by Adam Hartung | Mar 11, 2007 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
When companies Lock-in they quit looking at the marketplace, instead focusing on running their Success Formula. In a very real way, if markets were highways and companies were autos we could say management starts driving the car looking in the rear view mirror rather than looking out the windshield.
A great example of this is at Ford (see chart here). Ford has been Challenged for several years. Like GM, Ford sales have struggled as the marketplace has shifted away from their great trucks and large SUVs (top sellers, and considered great products in their categories) toward less expensive to operate vehicles. Several years ago customers found higher mileage vehicles preferable, and began looking at hybrids and other innovations rather than more size and more towing capacity.
During this market shift Ford "retired" the Taurus. In the early 1980s Ford was swimming in red ink (much like today) when the company launched the revolutionary aerodynamic Taurus. The design changes, in body shape as well as transverse-mounted engine, front wheel drive and high-mileage overdrive transmission met customer desires and the Taurus became the #1 selling car in the world (right – not just hte U.S. but the world.) Ford had to open new plants to meet demand, and losses turned to substantial profits.
But as time passed Ford Locked-in on its #1 selling, and very profitable F-Series trucks and the SUVs spun off that platform. Few enhancements were made to the Taurus, and as the Toyoty Camry grew in sales eventually Ford stopped the Taurus. The car had a great 20 year run. But ,of great importance, Ford did not replace the Taurus with another revolutionary passenger car. Instead, they remained Locked-in to their trucks and SUVs.
Then the market shifted, and Ford was caught flat footed. Sales dropped, and the fortunes at Ford turned as bleak (possibly worse) than GM.
Now Ford has announced its solution. The company will rename an existing vehicle, the Five Hundred, the Taurus (see article here). The company hopes that better name recognition will sell more cars, and help turn around the struggling auto company.
Never has there been a better case of driving the vehicle by looking in the rear view mirror. Ford isn’t competing for the future, they are firmly trying to recapture the past! Management is hoping that somehow a name associated with past success will create future success. Managment isn’t even redesigning the Five Hundred. They are just renaming and re-launching it. Instead of looking at the direction the market is going, and driving the company toward future market needs, Ford is looking at what worked 20 years ago and hoping miracles will happen to produce that result again. Even though the market and competition has completely changed.
That’s what Lock-in to an old Success Formula can do for you. Make you so fixated on what previously worked that you quit looking forward and start spending your time dreaming about the past. Bill Ford, Jr. is a young guy. But he keeps looking at the past – the Mustang, the F-Series truck and now the Taurus – to try and save the company his family founded. Too bad. Instead of ripping off the Taurus name he would be better served to capture the spirit of the Taurus by developing and launching a new car that meets new market competitive demands.
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 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 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 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.
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 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 | 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.
