by Adam Hartung | Nov 30, 2006 | General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
WalMart prides itself on great execution. For years management has bragged about the company’s ability to get things done quickly and cheaply. But now the company has run into problems. Revenue growth has slowed, and the future is very unclear. A five year stock chart shows declining equity value of about $80billion. WalMart is finding out that when innovating, it’s execution skills are greatly lacking.
This week it was reported (see Tribune article here) that WalMart is going to report that it’s November sales actually FELL for the first time in a decade. This is just the latest in a string of bad news. Included is the fact that WalMart is planning to cut back its expansion plans in response to its declining year-over-year same store sales. The company’s foray into more trendy fashion goods has flopped, with those products being pulled. It’s taking on the drug retailers with flat price generic pharmaceuticals – largely to a market yawn. Net – WalMart monthly sales are up only half of Target‘s (who’s 5 year chart shows they found the $80B Walmart lost).
Readers of this blog know I’ve long stated that WalMart‘s future is dicey for investors and employees. Totally Locked In to its strategy of low cost, management has pruned any skills at innovation. Long gone are the people who in the 1960s helped Sam Walton pioneer the innovations to drive the low cost strategy. So now, when it needs to innovate, WalMart doesn’t have the right people to do the job. To paraphrase an old southern expression "even if the mind is willing, the flesh is weak."
WalMart desperately needs to change. But to do that the company needs to implement White Space. It needs to first own up to its Challenges. It needs to tell employees, vendors, investors and customers that they see a need to change and fully intend to. Then management needs to put in place a team that has the permission to develop a new Success Formula, reporting directly to the CEO (outside the existing management system), and fund that team with enough resources to really try something different. All these piecemeal ideas are getting lost in failed implementations by an organization too massive and tightly directed to do anything more than run the old Success Formula. The White Space group needs permission to develop a new store concept. To test things their own way and prove out the new Success Formula – not just a new tactic here or there. And then, instead of trying to push the tactic into the massive WalMart the company must migrate the traditional stores toward what works in the new Success Formula.
WalMart has done this right before. Sam’s Club is a huge success – a pioneer in the club store concept. There WalMart followed all the rules of White Space and created a Success Formula that worked.
If they will hire some new managers, and give them the kind of White Space they gave the Sam’s Club team, WalMart could migrate toward a more successful future in a matter of months. But if management keeps doing all these tactical actions they’ll only succeed in confusing everyone. Much to all of our dismay.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 22, 2006 | Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
When asked about companies that are great examples of Phoenix Principle companies I like to discuss Virgin. For years Virgin was considered a small company, but it is a great example of a small company that has become very, very big by following The Phoenix Principle. There is no doubt that the company founder, Richard Branson, had a lot to do with the company’s enormous success (just as Steve Jobs has had a huge impact on the success of Apple and Pixar). But we can look beyond the flamboyance of Branson to see that the success has had everything to do with avoiding Lock-in to a particular Success Formula and instead accepting Disruptions to constantly create and then manage White Space.
Virgin was founded as a "publishing" company, putting out its first magazine in 1968. In 1970 I guess you could say it became a "media" company as that’s when it entered mail-order music sales. By 1971 Virgin expanced into hard assets by opening its first retail record store, and then in 1972 opening its own studio to actually produce its own content, leading to the Virgin label introduction in 1973. In 1976, Success Formula expansion continued with the opening of a nightclub in 1977. In 1979 Virgin ignored the thinking of everyone else in the "music" industry by signing on The Sex Pistols – an outrageous band which made Virgin a well known label and very wealthy. By 1980, Virgin was pretty well established as a publishing/media/music company with enormous profits and great success. This could easily have Locked-in Virgin.
Then, in 1984 the company realized it had to expand or stagnate. But it didn’t select just one project. The company opened a potpouri of new White Space. Virgin Atlantic Airways was opened to haul passengers, and Virgin Cargo to haul goods. A hotel was opened in Deya, Mallorca. And Virgin Vision opened shop with a 24 hour satellite music channel. What do these have in common? Nothing more than each was a new opportunity to expand the company into high growth industries. The businesses did not even share the goodness of being in high margin businesses – as practically all were markets where profits were extremely rare to nonexistent. Thus, the second great Phoenix Principle axiom was applied. Virgin did not dictate how these projects would succeed. Rather, they were each given resources and permission to find a new Success Formula in markets where Locked-in competitors did poorly.
In 1994 Virgin Cola was launched as a company to compete with Coke and Pepsi. In 1996 Virgin opened Virgin Bridal, the first mass-retail approach to the formerly cottage industry of bridal shop goods. Virgin also partnered with a company winning the contract to build the Channel Tunnel rail link between the UK and Europe. In 1997 the company got into the rail business full bore with 15 lines in England and plans to expand. That year the company also launched Virgin Vie – a cosmetics company. And Virgin Direct banking was opened in the U.K. Why do I mention these? Because they were just some of the projects launched in the 1980s and 1990s that did not become wildly well known successes. Part of creating and managing White Space is trying things that don’t work out. Portfolio management says that we need a mix of projects, yet most organizations cannot stand the thought of investing in something that does not succeed. At Virgin, managing White Space does not just mean starting new things – it also means knowing when to sell or otherwise get out.
This all got my attention recently because Virgin America will be going into service soon, carrying air passengers across the U.S. (See full article in CIO Magazine here.) The project is a marvel at how to manage White Space, culled from decades of doing it well. Simplification is a cornerstone, as the new enterprise is ignoring long-held "beliefs" about what works with airlines – an industry in which 160 air carriers have gone bankrupt since the deregulation in 1978. Virgin relies heavily on vendors and contractors/consultants to get things done in the early days. Rather than use "industry standard" software packages for critical applications like bookings/reservations and scheduling they are literally building their own; and using Linux open source code rather than proprietary source from companies like Oracle or Microsoft. And much of the work is being done in India by companies that has never worked previously for an airline. Virgin is demonstrating that competing means doing what your competitors don’t – in order to be more flexible and develop a new competitive advantage.
Great companies are no accident. What they have in common is a willingness to Disrupt their Lock-in and use White Space to create new Success Formulas. Long-term, success does not come from understanding your "core competency" and optimizing it (if that were true Virgin would likely have followed the path of Playboy magazine or Sun records – the fabled company that launched Elvis but is now gone), but rather from overcoming market Challenges and developing new solutions to compete. To this day Virgin follows this path, fearing no new markets and entering with their own unique Success Formula developed in White Space. And anyone can participate, on the company web site is a link where you an submit your own Big Idea for consideration – always on the lookout for Disruptions and opportunities.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 10, 2006 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
I’ve long said that any company can innovate and grow. ANY company. This week we saw an example of a stodgy company, in one of the stodgiest industries, explain how it’s possible to take the steps toward improving its long term success. That company is Allstate – best known for it’s insurance business and its decades old tag line "your in good hands with Allstate." (See complete Chicago Tribune article here.)
I’m optimistic about Allstate, and do think it shows a high likelihood of outperforming its peers. And not because I think they have better underwriters, better risk managers and better agents. Nor because they are looking at all kinds of new products like pet insurance and identity theft insurance, as well as others. Nor because they are planning to roll out new "hipper" office decor.
I’m optimistic because the fellow who’s taking over as CEO shows the willingness to create and manage White Space within Allstate. Starting in 1999, Thomas Wilson took a look at Allstate Financial and wondered why it only sold unregistered products like life insurance and annuities rather than a larger suite of products including mutual funds. He could have studied on this question, pondered the potential market, hired consultants and generally analyzed the question unendingly. But, instead, in his own words he said to the unit leaders "Here’s $10million. Talk to me every two weeks."
With this small act ($10million is relatively small in a $33billion company) and short directive he created White Space in Allstate. He gave the unit permission to try new things, and the funds to execute. He also had the unit report to him, not somewhere down in the company where potential product line conflicts would eventually destroy the innovations. And he started his experiments in an important business, but not the legacy business, so that this unit could demonstrate success without contradicting too rapidly or strongly existing Lock-in.
He did it again in 2003. After decades of advertising, Mr. Wilson felt the advertising was insufficient and ineffective. So he tripled the budget, and told the ad agency to put in place a new team to develop a new program. Not an incremental act, but instead the granting of permission to try something new and plenty of budget to make it work. And again, he took responsibility.
Mr. Wilson wasn’t "born and raised" in Allstate. He worked in accounting, venture capital, investment banking and even the oil business (Amoco – later bought by British Petroleum [BP]) before joining this venerable company. That may have helped him to see the need for White Space, and to take actions to create it at this huge, analytically-driven company. Whatever has driven his actions, like a cross town fellow CEO Ed Zander at Motorola, Thomas Wilson is imbuing Allstate with White Space, and that portends very good things for investors, employees and customers.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 3, 2006 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
OK, I guess I’m dense. For months I’ve been asked what I thought of the management at Sears. And I have been pretty brutal, saying that Sears was not a viable long-term competitor against Wal-Mart, Target, Kohl’s and other major retail players. Especially as that competition intensifies. Why Sears can’t even get it’s own partners in Canada to go along with an acquisition of that unit (see article here).
But in October, I finally "got it" regarding Sears. Many newspapers reported that Sears equity value was jumping on the notion it would buy Home Depot, or another big company (see Chicago Tribune article here.) And I realized that Mr. Lampert wasn’t trying to develop a strategy to have Sears compete Sears long-term. Nor was he converting Sears into a Real Estate Investment Trust for long-term value. Instead, he’s "draining the Swamp" to get all the cash out of it he can before it rots.
Sears and KMart are at the end of their lives. Years of bad management has locked them into weak operations. But in American business, we never know how to deal with a business once it’s trapped in the Swamp – too busy killing mosquitos and fighting alligators to remember the primary mission. What we need to do is get the cash out. And that is clearly what Mr. Lampert is doing. He’s getting the cash out of Sears and its many holdings.
So, does that mean I’ve changed my mind on investing in Sears? Not really. It’s certainly OK to decide to exit a business in a fashion that actually creates a positive return (rather than keep running the business badly until Chapter 13 wipes out the investors and creditors). But Sears Holdings’ value has to be based upon what Mr. Lampert will do with this cash he plans to get out of Sears. That we don’t know. What will Lampert’s team do to create growth? He can’t create a positive future merely as the grim reaper. There has to be growth for investors to create long term value. Today, you would pay a heady 23x earnings for a company who’s future we know nothing about. That’s quite a premium to place on an unknown horse.
Will he invest wisely like Warren Buffet – the person he loves to be compared with? Will he invest in growth oriented enterprises like Buffet did in insurance, and later in public investments such as Coca-Cola? We don’t know. All we know is that like Berkshire Hathaway – which is named for the textile mill Mr. Buffet bought decades ago – Sears will soon enough stop being a brand name retailer and instead become something else.
In being smart about draining the Swamp – getting out of KMart and Sears with maximum cash – the Sears management team is doing something few business people in America do. For that, they are to be applauded.
If you’re a supplier to Sears, you’d better start looking for new customers to grow. For customers, they would be wise to realize that Sears and KMart will never again be what they once were – and we don’t know what they will be. For investors, the story is yet to be told. Will Sears pay out massive dividends giving investors a great return? Or will they invest in businesses at very low valuations that show great growth opportunities? Or will they invest the money poorly? Only time will tell. But we can be certain that Sears is no longer a retailer – it is now a diversified investment vehicle for Mr. Lampert and his management team. And only one of those kinds of companies has done well – a tough act to follow.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 28, 2006 | In the Rapids, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
A week ago Motorola missed analyst’s expectations for third quarter revenues and profits, and the stock fell (see story here). Given that the stock price has had a great run the last year, investors might well be tempted to sell the stock, fearing a stumble in the long run of growth.
While that was page one news on the business section, on the same day Motorola made an even more interesting announcement that made page 2. They hired a new Chief Marketing Officer (see full article here). And the person they selected, Casey Keller from Heinz, should put bullishness back into investors.
While at Heinz, 45 year old Keller was responsible for launching the EZ Squirt line of ketchup products, which came out in green, purple and even blue. Needless to say, a new bottle shape, and funny colors, does not drive me to buy more ketchup. But what these launches demonstrate is that Mr. Keller knows how to get permission and funding to try new things – even in a company as staunchly boring as Heinz. He has demonstrated he knows how to get White Space created, and he knows how to manage it for innovation. Innovation that drove brand protection, price support and incremental revenues in an extremely "mature" product line.
Motorola actually saw its 2006 revenues grow 17% versus 2005 in the third quarter, as cell phone market share has risen from 14% to 22% since 2004. That is not a growth stall. But it missed estimates. What does the company need to do now? Why continue the development and implementation of more White Space – leading to more innovation – just as Ed Zander has done since taking the helm of the company.
Looking around Motorola, there aren’t many people with the skills for creating and managing White Space. That was not the winning personal Success Formula before Mr. Zander. So to find a leader that understood how to identify Challenges, and then create and manage White Space Mr. Zander and the Board had to go outside. There they found someone with the right skills – White Space management skills – that should be able to produce even more robust results in the dynamic Motorola of today.
Investors should think twice before jumping out of Motorola. If he’s as good as his past, Mr. Keller just might help Motorola keep their double digit revenue growth going.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 25, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Wal-Mart has started selling prescriptions priced at $4 for a month’s supply (see article here.) Why? To get more people into the stores, silly. As I’ve blogged before, the world’s biggest retailer has the world’s biggest Lock-in, and they will do anything they can think of to keep their Success Formula unchanged. Now they are looking to drastically cut prescription prices.
This is good news for consumers. But what about Walgreens? After all, they have prescription sales as a central part of their Success Formula. What was their reaction? To say they aren’t worried, because Wal-Mart is a small player in prescriptions. In other words "we’re Locked into our Success Formula, and we don’t intend to change it no matter how large the Challenge." In the face of mounting pressure by insurance companies to force insureds to order medicine on-line, and corporate support for mail-based prescription delivery, and now a frontal assault by the world’s biggest retailer Lock-in allows Walgreens to blithely look the other way.
This is bad for investors in both companies. We now have two large companies planning to club each other to the bitter end in a battle to see who’s Success Formula can survive. Along the periphery of this fight are other retailers, like CVS, Target and KMart each ignoring the Challenge to their future (according to Associated Press [see here]some have said they don’t think this is an issue because customers with insurance only care about the co-pay and not the price) holding their own clubs and planning to defend themselves while putting in a few good licks as they seek to protect their individual Success Formulas.
This is simply bad management. There is nothing but hubris in undertaking such tactics. Smart management sees the Challenges, and reacts early. They avoid the club fight altogether, seeking out new markets where they can prosper. Only competitors who are Locked-in, and would rather take hits and possibly die would take on such a fight. The result of fighting is someone eventually falls into the Whirlpool and is swept away.
Again, for consumers such club fights can be a great cost saving opportunity. But for investors, it’s time to get out of the way! You don’t want to be an idle participant in the latest bloody version of business WWF Crackdown. You’ll most likely come out a bloody mess yourself.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 22, 2006 | Uncategorized
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the Merc) is acquiring the Chicago Board of Trade (BOT). If you’re not a commodities trader, you probably don’t really care. But for millions of people who buy commodities, having a functioning liquid market for commodities is critical. And the upcoming merger of the top two exchanges has raised many eyebrows in America’s midwest.
Most importantly, the Merc was built on electronic trading. The Board of Trade was built on pit trading. The cultural divide is enormous to those who built a fortune in one or the other, and to those who place millions of dollars on the line every day in trades. What will the future organization look like? One would hope it would be a brilliiant combination of human traders and electronic capability like what is being built by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and their acquired partner Archipelago. From that merger we’re seeing an ever-developing, new, seemless 24-hour equity trading market.
But, the merger of these two stalwarts is not as likely to be so easy. As the Chicago Tribune quoted me, in this instance of two bitter rivals there is a likelihood that the entity which controls the resources and processes will emerge as the lone surviving company. The customers will be transitioned, and only one company will exist.
This is too bad. What the Tribune didn’t have space to discuss is what should happen. The two groups should create a White Space team dedicated to designing a merger which brings out the best of both companies. This team must be given resources to actually develop a unique solution, and it should have independence by reporting to the top people of both companies. This team should design a solution that utilizes the best of both company’s processes, driving the best in customer satisfaction while opening commodities to even more investors. A White Team approach to the merger would give the Merc’a investors, as well as all customers, the best solution.
Such a merger need not be a vicious battle about who is in charge. Although almost all do end up that way. Instead, everyone would benefit if the merger were viewed as a Disruption. One driven by market Challenges. And then seen as an opportunity to create a new solution, previously not available, that can expand the market for commodities investing by not only traders but ever more corporations and individual investors. By using a Phoenix Principle solution to the merger, including White Space, a better result could be obtained than from any one-sided approach.
We’ll have to see if the companies take an enlightened approach, or instead use "clout" to drive toward a fast, but single-sided solution.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 17, 2006 | Uncategorized
We’ve added Chris Rollyson to our Blog Roll. Chris is writing about how Outsourcing can be a tremendous tool helping businesses to create additional White Space. His insights and stories of how innovation is fostered and developed via Outsourcing casts the practice in an entirely different light than mere cost cutting. He recently posted a story about how Williams Company used outsourcing in a critical role for its turnaround. Readers should give it a look at The Global Human Capital Journal .
by Adam Hartung | Oct 16, 2006 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
I hear frequently about the conflict between management and investors. The argument typically goes along the lines that management could do many exciting and strategic things if it wasn’t for those pesky investors who want a consistent return on their equity. It sounds like somehow investors know too little, and they hamstring managment’s ability to succeed. In too many occasions, however, the opposite seems to be true.
Readers of this blog know I see McDonald’s as hurting its own future. The company has systematically been selling off its best growth prospects to protect itself from an outside investor who would like to make changes. Recently, a number of other investors voted that sentiment. As I blogged a few weeks ago, McDonald’s offered to investors that they could trade their McDonald’s stock for Chipotle shares – in an effort to finalize the sale of Chipotle and bring back in more McDonald’s stock to protect itself from a hostile investor. Last week Bloomberg reported that 262.7 million shares were tendered for the mere 18.6 million shares of Chipotle available. The offer was 14X oversubscribed. Indicating that a lot of investors knew a good deal when they saw it – swapping shares of a low-growth, Locked-in McDonald’s for the high growth innovative Chipotle – even though its profits were lower and its P/E much higher.
But now Wendy’s has decided to join the act. As reported on 10/13, Wendy’s is offering to sell its Baja chain in order to get cash to —– buy back more Wendy’s stock. Apparently influenced by the fast run-up in McDonald’s shares (which have had a very nice run this last year), Wendy’s is willing to sell off its new growth machine in order to protect its aging hamburger franchise. Rather than look to Baja as a replacement for the sagging Wendy’s, which has had declining same-store revenues for 6 of the last 8 quarters, they are going to sell it in order to buy back stock to prop up the equity value in a concept that has little growth opportunity left. In order to maximize its short-term value, Wendy’s is literally trading in its White Space future.
Too often, management behaves like Lemmings. One competitor follows another. Lock-in doesn’t exist just at the company level, but at the industry level as well. In several industries (steel, airlines, automobiles to name a trio) we’ve seen competitors simply walk off the cliff as they follow a Locked-in industry paradigm that does not produce returns. Management should listen to investors, and recognize that their chorus is not just for short-term profits. Rather, they seek growth and a market or higher rate of return on their equity. No private owner would expect less. But to meet this hurdle requires creating and maintaining White Space rather than letting Lock-in turn you into a Lemming.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 7, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
If you don’t live in Chicago or Los Angeles you might have missed a recent set of stories about problems in the newspaper industry. The Tribune company (owner of Chicago Tribune and 9 other papers) also owns the LATimes. Like the New York Times company, Dow Jones and many other newspaper companies, the last 2 years has seen the equity value of Tribune plummet. Newspaper margins have been narrowing, caused by rising competition from new entrants, such as Google and other on-line sources as well as more nimble local competitors and brazen new business models from the likes of oil and railroad billionaire Philip Anschutz (articles here, here, and here). All traditional competitors have been cutting costs, including big layoffs.
Recently, this created an enormous bruhaha between the publisher and top editor at the LATimes and the owners in Chicago. This week things took another difficult step as the Tribune fired the LATimes publisher (article here) for outspokenly disagreeing with top management. The newspapers are reporting on themselves as they discuss the difficulties being encountered inside the executive suite – as well as by competitors (additional coverage here).
The problem is that these companies are following other large newspapers in trying to wring more blood out of the proverbial stone. Margins are down, and the answer they’re trying to implement is "more, better, faster" of what they always did. But, as the fired Times publisher recognized, when you try to get more out of a broken business model by working it faster and harder, all you get is worse results quicker. You can’t fix a failing Success Formula by trying to operate it better, or faster, or with fewer resources. Those actions just help you fail faster.
The problems in these newspapers, like all newspapers, relate to more competition for readership from the internet and other targeted news products. The old big-city newspaper "natural monopoly" has been erased by these new players. As a result, subscribers are declining – especially in coveted younger demographics (see article on shifting readershipfrom 2005! here). That leads to lower advertising rates and dollars, because who will pay for declining readership? Why pay $75 for a classiifed ad for your used cars when you get one, with pictures, from Vehix.com for $39? Why buy full page movie ads for one shot at viewership when you can get a week of repeated hits on Yahoo!? So ad dollars have been moving to on-line media, and other new competitors. All the fighting inside the newspaper companies about how many writers, or copy-editors or salespeople to lay off this quarter or next does not address the broken Success Formula. It only creates a huge opportunity for the new competitors to continue stealing customers and growing.
Lock-in can kill any business. Even the most venerable. When market Challenges emerge that create a need to redefine the Success Formula, only the companies that Disrupt themselves and move into White Space will re-create success. More, Better, Faster just creates more problems, and a vicious cycle that eventually leads to the Whirlpool of failure. The LATimes has had 12 publishers in 120 years – and now 3 of those have been put in place in the last 5 years by the Tribune company. Changing the captain will not change the destiny of a ship Locked-in on a course headed right for an iceberg.
