by Adam Hartung | Mar 4, 2007 | In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
About 6 months ago I blogged on White Space at Anheuser-Busch (see Surprising Juxtaposition here.) This last American-owned large brewer has had its stock go nowhere for the last few years (see chart here) as it has battled fierce competition in a consolidating and changing marketplace. Anheuser-Busch found it had slipped into a price war for volume. But more recently the compaqny has turned toward White Space to improve performance.
Anheuser-Busch has just taken another stepped up its White Space efforts by deciding to enter the beer market in India (see article here.) An important White Space project for several reasons:
- Moving offshore gives Anheuser-Busch more diversity of competition. The company will learn from new competitors about everything from product options to distribution and pricing alternatives.
- India, in particular is a great markt to learn. Competition is FIERCE. Prices are universally low, the currency is low (giving no break to mistakes), distribution is highly fragmented and much of the demand comes from poor people who have severe limits on what they can spend. Ninety percent of shampoo sales are made in single service sachetes which sell for less than $.01 each at thousands of small retailers. In consumer goods it’s been said "if you can sell at a profit in India you can make a profit anywhere." Now that’s a great place to learn.
- India is the fastest growign middle class in the world. While the American middle class is growing at 2-3%/year, rising economic prosperity in India is creating a growth rate exceeding 10%/year. And this is augmented by the fact that over half the population is under 30 years old, creating an expanding market for Anheuser-Busch products.
- In India beer = Kingfisher. Many of us who travel to India avoid all drinks with ice or from a fountain because of sanitary concerns and poor water quality. So the universal call for fluid refreshment, in a country that is constantly hot, is "give me a Kingfisher." Thus, India provides a great market in need of competition against a dominant product.
I’m sure the path to succes won’t be easy. In addition to the daunting distribution and competitive challenges mentioned earlier, Anheuser-Busch must learn to deal with terrible infrastructure (intermittent electric power, bad water treatment, terrible roadways, poor refrigeration), complex government bureaucracy overseeing business, hierarchical government entities that too often have corruption, strong Communist and Socialist government participants and districts, distrust of American interlopers, a vast array of advertising channels to a highly heterogenous media environment, 30+ languages in a single country, a propensity for unending negotiation as a culture and a completely dysfunctional legal system.
But the important thing is that none of this stopped Anheuser-Busch. And that’s what White Space is all about. Phoenix Principle companies identify a market opportunity and then jump in to learn. Not just for what can happen in that new market, but what it can teach the company overall. Possibly even how to develop a new and better returning Success Formula.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 28, 2007 | Uncategorized
On March 30, 2007 Kraft is planning to complete its spin-off from Altria (see full article here.) This long-anticipated transaction will allow Kraft to independently decide how to manage its product portfolio, and how to earn above average returns and grow. Should investors anticipate a change in management behavior leading to much better performance when Kraft becomes independent? Should we jump into this opportunity to buy shares before management creates abundant new value?
To expect Kraft to suddenly become more valuable would be like expecting your 1978 Plymouth Horizon to be declared a collectible and suddenly become worth a lot more money. Not likely.
For Kraft to be worth more the company needs to launch new products. It needs to move beyond Velveeta, Philadelphia Cream Cheese and DiGiorno pizza (its last major new product launch) to strike a chord with new customers in new market segments. And to do that the company needs to demonstrate it can manage White Space projects that will reach these new opportunities and redesign the outdated and firmly Locked-in Success Formula. Unfortunately, no such projects appear to be in the pipeline – at least none that anybody has reported. Instead, over the last few years Kraft has been selling businesses (such as Altoids) because it wanted to focus exclusively on large but slow growing market segments. The previous CEO even said he felt investing more in Velveeta advertising gave the company its greatest rate of return. Really.
Kraft can turn around. It wasn’t a decade ago that Kellogg’s was Locked-in to old business methods that had almost half of all volume given away in free offers. But a new CEO Disrupted Kellogg by changing the metrics for measuring performance and closing outdated manufacturing plants. He created White Space projects by opening a new R&D center and buying a new company (Keebler) just to get a new distribution system (store-door delivery rather than warehouse delivery) which he allowed to operate independently inside Kellogg. In just 2 years Kellogg went from big problems to big wins, and the company value jumped dramatically as the other parts of Kellogg migrated to a new Success Formula.
Kraft can’t save its way to prosperity. Its returns are dependent upon finding new markets. Until you see reports of Internal Disruptions by the new leadership – actual claims of needing to stop what they are doing and rethink – don’t expect any significant change. Until you see examples of White Space projects, don’t expect much improvement in results, or any improvement in growth —- or much increase in equity value.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 22, 2007 | Uncategorized
Readers of this blog know I think all companies must create and maintain White Space. but some readers have told me that for big companies such spaces are just too hard to create and manage. So I was delighted to read about Wrigley‘s recent acquisition of A. Kurkonov (see full article here.)
Everyone knows Wrigley makes chewing gum. They’ve done so for years. But recently Wrigley has started forays into a number of new areas. They opened a new R&D center in Goose Island, IL to develop new products. They also bought fast growing Altoids mints (from Kraft no less) and quickly launched a chocolate covered Altoids. Both of these were small steps.
Wrigley recently spent $300million to buy the Russian chocolate company A. Kurkonov. This is a significant investment in a business where Wrigley needs to learn. Chocolate candy is a big step outside the old Wrigley Success Formula primarily which was focused on gum and other low priced items located near the register in the check-out line. Now they have a business that is operated outside the Success Formula, with new products and in markets where Wrigley management can watch and learn – outside the U.S. Wrigley can observe how the products are made and distributed, and how customer preferences vary and are changing, as well as how pricing and promotion play into the marketing mix for this market segment. Wrigley will be able to learn how to devleop both new strategies and tactics, and do so in a foreign market away from the meddling of management focused on the old Success Formula.
As Wrigley learns how to successfully compete in "chocolates" (however that market should be defined) the company can develop a method to migrate this old "chewing gum" company into a new Success Formula [which may or may not be closely tied to chocolates, who knows?]. Management can be attracted to what works rather than trying to force ideas that don’t. And through this migration the company can develop new tactics, new strategies and eventually a new identity – in sum a new Success Formula. And that is what White Space is all about.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 17, 2007 | Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Dell Computer has had a rough go the last couple of years. They’ve had some batteries catch fire – not good for marketing. And they’ve had some SEC investigators looking through their books – not good for investors. But neither of these problems are really that unusual or monumental for a company the size of Dell. The big problem has been that the company isn’t making the money it once did, and it’s sure not growing like it once did. That has stripped the company of 40-50% of its value, or about $43 billion in market loss for investors (see chart here.)
So what’s the response? At the beginning of this month the Chairman and namesake, Michael Dell, announced he was removing the CEO and taking back the reigns (see full article here.) Should we now expect a turnaround?
Michael Dell pioneered the Success Formula that made Dell Computer famous. Simply put, Dell sold directly to customers, outsourced everything they could, used other people’s technology (no R&D), focused on the supply chain to shorten manufacturing and distribution cycles and kept prices low. And anything that wasn’t part of that Success Formula does not exist at Dell. This Success Formula produced great results, and Michael Dell locked it in with every conceivable software product, metric and decision process he could. There was/is no variation at Dell, just execution.
Unfortunately, this Success Formula was not impossible to copy. Competitors not only matched the supply chain expertise of Dell, but added onto it with product innovations, credit terms for corporate buyers, and enhanced peripheral products that expanded the total customer purchase. They matched Dell, and did the company one better. So customers migrated to these competitors. Dell didn’t suddenly lose its Midas touch. Execution hasn’t faltered. Competitors just kept getting better in this dynamic market, and execution wasn’t enough to maintain sales growth and margins.
Now the king of execution is returning. What can we expect? More of the same, of course. The implication, and stated objective, of Michael Dell’s return is to get Dell "back on track." That’s back on track to what they did a decade ago. Is that likely to turn around their fortunes, in a more competitive marketplace with yet more competitive variables?
Dell doesn’t need more Dell. They need more innovation. There are no Disruptions at Dell. And this change of leaders will not create an internal Disruption demanding change. There is no White Space at Dell. I blogged on this previously, and a PR employee responded (you can read the comment by going to that blog) that Dell is a great company. But even he could not identify any White Space in Dell. Despite my emails to him asking for any examples of White Space he could provide — any at all. Without White Space, how is Dell to develop a new Success Formula to produce results in 2009 like they had in 1999?
Michael Dell and his company was a fantastically successful pioneer. His vision helped create a Success Formula that greatly assisted putting a PC on nearly every working desk and in nearly every home, not to mention in the hands of most students, salespeople, and other mobile worker in America. But that Success Formula has already passed the point of diminishing returns. Unless Dell learns to Disrupt and implement White Space, look for the future to be more of the recent past. Results included.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 12, 2007 | Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Is a Tattoo art? Can a tattoo style drawing sell a product? These are two questions I really never asked myself before, but now I’m asking them a lot.
Sometimes we can’t see what’s right in front of our faces. We all suffer from BIAS – Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies – that we carry around in our heads. As we develop our Success Formulas, we Lock them in with our BIAS and we often start missing things. And some of these can be really big trends.
The Chicago Tribune ran an article in the Business Section (yes the Business section) about the use of tattoo art in mainstream ads (see full article here). Now, I have to admit that tattoos are not something I think about at all. But this article pointed out that they are getting to be pretty much everywhere, on everybody. And, as importantly, the artists are downright cheap compared to typical graphic artists used in ad production. That really caught my attention.
Then I started to notice, and think. The images of Anna Nicole Smith all over the TV following her untimely death showed a tattoo on her leg. Many (maybe most?) of the performer’s at this week’s Grammy award seemed to have visible tattoos. Then I realized that I see tattoos increasingly on the young people that associate with my high school and college age sons. I had "seen" these tattoos before. But my mind hadn’t "seen" them. Why, it was startling how popular tattoos are. I noticed last weekend going to run errands that I identified at least a half dozen tattoo parlors within 10 miles of my northwest suburban Chicago home. No matter what I thought, or better said what I didn’t think, about tattoos they are a lot more popular and part of popular culture than I realized.
My Success Formula had never thought about tattoos. I have held the top marketing job in a $3B manufacturing company, and worked at PepsiCo a top marketing company, and I am heavily involved in advertising graphics with clients today — and from that I had developed a Lock-in about commercial graphics. And that Lock-in left me completely BIASed to ignore tattoo art as a commercial graphics product. The Tribune article showed me a market Challenge – a new art form that is growing in popularity and cheap. And as a result I’ve had to Disrupt my Lock-in. Now I’m looking for White Space to explore the possibilities this might open up for advertisers. (As long as it doesn’t include putting ink into my 50 year old white, less than menacing forearms – lol.)
We all have Success Formulas, and we Lock them in. We develop a BIAS around them that can blind us to opportunities. That’s why it is critical that we use external stimuli to help identify market Challenges we otherwise will completely miss. Don’t become BIAS blinded to opportunities.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 9, 2007 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
Because most companies never build a capability to internally Disrupt, and they don’t regularly implement White Space, they develope a Re-Invention Gap between what they do and what the market wants. This leads businesses to milk a Success Formula too long, and not start developing a new Success Formula until too late.
Take for example Kodak. Founded in 1881, this venerable company was synonymous with photographic film. The company grew like mad as its founder made photography cheaper, better and available to everyone. But then the market "matured" (that famous euphemism for slow growth) in the 1970s. Kodak missed the digital photography wave, and in the 1990’s was kicked off the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Kodak has recently layed off nearly 30,000 employees – reaching a smallness not seen since the 1930s (see more on layoffs here.)
Like most companies, Kodak waited too late to Disrupt and implement White Space. The company was actually a pioneer in digital photography. It holds over 1,000 patents. R&D efforts in the field were strong going back nearly 30 years. But Kodak waited to Disrupt until the film market was already long-past its peak, and the digital market was well developed and full of competitors (it was 2001 when Kodak finally introduced a digital camera line). And because the Re-invention gap between their business (film) and the market direction (digital) had become huge, the company almost didn’t survive (note Palaroid, also once a leader now no longer exists). The jury is still out on Kodak’s survivability, which has had 8 consecutive quarters of losses as it has attempted to turn itself around.
The simple fact is that companies pay too little attention to the market, and too much attention to the existing Success Formula. By trying to Defend & Extend the Success Formula, they delay the necessary Disruptions and avoid White Space. Far too many companies are stuck in the Swamp, spending all their time battling aligators and swatting mosquitos while completely forgetting their main objective was to drain the darn thing. Before they know it, they are caught in the Whirlpool spinning down the drain when competitors open the plug in the swamp where they are stuck.
To avoid being too late in reacting to market Challenges, it is critical businesses implement a program of regular Disruption. You have to practice the ability to Disrupt yourself. And regular Disruptions create openings for multiple White Space projects which breed new Success Formulas. Just look at Jack Welch at GE. GE could easily have spent the 1980s and 1990s milking their businesses. But with the aid of Neutron Jack, GE constantly Disrupted itself (some might even say "unnecessarily"), and it kept putting in place White Space projects. (remember "Destroy Your Business.com" teams that every business was required to have?) That led to an incredible string of growth and above average returns that is almost unprecedented for a company of any size. Institutionalized at GE is the notion that Disruptions are good and White Space projects are normal – and that is why the company keeps itself constantly ahead of competitors and out of the Swamp.
Don’t wait. Start Disrupting your organization today. Set up some White Space. The more you practice, the better you become. And you’d sure prefer finding yourself in the position of GE than Kodak.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 8, 2007 | Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Openness
It’s easier to recognize a problem than it is to find a solution. I’m sure you’ve noticed this. In practically everything we do we can see the need for improvement, but we often find that nothing happens to make things better. Even when a crisis happens,we often see lots of people discussing the problem – and some talk about potential solutions – but not much progress is made.
Take for example the U.S. health care situation. We now have a country where 20% to 40% of the population has no health care coverage with between 30% and 50% are significantly under-insured (ranges are offered because it depends on what study you read.) Virtually everyone agrees that this is a big problem, because the U.S. health care system is not designed to deal with the uninsured. We hear stories of people waiting for hours in hospitals for basic care that is often poorly administered. We hear about total health care costs rising because the uninsured drive up costs that are then born by insured patients. And the medicare and medicaid system we are told is nearly bankrupt, unable to meet many basic needs and not providing necessary life-sustaining assistance. Increasingly, doctors, clinics and even some hospitals refuse to take uninsured patients.
The problem has been easy to see. In America, the system has been based upon employer-provided health care. But, as employees have changed jobs they have lost insurance due to "pre-existing condition" clauses that deny coverage. And people who lost jobs to downsizings lost all coverage completely. Employment has shifted dramatically from manufacturing to services in the U.S., yet a far higher percentage of service employers offer very limited insurance, or no insurance at all. And the vast army of those who work part-time (under 40 hours per week), have no access to insurance as employers limit their hours and limit access to coverage as a cost saving measure. Employer-provided health insurance worked in the far more stable employment practices of the 1940s to 1970s, but the program simply isn’t sufficient to meet the needs of nearly half of Americans today.
Yesterday, Wal-Mart agreed with the largest service union in the USA (their bitter enemy, the Service Employees International Union) that dramatic changes were needed in health care coverage (see article here.) Obviously, Wal-Mart does not believe it can provide universal coverage to its 1.3 million employees and compete. But interestingly, the unions which have fought hard to get employees health benefits agree that far too many employers cannot be expected to offer health care and compete in a global economy. Democrats have easily joined the ranks of those asking for a different system, but interestingly now noteworthy Republicans agree – including Howard Baker former Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan.
So, what is to be done? There is no shortage of opinions about the solution (see article here). Many people want universal coverage from the federal government – but that has many detractors as well. Some states say a universal program should be implemented state-by-state, and Massachusetts has taken this direction. The President has offered to push for universal coverage with a series of changes to taxation of health care benefits. Lots of ideas – but most of these have existed for well over a decade. So it hasn’t been a lack of ideas that has stopped progress toward a different solution.
What we have with Wal-Mart’s announcement is a Disruption inside the business community. A Disruption saying "stop, we have to do something different here. The old way won’t work. We’re Locked-in to an outdated health care solution that must change." Having the country’s largest employer, in tandem with one of the largest unions, make this admission serves as a Disruption.
But this will make no difference if we don’t find White Space to actually create, test, pilot, learn, and define a new Success Formula for health care. Politicians often say "we need a debate on the options." Debates we’ve had. What we need is to try new solutions, and see if they work. We need to begin variations of the multiple scenarios so we can see what works, and what doesn’t. Massachusetts, for example, is a great experiment in a state-implemented program. But we also need to experiment with changes to the federal systems (Medicare and Medicaid) to see what they can actually do. And we need to experiment with subsidies and tax changes in the workplace to see what private programs can be developed. In the end, only in White Space do we actually test possible answers and thereby develop a new solution to which people migrate. The best solution is not the one debated to success, but instead the solution which is proven to work – and that is the solution to which people migrate. Anyone will change when they can see a better result, and that can only happen in White Space.
This is exactly what businesses have to do as well. The Phoenix Principle has demonstrated that whether a problem needs to be solved at the macro level (like national health care coverage) at an industry level (like national access to broadband telecommunications) or at a company, or function, work team or even an individual level Disruptions must be supplemented with White Space if a solution is actually to be developed and implemented. New solutions don’t come out of the universities or other "brain trusts". They come out of White Space where new Success Formulas that include strategies and tactics are actually tested and demonstrated to work. Then these new Success Formulas don’t have to be foisted upon people, because the better results attract people to them. Of course there are laggards, but we see that migration to a better result works far better than trying to debate, design, declare and then demand change – a model that almost never gets implemented nor works well.
So, we need White Space for experiments in health care coverage. And the state programs fit as one example. Let’s hope this Disruption will lead to more experiments. And we need more White Space in our companies, our departments and our lives so that we can experiment and find ways to produce better results. In the end, we can equate long-term success with White Space – and we’ve never needed more of it than we do today.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 30, 2007 | General, Innovation, Leadership
Readers of this blog know I am a big fan of Motorola. From a moribund company laying off tens of thousands of employees, in just 3 years Motorola has become a financially stronger, more profitable and much higher growing company. By using Disruptions and creating multiple White Space efforts, the company’s equity value has more than doubled under new leadership (see chart here.)
But recently, Motorola’s equity value dropped. The company announced it would miss an earnings forecast due to lower mobile phone margins. Note, Motorola did not say sales or earnings were declining – because both were up substantially. Market share had grown in all its key markets and products, and revenue growth was on track. The company did not stall, but it did miss an earnings forecast. At the time I blogged that investors should look at other key metrics beyond the earnings miss, since the company’s efforts all portend a great future with much improved revenue and earnings. But I was in the minority, as the majority of analysts unleashed a series of concerns about Motorola’s ability to keep profitably growing.
And that’s when Motorola’s management blinked. Instead of taking to the airwaves with its story of planned growth in order to reset investor expectations, leadership chose to announce a 3,500 employee lay-off (see article here.) And that created a target for corporate raider, Carl Icahn. Today he announced that he owned 1.4% of Motorola shares, and he wants a seat on the Board of Directors (see article here.) On CNBC’s Faber report (see article here), Mr. Icahn informed investors he wanted to pay out the company’s $10B cash hoard in a special dividend, sell several businesses, take on substantial debt and use cash to buy up outstanding shares. Innovation be danged! Mr. Icahn wants to take the money and run.
When public speaking I ask audiences what the fastest way is to create cash value in a business. I tell them you can immediately create cash value by selling the desks, chairs, copiers, intellectual property, new product designs, customer lists, distributor contracts and vendor agreements. Then you can layoff the workforce, because in the short term they are purely cost. "But what about tomorrow, next week, and next year?" is the audience’s standard reply. And that is the key. For everyone can see that by selling these assets it kills the ability to create what might be far greater future value. Somewhere, someone has to invest in White Space, or there is no innovation nor growth.
Phoenix Principle companies create above average value by combining profitability with growth. By using White Space to develop new products, new markets, new customers, new services and launch innovation of all kinds these companies create value. Managers that optimize the business, run it for immediate cash, destroy value by seeking to get the most possible cash as fast as possible. And that is Mr. Icahn – shooting at the Phoenix in order to get meat today rather than generate more value from many eggs and chicks both today and tomorrow.
How did this happen to Motorola? The leadership did not do an effective job of communicating their future opportunities. Google, Cisco and Microsoft all have a cash hoard, a good credit rating and several businesses they could sell. They also have an equity value (aka stock price) high enough that it reflects the future expected value. Motorola’s leadership did not shed the old mantle of the stodgy midwestern company. Thus when iPhone was announced at MacWorld it eclipsed the fact that a similar product (ROKR) has been on the market from Motorola for several months and already sold more units than iPhone predicted to sell in its first 24 months! Phoenix companies not only have to follow The Phoenix Principle, they have to get investors on board to the expectations of future growth and profits.
I am a Motorola shareholder, which should surprise no one that has read this blog. But I am not overjoyed that my investment is worth more today due to Mr. Icahn. Mr. Icahn will at best put a few extra dimes in my pocket short term. But as a Phoenix company Motorola can put many dollars in my pocket soon enough. If Mr. Icahn succeeds with his plans he will kill the bird laying the proverbial golden eggs, and that is in fact bad news for investors, employees, suppliers and customers who will see Motorola lose market share to Nokia, Sony, RIM and others. And Chicago will watch another great company, like happened at Sears, move from market leadership to the whirlpool of demise.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 28, 2007 | Disruptions, General, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness
How can we recognize a Phoenix company? One that will sustain its success for a prolonged period? We can start by looking at the one and only company which has been on the Dow Jones Industrial Average ever since it was created. The one company that has overcome Schumpeter’s dire predictions of individual company failure, and demonstrated it is possible to earn above average rates of return for extended time and simultaneously grow. That company is General Electric.
A recent article on GE’s Medical Devices business (see article here) highlights key characteristics of how to overcome Lock-in to an existing Success Formula by internally Disrupting and using White Space. Mark Morita is the Manager for Disruptive Technologies within this GE business. Mark is not an engineer, nor is he in product development. GE recognizes that it must maintain a powerful group always focused on making incremental improvements in their products and markets. But, they simultaneously must have a Disruptive focus that can produce breakthrough results.
And that is where Mark comes in. Mark Disrupts the engineers by introducing technologies from entirely other fields. While they attend medical equipment conferences, Mark attends gaming and consumer electronics conferences. While they try to make sonogram machines that are 10% lighter or 10% cheaper, Mark looks for ways to make them the size of a GameBoy at less than half current cost. His role is not only tolerated in GE – it is mandated. All across the many GE businesses they maintain roles which are dedicated to attacking Lock-In and Disrupting the existing Success Formula. Mark and his counterparts constantly keep the GE businesses operating White Space to create new Success Formulas leading to growth.
Jack Welch, the famed former CEO of GE, had the nickname "Neutron Jack." This referred to his willingness to Disrupt GE in order to seek above average results and growth. No business was sacred in GE, and no market was beyond their reach. Welch constantly Disrupted GE from within, and kept Lock-in from leading to deteriorating performance. It wasn’t mere goal-setting that kept GE dynamic, it was an institutionalized practice of internal Disruption and extensive use of White Space. New CEO Jeffrey Immelt is now continuing that practice, with dramaticly large recent acquisitions of about 2/3 of Abbott Labs (medical diagnostic equipment) and Smiths Group (aerospace) while indicating he plans to sell the $10B plastics business (see article here).
Even a huge company, such as GE, can operate according to The Phoenix Principle and sustain success. The Phoenix Principle does not apply only to small companies, nor those in high-tech markets. Any company can achieve and sustain success if they are willing to identify their Success Formula and Lock-ins, attack those Lock-ins with programs designed to generate internal Disruptions, then fund White Space in which permission is given to develop new Success Formulas. These steps may seem mundane, but those who follow them can become the next GE – and that would not be a bad thing.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 21, 2007 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
Walgreen’s is the kind of company that can make an investor very worried. It’s an "old fashioned" retailer, and the company has certainly seen dramatica changes in its markets. Over the last decade, we have changed how we purchase licensed pharmaceuticals, as well as how we think about "drug stores" as many competitors have begun offering to fill prescriptions. The "corner pharmacists" has practically disappeared. Is Walgreen’s a company on the brink of disaster?
As I’ve written before, look for a growth stall. Any time a company sees declining revenue or profits for 2 or more consecutive quarters, or two or more quarters of declining year-over-year sales or profits, the company enters a growth stall. When this happens, there is a less than 7% chance the company will ever again sustain growth of a meager 2% per year. Interestingly, Walgreen’s has not stalled. This despite all the changes in insurance rules about drug payments, the advent of on-line and mail-order pharmacies, corporate moves to drastically cut employee drug costs, the entry of new competitors such as discount retailers (WalMart and Target) and just about every grocer, and competitor moves to offer generic drugs at extremely low prices.
At its recent annual meeting (see article here), the new CEO very clearly identified many of these influences as Challenges the company must face. He followed this up by listing all the actions Walgreens had taken to set up White Space projects to maintain company growth, which include but are not limited to: digital photo processing, refilling printer ink cartridges, introducing exclusive department store type cosmetics, and now even opening in-store health care clinics for walk-in customers. As the CEO, Jeffrey Rein said, "We’re testing everything we possibly can to see what happens, to see what does work. We don’t know until we put it out there." After a very clear statement that the company faces many market shifting Challenges, similarly clear statements about using White Space to drive new growth.
This new CEO is not an outsider by the way. He’s a 25 year company veteran. So it’s clear that companies can internally develop leaders who can recognize Challenges, Disrupt and establish White Space. Whether Walgreens can maintain its 32 years of ongoing growth is no sure thing. The fact that the company has not stalled however is a great testament to identifying Challenges and reacting. As a company that is facing tremendous Challenges, Walgreen’s leadership is a model of how to keep up the growth by using White Space.
