by Adam Hartung | Oct 13, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Summary:
- Many large, and leading, companies have not created much shareholder value the last decade
- A surprising number of very large companies have gone bankrupt (GM) or failed (Circuit City)
- Wal-Mart is a company that has generated no shareholder value
- The Wal-Mart disease is focusing on executing the business's long-standing success formula better, faster and cheaper — even though it's not creating any value
- Size alone does not create value, you have to increase the rate of return
- Companies that have increased value, like Apple, have moved beyond execution to creating new success formulas
Have you noticed how many of America's leading companies have done nothing for shareholders lately? Or for that matter, a lot longer than just lately. Of course General Motors wiped out its shareholders. As did Chrysler and Circuit City. The DJIA and S&P both struggle to return to levels of the past decade, as many of the largest companies seem unable to generate investor value.
Take for example Wal-Mart. As this chart from InvestorGuide.com clearly shows, after generating very nice returns practically from inception through the 1990s, investors have gotten nothing for holding Wal-Mart shares since 2000.
Far too many CEOs today suffer from what I call "the Wal-Mart Disease." It's an obsession with sticking to the core business, and doing everything possible to defend & extend it — even when rates of return are unacceptable and there is a constant struggle to improve valuation.
Fortune magazine's recent puff article about Mike Duke, "Meet the CEO of the Biggest Company on Earth" gives clear insight to the symptoms of this disease. Throughout the article, Mr. Duke demonstrates a penchant for obsessing about the smallest details related to the nearly 4 decade old Wal-Mart success formula. While going bananas over the price of bananas, he involves himself intimately in the underwear inventory, and goes cuckoo over Cocoa Puffs displays. No detail is too small for the attention of the CEO trying to make sure he runs the tightest ship in retailing. With frequent references to what Wal-Mart does best, from the top down Wal-Mart is focused on execution. Doing more of what it's always done – hopefully a little better, faster and cheaper.
But long forgotten is that all this attention to detail isn't moving the needle for investors. For all its size, and cheap products, the only people benefiting from Wal-Mart are consumers who save a few cents on everything from jeans to jewelry.
The Wal-Mart Disease is becoming so obsessive about execution, so focused on doing more of the same, that you forget your prime objective is to grow the investment. Not just execute. Not just expand with more of the same by constantly trying to enter new markets – such as Europe or China or Brazil. You have to improve the rate of return. The Disease keeps management so focused on trying to work harder, to somehow squeeze more out of the old success formula, to find new places to implement the old success formula, that they ignore environmental changes which make it impossible, despite size, for the company to ever again grow both revenues and rates of return.
Today competitors are chipping away at Wal-Mart on multiple fronts. Some retailers offer the same merchandise but in a better environment, such as Target. Some offer a greater selection of targeted goods, at a wider price range, such as Kohl's or Penney's. Some offer better quality goods as well as selection, such as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. And some offer an entirely different way to shop, such as Amazon.com. These competitors are all growing, and earning more, and in several cases doing more for their investors because they are creating new markets, with new ways to compete, that have both growth and better returns.
It's not enough for Wal-Mart to just be cheap. That was a keen idea 40 years ago, and it served the company well for 20+ years. But competitors constantly work to change the marketplace. And as they learn how to copy what Wal-Mart did, they can get to 90%+ of the Wal-Mart goal. Then, they start offering other, distinctive advantages. In doing so, they make it harder and harder for Wal-Mart to be successful by simply doing more of the same, only better, faster and cheaper.
Ten years ago if you'd predicted bankruptcy for GM or Chrysler or Circuit City you'd have been laughed at. Circuit City was a darling of the infamous best seller "Good To Great." Likewise laughter would have been the most likely outcome had you predicted the demise of Sun Microsystems – which was an internet leader worth over $200B at century's turn. So it's easy to scoff at the notion that Wal-Mart may never hit $500B revenue. Or it may do so, but at considerable cost that continues to hurt rates of return, keeping the share price mired – or even declining. And it would be impossible to think that Wal-Mart could ever fail, like Woolworth's did. Or that it even might see itself shredded by competitors into an also-ran position, like once powerful, DJIA member Sears.
The Disease is keeping Wal-Mart from doing what it must do if it really wants to succeed. It has to change. Wal-Mart leadership has to realize that what made Wal-Mart once great isn't going to make it great in 2020. Instead of obsessing about execution, Wal-Mart has to become a lot better at competing in new markets. And that means competing in new ways. Mostly, fundamentally different ways. If it can't do that, Wal-Mart's value will keep moving sideways until something unexpected happens – maybe it's related to employee costs, or changes in import laws, or successful lawsuits, or continued growth in internet retailing that sucks away more volume year after year – and the success formula collapses. Like at GM.
Comparatively, if Apple had remained the Mac company it would have failed. If Google were just a search engine company it would be called Alta Vista, or AskJeeves. If Google were just an ad placement company it would be Yahoo! If Nike had remained obsessed with being the world's best athletic shoe company it would be Adidas, or Converse.
Businesses exist to create shareholder value – and today more than ever that means getting into markets with profitable growth. Not merely obsessing about defending & extending what once made you great. The Wal-Mart Disease can become painfully fatal.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 7, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Steve Ballmer received only half his maximum bonus for last year
- But Microsoft has failed at almost every new product initiative the last several years
- Microsoft's R&D costs are wildly out of control, and yielding little new revenue
- Microsoft is lagging in all new growth markets – without competitive products
- Microsoft's efforts at developing new markets have created enormous losses
- Cloud computing could obsolete Microsoft's "core" products
- Why didn't the Board fire Mr. Ballmer?
Reports are out, including at AppleInsider.com that "Failures in Mobile Space Cost Steve Ballmer Half his Bonus." Apparently the Board has been disappointed that under Mr. Ballmer's leadership Microsoft has missed the move to high growth markets for smartphones and tablets. Product failures, like Kin, have not made them too happy. But the more critical question is — why didn't the Board fire Mr. Ballmer?
A decade ago Microsoft was the undisputed king of personal software. Its near monopoly on operating systems and office automation software assured it a high cash flow. But over the last 10 years, Microsoft has done nothing for its shareholders or customers. The XBox has been a yawn, far from breaking even on the massive investments. All computer users have received for massive R&D investments are Vista, Windows 7 and Office 2007 followed by Office 2010 — the definition of technology "yawners." None of the new products have created new demand for Microsoft, brought in any new customers or expanded revenue. Meanwhile, the 45% market share Microsoft had in smartphones has shrunk to single digits, at best, as Apple and Google are cleaning up the marketplace. Early editions of tablets were dropped, and developers such as HP have abandoned Microsoft projects.
Yet, other tech companies have done quite well. Even though Apple was 45 days from bankruptcy in 2000, and Google was a fledgling young company, both Apple and Google have launched new products in smartphones, mobile computing and entertainment. And Apple has sold over 4 million tablets already in 2010 – while investors and customers wait for Microsoft to maybe get one to market in 2011.
Despite its market domination, Microsoft's revenues have gone nowhere. And are projected to continue going relatively nowhere. While Apple has developed new growth markets, Microsoft has invested in defending its historical revenue base.
Source: SeekingAlpha.com
Yet, Microsoft spent 8 times as much on R&D in 2009 to accomplish this much lower revenue growth. At a recent conference Mr. Ballmer admitted he thought as much as 200 man years of effort was wasted on Vista development in recent years. That Microsoft has hit declining rates of return on its investment in "defending the base" is quite obvious. Equally obvious is its clear willingness to throw money at projects even though it has no skill for understanding market needs sin order for development to yield anything commercially successful!
Source: Business Insider.com
And investments in opportunities outside the "core" business have not only failed to produce significant revenue, they've created vast losses. Such as the horrible costs incurred in on-line markets. Trying to launch Bing and compete with Google in ad sales far too late and with weak products has literally created losses that exceed revenues!
Source: BusinessInsider.com
And the result has been a disaster for Microsoft shareholders – literally no gain the last several years. This has allowed Apple to create a market value that actually exceeds Microsoft's. An idea that seemed impossible during most of the decade!
Source: BusinessInsider.com
Under Mr. Ballmer's leadership Microsoft has done nothing more than protect market share in its original business – and at a huge cost that has not benefited shareholders with dividends or growth. No profitable expansion into new businesses, despite several newly emerging markets. And now late in practically every category. Costs for business development that are wildly out of control, despite producing little incremental revenue. And sitting on a business in operating systems and office software that is coming under more critical attack daily by the shift toward cloud computing. A shift that could make its "core" products entirely obsolete before 2020.
Given this performance, giving Mr. Ballmer his "target" bonus for last year seems ridiculous – even if half the maximum. The proper question should be why does he still have his job? And if you still own Microsoft stock — why as well?
by Adam Hartung | Oct 5, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Research in Motion has launched a tablet, competing with the iPad
- But the Playbook does not have the app base that iPad has developed
- RIM's focus on its "core" IT customer, without spending enough energy focusing on Apple and other competitors, it missed the shift in mobile device user needs
- Now companies, like Abbott, are starting to roll out iPads to field personnel
- RIM's future is in jeopardy as the market shifts away from its products
- You cannot expect your customer to tell you how to develop your product, you have to watch competitors and move quickly to address emerging market needs
Research in Motion has launched a new tablet called Playbook to compete with the Apple iPad. But will it succeed? According to SeekingAlpha.com "Playbook Fails to Boost Research in Motion Price Targets." Most analysts do not think the Playbook has much chance of pushing up the market cap at RIM – and except for home town Canadian analysts the overall expectation for RIM is grim. I certainly agree with the emerging consensus that RIM's future is looking bleak.
Research in Motion was the company that first introduced most of us to smartphones. The Blackberry, often provided by the employer, was the first mobile product that allowed people do email, look at attachments and eventually text – all without a PC. Most executives and field-oriented employees loved them, and over a few years Blackberries became completely common. It looked like RIM had pioneered a new market it would dominate, with its servers squarely ensconced in IT departments and corporate users without option as to what smartphone they would use.
But Apple performed an end-run, getting CEOs to use the iPhone. People increasingly found they needed a personal mobile phone as well as the corporate phone – because they did not want to use the Blackberry for personal use. But they didn't pick Blackberries. Instead they started buying the more stylish, easier to use and loaded with apps iPhone. Apple didn't court the "enterprise" customer – so they weren't even on the radar screen at RIM. But sales were exploding.
Like most companies that focus on their core customers, RIM didn't see the market shift coming. RIM kept talking to the IT department. Much like IBM did in the 1980s when it dropped PCs in favor of supporting mainframes – because their core data center customers said the PC had no future. RIM was carefully listening to its customer – but missing an enormous market shift toward usability and apps. RIM expected its customers to tell them what would be needed in the future – but instead it was the competition that was showing the way.
Now RIM is far, far behind. Where Apple has 300,000 apps, and Android has over 120,000, RIM doesn't even have 10,000. RIM's problem isn't a device issue. RIM has missed the shift to mobile computing and missed understanding the unmet user needs. According to Crain's Chicago Business "Chicago CEOs embrace the iPad." Several critical users – and CEOs are always critical – have already committed to using the iPad and enjoying their news subscriptions and other applications. According to the article, Abbott, which has provided Blackberries to thousands of employees, is now beginning to roll out iPads to field personnel. RIM's Playbook may be a fine piece of hardware, but it offers far too little in the direction of helping people discard PCs as they migrate to cloud architectures and much smaller, easier to use devices such as tablets.
RIM followed the ballyhooed advice of listening to its core customer. But such behavior caused it to miss the shift in its own marketplace toward greater extended use of mobile devices. RIM should have paid more attention to what competitors Apple and Android were doing – and started building out its app environment years ago. RIM should have been first with a tablet – not late. And RIM should have led the movement toward digital publishing – rather than letting Amazon take the lead (Kindle) with Apple close behind. Creating valuable mobility is what the leading company with "motion" in its name should have done. Instead of merely providing the answers to requests from core IT department customers. Now RIM has no chance of catching up with competitors.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 1, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- HP and Nokia have lost the ability to grow organically
- Both need CEOs that can attack old decision-making processes to overcome barriers and move innovation to market much more quickly
- Unfortunately, both companies hired new CEOs who are very weak in these skills
- HP’s new CEO is from SAP – which has been horrible at new product development and introduction
- Nokia’s new CEO is from Microsoft – another failure at developing new markets
- It is unlikely these CEO hires will bring to these companies what is most needed
Leo Apotheker is taking over as CEO of Hewlett Packard today. Formerly he ran SAP. According to MarketWatch.com “HP’s New CEO Has a Lot To Prove,” and investors were less than overwhelmed by the selection, “HP Shares Slip After CEO Appointment.” Rightly so. What was the last exciting new product you can remember from SAP, where Apotheker led the company from 2008 until recently? Well?
SAP is going nowhere good. Its best years are way behind it as the company focuses on defending its installed base and adding new bits to existing products It’s product is amazingly expensive, incredibly hard and expensive to install, and primarily keeps companies from doing anything new. Enterprise software packages are like cement, once you pour them in place nothing can change. They reinforce making the same decision over and over. But increasingly, that kind of management practice is failing. In a fast-changing world software that can take 4 years to install and limits decision-making options doesn’t add to desperately needed organizational agility. And during the last 10 years SAP has done nothing to make its products better linked to the needs of today’s markets.
So why would anyone be excited to see such a leader take over their company? If Apotheker leads HP the way he led SAP investors will see growth decline – not grow. What does this new CEO know about listening carefully to emerging market needs? The move to install SAP in smaller companies hasn’t moved the needle, as SAP remains almost wholly software for stodgy, low-growth, struggly behemoths. What does this CEO know about creating an organization that can moving quickly, create new products and identify market needs to position HP for growth? His experience doesn’t look anything like Steve Jobs, under who’s leadership Apple’s value has increased multi-fold the last decade.
Unfortunately, the same refrain applies at Nokia. Just last week I pointed out in “Another One Bites the Dust” that Nokia was at grave risk of following Blockbuster into bankruptcy court. Although Nokia has 40% worldwide market share in mobile phones, U.S. share has slipped to about 8% this year. In smartphones Nokia has nowhere near the margin of Apple, even though both will sell about the same number of units this year. Nokia once had the lead, but now it is far behind in a market where it has the largest overall share. And that was the problem which befell Motorola – #1 for 3 years early in this decade but now far, far behind competitors in all segments and a very likely candidate for bankruptcy when it spins out a seperate cell phone business.
According to the New York Times in “Nokia’s New Chief Faces a Culture of Complacency” Nokia had a very similar product to the iPhone in 2004 but never took it to market. The internal organization made the new advancement go through several rounds of “review” and the hierarachy simply shot it down in an effort to maintain company focus on the popular, traditional cell phones then being offered. Rather than risk cannibalization, the organization focused on doing more of what it had done well. Eschewing innovation for defending the old products is shown again and again the first step toward disaster. (Would your organization use layers of reviews to kill a new idea in a new market?)
Meanwhile, when an internal Nokia team tried to get approval to launch the smart phones management’s responses sounded like:
- We don’t know much about this technology. The old stuff we do.
- We don’t know how big this new market might be. The old one we do
- We can’t tell if this new product will succeed. Enhanced versions of old products we can predict very accurately.
- We might be too early to market. We know how to sell in the existing market.
Even though Nokia had quite a lead in touch screens, downloadable apps, a good smartphone operating system and even 3-D interfaces, the desire to Defend & Extend the old “core” business overwhelmed any effort to move innovation to market. (By the way, do these comments in any way sound like your company?)
The new CEO, Mr. Elop, is from Microsoft. Again, one of the weakest tech companies out there at launching new products. Microsoft had the smart phone O/S lead just 3 years ago, but lost it to maintain investment in its traditional Windows PC O/S and Office automation software. And again you can ask, exactly how excited have people been with Microsoft’s new products over the last decade? Or you might ask, exactly what new products?
Both HP and Nokia need CEOs ready to attack lock-in to old technologies, old business practices, old hierarchies and old metrics. They need to rejuvenate the companies’ ability to quickly get new products to market, learn and improve. They need experience at early market sensing of unmet needs, and using White Space teams to get products out the door and competitive fast. Both need to overcome traditional management approaches that inhibit growth and move fast to be first into new markets with new products – like Apple and Google.
But in both cases, it appears highly unlikely the Board has hired for what the companies need. Instead, they’ve hired for a stodgy resume. Executive who came from companies that are already in bad positions with limited growth prospects. Exactly NOT what the companies need. We can only hope that somehow both CEOs overcome their historical approaches and rapidly attack existing locked-in decision-making. Otherwise, this will be seen as when investors should have sold their stock and employees should have begun putting resumes on the street!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 30, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Lifecycle
Summary:
- Outsourcing has been very popular
- Outsourcing removes management options
- Outsourcing creates Lock-in, and makes it harder to deal with market shifts
- Most organizations see long-term performance deteriorate as a result of outsourcing
Outsourcing has been extremely popular – ever since the early 1990s. We know it has led to a lot of jobs moving out of the USA. Outsourcing manufacturing has exploded employment in China and other parts of Asia. Outsourcing information technology has exploded employment in India and parts of Eastern Europe.
Economists tell us that outsourcing has driven down the cost of everything from the clothes and household items we buy at WalMart to the cost of social marketing, ad creation and even telephone services.
But has it helped businesses be more successful? As outsourcing popularity reaches 2 decades – both domestic and offshore – we now have a lot more insight. And what we can see is that almost all outsourcing has been bad for the company that uses it! As things change, outsourcing has left them stuck competing the old way and further removed from market needs.
As my Sept. 29 column in CIOMagazine “Outourcing for the Right Reasons” (also published in ComputerWorld online under the same title) points out, the vast majority of outsourcing was done for the wrong reason. And the result has been deteriorating performance for those who outsourced.
Most companies outsourced to cut cost. The problem is, this has led to even worse lock-in than normal. Where organizations had options when they controlled the function – from manufacturing to janitorial serivces to help desks to datacenters – there were options to make changes. But when something is outsourced the contract takes away most options. The die is cast, usually for years into the future —- regardless of what might happen in the world!
Outsourcing can be used to create flexibility. But, honestly, how often have you seen it used that way? In well over 90% of cases the outsourcing is intended to cut cost – and lock-in operations. It is meant to remove options from the management discussion. Once outsourced, there is no consideration as to undertaking those efforts again. And if the outsourcing is done when business results are poor, the intent is to never revisit doing those things again. Under the banner of “outsource everything that’s not core” the management team is left with nothing to manage – except “core”!!! But if core has limited value, how do you now create a healthy business? How do you move to meet shifting needs?
Outsourcing has been a tidal wave for 15 years. Things might be cheaper, but has it made business performance better? Take a hard look at your company – and you may well realize it hasn’t helped you be a better competitor. When you outsource, how often are competitors able to equally outsource and match your short-term cost reductions? Things might be a penny cheaper, but the business is likely much less flexible, more vulnerable to market shifts, and far more locked-in to doing what it always did!
If you are seriously considering outsourcing, ask some simple questions:
- Am I doing this because I want to simplify my life, or offer the market something new?
- Am I doing this so I can “focus” on my “core” business?
- How will this advantage me versus competitors? Would emerging competitors do this?
- Can competitors do what I’m doing? Can this lead to a price war?
- How will this make me more competitive in 10 years?
- How will this make me more connected to markets?
- How will this make me more flexible to deal with shifting markets, and how will I exploit this flexibility?
- Am I doing this because I’m desperate to cut costs?
- What could I be doing instead of outsourcing to be more competitive?
by Adam Hartung | Sep 29, 2010 | Current Affairs, General, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech, Weblogs
Summary:
- Traditional news formats – such as magazines and newspapers – are faltering
- On-line editions of traditional formats are not faring well
- Important journalists are transitioning to blogger roles to better provide news consumers what they want
- Important journalists from Newsweek and the New York Times have joined HuffingtonPost.com as bloggers
- Forbes.com is transitioning from traditional publishing to bloggers in its effort to meet market needs
- The new era of journalism will be nothing like the last
In early 2006, before it completed the leveraged buyout (LBO) that added piles of debt onto Tribune Corporation I was talking with several former Chicago Tribune executives who had been placed in senior positions at the acquired Los Angeles Times. Their challenge was figuring out how they would ever improve cash flow enough to justify the huge premium paid for the newspaper. Unfortunately, 90% or more of their energy was focused on cost cutting and outsourcing, with almost none looking at revenue generation.
In the face of a declining subscriber base, intense competitiion from smaller, targeted newspapers in the area, and a lousy ad market I asked both the publisher and the General Manager what they were going to do to drive revenue growth. They, quite literally, had no ideas. There was a fledgling effort, dramatically underfunded for the scale of the country’s largest local newspaper, to post part of the LATimes content on-line. But the entire team was only 30 people, they were restricted to re-treading newspaper content, and mostly they focused on local sports reports (pages which drew the largest number of hits). About a third of the staff were technical folks (IT), and half were sales – leaving very few bodies (or brains) to put energy into making a really world-class news environment worthy of the LATimes.com name. The group head was trying to find internet ad buyers who would pay a premium to be on a well-named but woefully content-weak web-site.
Lacking any plans to drive growth, in old or new markets, it was no surprise that lay-offs and draconian cost cutting continued. Several floors in the famous newspaper building right in downtown Los Angeles, like the Tribune Tower in Chicago, became empty. By 2008 as much of the building was used as a movie set as used by editors or reporters! Eventually Tribune Corp. filed bankruptcy – where it has remained going on 3 years now.
When asked if the newspaper would consider adding bloggers to the on-line journal, the entire management team was horrified. “Bloggers are not journalists,” was the first concern, “so quality would be unacceptable. You cannot expect a major journalistic enterprise to consider blogging to have any correlation with professional journalism.” I asked what they thought about the then-fledgling HuffingtonPost.com, to which they retorted “that is not a legitimate news company. The product is not comparable to our newspaper. It has nothing to do with the business we’re in.” And with that simple attack, the executives promptly dismissed the fledgling, fringe competition.
How things have changed in news publishing. Four years later newspapers are dramatically smaller, in both ad dollars and staff. Many major journals – magazines as well as newspapers – have discontinued print editions as subscriptions have declined. Print formats (physical size) are substantially smaller. While millions of internet news sites attract readers hourly, print readership has only gone down. Major journals, unable to maintain their cash flow, have been acquired at low prices by newcomers hopeful of developing a new business model, and many well known and formerly influential news journalists have been laid off, or moved to on-line environments in order to maintain employment.
About a week ago the Wall Street Journal reported “Newsweek’s Howard Fineman to Join Huffington Post.” This week Mediapost.com headlined “The HuffPo’s Hiring of NYT’s Peter Goodman Is More Significant Than You Think.” Rather rapidly, in just a few years, HuffingtonPost.com has become a major force in the news industry. Well known journalists from Newsweek and the New York Times add considerable credibility to a new media which traditional publishers far too often ignored. Much to the chagrin, to be sure, of Sam Zell and the leadership at Tribune Corporation.
Today people want not only sterile reporting, but some insight. “What does this mean? Why do you think this happened? Is this event important, or not, longer term? What am I supposed to do with this information?” People want some analysis, as well as news. And readers want the input NOW – immediately – not at some later time that meets an arbitrary news cycle. Increasingly news consumers want Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olberman (depending upon your point of view) rather than Walter Cronkite – and they’d like that input as soon as possible.
Bloggers provide this insight. They provide not only information, but make some sense of it. They utlize past experience and insight to bring together relevant, if disparate, facts coupled with some ideas as to what it means. Where 4 year ago publishers scoffed at HuffingtonPost.com, nobody is scoffing any longer.
And it’s with great pleasure, and a pretty hefty dose of humility, that I’ve become a blogger at Forbes.com (http://blogs.forbes.com/adamhartung/). Hand it to the publisher and editors at Forbes that they are moving Forbes.com from an on-line magazine to a bi-directional, real-time site for information and insight to the world of business and economic news. Writers aren’t limited to a set schedule, a set word length or even set topics. Readers will now be able to visit Forbes.com 24×7 and acquire up-to-the-minute news and insight on relevant topics.
Forbes.com is transitioning to be much more like HuffingtonPost.com – a change that aligns with the market shift. For readers, employees and advertisers this is a very, very good thing. Because nobody wants the end of journalism – just a transition to the market needs of 2010. I look forward to joining you at Forbes.com blogs, and hearing your comments to my take on business and economic news.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 26, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Apple is worth more than Microsoft today, even though Microsoft is larger, because it has better growth prospects
- Apple is closing in on the most valuable company in the world – Exxon
- Exxon’s value is stalled because it has no growth markets
- Exxon once developed, then abandoned, a growth business called Exxon Office Systems
- Apple’s value may eclipse Exxon, which has almost 8 times the revenue, because its growth prospects are so bright
- Profitable growth is worth more than monopolistic market share – or even huge revenue
We all know that over the last 10 years Apple has moved from the brink of bankruptcy to great success. Apple has been able to dramatically increase its revenues, growing at double-digit rates for several years. And Apple now competes in markets like mobile computing and entertainment where its hardware and software products are demonstrating a leading position as users migrate toward different platforms (iPods and downloadable music or video, iPads and downloadable video or text, iPhones and downloadable apps of all sorts).
Because of this profitable growth, Apple’s market value now exceeds Microsoft’s. An accomplishment nobody predicted a decade ago.
As this chart from Silicon Alley Insider shows, Apple’s profitable revenue growth has allowed its value to soar. Even though Microsoft is larger, and dominates its market of PC operating systems and office automation software, its value has stalled due to lack of growth. Because Apple is in very large, emerging markets with successful products it is generating a very high valuation.
In fact, Apple’s market cap is closing in on the most valuable company in the world – Exxon:
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
Exxon and Apple have nothing in common. Exxon is a petroleum company. It’s growth almost all from acquisition. You could say it’s nonsensical to compare the two.
But for those of us with long memories, we can remember in the early 1980s when Exxon opened Exxon Office Systems. As the price of crude oil, and its refined products, hit record highs Exxon made record profits. Leadership invested a few billion dollars into creating a new business intended to compete with IBM and Xerox – leading office equipment companies of the time. But, when the price of crude oil fell Exxon abandoned this venture – by then already achieving more than $1B/year in revenue. All the suppliers and customers were left in the lurch, and the employees were left looking for new jobs. Within weeks Exxon Office Products disappeared.
Exxon abandoned its opportunity for growth into new markets in order to “focus” on its “core” business of oil exploration and production, oil refining, and marketing of petroleum products. As a result, Exxon – augmented via its many acquisitions across the years – is now the world’s largest “oil” company as well as the world’s highest market capitalization company. But it has no growth. And thus, its value is totally dependent upon the price of oil – a commodity. Over the last 2 years this has caused Exxon’s value to decline.
At $43B in 2009, Apple has nowhere near the revenue of Exxon’s $310B. But what Apple has is new markets, and growth. Someday we’ll run out of oil (long time yet, to be sure). What will Exxon do then? But in the case of Apple we already know there will be future revenues from all the new products for a long time after the Mac has run its course and disappeared from backpacks. It’s that willingness to seek out new markets, to develop new products for emerging markets and constantly push for new, profitable revenues that makes Apple worth so much.
Could Apple become the world’s most valuable company? Possibly. If so, it won’t be from industry domination. That sort of monopolistic thinking drove the industrial era, and companies like AT&T as well as Exxon — and Microsoft. What’s worth more today than monopolism is entering new markets and generating profitable growth. It’s what once made the original Standard Oil worth so much, and it initially made Microsoft worth more than any other tech company. Too many of us forget that profitable growth, more than anything else, generates huge value and wealth. And that’s true in spades in 2010!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 23, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness, Travel
Summary:
- Most people misunderstand the way toward building a valuable company
- Richard Branson has developed massive wealth by finding and entering growth markets
- Success comes from developing new solutions that fulfill unmet needs – not maximizing performance of core capabilities
- Virgin is now moving into luxury hotels, a market being ignored by most investors, with new products that fit still unmet needs
Very few people are as wealthy as Richard Branson. But few people can manage like he does.
Branson started out selling records via mail-order in Britain. Over the years he got into retailing, international airlines, domestic airlines, mobile telephony, international lending (amongst other businesses) – and now his company is investing $500milion in hotels and hotel management. According to Bloomberg.com “Branson’s Virgin Group to Invest $500million in Hotels.”
Despite all we hear about how impossible it is to be an entrepreneur in Europe, Sir Branson has done quite well, building a wildly successful, profitable company. Although he didn’t follow conventional wisdom. Instead of “sticking to his core” Sir Branson has built a company that invests in opportunities which are highly profitable – regardless of the industry or market. He doesn’t grow by doing more of the same better, faster or cheaper. Instead, he takes advantage of shifting markets – getting into businesses with opportunities and exiting those that don’t earn high rates of return.
During last decade’s building boom there were a lot of high-end hotels built. Now, with the economy not growing, excess capacity has made it difficult for these to cover the mortgage. Bankers don’t want to refinance – they want out of the buildings. Occupancy has been so low that many traditional name brands, such as Ritz Carlton or Intercontinental, have been forced to abandon properties. As a result, several hotels have closed, and the property offered for sale at a fraction of original construction cost. With most investors shying away from all things real estate, prices have plummeted. Some hotels, nearly new, have sold for the value of underlying land.
And now Virgin enters the market. Although Virgin has no background in real estate or hotel management, it is clear that there is demand for luxury goods and luxury travel — if someone can make it attractive and affordable. By purchasing premier properties at a fraction (literally 10-25% of their initial cost) Virgin will be able to offer hotel guests a superior experience at an attractive price! Management sees an unmet need by high-income, well educated “creative class” customers. By getting into the market Virgin will learn, just as it did in airlines, how to meet customer expectations in a way that allows for highly profitable delivery when meeting a currently unmet need.
While some would say that if the current competitors, steeped in experience and tradition, can’t succeed Virgin should not think it can. But a Virgin executive rightly says “If you look at Virgin’s history, we have come into markets with big powerful players, where customers are generally satisfied but not in love, and we have been able to cut through that.” Well said. Virgin doesn’t do what competitors do – it develops a solution that locks competitors into their position while positioning Virgin to meet the untapped market.
Even though this opportunity is available to everyone, almost no companies are interested in buying these undervalued hotels. “It’s not our business.” “We don’t know how to operate hotels.” “We don’t invest in real estate.” “I’m too busy taking care of my current business to consider something new.” “What if we’re wrong?” These are all things people say to stop themselves from taking action to enter new opportunities with high rates of return. The magic of Virgin is its willingness to overcome Lock-in to its existing business, look for market opportunities, and then (as Nike advertises) Do It!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 22, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Film, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Music, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Video retailer Blockbuster (and competitor Hollywood Video) are now bankrupt
- Video rentals/sales are at an all time high – but via digital downloads not DVDs
- Nokia, once the cell phone industry leader, is in deep trouble and risk of failure
- Yet mobile use (calls, texts, internet access, email) is at an all time high
- These companies are victims of locking-in to old business models, and missing a market shift
- Commitment to defending your old business can cause failure, even when participating in high growth markets, if you don’t anticipate, embrace and participate in market shifts
- Lock-in is deadly. It can cause you to ignore a market shift.
According to YahooNews, “Blockbuster Video to File Chapter 11.” In February, Movie Gallery – the owner of primary in-kind competitor Hollywood Video – filed for bankruptcy. It’s now decided to liquidate.
The cause is market shift. Netflix made it possible to rent DVDs without the cost of a store – as has the kiosk competitor Red Box. But everyone knows that is just a stopgap, because Netflix and Hulu are leading us all toward a future where there is no physical product at all. We’ll download the things we want to watch. The market is shifting from physical items – video cassettes then DVDs – to downloads. And both Blockbuster and Hollywood Video missed the shift.
Blockbuster (or Hollywood) could have gotten into on-line renting, or kiosks, like its competition. It even could have used profits to be an early developer of downloadable movies. Nothing stopped Blockbuster from investing in YouTube. Except it’s commitment to its Success Formula – as a brick-and-mortar retailer that rented or sold physically reproduced entertainment. Lock-in. And for that commitment to its historical Success Formula the investors now will get a great big goose egg – and employees will get to be laid off – and the thousands of landlords will be left in the lurch, unprepared.
As predictable as Blockbuster was, we can be equally sure about the future of former powerhouse Nokia. Details are provided in the BusinessWeek.com article “How Nokia Fell from Grace.” As the cell phone business exploded in the 1990s Nokia was a big winner. Revenues grew fivefold between 1996 and 2001 as people around the globe gobbled up the new devices. Another example of the fact that when you enter a high growth market you don’t have to be good – just in the right market at the right time.
But the cell phone business has become the mobile device business. And Nokia didn’t anticipate, prepare for or participate in the market shift. From market dominance, it has become an also-ran. The article author blames the failure, and decline, on complacent management. Weak explanation. You can be sure the leadership and management at Nokia was doing all it possibly could to Defend & Extend its cell phone business. The problem is that D&E management doesn’t work when customers simply walk away to a new technology. It may take a few years, and government subsidies may extend Nokia’s life even longer, but Nokia has about as much chance of surviving its market shift as Blockbuster did.
When companies stumble management sees the problems. They know results are faltering. But for decades management has been trained to think that the proper response is to “knuckle down, cut costs, defend the current business at all cost.” Yet, there are more movies rented now than ever – and Blockbuster is failing despite enormous market growth. There are more mobile telephony minutes, text messages, remote emails and mobile internet searches than ever in history – yet Nokia is doing remarkably poorly. It’s not a market problem, it’s a problem of Lock-in to a solution that is now outdated. When the old supplier didn’t give the market what it wanted, the customers went elsewhere. And unwillingness to go with them has left these companies in tatters.
These markets are growing, yet the purveyors of old solutions are failing primarily because they stuck to defending their old business too long. They did not embrace the market shift, and cannibalize historical product sales to enter the new, higher growth markets. Because they chose to protect their “core,” they failed. New victims of Lock-in.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 19, 2010 | In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness
Summary:
- Richard Branson has built a wildly successful Virgin company on very unconventional “secrets to success”
- Most business leaders follow management theory than is built on myth
- Virgin has been wildly successful, even over the last decade when many companies have suffered, by being agile and market oriented
- It’s time to throw out traditional management, and its myths, for a different approach.
In my speaking and blogging I regularly comment on what great results have been achieved Virgin under Chairman/CEO Richard Branson. The founder, and the company, both started quite humbly. Even though nobody can easily define exactly what business Virgin is in, it has done very well. So I was pleased to read at BNet.com “Richard Branson: Five Secrets to Business Success“:
- Enjoy what you are doing. Really.
- Create something that stands out
- Create something of which you and your employees are proud
- Be a good leader – which he defines as listen a lot, ask questions, heap the praise. Don’t fire people, help them to be happy
- Be visible. Get out into the market and listen, listen, listen.
I am struck at how this is nothing like the recommendations in most management books. Let’s see what Richard Branson didn’t say:
- Sacrifice. Work hard. Be diligent. Be tough. Cut out anything unnecessary
- Find one thing to be good at and excel – search for excellence
- Know your core competency, and maximize it’s use. Avoid things that aren’t “core”
- Make sure everyone is “on the bus” doing the one thing you want to do. Get rid of anyone else
- EXECUTE! Optimize your business model. Focus on execution
- Cut costs. Run a tight ship. Tighten your belt.
- Focus on results. Run the business by the numbers
- Focus on quality – implement Six Sigma and/or TQM and/or LEAN processes
- Outsource anything you don’t absolutely have to do
- Hire the “right” leaders (or employees)
Business if full of myth. And we now know that many gurus have been recommending actions for years that simply haven’t produce long-term positive results. The companies considered “great” by Jim Collins have fared far more poorly than average. Most of the companies Tom Peters considered “excellent” have not made it to 2010 in good shape – if they even survived! Most of the 10 myths were things that simply sounded good. They appeal to the American way of training. But they haven’t helped those companies which applied these ideas succeed.
Sir Richard Branson has created businesses from selling recordings to bridal shops, international banking, traditional airlines and even a business flying people into outer space. By all the traditional recommendations, he and his company should have failed. It followed none of the recommendations for hiring, firing, focus or execution. Yet he has created billions in personal fortune, billions for investors and given thousand of people very rewarding places to work. By all counts, he and Virgin have been a success.
It’s time to give up our management myths, and learn to compete in today’s rapidly shifting market. It’s now more about listening to the market and managing an agile organization than “focusing on core” or “execution.”
