by Adam Hartung | Mar 24, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Weblogs
"Senator proposes nonprofit status for newspapers" was the headline at Marketwatch.com today. Senator Benjami Cardin, a democrate from Maryland, has proposed allowing newspapers to convert to 501(c)(3) status so their subscription and advertising revenue woujld be tax exempt, while contributions to run the papers would be tax deductible. This would allow some newspapers to stay afloat.
Let me share with you a response I received from a fellow reader of this blog:
"I watched Chris Mathews and had the same feeling. As they spoke I had visions of chiefs of Bethlehem, U.S. Steel, etc. sitting around a table in the 60s going 'continuous casting, those Japanese, that's not going anywhere.'
How can they say investigative reporting is going to be dead – there are a million reporters out there working for passion and curiosity. As a matter of fact, if I was going to be paid for a year to chase a story, seems to me a strong incentive to create a story when there really wasn't one.
I loved the way they were holding the paper and saying how people will miss the periphery articles. People will be limited to their feeds and be exposed to the rest of what's going on. I look at it as if I read an article in a newspaper that is just one take of the situation. With the internet I can drill down to get additional information and opinions. Plus get immediate commentary from experts."
Lots of people are getting "subsidy happy" these days. Money to banks, money to car companies, money to newspapers. What we must realize is that these short-term subsidies should be targeted at stopping a worse calamity. Nothing more. Sort of trading off company subsidies against even higher costs for unemployment, uninsured health care, and the costs of letting companies fail short-term. The reality is that none of these subsidized companies are sustainable as they are. The market has shifted, and their Success Formulas no longer produce positive results. They will burn up the subsidy money, as we've already seen happen at GM, and soon ask for more.
When markets shift, new competitors emerge to thrive. Provided we don't get in their way by propping up bad competitors too long with subsidies. In banking, we saw the unregulated institutions on a global scale start doing all sorts of financial services. While some of these are reverting back to regulated banks in the U.S. today so they can receive subsidies, globally we have seen the emergence of immense banks that are outside U.S. regulation. These institutions can borrow and lend globally, and are creating a new approach to financial services. We can't prop up an uncompetitive Citigroup against giant global banks making profits offshore. Likewise, globalization of manufacturing now means that good, low cost cars can be produced in Korea, China and India – making rates of return on higher cost labor in the USA, Germany and Japan harder to obtain. Additionally, many of these offshore competitors (in particular Japanese and Korean) have demonstrated they can deliver proifts on far lower volumes, thus requiring faster launch cycles and more niche products to succeed. GM lacks the manufacturing cost structure (in short-term line costs as well as labor) and the new product introduction processes to survive against these competitors. In newspapers consolidating the reporting into a daily made sense when you needed vast and costly infrastructure to print and deliver the news – no longer requirements in a web-enabled news marketplace.
Economists can make strong arguments for subsidies to help short-term dislocations. Such as helping companies in New Orleans to get back up and running due to a hurricane. That is a short-term problem not related to a market shift. But arguments for subsidies offered during market shifts are strictly "public policy" efforts trading off one policy cost for another. They cannot "save" a business. The company and its employees must use the subsidy to change their Success Formula as fast as possible, so they can compete with some product in some market where they can grow — without need for a subsidy
TARP and its other stimulus products are intended to keep some air in some parts of the boat so it doesn't sink entirely. But they aren't fixing the ship. That requires new competitors emerge that are attuned to current market needs, and have Success Formulas that produce profits based upon future markets. As the economist Schumpeter said 70 years ago, we rely upon these new entrepreneurs to give us the creative new solutions that create growth in the wake of the destruction of old businesses unable to keep up with shifting markets. Let's hope we don't spend all our money trying to keep the old battleship afloat, because we'll need some to help the newer, faster, more agile competitors grow with solutions that meet current and future needs.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 23, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lock-in, Television
Jon Friedman's Media Web Blog got it right today in it's article "How Fox Business and Bloomberg Can Gain Ground." Business news coverage was in the spotlight when Jon Stewart's The Daily Show on Comedy Central started attacking CNBC for being too business/executive friendly (see the running debate clips in the "on the Tape" section of the Daily Show homepage.) Whether Stewart was right or not, it didn't help CNBC to have some of it's spotlight personnel being trashed daily by a popular comentator, especially using their own tapes.
One would expect that financial news viewership is down, just because the recession has lessened interest in investing. But that doesn't mean CNBC is losing position. For that to happen, it's competitors – which are much smaller in share of market – have to do something to take advantage of the Stewart attacks. If everyone keeps doing what they always did, CNBC probably won't suffer much damage when the investing marketplace recovers.
So Mr. Friedman recommends that Fox Business News and Bloomberg news need to be the "anti-CNBC." I'm not sure what he means by that. But the idea is right. CNBC has been the market leader for several years, and it's Success Formula is Locked-in. It's viewer surveys have been with people who already watched CNBC, so its coverage has remained almost the same. And as more and more corporations and investment firms put CNBC on those flat-screen TVs in their lobbies, CNBC kept touting the market pitch that seemed to win them over as viewers and advertisers. As CNBC became apologists for these big advertisers, they reinforced their Lock-in to the Success Formula, and even as they Defended corporate titans and executive pay they extended their Success Formula onto the web with information that largely copied the television.
Suddenly, CNBC has been Challenged by a market shift. Like most market shifts, it didn't surface where CNBC expected, or how CNBC would have expected. CNBC was blindsided by the appeal of Stewart's attacks to mainstream television viewers, and many reporters who don't cover "the business beat." Like any good Locked-in organization, the CNBC reaction was to Defend itself, and do even more of what it always did claiming to be better and faster than the competition at reporting from Wall Street and the executive suites.
But right now CNBC is vulnerable. If Fox Business News and Bloomberg have been obsessing about the competition, now is the time to take advantage of its weakness. But to do that means attacking the Lock-in on which CNBC is built – it's very pro-Wall Street, pro-big company, pro-deregulation, pro-executive (and often pro-Republican party) positioning on practically every issue. Being a similar CNBC won't help the competition – even when CNBC is under attack. Because the attack is from a market shift, and the competition will win by moving to where the market moved.
So, what outlet reports on business news that isn't pro-Wall Street, pro-big company, pro-deregulation, pro-executive, pro-Republican? See what I mean – you can't really think of one. But are there people who invest in a 401K account, or a Roth IRA, or any IRA, or in their employer, or in their own home, who might be interested in a more "main street" and less "Wall Street" sort of positioning? Or a more balanced coverage of the pros and cons of America's biggest companies? Or those big company (and bank) executives? Or the issues related to debt, getting it and repaying it? Is there a market for business news that's been ignored, but Stewart has tapped into? Maybe call it the Suzie Orman approach to business news rather than the Larry Kudlow or "Fast Money" approach.
When companies obsess about competitors, they understand the competitors' Success Formulas and Lock-ins. And they prepare competitive actions that attack those Lock-ins. Entering a gladiator battle where everyone competes the same way just creates a lot of blood for spectators to watch, with no gain for the competitors. Phoenix Principle competitors don't attack where the competition is strong, but rather where the competitor is weak. Attack their Lock-in, so they can't react because they are stuck doing what they always did (and believe in it.). Right now is a good time for someone to attack CNBC and start stealing away viewers. To position themselves as a different kind of financial network that more people want to watch – especially when business news becomes less toxic and more interesting.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 22, 2009 | Uncategorized
The Chris Mathews Show (you can download/view the show at the link) today lamented the failure of newspapers, citing this week's shift to on-line only for the Seattle Post Intelligencer (check my earlier blog on this company for more details.) Mr. Mathews even went so far as to demonstrate how he, as a boy, folded newspapers to throw them on stoops when growing up in Philadelphia. The show made a valiant, if completely unsuccessful, effort to Defend the newspaper business. Maybe because he feels the not breath of on-line competitors himself!
As 2 print journalists and 2 television journalists discussed what was happening with news, the group was notably absent an advocate for on-line news. While they discussed the change in behavior of young news readers, all of the panelists were (like me) well over 40. They talked about how they used a newspaper, but they had no one there to discuss how other news seekers use networking sites or blogs. There was no blogger on the panel, nor a representative of any notable on-line news sites like Marketwatch.com or HuffingtonPost.com, nor a representative of Google or Yahoo! or any other organization leading the development of on-line content sites.
Mr. Mathews and his guests reminded me of an executive group in a company talking about a new competitor on the scene. All of them love the existing product, and have processes closely linked to using the current product (they like to get up and read a morning newspaper – but then, they don't have to fulfill an 8:00 to 6:00 job with high productivity requirements). They talked about "the good old days" when print journalists were the kings. They discussed how print news used to break stories like the Watergate cover-up (which was 35 years ago). They guessed at how newspapers might continue to survive, such as by consolidating through mergers and acquisitions, which would allow fewer to survive, but probably thrive – at least that was their hope. And they confirmed to themselves that if newspapers disappeared it had to be a bad thing – and even threatening to democracy!! Overall, it was a segment fully dedicated to Defending newspapers, without even the hint of someone who could explain the alternative as a product or a better business model!
By talking to themselves, and their customers, these folks showed their woeful ignorance on the state of on-line news. Mr. Mathews definitely needs to get more in touch with his (and newspapers') competition. His panel talked as if those who write about events on-line today don't have or take the time to research their topics — showing his ignorance about how important topics like the delays in producing the Boeing 787 jetliner were ferreted out by bloggers – not traditional media! And he said that without newspapers you lose "peripheral vision" about the news. Which ignoredthe role of news consolidation sites and, again, bloggers, and social networks at bringing forward interesting things happening around us to groups with similar interests — things often missed by traditional newspapers with their locked-in reporting methods.
If Mr. Mathews wants to do the topic of failing newspapers justice he should bring on his show people that work in non-traditional news. Bloggers and on-line site editors. His competition. Instead of dismissing them as somehow unqualified (because they aren't like him), he better pay attention to what they do, how they do it, and why they are often able to do his job better than him! Instead of focusing on his "base" he had better start obsessing about competition.
And he better start opening some White Space to keep himself and his show relevant – like opening a Twitter account, and creating a web site that's interactive with those in and reading the news (rather than his current vanity site) and blogging himself. Because if he keeps Defending his current show and position, and the newspapers that are finding themselves too slow and out-of-date in today's market, he's likely to find his show struggling for advertisers faster than he realizes! His show can fall to the perils of Defend & Extend Management just like any product that pays too little attention to competition and doesn't deploy White Space to evolve its Success Formula.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Travel, Web/Tech
"Xerox chops earnings outlook as sales slide" is the headline on Marketwatch.com. Do you remember when Xerox was considered the most powerful sales company on earth? In the 1970s and into the 1980s corporations marveled at the sales processes at Xerox – because those processes brought in quarter after quarter of increasing profitable revenue. Xerox practically wiped out competitors – the small printing press manufacturers – during this period, and "carbon paper" was quickly becoming a museum relic (if you are under 30 you'll have to ask someone older what carbon paper is – because it requires an explanation of something called a typewriter as well [lol]).
But today, do you care about Xerox? If you have a copier, you don't care who made it. It could be from Sharp, or Canon, or anybody. You don't care if it's Xerox unless you work in a "copy store" like Kinko's or run the copy center for the corporation – and possibly not even in those jobs. And because desktop printers have practically made copiers obsolete, you may not care about copiers at all. In short, even though Xerox invented the marketplace for widespread duplicating, because the company stayed in its old market of big copiers it has seen revenue declines and has largely become irrelevant.
"U.S. airline revenue plunges for another month" is another Marketwatch.com headline. And I ask again, do you care? The airlines were deregulated 30 years ago, and since then as a group they've never consistently made money (only 1 airline – Southwest – is the exception to this discussion.) The big players in the early days included TWA, Eastern, Braniff, PanAm – names long gone from the skies. They've been replaced by Delta, American and United – as we've watched the near collapse of US Airways, Northwest and Continental. But we've grown so used to the big airlines losing money, and going bankrupt, and screaming about unions and fuel costs, that we've pretty much quit caring. The only thing frequent travelers care about now is their "frequent flier miles" and how they can use them. The airline itself is irrelevant – just so long as I get those miles and get my status and they let me board early.
When you don't grow, you lose relevance. In the mid-1980s the battle raged between Apple's Macintosh and the PC (generically, from all manufacturers) as to which was going to be the dominant desktop computer. By the 1990s that question had been answered, and as Macintosh sales lagged Apple lost relevance. But then when the iPod, iTunes, iTouch and iPhone came along suddenly Apple gained a LOT of relevance. When companies grow, they demonstrate the ability to serve markets. They are relevant. When they don't grow, like GM and Citibank, they lose relevance. It's not about cash flow or even profitability. When you grow, like Amazon with its Kindle launch, you get attention because you demonstrate you are connected to where markets are headed.
Is your business obsessing about costs to the point it is hurting revenue? If so, you are at risk of losing relevance. Like Sara Lee in consumer goods, or Sears in retailing, even if the companies are able to make a profit – possibly even grow profits after some bad years – if you can't grow the top line you just aren't relevant. And if you aren't relevant, you can't get more customers interested in your products/services, and you can't encourage investors. People want to be part of Google, not Kodak.
To maintain (or regain) relevance today, you have to focus on growth. Cutting costs is not enough. If you lose relevance, you lose your customer base and financing, and you make it a whole lot easier for competitors to grow. While you're looking internally, or managing the bottom line, competitors are figuring out the market direction, and proving it by demonstrating growth. And that's why today, even more than before, it is so critical you focus planning on future markets for growth, obsess about competitors, use Disruptions to change behavior and implement White Space to experiment with new business opportunities. Because if you don't do those things you are far, far too likely to simply become irrelevant.
[note: Thanks for feedback that my spelling and grammar have gotten pretty sloppy lately. I'm going to allocate more time to review, as well as writing. And hopefully pick up some proofreading to see if this can improve. Sorry for the recent problems, and I appreciate your feedback on errors.]
by Adam Hartung | Mar 19, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee." That was the jingle I still remember from my youth. For years we heard this on the TV, as we were coaxed to buy the delictable productss, frozen, refrigerated and fresh, offered by Sara Lee. But today, unfortunately, almost nobody likes Sara Lee anymore. Oh – the products are great – it's the company, primarily its leadership, that's a disaster.
It's tough to make money on food. After all, everyone has the same cost for the ingredients. And in the developed world, there's more than enough food to go around. For the last 50 years, to make money on food required adding to the product so it had more value. Such as freezing frozen potatoe slices rather than selling whole potatoes so french fries are more convenient - raising price and margin. Or adding preservatives and vitamins so the bread lasts longer than the other guy's, and may be a touch better for you. Or the biggest addition, advertising so you imbue the food with all kinds of personality elements urging customers to identify with the product. If you want to make money selling food, you have to taste better, prepare faster, sell cheaper and hopefully give me more value in myself — or else I'll by the generic product and kill your margin. And for a number of years, Sara Lee knew how to do this fairly well.
But then, Sara Lee stumbled. It quit launching new products and new brands. It's quality and branding was matched by competitors from Entenmann's to Little Debbie. Without innovation, the frozen, refrigerated and fresh pies, sausage and other products saw margins shrink. So Sara Lee hired a bright exec from PepsiCo to fix up the company named Brenda Barnes. Since then, the story has really gone downhill.
Ms. Barnes focused on her "problem," a low stock price, rather the market challenges Sara Lee faced. She built a 5 year plan to turn around Sara Lee. But his plan had no innovation involved. No plans for growth. Just the opposite, she intended to sell many assets to raise cash. And then use that cash to buy shares. And through this process, she would "prop up" the company stock to the benefit of shareholders. The company would be smaller – but she said it would be worth more – in some kind of weird economics. But, this stock ploy had worked for other industrial companies, she said, so it would work for Sara Lee. Since then, according to the chart at Marketwatch.com, Sara Lee stock has gone from 21 to 7! While the CEO wants to blame the tough economy for her performance, the chart shows that this "strategy" has been a dead loser since the day it was announced. Things have been downhill since long before banks trimmed their lending.
Now, in her latest move, the CEO wants to sell some more businesses. But in an FT.com article "Sara Lee Searches for Sell-off Suitor" there aren't any buyers for remaining businesses. As one analyst commented "it's a rather tired portfolio." That's a polite way of saying "when you don't innovate your business, why would someone want to buy it?" As another analyst said "it's not a very good business." Increasingly, instead of buying these product lines competitors realize they would prefer to compete against them, growing sales organically and profitably — without the headaches and cost of acquisition.
So, because the sale side of the strategy isn't working, we read in Crains ChicagoBusiness.com "Sara Lee to put stock repurchases on hold." After buying shares at $20, $18, $15, the CEO has decided not to buy shares when they are $7 – in order to conserve cash! Maybe if she had spent money on growing the business, expanding products and new business lines, using White Space to innovate new profitable opportunities the stock wouldn't be down to $7 with little interest on the part of any buyers.
Ms. Barnes tried to implement an industrial strategy when it can no longer work. Sara Lee brands aren't some kind of asset that will always go up in value. You can't just expect sales and profits to rise because you do more of the same, and cut costs. The world is highly competitive, and you have to prove the value of your business every day. Customers are demanding, and competitors are ready to steal them away in a heartbeat. You can't prop up the stock by trying to reduce the number of shares, unless you're ready to get down to $1 of revenue and 1 share left valued at $1. What good is that?
Sara Lee could have behaved very differently in 2005 – and CAN behave very differently now. The company clearly needs a new CEO that is ready to develop scenarios of the future which indicate what innovations could have high value. Instead of talking about what Sara Lee used to be, the CEO and management team needs to define what Sara Lee will be in 2015. And by obsessing about competitors, describe how Sara Lee can be a big winner. Then there needs to be Disruption in order to allow the company to consider the new business opportunities, and White Space with permission and resources to rebuild the Success Formula into one that can make above-average rates of return and grow! If Sara Lee will take these actions the company still has time to meet market challenges. But if it doesn't act fast, after 4 years of decline and a very shifted market, nobody's going to have any Sara Lee to nibble on sooner than Ms. Barnes is admitting.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 18, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
We hear people say that eventually there will be no PC. Did you ever wonder what "the next thing" will look like that makes the PC obsolete? For most of us, working away day-to-day on our PC, and talking on our mobile phone, we hear the chatter, but it doesn't ring for us. As customers, all we can imagine is the PC a little cheaper, or a little smaller, or doing a few new things. And same for our phone. But, for those who are making the technology real, imagining that next way of getting things done – of improving our personal productivity the way the PC did back in the early '80s – it is an obsession.
I think we're getting really close, however. In what Forbes magazine headlined "Apple's Explosive iPhone Update" we learn that Apple is dramatically enhancing what it's little hand held device can do. USAToday hit upon all the new capabilities of the iPhone in its article "Apple iPhone software prices may rise," but these are just the capabilities us mere users can see. On top of these, Apple has provided 1,000 new Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). These allow programmers all kinds of opportunities to do new things with the iPhone (or iTouch). We all know that the netbook direction has small devices doing spreadsheets, presentations and documents – and that is, well, child's play and not the next move to personal productivity. You have to go beyond what's already been done on these machines if you want to get new users – those that will make your product supercede and obsolete the old product. And these APIs open that world for programmers to do new things on the iPhone and iTouch.
So go beyond your PC and phone with your thinking. With just one of the new offerings, Push, your iPhone could recognize your location (via GPS), know you are walking in front of a Pizza Hut (example) and ring you that this store will give you $2.00 off on a lunch pizza. Right now. And it'll create that magical bar code so the minimum wage employee at the register can scan your phone to get the price right when you check out. Or link your phone via bluetooth to your heart rate monitor in your running watch and automatically email the result to your cardiologist for the hourly profile she's building to determine your next round of pills – with a quick ring and reminder to you that you best slow that walk down a little if you want to get positive, rather than negative, impact. Or you get an alert that UBS just posted on the web a new review of GE (in your stock portfolio) and your phone automatically forwarded it to your broker at Merrill asking him for a comment and executed a stop-sell order at $.30 below the current market price via the on-line ML order application. By the way, you were supposed to turn at the last corner, but you were so busy listening to your alert that you missed the intersection so the GPS is re-orienting you to the destination – especially since there is construction on the next street and the sidewalk is closed – as per the notice posted by Chicago Streets and Sanitation this morning.
What makes this interesting is that it's the device, plus the open APIs, that make this stuff real and not just fairy dreams. That makes you wonder if you really want to lug around that 7 pound laptop, now that you get the newspaper, magazines and your books from Amazon all on the iPhone as well. And when you're delayed at O'Hare you can download last night's episode of Two-and-a-half Men and watch it on the screen while you wait to board. The laptop can't do everything this new device can do – and the new thing is smaller, and cheaper, and easier. This is all getting very real now. And with Google and Palm close on Apple's heals, it's now a big race to see who delivers these applications.
Does your scenario of the future have all this in mind? Are you planning for this level of productivity? Of information access? Of real-time knowledge? Are you thinking about how to use this capability to improve returns so you can explode out of this recession in 2010? Do you think you better take some time now to check?
In the meantime, IBM wants to buy Sun Microsystems according to the Marketwatch.com article "IBM May get Burnt." Talk about "other side of the coin." Why would anybody want to buy a company with declining sales? In IBM's case, probably to eliminate a competitor. Now that is typical 1980s industrial thinking. "So last century" as the young people say. The financial services and telecom industries are "soft" – to say the least. IT purchases are lowered. IBM and Sun are big suppliers. So IBM can buy Sun and hope that it will get rid of a competitor, and then raise prices. And that is typical industrial era – circa Michael Porter and his book Competitive Strategy – thinking. Lots of people are probably saying "why not, sounds like a good way to make money."
At least one problem is that this is no cheap acquisition. Ignoring integration problems, even though Sun is down – a huge amount down – the acquisitions is still over $6billion. Sure, IBM has that in cash. But what happens in information businesses is that competition never goes away. With budgets low, what sorts of PC servers (maybe from HP) running Linux are coming out that the customers will compare with Unix servers – and push down prices even if IBM has no Unix server competition? What opportunities for outsourcing applications to offshore server farms, running Chinese or Korean-made boxes with Linux, taking the business away from IBM exist? Or what applications will be eliminated by banks and telcos that need to axe costs for survival now that markets have shifted? You don't get to "own" an information-based business, and you don't get to control the pricing or behavior of customers. IBM needs to wake up and realize that it's investment in Sun within 2 years will be washed away.
We should be heading forward, not backward. Especially during this recession. Those companies that deliver new products that exceed old capabilities will be winners. Those that seize this opportunity to Disrupt markets – like Apple is doing – will create platforms for growth. Those that try applying industrial practices will find themselves looking in the rear view mirror, but never find that lost "glory land" that disappeared in the big recession of 2008/09. As investors, we need to keep our eyes on the growing companies building new applications, rather than the ones trying to regain yesterday.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Web/Tech, Weblogs
Today the Seattle Post Intelligencer printed its last newspaper. "Seattle Paper Shifts Entirely to the Web," reports The New York Times. There was no buyer for the paper, so Hearst Corp. shut down the print edition. In the process it laid off 145 of its 165 news staff. This leaves the Seattle Times alone printing in the market, but it is struggling financially. As people lament the closing, is this a good or a bad day?
The on-line paper already achieves about 4million hits/month, and it hasn't really started trying to be competitive on-line. The site (www.seattlepi.com) already has 150 bloggers – so you could make a case it has more reporters than were let go from the old newsroom. And it has made agreements to pick up content from Hearst Magazines, xconomy and TV Guide amongst other partners. In an article "Executive Producer Michelle Nicolosi talks about the new SeattlePI.com" at the site she says "We're going to focus on what readers are telling us they want and on what makes SeattlePI.com essential and unique….My staff and I are thrilled to have the chance to prove that an online-only news operation can make money and do a great job serving readers….Our strategy moving forward is to experiment a lot and fail fast…We have to reinvent how things are done on many fronts…We have a 'survival of the fittest' attitude about content that isn't working." Sounds a lot like White Space to me — White Space no longer encumbered by trying to keep open a printed edition that wasn't meeting customer needs at a profit.
You could make a case that this is a GREAT DAY for the organization, and its marketplace. Firstly, this organization is taking seriously the task of building a profitable on-line newspaper. Unlike most on-line news organizations that are backwater extensions of a print paper which doesn't care about the on-line market, this is an organization that must "sink or swim" – with leaders that are establishing new metrics and show every indication of using them to run a viable business. When you enter White Space, you prefer to be an early participant, so you gain understanding fast. Like the on-line www.HuffingtonPost.com which is blowing the doors off readership with its national coverage of news and politics (and mentioned frequently by the editor – another good sign, learning from the competition).
As an early participant, with a real commitment to succeed (no transfers back to the old organization here), it's not just about "the product" but the business model as well. Not discussed was how many ad salespeople were being kept on-board to push ad sales for the new organiztion. Hopefully as much energy will be placed on learning how to craft ad products that customers want and will pay for as is being placed in creating compelling content that attracts readers. We can't expect SeattlePI.com to rely on Google to sell all their ads – and I doubt the editors do either. Building a new Success Formula requires being open to revenue generation as well as production and delivery (don't forget that figuring out how to sell "clicks" was as successful to Xerox as inventing the copier.) My worry right now is that as good as the home page is – and it's good – I didn't see a button at the top, or bottom, or anywhere to "place an ad" – something I hope they address quickly. But for now I'll let it slide in the hopes that compulsive, obsessive competitiveness caused this slip (for if it did, that demonstrates the commitment to White Space that makes it work.)
What we all know is that the old days of newspapers is gone, and won't come back. (Hear that Sam Zell and folks at The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times?) iPhones and Kindles are just the start of making newspapers completely obsolete – even for those who don't fancy news via computer. The faster organizations get out there to build a new Success Formula, the more likely they'll find a way to survive. And the faster they jettison old notions about what makes for "good news" and "good ad sales" the faster they'll get to that model. Those who are the first to get out there and learn have the greatest odds of becoming a winner, because they have the longest time to experiment, fail and succeed.
Here's wishing all the best to the re-energized www.SeattlePI.com. May the editors, reporters, bloggers and salespeople give us new insight to the future of news in the ubiquitously connected world.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 15, 2009 | Uncategorized
It was less than a decade ago when Time Warner bought AOL. Time Warner was going gangbusters. It had grown out of the old magazine business to be a leader in television cable programming – even buying the business run by the #1 cable entrepreneur Ted Turner. Simultaneously, AOL had become the #1 company providing internet access. At the time, people didn't just buy access to the highway (the web) in form of a communication line, in the world of dial-up and early broadband they bought into a web provider. AOL offered everything from the dial-in number to the home page and a series of tools to make web access easier for neophyte users. In all the hoopla about how Time Warner had content, and AOL had "eyeballs" (meaning people going on-line at computer screens), the merger of AOL and Time Warner was born. A very, very high priced Time Warner used stock to by a remarkably high priced AOL.
But this marriage soon became a nightmare, with fingers pointing at everyone – from the CEOs to the Boards of Directors and many people in management. AOL and Time Warner could not maintain the growth rate. Worse, people showed the first signs of moving from TV viewership to internet use, and AOL was losing share of market quickly as broadband became available. Infighting and bickering took over. Both companies, virtually all of management, was trying to build an industrial company out of what they had. Management kept talking about how it wanted to "control" customer access, "control" internet behavior, while focus remained on "scale" as they wanted to become the "largest" internet provider and the "largest" content provider. The leadership had built both companies, and raised money, using an industrial model that expected the companies to somehow use size and scale and market share to reduce industry rivalry, control vendor costs, and allow for much higher pricing to justify the equity multiple.
Oops. By 2000 we already were well into the information economy. Scale had almost no meaning – even for telecom companies that crashed as people realized even big infrastructure suppliers couldn't avoid intense competition and low prices. And as the web expanded access 100 fold, early expectations that there would be insufficient content thus making the Time Warner content priceless (news, broadcast programs, cable programs, etc.) quickly gave way to the knowledge that content could expand 1,000 fold (or 10,000 fold) when everyone had access to viewers/readers. The industrial model upon which AOL/Time Warner had been built simply would not work. And as the stock went into freefall, executives started rotating around the top offices.
Now, a new CEO has been hired. He's from Google according to Marketwatch.com in its article "With new chief in place, will AOL stand on its own?" And as the headline implies, many industry analysts are banking on a spin-out of AOL. But you have to ask, "why bother to spin out AOL now?" The notion of combining the capabilities of both has a lot of appeal – if you understand how to build an information based Success Formula.
AOL is one of the 4 top companies at reaching people on the web. AOL gets about 60% of the monthly users as Google. That's a pretty high number. The obvious issues should be: Are the current web sites the right ones to appeal to customers? Do they have competitive differentiation? Looking forward, what web sites would excite viewers and attract them? What sites would change competition? At this stage, it's really hard to imagine that we're anywhere close to identifying the maximum value web sites. With good scenario planning and competitior analysis, AOL has the resources, access and content to reposition itself as a leader for users. As Yahoo! fortunes keep declining, AOL can build content-based reasons to grow. Additionally, AOL can identify opportunities which are not already fortresses for Google, and work to build out those opportunities before Google gets there. It's an unlimited world, and AOL/Time Warner has the right resources to be a major competitor for customers and revenues.
We need to watch closely what the new CEO (Tim Armstrong) does in his first few weeks. The analysts would like for him to talk about a spin-off. That reinforces their outdated views of industrial business models and would make them feel better about themselves and their long-term calls for changing the company. But the smarter action would be for Mr. Armstrong to Disrupt the Lock-ins at AOL/Time Warner that have kept the company doing many of the wrong things for 8 years. The leaders at AOL/Time Warner have been ineffective, and the existing decision-making processes are inhibiting value creation. He must break the behavioral and structural Lock-ins that have allowed AOL/Time Warner to be a perennially bad performer.
Next he should use his experience at Google to make AOL/Time Warner start acting like Google. He needs to take advantage of his customer reach to find out what those customers want, and then open White Space projects to deliver it to them. He needs to quit focusing on the "internal assets" and refocus on the marketplace. AOL isn't going to win or lose by acting like AOL. He needs to move AOL into position to recognize the next YouTube or Twitter and get out there! Just like News Corp. was able to buy MySpace, AOL has the resources to make a difference in the market. A spin-off would leave 2 companies with outdated Success Formulas that could easily become obsolete. But by implementing White Space focused on the market AOL could create an entirely new Success Formula based on information content and information value that would have a high rate of return for the beleagured investors.
AOL CAN have a great future. It is one of the leading companies at reaching people on the web and via TV. What AOL needs to do now is figure out how you make money off the value of all the information that customer contact gives you. Google has captured every single search ever done on its engine, and never stops milking those searches to figure out how to grow and make money. AOL needs to do the same thing - figuring out how to build the right information-based model that makes serving its customers profitable.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 12, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lock-in
What do you think of when someone says "The Dow"? Most people think of the Dow Jones Industrial Average – a mix of some roughly 30 companies (the number isn't fixed and does change). But very few people know the names on the list, or why those companies are selected. As time has passed, most people think of "The Dow" as "blue chip" companies that are supposed to be the largest, strongest and safest companies on the New York Stock Exchange. For this last reason, it's probably time to think about killing "The Dow." It's certainly clear that what the selection committee thought were "blue chip" a year ago was off by about 50% – with many names gone or nearly gone (like AIG, GM, Citibank) and many struggling to convince people about their longevity (like Pfizer).
Quick history: "The Dow" is named afrer the first editor of the Wall Street Journal Charles Dow (co-founder of Dow Jones, owner of the Journal) who wrote in the late 1800s. Building on his early thoughts about markets, something called "Dow Theory" was developed in the early part of the 1900s. Simply put, this said to get a selection of manufacturing companies, and average their prices (the Dow Jones Industrials). Then, get a selection of transportation companies and average their prices (the Dow Jones Transportations [see, you forgot their were 2 "Dows" didn't you]). Then, watch these averages. If only one moves, you can't be predictive, but if both moves it means that businesses are both making and shipping more (or less) so you can bet the overall market will go the direction of the two averages. So it was a theory trying to predict business trends in an industrial economy by following two rough gages – production and transportation – using stock prices. [note: the first study of Dow Theory in 1934 said it didn't work – and it's never been shown to work predicatably.]
Don't forget, in this most quoted of all market averages the third word is "Industrial." The reason for creating the average was to measure the performance of industrial companies. And across the years, the names on the list were all kinds of industrials. Only in the most recent years was the definition expanded to include banks. But that was considered OK, because above all else "the Dow" was a measure of leading companies in an "industrial" economy and the banks had become key components in extending the industrial economy by providing leverage for "hard assets".
Marketwatch.com today asked the headline question "Is the Dow doing its job?" The article's concern was whether "the Dow" effectively tracked the economy because so many of its components have recently traded at remarkably low prices per share - 5 below $10 – and even 1 below $1! Historically these would have been swapped out for better performing companies in the economy. Faltering companies were dropped (like how AIG was dropped in the last year) – which meant that "the Dow" would always go up; because the owners could manipulate the components! [the owners are still the editors at The Wall Street Journal now owned by News Corp.] But even the editor of the Dow Jones Indexes said "While we wouldn't pick stocks that trade under $10 to be in the Dow [Citi and GM] are still representative of the industries they're in, and their decline in the recent past is part of the story of the market recently."
Recently, "the Dow" has taken a shellacking. And the reasons given are varied. But one thing we HAVE to keep in mind is that any measure of "industrial" companies deserves to get whacked, and we should not expect those industrial companies to dramatically improve. In the 1950s when the thinking was "what's good for GM is good for America" we were in the heyday of an industrial economy. And that phrase, even if never really used by anyone famous, made so much sense it became part of our lexicon. But we aren't in an industrial economy any more. And the failure of GM (as well as the struggles at Ford, Chrysler and Toyota) shows us that fact. If "the Dow" is a measure of industrial companies - or even more broadly, companies that operate an industrial business model – it is doing exactly what one should expect. And to expect it to ever recover to old highs is simply impossible.
The industrial era has been displaced, and in the future high returns will be captured by businesses that operate with information-intensive business models. Google should not be placed on the DJIA. We need a new basket – a new index. We need to put together a collection of companies that represent the strength of the economy – where new jobs will be created. Companies that use information to create competitive advantage and high rates of return — like how in an industrial economy businesses used "scale" and "manufacturing intensity" and "supply chain efficiency" to create superior returns. If we want to talk about "blue chip" companies that are more likely to show economic leadership, gauge the capability to succeed and the ability to drive improved economic output, we need a list of companies that are the big winners and demonstrate the ability to remain so by their superior understanding of the value in information and how to capture that value for investors, employees and vendors.
This index is not the NASDAQ. It would include Google, currently leading this new era as Ford did the last one 100 years ago. But other likley participants would be Amazon for demonstrating that the value of books is in the content, not the paper and that the value of retailing is not the building and store. Apple has shown how music can eclipse physical devices, and is leading the merger of computer/phone/PDA/wireless connectivity. Infosys is a leader in delivering information systems in 24×7 global delivery models. Comcast is leading us to see that computers, televisions, gaming systems, telephones and all sorts of communications/media will be delivered (and used) entirely differently. News Corp. is blurring the lines of media spanning all forms of content development as well as delivery in a rapidly shifting customer marketplace. Nike, or maybe Virgin, is showing us that branding is not about making the product – but instead about connecting products with customers. Roche for its ownership of Genentech and its deep pool of information on human genetics? What's common about these companies is that they are not about making STUFF. They are about using information to make a business, and capturing the value from that information.
RIP to the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It's future value looks, at best, unclear. What we need to do now is redefine what is a "blue chip" in this new economy. What are your ideas? Who should represent the soon to be exploding marketplace for biotech solutions based on genetics? Who will lead the nanotech wave? Who would you put on this new "blue chip information index"? Send me your ideas. And in the meantime, we can recognize that even those who created and manage the venerable "Dow" aren't really sure what to do with it.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
All businesses hurting in today's economy must significantly change if they want to improve their performance. In the early 1900s the world saw the advent of several new machines ushering in the industrial era. But, the economy was based on agriculture – and largely the "family farm." As the industrial era expanded landowners tried to Defend & Extend their old business models by leveraging up the family farms – borrowing more and more money to plant "fencerow-to-fencerow" as it was called. Borrowers overworked the land, and with all the debt piled on when a glitch happened (a combination of drought and falling commodity prices from expansion) the mountain of debt collapsed. The beginnings of the Great Depression hit the farmers in the 1920s. The coming of the industrial revolution made old Success Formulas based on land ownership and agriculture obsolete – and no amount of debt could defer the shift forever. It took 10 years (into the 1940s) to fully transition to the new economy, and when we did Ford, GM and other industrial giants overtook the land barrons of the earlier era.
I was reminded of this today when discussing scenario planning with Diane Meister, Managing Director of Meridian Associates in Chicago. Today she sees the deteriorating Success Formulas in her clients. Companies that keep trying to apply Industrial era Success Formulas in what is now an information economy. When they aren't prepared for big shifts – it can be devastating. But those who do prepare can improve position quickly. She told me how one of her clients had an excellent business selling toys to FAO Schwartz and other top toy chains. But Meridian could see that the growth of Target created a viable scenario for a big shift in how toys would be distributed. She implored her client to prepare for possibly the failure (note – failure – not just weakness) of several big toy chains. Good thing she did, within 2 years most of her client's retail distribution was bankrupt. Only by using scenarios to prepare for a big market shift were they able to survive – in fact come out a leader – due to the big shifts happening in retail as a result of the change in markets. (Don't hesitate to contact her firm at the link – good stuff!)
As we transition into the information economy, big changes are going to happen to all businesses. The source of value, and competitiveness, has changed. Today the Allstate Insurance's CEO was quoted in Crain's "Insurer's Should Have Federal Regulator." And in an article at Marketwatch.com, "Dimon Backs Regulation", the CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce he backs additional mortgage regulation. Both of these leaders are looking forward, and recognize that markets have shifted. New regulations will be critical to success. Their future scenarios show it will take a different approach to be a global competitor in 2015 – to be a winner in the global information economy that won't support industrial era Success Formulas.
Not everyone gets it. Also at Marketwatch.com in "AT&T Chief Sounds Alarm", the AT&T CEO decries rising health care costs and worries system changes will hurt his competitiveness. Wake up! What sort of scenario is he using that expects America to keep the current health care system – and the current employer-paid insurance? Even insurance companies now recognize the system is broken and needs change. In no other country are health care costs "baked in" to the cost of a company's P&L. Think about it – even where there is national health care (Britain, France, Canada, Germany, etc.) the companies don't carry the cost as a line item they must recoup via sales and margin. Elsewhere, the cost of health care is born by society through taxes. The reality is that any American company trying to compete has a whole host of incremental costs on its shoulders because we ask employers to pay in order to keep personal income taxes low. Until we change the whole basis of how America chooses to insure its population, employers are being forced to carry costs not seen by offshore competitors. In a global marketplace – this sort of "yesterday thinking" will not survive. Employers should be leading the charge for national health care – just so they can get the issue out of their plethora of problems and off the backs of their P&Ls!
Those that don't change will end up out of the game. Because they didn't do effective scenario planning, that considered the rise of "upscale discounters," FAO Schwartz (mentioned earlier) and Zany Brainy's failed — not even a Tom Hanks movie could keep customers coming in the doors. Markets are merciless in taking down companies that can't globally compete on what's important. We can prop up GM for a short time, but no country can afford to try to keep its people working (avoid unemployment costs) and insured by pumping money into a dysfunctional car company that isn't competitive. Sears has ignored the trends, and is one of the "walking dead." Once the world's greatest retailer, it built what was for years the world's tallest building (now 2nd). But now Crain's has reported in "Willis will get Sears Tower naming rights" that soon the great building the great retailer built in its home town of Chicago will likely be renamed for a London insurance company. Of course, Sears sold the building years ago in its effort to subsidize its failiing retail business – and hasn't even been a tenant in the building for decades. It won't be long before no one even remembers Sears. Sears remained Locked-in to what it once was, and ignored scenarios about a different future that would require change.
The world has shifted. If your scenarios for the future expect a return to old practices – well, that isn't going to happen. If you want to be a leader in the next economy, you better start building new scenarios TODAY!
error correction - in yesterday's blog I inadvertently said I was "not" twittering. Talk about a badly mistaken typo! I meant the opposite. I am twittering and hope you all hook up so we can tweek each other.
