management” by Alan Murray, If you have time, I encourage you to click the link and read the entire thing.  Below are some insightful quotes from the article I hope you enjoy as much as I did:

  • Corporations, whose leaders portray themselves as champions of the free
    market, were in fact created to circumvent that market. They were an
    answer to the challenge of organizing thousands of people in different
    places and with different skills to perform large and complex tasks,
    like building automobiles or providing nationwide telephone service.
  • the managed corporation—an answer to the central problem of the industrial age.
  • Corporations are bureaucracies and managers are bureaucrats. Their
    fundamental tendency is toward self-perpetuation… They were designed and tasked, not with
    reinforcing market forces, but with supplanting and even resisting the
    market.
  • it took radio 38 years and television 13 years to reach audiences of 50
    million people, while it took the Internet only four years, the iPod
    three years and Facebook two years to do the same.
  • It’s no surprise that
    fewer than 100 of the companies in the S&P 500 stock index were
    around when that index started in 1957.
  • When I asked members of The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council… to name the most influential business book they had read,
    many cited Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovator’s Dilemma.” That book
    documents how market-leading companies have missed game-changing
    transformations in industry after industry
  • They allocated capital to the innovations that promised the largest
    returns. And in the process, they missed disruptive innovations that
    opened up new customers and markets for lower-margin, blockbuster
    products.
  • the ability of human beings on different continents and with vastly
    different skills and interests to work together and coordinate complex
    tasks has taken quantum leaps. Complicated enterprises, like maintaining
    Wikipedia or building a Linux operating system, now can be accomplished
    with little or no corporate management structure at all.
  • the trends here are big and undeniable. Change is rapidly accelerating.
    Transaction costs are rapidly diminishing. And as a result, everything
    we learned in the last century about managing large corporations is in
    need of a serious rethink. We have both a need [for]… a new science of
    management, that can deal with the breakneck realities of 21st century
    change.
  • The new model will have to be more like the marketplace, and less like
    corporations of the past. It will need to be flexible, agile, able to
    quickly adjust to market developments, and ruthless in reallocating
    resources to new opportunities.
  • big companies… failed, not…
    because they didn’t see the coming innovations, but because they failed
    to adequately invest in those innovations
    . To avoid this problem, the
    people who control large pools of capital need to act more like venture
    capitalists, and less like corporate finance departments… make lots of bets, not just a few big ones, and… be willing
    to cut their losses.
  • have to push power and decision-making down the organization as much as
    possible, rather than leave it concentrated at the top. Traditional
    bureaucratic structures will have to be replaced with something more
    like ad-hoc teams of peers, who come together to tackle individual
    projects, and then disband
  • New mechanisms will have to be created for harnessing the “wisdom of
    crowds.” Feedback loops will need to be built that allow products and
    services to constantly evolve in response to new information. Change,
    innovation, adaptability, all have to become orders of the day.

Well said.  Traditional management best practices were designed for the industrial age.  For bringing people together to efficiently build planes, trains and automobiles.  This is now the information age.  Organizations must be more agile, more flexible, and tightly aligned with market needs – while eschewing focus on “core” capabilities. 

Companies must understand Lock-in, and how to manage it.  Instead of planning for yesterday to continue, we must develop future scenarios and prepare for different likely outcomes.  We have to understand competitors, and how quickly they can move to rob us of sales and profits.  We have to be willing to disrupt our patterns of behavior, and our markets, in order to drive for higher value creation.  And we must understand that constantly creating and implementing White Space teams that are focused on new opportunities is a key to long-term success.

With an endorsement for change from nothing less than the stodgy Wall Street Journal, perhaps more leaders and managers will begin moving forward, implementing The Phoenix Principle, so they can recapture a growth agenda and rebuild profitability.

Cry or Take Action – Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post

Do you lament "the way things used to be?"  I remember my parents using that phrase.  Now I often hear my peers.  And it really worries me.  Success requires constant growth, and when I hear business leaders talking about "the way things used to be" I fear they are unwilling to advance with market shifts.

For 5 years newspaper publishers have been lamenting the good old days, when advertisers had little choice but to pay high rates for display or classified ads.  Newspaper publishers complain that on-line ads are too inexpensive, and thus unable to cover the costs of "legitimate" journalism.  While they've watched revenues decline, almost none have done anything to effectively develop robust on-line businesses that can offer quality journalism for the future.  Instead, most are cutting costs, reducing output and using bankruptcy protection to stay alive (such as Tribune Corporation.)  Even as more and more readers shift toward the digital environment.

Huffington Post site visits 2007-2010
Source:  Business Insider 5/18/10

While most of the "major" newspapers (including Tribune owned LA Times) have been trying to preserve their print business (Defend & Extend it) HuffingtonPost.com has gone out and built a following.  There's little doubt that with the last 3 years trajectory, HuffingtonPost will soon be the largest site.  And reports are that HuffingtonPost.com is profitable.

In 2006 the CFO at LATimes told me he couldn't divert more resources to his web department.  He felt it would be jeopardize to the print business. "After all," he said "you don't think that the future of news will be bloggers do you?"  Clearly, he was unprepared for the kind of model Arianna Huffington was building – and the kind of readership HuffingtonPost.com could create.

On Tuesday I presented the keynote address at the Innovation and Energy Summit in Grand Rapids, MI – and as reported in West Michigan Business "Energy & Innovation Summit Speakers Urge Business Leaders to Seek New Businesses, Not Protect Old Ones."  Defend & Extend management always "feels" right.  It seems like the smart thing to try and preserve the old Success Formula, usually by cutting costs and increasing focus on primary revenue sources.  But in reality, this further blinds the organization to market shifts and makes it more vulnerable to disaster.  While NewsCorp and others are busy trying to think like newspapers, emerging news market competitors are developing entirely different models that attract customers – and make a profit. 

That's why it is so important to use future scenarios to drive planning (not old products and customers) while passionately studying competitors.  Talking to advertisers gave these publishers no insight as to how to compete, however had they spent more time watching HuffingtonPost.com, and other on-line sites, they might well have used Disruptions to change their investment models – pushing more resources to the web business.  And had they set up dedicated White Space teams not constrained by old Lock-ins to traditional revenue models and goals of "avoiding advertiser cannibalization" they might very well have evolved to a more effective Success Formula necessary for competing on the internet into 2020.