by Adam Hartung | Jan 12, 2007 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
My last blog led to a reader comment "Can there be White Space without Innovation?" (click here to read full comment) Quite simply, I don’t see how. Of course, innovation is a term open to wide interpretation. Some think that innovation requires a huge breakthrough invention, a new product, or a never-before-seen business model. Maybe a patent or a copyright. In fact, innovation simply means introducing a new way of operating for yourself or your customers. Defined this way, we can innovate in all parts of our business model, and innovations can be "small" or "large". What’s important about White Space is that we use innovation processes to attack old Lock-ins and develop a new Success Formula.
Take for example Foulds, a 121 year old $25million revenue company that makes pasta in Libertyville, IL (see full article here.) Pasta is far from a "high-tech" business. And the distribution channels are extremely stable and well known. Suppliers are HUGE agribusinesss competitors like Cargill, and customers are HUGE supermarket chains like Jewel, Dominick’s, Safeway and Kroger. Many competitors are extremely well funded such as New World Pasta that spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns for Prince and Creamette brands. In this competitive situation, the world changed in the late 1990s when the Atkins diet craze swept across America and many people stopped eating pasta entirely. Suddently, Foulds was facing a stagnant market, surrounded by industry forces much, much better resourced than they were.
The easy answer for Foulds would have been to drop into a price war to drive volume. Or to have dumped money into advertising – largely to no avail. Or possibly closing shop, or looking for a buyer to "consolidate" the industry. Doing "more of the same" to Defend & Extend the 121 year old business model would have led to loss of share to the big players and possibly failure. So, company CEO Chris Bradley opened White Space in the company he ran. He allowed his employees to face the Market Challenge, and atack the Lock-ins so prevalent. In their effort, the team overcame commitment to a century-old recipe for pasta. They experimented with different ingredients and then different manufacturing processes (literally adjusting the time-proven work of generations). In the end they developed a pasta with 6 times the normal fiber of regular pasta and a taste and texture that is considered better than what dry pasta was like before.
This new pasta is not a patentable product. And it doesn’t open some new "food category." But it does allow people who seek a high-fiber, high-protein and healthy product for their diet to eat pasta – something not allowed on some diets at all and heavily restricted on others. And this innovation has helped the company to not only deal with the Market Challenge, but actually to thrive. Foulds recognized a Market Challenge, Disrupted its Lock-in to old recipes and hand-made manufacturing processes, and then gave permission to the team to innovate a new Success Formula which could appeal to a shifting market. The value of White Space is that it gives innovation a place to flourish, a place to succeed, by intentionally acquiring permission to break old Lock-ins and thereby develop a new Success Formula that incorporates innovation – of any type or scale that addresses Market Challenges.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 9, 2007 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
If you aren’t tuned-in to ad agencies, and if you don’t live in Chicago, you might well have missed a furor that erupted in early December regarding America’s largest retailer. Wal-Mart made a switch in ad agencies last fall, moving their $500million account to DraftFCB. But then, shortly after making the switch, Wal-Mart fired the company’s head of marketing and fired the agency. Wal-Mart then, and now, was unwilling to offer an explanation. They hid behind a veiled claim of "ethics violations," using besmirching language to imply wrong-doing while offering no facts.
Since then, Susan Chandler at The Chicago Tribune has unearthed a pretty good explanation of what went on (see article here.) [Like lots of news stories, it takes some time and research to start piecing together what really happened.] Seems more than a year ago Wal-Mart hired a new 35 year old marketer to help change the Wal-Mart image and promotion program. Given how Wal-Mart’s growth prospects, and stock price, had stagnated since 2000 this appeared like a very good idea.
The new marketer started moving Wal-Mart away from selling on Price, Price and Price. As my old marketing professor said "Price is nothing but a blunt club that has no meaning. Skilled marketers use other tools to create customer value and over time make a lot more money." So this new marketer’s actions looked like a good move to actually help Wal-Mart get back on the growth track.
She actually had Wal-Mart underwriting fashion shows. And launched advertising in Vogue magazine. And she moved much trendier merchandise into the stores. She also started Wal-Mart selling higher margin products, such as wine, gourmet coffee and sushi. She did this in selected stores, testing her ideas. In effect, she set up her own White Space and began working on a new Success Formula to replace the old, tired one at Wal-Mart.
But, she made a small mistake. She didn’t really have Permission to use Market Challenges to create a new Success Formula. Wal-Mart had not (and still has not) Disrupted itself. The company has not agreed that it’s Success Formula needs to change, and its leaders have not expressed any need for a new Success Formula. Operating in denial of the marketplace Challenges which have let Target, Kohl’s and JCPenney take away customers and sales, Wal-Mart really wanted the new marketing head to Defend & Extend the old Success Formula. She may have thought she had White Space, but she didn’t. While she had resources, she lacked Permission – Permission to attack old Lock-ins and Permission to develop new solutions.
So the top brass at Wal-Mart fired her. And they fired the ad agency. It’s easier to deny Challenges, and fire those who take on Lock-ins, than it is to Disrupt your thinking and commit to White Space. It’s easier to live in Lock-in than use White Space to find a new and better Success Formula.
Wal-Mart has had many "industry experts" support these actions. According to the Tribune, once the firings were done the Chairman of a retail consulting company (Howard Davidowitz) said "Wal-Mart’s lifestyle advertising is all wrong. It shows in the sales." Uh, with 99% of the company stuck in doing wat it’s always done, you don’t suppose the weak results are dure more to a failing Success Formula than some new White Space efforts? The consultant is as Locked-in as Wal-Mart’s maangement. Even this outsider was willing to give the new marketer permission to try new things. Supporting management may help him get future fees, but it isn’t doing the investors or vendors much good.
Or, take this quote from George Whalin, another "industry expert," – "They [Wal-Mart] don’t attract 25-year-old trendy women. Their customers are older women. They’re not skinny-jeans buyers…. They [Wal-Mart] lost their minds." Maybe the need for new customers is the problem, George. You think it’s a poor idea to attract younger customers? It’s bad to expand your customer base? To upgrade your product lines to higher margin items and to improve your competitiveness against your fastest growing and most successful competitors is "losing your mind"? Not only is Wal-Mart Locked-in, so are the "experts." If they won’t support White Space, with Permission to develop a new Success Formula, how do they suppose Wal-Mart is to turn-around its sales trends?
As this firing happened, Wal-Mart had its worst November sales in a decade. How does Wal-Mart talk about this performance? According to the company spokesperson, "We have found the thing that appeals to everyone is price… We will continue to emphasize price leadership."
Reinforcing the old Success Formula isn’t going to solve Wal-Mart’s competitive problems. If you keep doing what you just did, you’re going to get what you just got. Without Permission to Disrupt Lock-ins and create a new Success Formula, all the size and resources of even a Wal-Mart won’t create success. Too bad for Wal-Mart’s top marketer, too bad for the agency, too bad for shoppers looking for an improved Wal-Mart, too bad for vendors that want Wal-Mart to do more than beat them up for lower prices, and too bad for investors.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 5, 2007 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle
Boy, Motorola‘s stock had a rough day today. The company announced lower than expected earnings, and the price dropped 7.8%! A recent chart (see here) shows this has been the extension of a slide that started back in October, with the latest decline bringing the free fall to over 25%! Wow. Meanwhile the DJIA and NASDAQ 100 have all gone up substantially. This is ugly. Should you sell the stock if you’re an investor?
If you’ve read this blog a while, you probably know that I’m recommending you don’t sell Motorola. In fact, consider buying more. Why would I say that – and what do I see that all these other investors don’t? Well, just take for example the MarketWatch article on Motorola (see here). It’s all about mobile phone handsets. Although volume is up, and Motorola is taking share from competitors, it’s prices have gone down and thus revenue and profit have been hurt. The companion article on new products at Motorola (see here) also talked only about handsets. Merrill Lynch issued a report on Motorola, cutting its rating to Neutral from Buy, and through several pages of analysis the only discussion was about sales of mobile handsets. All of these would lead you to believe that all Motorola does is make and sell mobile handsets. But we know that’s not true.
Why, just before Christmas (12/21/06) Motorola announced its acquisition of Tut (see here), a company that helps Motorola’s Network and Enterprise unit expand its market in IPTV and the "connected home" marketplace. Tut helps telephone companies get into the TV business, and enriches the communications at the home. Tut built upon Motorola’s earlier acquisition of Symbol Technologies (9/20/06 see here.) And that, of course, had expanded the acquisition of General Instruments in 2000 that made Motorola a major player in the DVR business (see here). Don’t forget, Motorola also bought Good Technology (11/11/06 see here) which gave them a boost in the mobile communicatinos business we think of now as "blackberry." Now Motorola is not only in the network, data and video technology for businesses, but home use as well. Both growing at double digit rates annually.
Simultaneously, Motorola has been expanding its R&D in new ways. They have expanded development operations in Brazil (see here) as well as India (see here.) And don’t forget their 2006 partnerships with Kodak and Google to develop and launch new products (see here.)
And the company has expanded other very large and growing businesses. Have we forgotten that Motorola makes the infrastructure equipment for mobile phones (and all other mobile devices) and they recently won the deal to rebuild the Sprint network (8/9/06 see here.) Have we forgotten that Motorola is #1 (by a huge amount) in the radio systems for Police, Fire, Ambulance and other safety services? And that business got a shot in the arm after 9/11/01 when the government asked to connect these systems – leading to Motorola’s launch of MotoVision as a product which can link these emergency services and is now rolling out across the U.S. (see here.)
Motorola is much more than a handset business. And even that is growing – and gaining share on all competitors. Motorola isn’t a story of a company stalling. It’s a company that has been investing in multiple White Space projects simultaneously as it expands into new businesses and finds new opportunities. Yes, these need to produce higher revenues and higher profits. And it is important Motorola learn how to forecast its sales dollars and earnings to help investors know what to expect. But we must not lose sight of the fact that Motorola is a company that is growing, at double digit rates, and earning above market average rates of return on its sales. It has put in place a new management team (new CEO and new Marketing head – see articles on Zander as 2006 CEO of the year here and on Keller here ) who are willing to bring Challenges to the fore and use Disruptions to drive new innovation.
Motorola has attacked old Lock-ins head on. It has established White Space, and is developing new markets to expand its sales. Now, and in the future, mobile handset sales are only a part of the business. It’s time Wall Street analysts, news reporters and investors take a broader view of Motorola. Anyone who does should see "a future so bright they need to wear shades."
by Adam Hartung | Jan 3, 2007 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Did you buy any CDs this Christmas? If you did, the odds re you didn’t buy as many as you did in previous years. A freefall in sales of physical music products (CDs and music DVDs) has been going on since 2000. (For more data see Chicago Tribune article here.) That year CD sales peaked at 942 million units. By 2005, the volume was down to 705 million – a full 25% decline! And sales were off an additional 15.7% in the first six months of 2006.
Meanwhile, according to the Recording Industry Assocition of America, Sales of digital singles increased 71.3% in the first half of 2006. Since inception in 2003, sales of iTunes have reached a staggering 1.5BILLION songs – making Apple Computer Company the 4th largest music seller in the U.S. According to ComScore networks (see more data here), sales at iTunes increased a whopping 84% in the first 3 quarters of 2006. According to the V.P. of communications at RIAA, Jonathan Lamy, "This is a markeptlace that went from nothing 3 years ago to this year surpassing a billion dollars in retail revenue" (quote from Tribune.)
You have to wonder, why is Apple capturing all these sales and all this value? After all, they didn’t invent MP3 technology – the format that made digital music possible had been around for several years before Apple created its iPod version of the music storage and playback device. Likewise, Napster had gone on to great infamy demonstrating the huge demand for a digital music site years before iTunes was launched. Obviously it wasn’t a technology breakthrough that gave Apple this big success.
Furthermore, before Apple launched either iPod or iTunes Sony had already been a long-term leader in consumer electronics. Sony’s famous Walkman, Discman and other products had pioneered portable music. Sony had a global distribution for its products in stores of all types, including its own. And Sony was a brand synonymous with quality in consumer electronic devices and music playback. Sony even owned its own music label, and a huge archive of popular songs as well as contracts with several popular artists. Sony had all the pieces to create and dominate the digital music business. But it didn’t.
Sony was, and is, trapped in its Lock-in. The company had two separate division for hardware and software (music), and the two didn’t talk to each other. Worse, both divisions committed to the old music industry Success Formula, and had Locked-in on the physical distribution method for selling music (CDs). [For White Paper on music industry Success Formula and Lock-in visit here.] Both feared cannibalization more than they sought breakthrough solutions, as Sony joined EMI, RCA and others in suing Napster into oblivion during 2000, hoping it would stop digital music sales and help them regain sales and profits.
Today the traditional music companies are still Locked-in, and Apple is making enormous profits. Like Southwest in the airline industry, Apple is simply doing what the market wants and is reaping huge benefit because the most likely, and most powerful, competitors are more interested in preserving Lock-in than succeeding. Just because competitors are large, and well funded, and full of good product development does not mean you can’t effectively compete against them. When markets shift Lock-in often means that the most logical activity – that of existing competitors reaping the benefit – is often NOT what occurs. And it makes enormous markets available for new competitors to develop new Success Formulas that create above average returns.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 2, 2007 | Leadership, Openness
What is strategy? To far too many people, strategy is thought of as "how can we succeed doing what we’ve always done." To be honest, most of what is written on strategy, going back to the seminal work by Michael Porter "Competitive Strategy", deals with how to identify a strategy and then execute it. What strategy must be is developing an approach to win in a competitive marketplace.
On New Year’s Day, 2007 I observed one of the best uses of strategy I’ve seen in a long time. Little known Boise State University went into the Fiesta Bowl to compete with Oklahoma University. This was truly a David and Goliath match-up. Oklahoma has been a top 10 powerhouse in football for decades. Its annual funding for the football program is 10x the entire athletic department at Boise State. Why, Boise State wasn’t even qualified to be considered as a top-ranked football team because they weren’t considered a BCS team (BCS is the acronym for the people who determine the bowl games and how they will determine the national college football champion.) Nonetheless, Boise State was in the game and they were projected to be killed by the much better funded, more experienced and far larger Oklahoma football program.
But, Boise State did something no one predicted. They did not enter the stadium and play a traditional game. From the opening salvo, Boise State was executing plays not expected by Oklahoma. Within the first 5 minutes they had used unexpected play calling to jump into a 14 point lead. And Oklahoma was scratching its head. The game played on, and Oklahoma slowly scratched and clawed back. With just over a minute left in the game, Oklahoma finally went into the lead. But, Boise State did more than not give up. They came back with a series of unexpected plays. On what was destined to be the final play of the game, and needing to go a third of the field for a touchdown, Boise State executed a play from the 1930s – something never seen on the modern football field any more – the "hook and ladder" play. They scored, and tied the game. In overtime, Oklahoma jumped into the lead. But Boise State came back, once again with unexpected plays. On the final play, needing to score or lose, Boise State again used a play almost never seen any more – the Statue of Liberty play – and they won the game as the Boise State player walked all alone into the end zone.
After the game the announcers kept commenting on how Boise State kept Oklahoma off kilter. "They used every play in the playbook" an announcer said – by the way, that announcer was Barry Switzer who used to be the head coach at Oklahoma and had won a national championship. What was even more telling was how the announcers reacted. When asked who should be the "most valuable player" the agreement was they wanted to select THE COACH! By using plays that his competition did not expect, he managed to beat a team that was far better funded, with lots more resources and a lot more coaches.
Strategy mattered. Boise State did not play the game that the entrenched and better funded competitor wanted to play. They avoided the Lock-in, which was sure to beat Boise State. Instead, the coach kept Challenging the large competitor, and Oklahoma could not react. The much larger competitor had not ignored their smaller competitor, but they were not prepared for the use of an unexpected strategy. In the end, the team that pushed competition into White Space won by demonstrating a different Success Formula than what the traditional, entrenched competitor was prepared for.
We all can learn from Boise State and their upending of Oklahoma. As individuals, work teams and businesses we can recognize that those who develop strategies which change the competitive field have a distinct advantage. If we can overcome our Lock-in to traditional practices, and try new things that are unexpected, we can come out on top even if our competition is much larger, better funded and loaded with advantages we don’t have. Whenever you need reassurance of the value of innovating to change the competitive field, just remember the coaches at Boise State.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
I’m almost 50, and if you’re age is anywhere near mine, and you’ve lived in the U.S.A., you probably have a really bad attitude toward electricity created by nuclear power. Back in the 1970s electric utilities set about building nuclear power plants which cost up to 10 times (not 10% more, 1,000% more) than they forecast. As a result, electric rates were shooting up beyond everyone’s expectations in order to pay for these enormous cost overruns. Additionally, construction timelines were extended out 2x to 5x expectations, causing power shortages which further drove up rates. And then, on top of all of this, serious concerns about safety developed as we saw various problems in nuclear operations – not the least of which was the core exposure at Three Mile Island which put a scare in everyone across the U.S.A. as we all genuinely feared a Chernobyl-style meltdown and radiation leak.
The electic utility leaders of the 1970s made a series of mistakes when they went about implementing nuclear power. Not the least of these was a complete lack of standardization. As a famous study at the time reported, in the U.S.A. no two nuclear power plants were the same. Successful nuclear programs in France, Germany and Japan had demonstrated that by utilizing the same engineering, the same plans, and learning from each and every build then improving those plans, they had developed extremely cost effective nuclear powered electricity which was proving to be extremely safe. As a Harvard Professor (definitely not a hotbed of support for nuclear power) reported, the French program was producing electricity at rates so low that you could completely encase the spent fuel rods in platinum 3 foot thick and blast it into outer space, or bury it into a core hole 15 miles below the earth surface, and the added cost would still make their cost per kilowatt hour a fraction of the cost of fossil fuel generators in the U.S.
But, that was then. What about now? As recently reported (see Chicago Tribune article here), nuclear power is starting to make a U.S. comeback. Fossil fuels are more expensive than ever. And, this time the industry seems to be intent upon utilizing all the lessons from the past 50 years. Yes, that’s right, we’ve been making electricity from nuclear fuel for 50 years (the U.S. wasn’t first, but even here nuclear power is over 40 years old). But will this program move forward?
That all depends upon our Lock-in. As a country, we can choose to remain locked-in to our previous assumptions about nuclear power. Assumptions based upon a single history (the U.S. experience versus the global experience), and based upon a very poor implementation. Or, we can view recent world events as a Disruption to our thinking. We can view the 5 year old war in Iraq as at least partially connected to our need for secure fossil fuel reserves. We can view the breakdowns in domestic offshore supplies from storms in the Gulf of Mexico as indicative of the risks inherent in our fossil fuels based supply system. We can view the ongoing reports of global warming as having at least the potential of being accurate (and if so, potentially deadly). We can utilize these market challenges to our energy supply strategy as creating within us a need to disrupt our approach to energy production in the U.S.A.
If we do this, we then can see the validity in using White Space to restart a nuclear energy program domestically. We should not wholesale change strategy – we need to learn. We should set aside Permission for a handful of companies to utilize all the accumulated knowledge on nuclear power to begin implementing some new plants. We should observe these projects closely. Monitor their progress and results. Learn from them as much as possible. And ADAPT in these White Space projects to develop solutions which work. Then, we can begin to MIGRATE toward a nuclear power as an effective part of our national energy policy.
As a nation, we’ve been Locked-in to an "anti-nuclear" energy strategy. But, 30 years have passed since Three Mile Island, and a lot has been learned. Our approach, our strategy, is being Challenged by a range of forces. What we must do now is see these Challenges as reason to Disrupt ourselves – our approach – and realize we must move beyond our Lock-in. We can use White Space to give Permission for trying a new solution, and potentially develop a new Success Formula for American energy supply.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2006 | Defend & Extend, Ethics, General, Leadership, Lock-in
Do you ever wonder how people get so locked in to doing something that they end up doing the wrong thing? Do you think they are all bad people? My experience has shown me that rarely do people do things because they have no internal moral compass. Rather, it’s the systems we use to Lock-In behavior which causes behavior to end up creating negative "unintended consequences."
Take for example compensation for attorneys. As everyone knows, attorneys charge by the hour. As do plumbers, electricians, retail store clerks and a raft of other occupations. On the face of it, this makes complete sense. But, as the Chicago Tribune recently reported (see article here), when you couple this simple billing process directly to compensation, you can get some pretty bad outcomes. By "promoting" what is seen by top management as a key success factor, your Lock-in can lead well-meaning people to do things which are less than…… shall we say….. positively correlated with customer success?
As the Tibune reported, by Locking-in on the metric, billable hours, what starts to happen in law firms is people "fudge" their billing. What appears to be a good thing, tieing compensation to a key firm growth metric, leads everyone up and down the firm to do unnecessary work, take longer time to do work than is necessary, utilize resources on projects that are hard to justify, and even outright exagerate the time spent on client efforts. As a result, some clients are finding they need to challenge their attorney’s bills – not an activity you want to spend time doing with someone who is supposedly your advocate, hopefully looking out for your best interest. And some judges have been considering attorney’s bills too high, and refusing to force the payment of those bills.
I don’t mean just to pick on attorneys here. More than a dozen years ago I took a leading position with the consulting firm of Coopers & Lybrand (later merged with Price Waterhouse and then later acquired by IBM.) I had worked at the firm only 6 months when I was in a meeting with the top officers of the firm to discuss "firm direction." As the meeting droned on, talking about nothing but billable hours per type of project, I finally said "you know, I’m getting the sense that no one here cares what kind of work we do. I could have armies of MBAs operating jack hammers and no one would care as long as it generated thousands of billable hours at market hourly rates." One of the top 5 firm officers turned to me and said "you know Adam, now you’re starting to get it."
What we all have to be careful about is Locking-in on metrics which can lead to behavior that does not serve our customers well. This Lock-in, often a key sign of good implementation of strategy or quality (locking-in metrics is a cornerstone of Six Sigma), can become deadly when disassociated from market conditions and customer needs. Yes, billable hours are good – but only when those hours are serving the client’s best interest.
That’s the problem with Lock-in, at first it seems like a really good idea. You use a metric to help drive repetition of behavior which has proven to lead to success. Locking in on the metric improves results. It clearly is beneficial, and a good thing. But these same locked-in metrics can prove problematic, even disastrous, if we don’t regularly Challenge them in the face of market requirements. We need to alter our metrics in order to keep ourselves aligned with customer needs. Metrics must be seen as guideposts, not ends into themselves. And all of them need to be viewed as flexible and alterable – before they lock us in to a tour of the Swamp and eventually failure.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 22, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
I’ve talked a lot about the business lifecycle, but not recently. For newer BLOG readers, I describe the business lifecycle as being like a river. Companies start out in the Wellspring, looking for a working Success Formula. After it hits on a functioning business model, it enters the Rapids where it uses innovation in all parts of its business to fully develop the Success Formula and make maximum returns while growing. Then the company hits a growth stall, and enters the Flats – where paddling suddenly becomes critical. Hoping that they can now extend their life by doing more of the same, they hope to stay in the Flats. But, unfortunately, in today’s economy there is no energy in the Flats and companies find themselves rapidly in the Swamp, where they become so obsessed with killing mosqitos and fighting alligators that they forget entirely what the Rapids were like and their real objective is to find fast moving water again. Finally, they fall into the Whirlpool when competitors simply pull them into failure.
I’m often asked how to identify transitions in companies across these sectors, and I point to how Lock-in during the Rapids leads to the stall in the Flats. Look at Lock-ins, and adherence to Lock-in even after the market has shifted and the Success Formula results are deteriorating. As focus becomes all about Lock-in adherence, even as results have become mired, and you see companies in the Swamp. Very few recover from the Swamp – the use up their resources as competitors push them toward the Whirlpool.
WalMart has exhibited all the traits of a company deeply in the Swamp. Despite their poor results, chronicled in this blog, Walmart rigidly sticks to its doctrine and hopes the market will bring them fresh water so the paddling isn’t so tough. A great example showed up recently, in the form of WalMart’s business cards. In the midst of it’s worst monthly and quarterly performance in over a decade, WalMart chose to react by reducing the physical size of their business cards (see Forbes article here.) Yep, amidst a crisis in growth this management team has reacted by cutting costs – it’s core Success Formula Lock-in – in the trivial area of business cards. WalMart is schrinking the cards in order to lower the paper cost and ink cost in printing employee cards. Give me a break – this is going to make any difference in the competitive problems with Target, Kohl’s and JCPenneys?
This joins the pantheon of key indicators that investors, employees and suppliers can use to identify a company in deep strategic trouble. I used to call it "the paper clip memo phenomenon." Look for the CEO of a troubled company to send out an email telling employees to be sure to save and reuse paper clips before discarding materials. This memo has come in many forms – such as "please start printing on the back side of paper as well as the front side", or "from here forward printing documents in color is forbidden," to "we are reducing all email archive space by 75% in order to save on server costs in IT." All real world examples of business leaders who are effectively telling the world they have no idea how to deal with the strategy problems they face, and they hope to survive as long as possible by adhering to Lock-in.
WalMart is huge and it won’t fail tomorrow. Heck, if we get a recession next year (predicted by several economists) WalMart might even see an up-tick in business and a jump in it’s stock price as customers go on a cost-saving binge. But, longer term, WalMart has demonstrated that it is out of touch with its customers and competitors – and it’s low cost no matter the consequences strategy is not the path to growth. Sometimes, the smallest things can demonstrate the biggest strategy problems. Just look at their business cards.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 11, 2006 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
The Phoenix Principle is not just for big or old companies. Any business, even small and family owned ones, can greatly increase their success using The Phoenix principle. And a great all-American example of this is NASCAR and the phenomenal growth it has achieved. (Read more about the success of NASCAR here.)
Forty years ago stock car racing was tied closely to blue collar guys with a set of wrenches and a desire to drive faster than the cops would allow – without getting caught. When we went to watch stock cars on hot nights you got muscled-up street cars driven with a fair bit of abandon. Most races were interspersed with local beauty pagents, and more than an occasional demolition derby. Sometimes you wondered if you came for the races, or for the crashes. A good time to watch, but not the stuff of big business. Not, at least, until the France family decided to try some new things.
The elder Mr. France realized that by linking all these fans to sponsors there could be money in this sport. As long as anyone could drive, the purse would be low and the competition would be less than stellar. So he didn’t start with cars, instead he started buiding his own tracks, where the environment could be safe and he could control who got on the track and what they drove. Then he helped good drivers find sponsors who would pay for the cars in exchange for advertising. Using personalities like Richard Petty, France slowly took stock car racing from broken down Pontiacs ready for the salvage yard (and modified cars coming from Detroit’s auto companies) into the world of Winston Cup Racing. And big money brought faster cars, better drivers and more fans. All of these ideas born of his family’s imagination and a relentless effort to find ways to get the winning purses up.
Now, his son Brian France is continuing to innovate. It’s no longer Winston Cup – with ties to cigarettes, the South, and old fashioned notions of stock car racing. Now its the Nextel Cup with ties to being national, technology, and innovation. And he truly understands the importance of recognizing Challenges and breeding White Space. As he said "The time to make changes in my view is when you don’t have to. If you’ve got a situation where you have to change, that’s a much tougher environment. You get more momentum when you don’t have to change." Now those are great words of advice for businesses seeking growth and long-term success.
Did you know that NASCAR racing is the second most watched television sport in the U.S.? (Surpassed only by the NFL). But if you go to the track (owned by France, don’t forget) you get even more. Attendees can actually get visuals from inside the car – see the race like the driver does – while getting real time stats on the race. And Mr. France is constantly pushing for changes in cars, including recently allowing Toyota to race on what has long been considered the asphalt dedicated to "big American iron." Why? Well, after all, have you seen "The Fast and the Furious"? All those young fans are driving a very different "hot car" than I grew up with – and they want to see on the track what they get in and drive home! It’s all part of trying new things, seeing what will work, and moving forward.
Seventy-Five years ago America’s sport was baseball. Babe Ruth and Joe Dimaggio, then Mickey Mantle and Roger Marris dominated our lives. Now, it’s a much more competitive world for athletic entertainment. Football, basketball, and hockey have all become major U.S. sports. Every four years the World Cup of soccer gets more U.S. fans as the children of "soccer moms" grow up. Golf has seen another emergence as Tiger Woods has reinvigorated watchers. It would have been easy for stock car racing to simply become a niche like watching billiards, darts or horseshoe pitching. But it’s not. And it’s not because this family-owned business recognized the Challenges which existed in attracting fans, Disrupted itself by constantly seeking out new sponsors and new competitive dynamics, and never stopped using White Space to find a better Success Formula that would help it grow.
The opportunity exists for any family-owned company to be long-lived and highly successful. And if you follow the model of the France family you could find your business very successful indeed. It’s not about vision and dedication. It’s about experimenting, feeling paranoid about competition, and never stopping the use of White Space to find a better Success Formula.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 4, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
So what business is Sears in? I don’t think anyone knows any more. But it is certain that without a direction, Sears will burn through its cash and leave shareholders with nothing soon enough.
After months of whipping Sears management in this blog for extending its Lock-in to failing retailing practices, in my last Sears post I recognized that I finally could see the management team was milking Sears and KMart of cash. They weren’t trying to actually compete with Target, JC Penneys, Kohl’s and WalMart. They are interested in pulling as much cash out of Sears and KMart as possible. Recently the Chicago Tribune reported (see article here) that Sears was in fact using its "excess cash" to invest in derivatives. Buying into the equities of other companies in a fashion so that no one, not even Sears’ investors, would know what Mr. Lampert and his team is buying.
What’s wrong with this picture? Well, to start with, businesses no longer have some extended lifetime where they can sit back and "clip the coupons" as they rake in the cash. Sure that was possible in the less dynamic era from the 1940’s through the 1970s when competition was dominated by huge players (like Sears) who grabbed market share and then simply held onto it by erecting barriers to competition. But today the flow of products, money and information is so fast that no barrier actually holds back the tide of competition. Sears and KMart have to contend with all the old competitors, all the emerging new traditional retailers, and all the on-line retailers. And they are doing so without the benefit of a powerful supply chain like WalMart. When you go to "milk" the business, the poor cow finds itself malnourished and no longer producing a lot faster than most people predict. WalMart is too busy cutting prices to feed its machine, while Target and Kohls are out finding the latest new products and fashion goods. There isn’t much of a storehouse of value in a brand when everyone can see the number of stores declining, the costs and prices rising, and the employees less satisfied than at competitors. "Milking" the business was a strategy for the 1980’s and before – not really applicable today.
And is Mr. Lampert’s team using this cash flow to invest in something where they can achieve competitive advantage? Well, we simply don’t know. All we know is he’s investing in lots of derivatives – and hiding his investments from anyone to see. What’s wrong with this picture? Well, firstly, do investors have a right to know how their money is invested? I seem to recall investor information being a bedrock of importance to publicly traded companies.
"But what about Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway?" you may ask. Alas, we know that the go-go era of Berkshire Hathaway was at a time when Mr. Buffett and his cash stockpiles could be used to rescue situations where management was somewhat desperate. He offered a White Knight approach to helping those with cash needs to rebuild their business. But today, with the flourishing of Private Equity and Hedge Funds the marketplace is awash in dealmakers with lower capital costs hunting for the kinds of opportunities that were delivered to Mr. Buffett for most of the 1980s and 1990s. The value of such opportunities has shrunk so low that even Mr. Buffett himself, in the Berkshire annual reports, has stated that there are insufficient opportunities for him to keep Berkshire’s capital effectively employed for investors.
Beyond deals, Berkshire Hathaway has made almost all its money in insurance. Berkshire is a primary player in the sophisticated, and highly analytical, world of insurance underwriting and re-insurance (that’s insuring the insurers). Several times Mr. Buffett has explained that the primary profit generator for Berkshire comes from understanding risk and insurance products and knowing how to be the low-cost player in the insurance business. Something Berkshire has mastered and maintained for over 20 years. His investments in other companies, such as Pier One, have done no better than the overall marketplace – and at times far worse. In the end, his whole acquisitions of companies such as Dairy Queen have produced cash for investing into insurance – a target business where Berkshire Hathaway is not only low cost but also the most innovative company in the industry.
So where does that leave Sears? Their plans to "milk" the Kmart and Sears stores for cash I don’t buy into at all. As every quarter has demonstrated, revenues are falling and costs are rising faster than management can predict. Opportunities to sell the real estate into a REIT or other cash producer have not developed, and the real estate market has long ago peaked. Its plan to be a public "hedge fund" holds little promise of long-term above average returns or growth in an ever increasingly competitive world for "deals" where they are no better than any other sharp team of MBAs with a lot of cash from a pension fund or elsewhere. And there is no business, like Buffett’s insurance, where Sears management team claims to have any leadership or innovation.
Otherwise, Sears is a great company. The fact is, management has not really stepped up to any of the Challenges which faces the company in retailing, or in hedge fund investing or in identifying a new business which can grow and return above average profits for years into the future. There is no White Space at Sears, no effort to find a new business with advantage. Right now, Sears is just a vainglorious story of a CEO who wants to spend other people’s money. As Cramer says on Mad Money "You buy Sears to buy into my friend Eddie Lampert." With a below market average Return on Equity of 10.7%, a low Return on Assets of 3.9% and an above average Price/Earnings multiple of 22 – that’s a very risky buy.
