Most people misunderstand evolution. They think that changes happen slowly. Imagine an animal with a 12 inch tail. Every generation or so it's imagined that the tail gets a little shorter, then a little shorter, then a little shorter until after some very long time it simply disappears. But that's not at all how evolution works.
Instead, most of the animals have a long tail. Some small number of animals are born each year with very short or no tails. For the most part, this matters little. If the tail is valuable – say for warding off parasites – those without tails may suffer and die off quickly. And that's the way things are, largely unchanged, for decades. But then, something happens in the environment. Perhaps the emergence of a predator able to catch these animals by the tail and hold them in place to let the pack kill it. Within one generation almost all of the tailed animals are killed by the predator, and only the no-tail animals survive. Some of these have developed an immunity to the parasite. So then this "evolved" animal becomes dominant. No-tail animals replace the tailed animals. That's how evolution really works. It happens fast, with drastic change (and this time of change is referred to as a punctuated equilibrium.)
Once we know how evolution really works, we can start to better understand business competition. A Success Formula works for a really long time, until something changes in the marketplace. Suddenly, the old Success Formula has far poorer results. And a replacement takes over.
Consider newspapers. They played a very important role in society for at least 100 years (maybe 200 or 300 hundred years.) But with the advent of the internet, their role is no longer viable. Printing and delivering a daily paper is too expensive for the value it can provide. So think of newspapers as the long-tail animal. And digital news delivery is a short-tail animal. The internet is the attack pack that kills the newspapers. And within short order, the world is a different place – in a new equilibrium. And everything about the surrounding environment is shifted. Regardless of how much you enjoyed newspapers, they simply cannot compete and new competitors are a better fit in the new marketplace.
Now consider Netflix. Netflix played a major influence in obsoleting traditional movie rental shops – like Blockbuster. Netflix was a winner. But markets – new attack packs – keep emerging. And the latest shift are products like the Kindle and Apple Tablet (as well as other tablet PCs.) These products make Hulu and YouTube a lot more viable. Suddenly, Netflix is the long-tail animal, and the short-tail animals are doing relatively better.
According to The Wall Street Journal, in "Apple Sees New Money in Old Media" Apple is close to a deal with several newspapers to deliver their content to readers via their internet device. They also are negotiating rights to deliver movies and television (small format) entertainment. Simultaneously, Amazon keeps marching forward as MediaPost.com reports in "Take That Apple: Kindle Introduces Apps." We see that there are a LOT of potential different versions of the short-tail animal. Tablets, phones, netbooks, etc. Which will be the biggest winners? Not clear. But what is clear is that the old long-tail competitors (newspapers, print magazines, network television, traditional PCs) are not going to flourish as they once did. The market has permanently shifted. Those competitors are in the back end of their lifecycle.
Simultaneously, this market shift causes ripple effects through the environment. The market shift affects ALL players – not just the one most visibly being attacked. So, as SiliconBeat.com reports in "Looks Like Netflix is Dead, Again" this change suddenly imperils Netflix which has mostly counted on postal delivery rather than digital. And it provides a boost to short-tail players like Hulu and YouTube which could see much larger revenue given their digital-based delivery models.
And this affects you. What do you print, or say, that could be better handled on a mobile device? Could you deliver user instructions via an iPhone or Kindle app? If so, why aren't you doing it? Are you still working on traditional web pages, with embedded text in graphics that can't be seen by a mobile phone, when most people are likely to find you first on their mobile device? Are you busy working on your web site, while ignoring having a Linked-in or Facebook account? Are you advertising on television, or in newspapers, and ignoring Facebook ads – or YouTube links? Do you have a YouTube channel with short clips to instruct users on your product, or how to install an upgrade, or even why to buy? Are you still competing with a long tail, while the pack is rapidly killing off the long-tail species?
Market shifts are happening fast today. If you don't react, you just may find yourself deep into the pack with declining results. Or you can shift with the market to keep your business competitive.
Over the last week everyone has heard stories about how Facebook, and Twitter, became primary communication conduits for people with connections in Haiti. Telephone and slower communication vehicles simply have not been able to connect family and friends in this crisis like Facebook. When shift happens, it accelerates as new uses come to the forefront quickly. For everyone trying to connect with employment candidates, suppliers and customers this shift has immediate and important impact on behavior.
For advertisers, the impact is significant. Where should ad dollars be placed? On a traditional home page and search site – like Yahoo! – or on Facebook?
And it's not just the sites themselves, but how long people are on these sites. From an advertising point of view, you can start to think about Facebook – and YouTube – almost like a "channel" from early television days. Where the audience comes back again and again – offering you not only a large audience, but more opportunities to reach them more often. Facebook and YouTube are beginning to dominate the "user views."
Of course, the impact isn't just regarding the web, but how any business would use media to reach a target audience. Most advertising agencies, and ad people, are still focused on traditional media. But, as we can see, that WILL shift — even more than it traditionally has.
Anybody investing in newspapers, expecting a resurgence in value, is pretty foolish. Newspapers are going to lose ad dollars – not gain. Relatively, newspapers already are getting too much of the ad spend. Talk radio has growth. And clearly the web. Since we can expect that newspaper and magazine readership will continue recent downward trends, and television is fragmenting as well as stalling, the big growth is on the internet.
The market shift is really pretty clear. We aren't speculating about the market direction with this data. The question becomes, will you be an early adopter of these new media channels or not? Given that the web and mobile have the lowest ad rates of all media, why wouldn't you? Over the last 2 months Pepsi has decided to NOT advertise on the Super Bowl, instead putting the money into social media. And after introducing the Granite Concept car at the Detroit auto show, even behind-the-times GM is now considering a launch of this vehicle, intended for buyers under 35, using only web advertising.
So what are your plans? Do you have scenarios where Facebook and YouTube are integral to your marketing? Do you have pages, groups and channels on these sites? Do you post content? Are you using them to interact with potential customers, vendors and employees? If not – what are you waiting on? Do you need a Disruption to create some White Space and get started? If so – isn't it time to get going?
So out of the blue I got called by a reporter asking me what I thought of Google posting an advertisement for the new Nexus One on its homepage. It was an easy question – the Google homepage isn't sacrosanct. Like everything, it needs to be used in a way that's most valuable for customers and suppliers. Times change, and it should change. So I answered that the Google home page wasn't a sacred cow, and it's smart for Google to try things.
"Has Google changed its stance on using the
home page as a promotional platform? Adam Hartung, an analyst with
Spark Partners, refers to Google's home page as a "sacred cow." The
company has something that almost seems like a religious idol. This ad
demonstrates that Google is willing to change that and "attack a sacred
cow to step the company forward," he says. "And that's a very good sign
for investors."
I didn't record myself, but it sounds like me. Sacred cows get you into trouble. You have to constantly test, try new things.
But the CEO of Burst Media didn't agree with me. Picking up on my quote, in the HuffingtonPost.com "Google Should Not Give Up the Sanctity of Its Homepage" Mr. Coffin takes me to task for violating what he considers a sacred public trust. He fears that anything added to the Google homepage creates cracks in Google's foundation putting the company at risk.
How does anyone in web marketing get so Locked-in? It just goes to show that you don't have to be old, or a big company, or have a lot of money to be Locked-in to something. Google's homepage isn't even a decade old. Nor is Burst Media, an on-line marketing company, I don't think. But here a reputation leader in on-line marketing is working, working hard actually, to defend a sacred cow. "Sanctity" of a web page??? Give me a break.
Google has excelled, grown and made more money, because it has been willing to Disrupt its Success Formula and use White Space to test new things. That's why it's become a household name – and in the process almost singlehandedly destroyed the newspaper industry. And now is threatening to change how we do personal computing (with Chrome) and enterprise applications (with Google Wave) and even mobile computing (with Android and Nexus One). Google should consider nothing sacred, because that's the kind of Lock-in which kills tech companies. Sun Microsystems was busy protecting its sanctity while the market shifted right out from under it
Lock-in is inevitable. But winners – those who grow and make above average rates of return – learn how to manage Lock-in. They are willing to Disrupt and use White Space. Good for Google. I would have expected nothing less!
The accepted wisdom that the customer is king is all wrong.
That's the start to my latest Forbes column (Read here.) Think about it. What would Apple be if it had listened to its customers? An out of business niche PC company by now. What about Google? A narrow search engine company – anyone remember Alta Vista or Ask Jeeves or the other early search engine companies? No customer was telling Apple or Google to get into all the businesses they are in now – and making impressive rates of return while others languish.
But today Google launched Nexus One (read about it on Mobile Marketing Dailyhere) – a product the company developed by watching its competitors – Apple and Microsoft – rather than asking its customers. In the last year "smartphones" went to 17% of the market – from only 7% in 2007 according to Forrester Research. There's nothing any more "natural" about Google – ostensibly a search engine company – making smartphones (or even operating systems for phones like Android) than for GE to get into this business. But Google did because it's paying attention to competitors, not what customers tell it to do.
No customers told Google to develop a new browser – or operating system – which is what Chrome is about. In fact, IT departments wanted Microsoft to develop a better operating system and largely never thought of Google in the space. And no IT department asked Google to develop Google Wave – a new enterprise application which will connect users to their applications and data across the "cloud" allowing for more capability at a fraction of the cost. But Google is watching competitors, and letting them tell Google where the market is heading. Long before customers ask for these products, Google is entering the market with new solutions – the output of White Space that is disrupting existing markets.
Far too many companies spend too much time asking customers what to do. In an earlier era, IBM almost went bankrupt by listening to customers tell them to abandon PCs and stay in the mainframe business —– but that's taking the thunder away from the Forbes article. Give it a read, there's lots of good stuff about how people who listen to customers jam themselves up – and how smarter ones listen to competitors instead. (Ford, Tribune Corporation, eBay, Cisco, Dell, Salesforce.com, CSC, EDS, PWC, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics and HP.)
As we start 2010 the plan, according to The Financial Times, "WalMart aims to cut supply chain costs." Imagine that. Cost cutting has been the biggest Success Formula component for WalMart for its entire career. And now, the company that is already the low cost retailer – and famous for beating its suppliers down on price to almost no profitability – is planning to focus on purchasing for the next 5 years in order to hopefully take another 5% out of purchased product cost. How'd you like to hear that if Wal-Mart is one of your big customers? What do you suppose the discussion will be like when you go to Target or KMart (match WalMart pricing?)
Will this make WalMart more admired, or more successful? This is the epitome of "more of the same." Even though WalMart is huge, it has done nothing for shareholders for years. And employees have been filing lawsuits due to unpaid overtime. And some markets have no WalMart stores because the company refuses to allow any employees to be unionized. This announcement will not make WalMart a more valuable company, because it simply is an attempt to Defend the Success Formula.
On the other hand according to Newsweek, in "The Customer is Always Right," Amazon intends to keep moving harder into new products and markets in 2010. Amazon has added enormous value to its shareholders, including gains in 2009, as it has moved from bookselling to general merchandise retailing to link retailing to consumer electronics with the Kindle and revolutionizing publishing with the Kindle store. Amazon isn't trying to do more of the same, it's using innovation to drive growth.
And the CEO, Jeff Bezos freely admits that his success today is due to scenario development and plans laid 4 years ago – as Amazon keeps its planning focused on the future. With the advent of many new products coming out in 2010 – including the Apple Tablet – Amazon will have to keep up its focus on new products and markets to maintain growth. Good thing the company is headed that direction.
So which company would you rather work for? Invest in? Supply?
I was intrigued when I read on the Harvard Business Review web site “Do we celebrate the wrong CEOs?” The article quickly pointed out that many of the best known CEOs – and often named as most respected – didn’t come close to making the list of the top 100 best performing CEOs. Some of those on Barron’s list of top 30 most respected that did not make the cut as best performing include Immelt of GE, Dimon of JPMorganChase, Palmesano of IBM and Tillerson of ExxonMobil. It did seem striking that often business people admire those who are at the top of organizations, regardless of their performance.
I was delighted when HBR put out the full article “The Best Performing CEOs in the World.” And it is indeed an academic exercise of great value. The authors looked at CEOs who came into their jobs either just before 2000, or during the decade, and the results they obtained for shareholders. There were 1,999 leaders who fit the timeframe. As has held true for a long time in the marketplace, the top 100 accounted for the vast majority of wealth creation – meaning if you were invested with them you captured most of the decade’s return – while the bulk of CEOs added little value and a great chunk created negative returns. (It does beg the question – why do Boards of Directors keep on CEOs who destroy shareholder value – like Barnes of Sara Lee, for example? It would seem something is demonstrably wrong when CEOs remain in their jobs, usually with multi-million dollar compensation packages, when year after year performance is so bad.)
The list of “Top 50 CEOs” is available on the HBR website. This group created 32% average gains every year! They created over $48.2B of value for investors. Comparatively, the bottom 50 had negative 20% annual returns, and lost over $18.3B. As an investor, or employee, it is much, much better to be with the top 5% than to be anywhere else on the list. However, only 5 of the top best performers were on the list of top 50 highest paid — demonstrating again that CEO pay is not really tied to performance (and perhaps at least part of the explanation for why business leaders are less admired now than the previous decade.)
Consistent among the top 50 was the ability to adapt. Especially the top 10. Steve Jobs of Apple was #1, a leader and company I’ve blogged about several times. As readers know, Apple went from a niche producer of PCs to a leader in several markets completely unrelated to PCs under Mr. Jobs leadership. His ability to keep moving his company back into the growth Rapids by rejecting “focus on the core” and instead using White Space to develop new products for growth markets has been a model well worth following. And in which to be invested.
Similarly, the leaders of Cisco, Amazon, eBay and Google have been listed here largely due to their willingness to keep moving into new markets. Cisco was profiled in my book Create Marketplace Disruption for its model of Disruption that keeps the company constantly opening White Space. Amazon went from an obscure promoter of non-inventoried books to the leader in changing how books are sold, to the premier on-line retailer of all kinds of products, to the leader in digitizing books and periodicals with its Kindle launch. eBay has to be given credit for doing much more than creating a garage sale – they are now the leader in independent retailing with eBay stores. And their growth of PayPal is on the vanguard of changing how we spend money – eliminating checks and making digital transactions commonplace. Of course Google has moved from a search engine to a leader in advertising (displacing Yahoo!) as well as offering enterprise software (such as Google Wave), cloud applications to displace the desktop applications, and emerging into the mobile data/telephony marketplace with Android. All of these company leaders were willing to Disrupt their company’s “core” in order to use White Space that kept the company constantly moving into new markets and GROWTH.
We can see the same behavior among other leaders in the top 10 not previously profiled here. Samsung has moved from a second rate radio/TV manufacturer to a leader in multiple electronics marketplaces and the premier company in rapid product development and innovation implementation. Gilead Sciences is a biopharmaceutical company that has returned almost 2,000% to investors – while the leaders of Merck and Pfizer have taken their companies the opposite direction. By taking on market challenges with new approaches Gilead has used flexibility and adaptation to dramatically outperform companies with much greater resources — but an unwillingness to overcome their Lock-ins.
Three names not on the list are worth noting. Jack Welch was a great Disruptor and advocate of White Space (again, profiled in my book). But his work was in the 1990s. His replacement (Mr. Immelt) has fared considerably more poorly – as have investors – as the rate of Disruption and White Space has fallen off a proverbial cliff. Even though much of what made GE great is still in place, the willingness to Defend & Extend, as happened in financial services, has increased under Mr. Immelt to the detriment of investors.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are now good friends, and also not on the list. Firstly, they created their investor fortunes in previous decades as well. But in their cases, they remained as leaders who moved into the D&E world. Microsoft has become totally Locked-in to its Gates-era Success Formula, and under Steve Ballmer the company has done nothing for investors, employees — or even customers. And Berkshire Hathaway has spent the last decade providing very little return to shareholders, despite all the great press for Mr. Buffett and his success in previous eras. Each year Mr. Buffett tells investors that what worked for him in previous years doesn’t work any more, and they should not expect previous high rates of return. And he keeps proving himself right. Until both Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway undertake significant Disruptions and implement considerably more White Space we should not expect much for investors.
This has been a tough decade for far too many investors and employees. As we end the year, the list of television programs bemoaning how badly the decade has gone is long. Show after show laments the poor performance of the stock market, as well as employers. We end the year with official unemployment north of 10%, and unofficial unemployment some say near 20%. But what this HBR report us is that it is possible to have a good decade. We need leaders who are willing to look to the future for their planning (not the past), obsess about competitors to discover market shifts, be willing to Disrupt old Success Formulas by attacking Lock-in, and using White Space to keep the company in the growth Rapids. When businesses overcome old notions of “best practice” that keeps them trying to Defend & Extend then business performs marvelously well. It’s just too bad so few leaders and companies are willing to follow The Phoenix Principle.
"The Google Phone, Unlocked" is a Seeking Alpha article detailing the early release of a Google phone planned for market introduction in 2010. Will this be successful or not? Legitimate question – given the success of Apple's iPhone. And the answer to that really has nothing to do with cell phone technology. It has everything to do with the downloadable applications. The market for phones has shifted to where applications are rapidly becoming more important than the phones themselves.
Which is why "Android to become eWallet" on MediaPost is an important article. Mpayy is offering an app that supersedes both credit cars and debit cards. It's Paypal on steroids. This app allows users who want to buy something to use their phone to instantaneously pay for something. Users can perform an eBay style transaction with immediate payment. And they can do this buying products in the Burger King, or Starbucks, or Target.
Two things are emerging that represent significant market shifts to which all businesses must react. Firstly, mobile devices are much more than phones. They are more than laptops. They allow people to do a lot more things than they previously could, and these activities can be immediate. From reading a CAT scan, to finding the closest pizzeria and downloading a coupon, to paying for a Pepsi at the convenience store. This represents substantially different use of technology. Those who remain Locked-in to old fashioned credit card/debit card technology – or internet transaction technology – will be left behind as users move quickly to mobile phone payment.
And, secondly, those who rapidly incorporate these opportunities will have advantages. If you're making your business more internet friendly you are likely fighting the last war. To be successful in 2012 it will be important you are able to offer real-time transactions buyers can access from their mobile device. People will want to find you, find your discounts, and pay you from the device in their hands. They will want to complete their business seamlessly using their mobile device – without a call, without a browser transaction. Those who make life easy for customers will increasingly win – and making life easy will mean access via the mobile device
It is increasingly ineffective to build future plans based upon completing projects started last year – or the previous year – or a few years ago. Customers don't care about your enterprise system implementation that is X years into implementation. Customers are running fast – really fast – toward using new, low cost and easily usable technology. This is a substantial market shift. And your scenario plans must incorporate these shifts, expect them, and use them to move beyond Locked-in competitors by implementing these shifts fast and effectively. That allows you to Create Marketplace Disruptions which create superior rates of return.
If you can't sell products, I guess you sell the business to generate revenue. That seems to be the approach employed by Sara Lee's CEO – who has been destroying shareholder value, jobs, vendor profits and customer expectations for several years. Crain's Chicago Business reports "Sara Lee to sell air care business for $469M" to Proctor & Gamble. This is after accepting a binding offer from Unilever to purchase Sara Lee's European body care and detergent businesses. These sales continue Ms. Barnes long string of asset sales, making Sara Lee smaller and smaller. Stuck in the Swamp, Ms. Barnes is trying to avoid the Whirlpool by selling assets – but what will she do when the assets are gone? For how long will investors, and the Board, accept her claim that "these sales make Sara Lee more focused on its core business" when the business keeps shrinking? The corporate share price has declined from $30/share to about $12 (chart here) And shareholders have received none of the money from these sales. Eventually there will be no more Sara Lee.
Look at Motorola, a darling in the early part of this decade – the company CEO, Ed Zander, was named CEO of the year by Marketwatch as he launched RAZR and slashed prices to drive unit volume:
Motorola lost it's growth in mobile handsets, and now is practically irrelevant. Motorola has less than 5% share, about like Apple, but the company is going south – not north. When growth escapes your business it doesn't take long before the value is gone. Since losing it's growth Motorola share values have dropped from over $30 to around $8 (chart here).
And so now we need to worry about GE, while being excited about Comcast. GE got into trouble under new Chairman & CEO Jeffrey Immelt because he kept investing in the finance unit as it went further out the risk curve extending its business. Now that business has crashed, and to raise cash he is divesting assets (not unlike Brenda Barnes at Sara Lee). Mr. Immelt is selling a high growth business, with rising margins, in order to save a terrible business – his finance unit. This is bad for GE's growth prospects and future value (a company I've longed supported – but turning decidedly more negative given this recent action):
Meanwhile, as the acquirer Comcast is making one heck of a deal. It is buying NBC/Universal which is growing at 16.5% compounded rate with rising margins. That is something which suppliers of programming, employees, customers and investors should really enjoy.
Revenue growth is a really big deal. You can't have profit growth without revenue growth. When a CEO starts selling businesses to raise cash, be very concerned. Instead they should use scenario planning, competitive analysis, disruptions and White Space to grow the business. And those same activities prepare an organization to make an acquisition when a good opportunity comes along.
(Note: The President of Comcast, Steven Burke, endorsed Create Marketplace Disruption and that endorsement appears on the jacket cover.)
Cisco is an admirable company. In the high tech world, few survive half as long as Cisco. Even fewer maintain growth and profitability. Cisco's willingness to obsolete its own products has been a stated objective which has helped the company keep on top of new technologies and products, growing to $36B. It's Disruptive when you are compelled to obsolete your own products. Most companies make the mistake of trying to sell products too long, trying to extend profitability by selling the product while winding down development. They fearlaunching new products which might "cannibalize" an existing product. As a result, competitors leapfrog their products and by the company admits things are obsolete it's too late – and the business is in deep trouble.
Now Cisco is working to keep growing by utilizing a Disruptive organization model. Headlined "Cisco's Extreme Ambition" has BusinessWeek overviewing the distribution of decision-making power to 48 different councils. Instead of a traditional hierarchy, the councils can make decisions about products themselves, thus shortening the decision process and the time to get new products to market or make acquisitions.
Cisco competes in at least 30 markets. Staying on the leading edge in that many businesses requires rethinking how to organize. Especially when you know it is critical to keep Disrupting your organization to bring forward new products which can keep you competitive. By distributing decision-making this organizational model overcomes traditional Lock-ins that could slow down Cisco
Now strategy can be developed for the markets, built on multiple scenarios (perhaps even competing scenarios), overcoming monolithic strategy processes that are too confining and do too much option narrowing
Hiring, including executives, won't require everybody look alike. Different kinds of people allows for alternative thinking and different sorts of decision processes – as well as different decisions
The structure can form to the market needs – rather than being dictated from an insider perspective. By organizing to the market need each council is more likely to keep close to emerging needs
Investments are made at a lower level, reducing the "big bang" investments that Lock-in organizations to monolithic technologies or products
Internal experts don't gain too much power, which often limits the technologies and markets pursued.
Maintaining its willingness to remain Disruptive is critical to the ongoing success of Cisco. This new organization model is allowing Cisco to enter the lower margin server business, for example, which would be (and has been) escewed by a more centralized decision making. By focusing the organization on markets, Cisco can keep finding new ways to compete — and set new metrics for measuring itself market-by-market. And Cisco can more quickly and easily set up White Space projects to continue pursuing new market opportunities. All it has to do is add another council!
The Myth of Market Share by Richard Minitar is one of those little books, published in 2002 by Crown Business, that you probably never read – or even heard of (available on Amazon though). And that's too bad, because without spending too many words the author does a great job of describing the non-correlation between market share and returns. There are as many, or possibly more, companies with high profitability that don't lead in market share as ones that do. Even though the famous BCG Growth/Share matrix led many leaders to believe share was the key to business success. Another something that worked once (maybe) – but now doesn't.
"Moto Looks to Sell Set-Top Box Unit" is the Crain's Chicago Business headline. Motorola's television connection box business is #1 in market share. But even though Motorola paid $11B for it in 1999, they are hoping to get $4.5B today. That's a $6.5B loss (or 60%) in a decade. For a business that is the market share leader. Only, it's profitability + growth doesn't justify a higher price. Regardless of market share.
Kind of like Motorola's effort to be #1 in mobile handset market share by cutting RAZR prices. That didn't work out too well either. It almost bankrupted the company, and is causing Motorola to sell the set top box business to raise cash in its effort to spin out the unprofitable handset business.
On the other hand, there's Apple. Apple isn't #1 in PCs – by a long shot. It has about a 14% share I think. Nor is it #1 in mobile handhelds, where it has about a 2.5% market share. But Apple is more profitable than the market leaders in both markets. Today, Apple's value is almost as high as Microsoft – historically considered the undisputed king of technology companies.
While Microsoft has been trying to Defend & Extend it's Windows franchise, its value has declined this decade. Quite the contrary for Apple.
Additionally, Apple has piled up a remarkable cash hoard with it's meager market shares in 2 of 3 businesses (Apple is #1 in digital music downloads – although not #1 in portable MP3 players).
"While Rivals Jockey for Market Share Apple Bathes in Profits" is the SeekingAlpha.com headline. Nokia has 35% share of the mobil handheld market. It earned $1.1B in the third quarter. With its 2.5% share Apple made $1.6B profit on the iPhone. While everyone in the PC business is busy cutting costs, Apple has innovated the Mac and its other products – proving that if you make products that customers want they will buy them and allow you to make money. While competitors behave like they can cost cut themselves to success, Apple proves the opposite is true.Innovation linked to meeting customer needs is worth a lot more money.
Bob Sutton, Stanford management professor, blogs on Work Matters "Leading Innovation: 21 Things that Great Bosses Say and Do." All are about looking to the future, listening to the market, using disruptions to keep your organization open, and giving people permission and resources to open and manage White Space projects.
If your solution to this recession is to cut costs and wait for the market to return – good luck. If you are trying to figure out how you can Defend & Extend your core – good luck. If you think size and/or market share is going to protect you – check out how well that worked for GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers and Circuit City. If you want to improve your business follow Apple's lead by developing thorough scenario plans you can use to understand competitors inside out, then Disrupt your old notions and use White Space to launch new products and services that meet emerging needs.
