by Adam Hartung | Aug 30, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- We like to think we can compete effectively by waiting on others to show us the market direction
- You cannot make high rates of return with a “fast follower” strategy
- Companies that constantly take innovations to market grow longer, and make higher rates of return
- White Space allows you to learn, grow and be smart about when to get out while costs are low
“I want to be a fast follower. Let somebody else carry the cost of learning what the market wants and what solutions work. I plan to come in fast behind the leader and make more money by avoiding the investment.” Have you ever heard someone talk this way? It sounds so appealing. Only problem is – it very rarely works! Fast followers might gain share sometimes, but universally they have terrible margins. Their sales come at an enormous investment cost.
Those who enter new markets early actually gain a lot, for little cost. Take for example Amazon.com’s early entry into electronic publishing with Kindle. Entering early gave Amazon a huge advantage. Amazon may have appeared to be floundering, potentially “wasting” resources, but it was learning how the technology of e-Ink worked, how costs could be driven down and what users demanded in a solution. Every quarter Amazon was learning how to find new uses for the Kindle, making it more viable, finding new customers, encouraging repeat purchases and growing. Now Mediapost.com headlines “Review: New Kindle Kicks (Even Apple’s) B*tt.”
Now there are a raft of “fast followers” trying to catch the Kindle in the eReader market. But the Kindle is far lighter, easier to use, with greater functionality and available at one of the market’s lowest prices. While the cost of entry was low, Amazon learned immensely. That knowledge is not repeatable by companies trying to now play “catch up” without spending multiples of what Amazon spent. Amazon is so far in front of other eReaders that it’s competition is the vastly more sophisticated (and expensive) mobile devices from Apple (iPhone and iPad). By entering early, Amazon has lower cost, and considerably more/better market knowledge, than later entrants.
We see this very clearly in Microsoft’s smart phone approach. Microsoft got far behind in smart phones, losing over 2/3 its market share, as it focused on Windows 7 and Office 2010 the last 3 years while Resarch in Motion (RIM) Apple and Google pioneered the market. Now the 3 leaders have millions of units in the market, low price point establishment, and between them somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 mobile apps available.
As reported in Mediapost.com “Microsoft Gets Serious with Windows 7 Phone” entering now is VERY expensive for Microsoft. Microsoft spent almost $1billion on Kin, which it dropped after only a few months because the product was seriously unable to compete. So now Microsoft is expecting to spend $500million on launch costs for a Windows 7 mobile operating system. But it faces a daunting challenge, what with 350,000 or so iPhone apps in existence, and Google giving Android away for free (as well as sporting some 100,000 apps itself).
The cost of entry, ignoring Microsoft’s technology development cost, to get the mindshare of developers for app development (so Windows 7 mobile doesn’t slip into the Palm or Blackberry problem of too few apps to be interesting) as well as minds of potential buyers will more likely cost well over $1B – just for communications!! Microsoft now has to take share away from the market leaders – a very expensive proposition! Like XBox marketing, these exorbitant marketing costs could well go on for several years. XBox has had only 1 quarter near break-even, all others showing massive losses. The same is almost guaranteed for the Windows 7 phone. And it’s entering so late that it may never, even with all that money being spent, catch the two leaders! Who are the new users that will come along, and what is Microsoft uniquely offering? It’s expensive to buy mind and market share.
Clearly Apple and Android entered the smart phone market at vastly lower cost, and have developed what are already profitable businesses. Microsoft will lose money, possibly for years, and may still fail – largely because it focused on its core products and chose to undertake a “fast follower” strategy in the high growth smart phone business.
We like to believe things that reinforce our behaviors. We like to think that tortoises can outrun hares. But that only happens when hares make foolish decisions. Rarely in business are the early entrants foolish. Most learn – a lot – at low cost. They figure out where the early customers are with unmet needs, and how to fulfill those needs. They learn how to identify ways to grow the business, manage costs and earn a profit. And they learn at a much lower cost than late followers. They capture mind and market share, and work hard to grow the business with new customers keeping them profitable and maintaining share.
We want to think that innovators bear a high risk. But it’s simply not true. Innovators take advantage of market learning to create revenues and profits at lower cost. Companies that keep White Space projects flourishing, entering new markets generating growth, earn higher rates of return longer than any other strategy. Just look at Cisco, Nike, Virgin, J&J and GE (until very recently). The smart money gets into the game early, developing a winning approach — or getting out before the costs get too high!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 25, 2010 | Books, In the Rapids, Leadership, Lock-in
Summary:
- We are biased toward doing what we know how to do, rather than something new
- We like to think we can forever grow by keeping close to what we know – that’s a myth
- Growth only comes from entering growth markets – whether we know much about them or not
- To grow you have to keep yourself in growth markets, and it is dangerous to limit your prospects to projects/markets that are “core” or “adjacent to core”
Recently a popular business book has been Profit from the Core. This book proposes the theory that if you want to succeed in business you should do projects that are either in your “core,” or “adjacent to your core.” Don’t go off trying to do something new. The further you move from your “core” the less likely you will succeed. Talk about an innovation killer! CEOs that like this book are folks who don’t want much new from their employees.
I was greatly heartened by a well written blog article at Growth Science International (www.GrowthSci.com) “Profit from Your Core, or Not.. The Myth of Adjacencies.” Author Thomas Thurston does a masterful job of pointing out that the book authors fall into the same deadly trap as Jim Collins and Tom Peters. They use hindsight primarily as the tool to claim success. Their analysis looks backward – trying to explain only past events. In doing so they cleverly defined terms so their stories seemed to prove their points. But they are wholly unable to be predictive. And, if their theory isn’t predictive, then what good is it? If you can’t use their approach to give a 98% or 99% likelihood of success, then why bother? According to Mr. Thurston, when he tested the theory with some academic rigor he was unable to find a correlation between success and keeping all projects at, or adjacent to, core.
Same conclusion we came to when looking at the theories proposed by Jim Collins and Tom Peters. It sounds good to be focused on your core, but when we look hard at many companies it’s easy to find large numbers that simply do not succeed even though they put a lot of effort into understanding their core, and pouring resources into protecting that core with new core projects and adjacency projects. Markets don’t care about whatever you define as core or adjacent.
It feels good, feels right, to think that “core” or “adjacent to core” projects are the ones to do. But that feeling is really a bias. We perceive things we don’t know as more risky than thing we know. Whether that’s true or not. We perceive bottled water to be more pure than tap water, but all studies have shown that in most cities tap water is actually lower in free particles and bacteria than bottled – especially if the bottle has sat around a while.
What we perceive as risk is based upon our background and experience, not what the real, actual risk may be. Many people still think flying is riskier than driving, but every piece of transportation analysis has shown that commercial flying is about the safest of all transportation methods – certainly much safer than anything on the roadway. We also now know that computer flown aircraft are much safer than pilot flown aircraft – yet few people like the idea of a commercial drone which has no pilot as their transportation. Even though almost all commercial flight accidents turn out to be pilot error – and something a computer would most likely have overcome. We just perceive autos as less risky, because they are under our control, and we perceive pilots as less risky because we understand a pilot much better than we understand a computer.
We are biased to do what we’ve always done – to perpetuate our past. And our businesses are like that as well. So we LOVE to read a book that says “stick close to your known technology, known customers, known distribution system – stick close to what you know.” It reinforces our bias. It justifies us not doing what we perceive as being risky. Even though it is really, really, really lousy advice. It just feels so good – like sugary cereal for breakfast – that we justify it in our minds – like saying “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” as we consume food that’s probably less healthy than the box it came in!
There is no correlation between investing in your core, or close to core, projects and high rates of return. Mr. Thurston again points this out. High rates of return come from investing in projects in growth markets. Businesses in growth markets do better, even when poorly managed, than businesses in flat or declining markets. Where there are lots of customers wanting to buy a solution you simply do better than when there are lots of competitors fighting over dwindling customer revenues. Regardless of how well you don’t know the former or do know the latter. Market growth is a much better predictor of success than understanding your “core” and whatever you consider “adjacent.”
Virgin didn’t know anything about airlines before opening one – but international travel from London was set to boom and Virgin did well (as it has done in many new markets.) Apple didn’t know anything about retail music before launching the iPhone and iTunes, but digital music had started booming at Napster and Apple cleaned up. Nike was a shoe company that didn’t know anything about golf merchandise, but it entered the market for all things golf (first with just one club – the driver – followed by other things) by hooking up with Tiger Woods just as he helped promote the sport into dramatic growth.
Success comes from entering new markets where there is growth. Growth can overcome a world of bad management choices. When there are lots of customers with needs to fill, you can make a lot of mistakes and still succeed. To restrict yourself to “core” and “adjacent” invites failure, because your “core” and the “adjacent” markets that you know well simply may not grow. Leaving you in a tough spot seeking higher profits in the face of stiff competition — like Dell today in PCs. Or GM in autos. Sears in retailing. They may know their “core” but that isn’t giving them the growth they want, and need, to succeed in 2010.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 24, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Innovation, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Summary:
- It seems like the best way to find old success is to do more of what used to make you successful
- But lack of success is from market shifts, meaning you need to do more things
- Investing in what you know gets more expensive every year, with little (if any) improvement in returns
- To regain success it’s actually better to get out into new markets where you can compete with lower investment rates, generating more profitable sales
- Apple increased its sales of Macs not by focusing on Macs – but instead by becoming a winner in entirely different markets creating a feedback loop to the old, original “core”
MediaPost.com, in its article “Enterprise Sector Takes a Shine to Apple” has some remarkable statistics about Apple sales. At a time when most PC manufacturers, such as Dell and HP, are struggling to maintain even decent growth (even after the launch of upgraded Windows 7 and Office 2010) Apple is dramatically increasing its volume of Macs – and gaining market share. In last year’s second quarter:
- Mac sales jumped almost 50% in the business sector
- Mac sales jumped a whopping 200% in the government sector
- Mac sales rose over 31% in the home sector
- In Europe, Mac unit sales doubled their market share – and more than tripled their share in dollars
Yes, Macs are a small part of the market. Around 3.5% in the U.S. But, if you’re an Apple employee, supplier or investor that doesn’t matter, does it? In fact, it comes off sounding like a PC fan pooh-poohing a really astounding sales improvement. Nobody is saying the Mac will soon replace PCs (that’s more likely to happen via mobile devices where Apple has iPhone and iPad). But when you can dramatically increase your sales, especially as a $50B company, it’s a big deal.
The lesson for managers here is more unconventional. For years we’ve been told the way to grow your sales and profits is to “stick to your knitting.” To “protect your core.” The idea has been promoted that you should jettison anything that is a diversion to what you want to do best, and completely focus on what you select, and then try to out-compete all others with that product. If things don’t improve, then you need to get even more focused on your core, and invest more deeply. And hope the Mojo returns.
But that’s exactly the opposite of what Apple did. When almost bankrupt in 2001 Apple jettisoned multiple Mac products. It invested in music and entertainment products (iPod. iTouch and iTunes) to grab large sales with lower investment rates. It then rolled that success into developing the mobile computing/phone business with the iPhone and all those apps (some 250 thousand now and growing!). And it built on that success with a mobile tablet called the iPad. The Mac is now growing as a result of Apple’s success in all these other products creating a favorable feedback loop to the original “core”.
Apple spends less than 1/8th the money on R&D as Microsoft. And an even lesser amount on marketing, PR and sales. Yet, by entering new markets it gets far more “bang for its buck.” By entering new markets Apple is able to develop and launch new products, that sell in greater volumes and at higher profits, than had it stuck to being a “Mac company.” In fact, back when it only had 45 days of cash on hand, if it had stayed a “Mac company” Apple would have failed.
What we now see is that constantly re-investing in what you know drives down marginal rates of return. It keeps getting harder and harder, at ever greater cost, to drive new development and new sales with upgrades to old products. Look at the sales and profit problems at Sun Microsystems (world leader in Unix servers) and Silicon Graphics (world leader in graphics computers) and now Dell. What we’d like to think works at driving revenue and profits really raises new product costs and creates an easy target for new competitors who attack you as you sit there, all Locked-in to doing more of the same.
Contrarily, when you develop new products for new markets you grow revenues at lower cost, and thus higher profits. And you create a feedback loop that helps you get more sales without massive investments in your historical “core.” Think about Nike. It hasn’t been a “shoe company” for a very long time – but its shoes are greatly benefited by all the success Nike has in golf clubs and all those other products with a swoosh on them.
When confronted with a decision between “investing in the core” – or “protecting the mother ship” – or investing in new markets and solutions —- be very careful. Your “gut” may lead you to “in a blink” decide the obvious answer is to invest in what you know. But we are learning every quarter that this is a road to problems. You get more and more focused, and less and less prepared for the market shift that sent you into that “core focus” in the first place. Pretty soon you’re so far removed from the market you can’t survive – like Sun and SGI. It’s really a whole lot smarter to get out into new markets with White Space teams that can generate revenues with a lot less cost by being a smart, early competitor.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Dell has remained focused on its core market, and as a result growth has stalled for 5 years.
- Cisco has aggressively developed entirely new markets, and it has grown 60% the last 5 years.
- To keep growing, and maintain your business value, you must CONSTANTLY keep developing new markets
Dell helped create the PC revolution. It’s simplification of the PC business into a limited set of technologies, no R&D, then putting its energy into lowering costs by focusing on supply chain made PCs very, very cheap. it was an idea never before attempted, and this Success Formula allowed Dell to become a household name around the world.
Unfortunately, the demand for PCs has flattened. And competitors have learned how to match (maybe beat?) Dell’s “core capabilities.” When markets shift, a company has to develop new markets, or risk hitting a growth stall.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
And that’s happened to Dell. Revenues have not continued to grow, Dell has remained focused on its “core markets” and “core capabilities” but without growth in those “core” areas the company has been severely hampered. Revenues are still 72% in “core” but there’s little reason to own the stock because company revenues are at best flat (despite volatility) the last 5 years. Dell is going nowhere – except following the problems at Microsoft. Since it’s now so late to mobile phones, any sort of tablet, or other markets with growth its unlikely Dell will be able to profitably develop any new businesses to replace the deteriorating PC market. Dell is stuck in the Swamp, so busy fighting alligators and mosquitoes that it’s no longer growing. It’s stuck in a low-no growth “core” market.
To remain a healthy business you have to constantly enter new markets.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
You may want to think of Cisco as a router, or router and switch company. That was certainly the company’s early Success Formula. But unlike Dell, Cisco has invested heavily in other businesses. Now Cisco revenue is 60% bigger than it was five years ago, while its percent of revenue in routers and switches has actually declined! By aggressively moving into new markets for “advanced technology” and services Cisco has improved its overall revenue, and kept the company very healthy. It has growth precisely because it moved away from its “core” to develop new markets, new products, new solutions and new revenues. Cisco keeps maneuvering itself back into the Rapids of growth before the current slows, and thus it avoids the growth stall eating up Dell’s value.
It is so easy to be lured into focusing on your “core”. Especially if you listen to your existing big customers. But markets shift, and you inevitably must move into new markets. And market shifts don’t care what your market share or your industry view. It’s up to all leaders to stay ahead of shifts by constantly developing scenarios for new markets, studying competitors for new insights, disrupting the old Success Formula Lock-ins and setting up White Space teams to develop new revenues and keep the business growing!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 10, 2010 | Current Affairs, Food and Drink, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Nearly 20 years ago the Clinton campaign inspired itself with the mantra “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” Their goal was to remind everyone that the economy was critical to the health of a nation, and the economy hadn’t been doing so well. Now we could retread that for business leaders “It’s About Growth, Stupid.” For some reason, all too many seem to have gotten caught up in downsizings and cost cutting, forgetting that without growth there’s no way to have a healthy business!
I’ve long been a detractor of Sara Lee. As the company undergoes a change in leadership, the Chicago Tribune headlines “Nobody Doesn’t Like Sara Who?” Under CEO Brenda Barnes, Sara Lee sold off business after business. Now the company is so marginalized that it’s an open question if it will remain independent. For years the leaders said asset sales were to help the company “focus.” Only “focus” made the company smaller, without any growth businesses. Why would an investor want to own this? Why would a manager want to work there?
Had the asset sales been invested in growth, perhaps a positive outcome would have developed. But Sara Lee was like most companies, as that rarely happens. Had the money been paid out to investors perhaps they could have invested those gains in other growth businesses. But instead the money went into the company, where it propped up no-growth businesses. Leaving Sara Lee a smaller, no growth, low profit business. This leadership has not benefited investors, employees, customers or suppliers.
Likewise, draconian cost cutting does more harm than good. The National Public Radio headline reads “Extreme Downsizing May Hurt Companies Later.” Using deep cuts at Alcoa as an example, Wayne Crascia, professor at University of Colorado, points out that it’s unlikely Alcoa has really “prepared itself for future growth.” Instead, cost cutting often eliminates the ability to compete effectively, by cutting into R&D, marketing and sales in ways that are impossible to rebuild quickly or effectively. By trying to save the old Success Formula with cuts, rather than growth initiatives, the leadership hurts the company’s long term viability. Sort of like repeated vomiting by anorexia sufferers leaves them skinnier – but in far worse health. Even though Alcoa still boasts 60,000 employees it’s very likely the company has permanently Locked-in its old Success Formula leaving itself unable to emerge as a stronger company aligned with new market needs.
Yet, while so many company leaders are trying to “retrench to success” it’s clear that growth still abounds for the companies that understand how to create value. BrandChannel.com headlines “The Elastic Brand: Virgin Expands in Every Direction.” Instead of retrenching to focus on some sort of “core” the article points out how Virgin’s leader, Sir Richard Branson, keeps taking the business into new, far flung operations. Defying conventional wisdom, Virgin is in money lending, mobile phones, gaming, social media, international airlines, domestic airlines and even intercontinental flight! By intentionally avoiding any kind of “core” Virgin keeps growing – even during this recession – adding jobs for employees, higher value for investors, more sales opportunities for suppliers and more chances to buy Virgin for customers!
Conventional wisdom be danged ….. maybe it’s time to look at results! Organizations that whittle themselves down to “core” by asset sales or cutting destroy value. While it may feel self-flaggelatingly good to talk about cuts, it does not create value. Only growth can do that. And there is growth, when we start focusing on market needs. Virgin is finding those opportunities – so what’s stopping you? Is it your “focus on your core” business? If so, maybe you need to read the Forbes article “Stop Focusing on Your Core Business.” It may sound unconventional, but then again – isn’t it those who defy conventional wisdom that make the most money?
Postscript: I offer my personal best wishes to Ms. Barnes on her recovery. It has been reported in the press that Ms. Barnes recently suffered a stroke. I know how difficult a time this can be, as my wife stroked at age 54, and I was her personal caregiver for 3 years of difficult recovery. Stroke recovery is hard work. For the patient as well as the family it is a tough time. While I have been a detractor of Ms. Barnes leadership at Sara Lee, in no way did I ever wish my comments to be personal, and I would never wish anyone suffer such a difficult health concern as a stroke. Again, my best wishes for a full recovery to Ms. Barnes, and for both her and her family to have the strength and tenacity to come through this ordeal stronger and even more tightly knitted.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 4, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Things are changing pretty fast in the “tech” world. PCs are losing market share to fast growing platforms like smartphones and tablets. New competitors are becoming a lot stronger as data and applications move from corporate servers and laptops/desktops to cloud computing. Erudite journal The Economist has declared “The End of Wintel.” It’s now considered a foregone conclusion by experts globally that how we interact with digital information is moving into a new era that will not be dominated by the old Microsoft Windows + Intel platform that practically monopolized the last 15 years.
So, what are you doing to prepare? Some people will choose to react when they are forced to. Unfortunately, that will allow faster moving competitors to gain an advantage. Those that adopt these new technologies will reach customers faster, and more accurately for their needs, than businesses that delay. It’ll be hard to compete blasting out ads on billboards, or even computer browsers, when your competition reaches out and tells a customer, on their cellphone using technology from a company like Foursquare that if they stop in – just around the corner – the customer can get a free product.
According to The Wall Street Journal this is already happening in “Getting Customers to ‘Check In’ with Foursquare.” All a customer has to do is offer a review on the mobile site, possibly bringing in one of their friends that is a block away. While you’re waiting for customers to read your ad (traditional media or internet), the competition might well have reached 100 new users!
The next option is to begin using the technology. And that would be a great start! Develop some future scenarios, figure out how to beat your competition, Disrupt your old spending and behavior patterns and set up a White Space team charged with figuring out how to update your Success Formula.
But the really big winners go even further. Take for example Amazon.com. This less than 20 year old company started as an on-line book retailer. They’ve gone a lot further, building a $44B revenue stream selling more than books. In fact, selling stuff for other people as well as themselves. But beyond that, Amazon is revolutionizing publishing by developing and selling the Kindle as a digital toolkit. As people go further along the trail of moving to mobile devices and the cloud, Kindle has begun offering a range of web services to host data and applications.
Source: Business Insider
Amazon will achieve $500M revenue this year in web services – after just 4 years of business. And could achieve $1B in a year or two! By participating aggressively in the marketplace, Amazon is creating significant revenue that other retailers – such as WalMart, Target, Home Depot or Sears – isn’t even touching. While this has nothing to do with what others might call Amazon’s “core business,” this will continue to build insight to the marketplace, allowing Amazon to further grow all aspects of its revenue! What could be more important than being knowledgeable about web services?
You may not think of yourself as an electronics firm, so you shy away from implementing computer-like hardware. But you shouldn’t think that way. Today mobile chips from ARM, and soon from Intel, will be so cheap you can include them in any item over $100. Soon any item over $20. How much better could you connect with your customers if the product you sold had the equivalent of a cheap smartphone installed? You could learn how your product is used very quickly, and develop new solutions before customers even think to ask for them!
Too often, as I wrote in my Forbes column (Stop Focusing on Your Core Business), we think about our “core business” in such a way that it keeps us from doing new things. As a result, less constrained competitors figure out how to provide more powerful solutions that are more profitable. Focusing on your “core” can keep you from doing the things that are most important for future growth!
The change in technology is not an “if” proposition. Just like we moved away from mainframes, and then minicomputers, eventually to PCs we are going toward a fully connected world of cheap hardware hooking into the cloud where everyone can access data and applications. How will you participate? You won’t be able to compete if you “opt out.” If you are a spectator you can expect the Amazon-like competitors to build a big leg-up. The winners will be those who really become players. And that means pushing your scenarios to really discuss what the year 2015 could bring, study how you can leapfrog competitors, and see how you can disrupt your approach – then implement with White Space teams – to be a big winner.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 31, 2010 | In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
I’m pleased today to post another guest blog – written by Charles Searight of Vector Growth Partners. Charles offers a great viewpoint on a common issue – how to balance the needs of running a good business with implementing innovation. I hope you enjoy his point of view as much as I do:
Efficiency is a good thing, taken in moderation. The same with focus. It is good management hygiene to pay
attention to what you’re doing and try to do it efficiently. This helps build a competitive cost
structure and a results-based culture. From an operations standpoint that means that the use
of an occasional stopwatch or its modern day equivalents in order to eliminate
wasted effort and speed workflows makes perfect sense. Frederick Taylor made the great
contribution in 1911 of helping companies recognize that labor is a
controllable cost that can be managed, but he taught that a narrow focus on the
optimization of each operation and repetition of the “best practice” was the
key to success. He missed the
point (among others) that it is really the improvement of the process as a
whole that changes the game. It took Toyota and Yamaha and other
Japanese companies to teach the world that lesson 70 years later – leading to
today’s six sigma, lean, and time compression concepts.
We find the same phenomenon happening with most companies today
– they are so focused on optimizing their operations and replicating “best
practices” that they have totally lost sight of the process as a whole. The pursuit (often obsession) of
operational excellence becomes an end unto itself and gets disconnected from
the mission of generating growth and creating value. The end game is not to get lean and agile, but rather to get
lean and agile so that you can compete more effectively – leveraging these
capabilities to go to market in innovative new ways, to compete in new markets,
and ultimately to create new markets.
Companies that stay locked-in to being the most efficient
company at making widgets quickly find that low cost widgets have become a
commodity and wonder how they suddenly got into trouble. Being an efficient widget maker gets them
into the game, but not for long. In
order to survive and thrive they must immediately begin planning new markets
for widgets, innovations that will replace widgets, parallel markets targeted
at widget users, new markets for widget-user data, markets unrelated to widgets
that have been identified in conversations with customers, and so on, because
there is always a competitor that will figure out how to make widgets just as
efficiently as they can and undercut their price.
The companies that generate the most value, like Apple in
recent years, are the ones who focus on trends and where the market will be,
not where it has been. They use their
operational excellence as a competitive weapon not as a marketing message or
something to put in the trophy case.
Instead of bragging about how agile they are, they just beat the
daylights out of would-be competitors by launching new products and creating
new businesses at a pace that leaves others in the dust. They do this by planning from the
future and focusing on new ways to leverage their capabilities (or build new
ones) to satisfy tomorrow’s unmet market needs – not by focusing on optimizing the
core competencies of yesterday and today.
They combine the yin of operational excellence with the yang of market
innovation.
Charles Searight is the Managing Partner of Vector Growth Partners headquartered in McClean, VA. His firm helps companies of all sizes and industries, public or privately held, and many with external funding from private equity pools, develop and implement growth strategies. Feel free to comment on Charles input right here, or contact him directly. If you could use help developing a growth plan you can contact Charles at [email protected]. Website www.VectorGrowth.com
If you enjoy ThePhoenixPrinciple.com and would like to submit a guest blog please contact me. I am very pleased to offer up the input of others who have insight or case studies you’d like share about innovation, strategy, growth, lock-in, defend & extend management, scenario planning, competitor analysis/insight, disruptions or white space!
by Adam Hartung | Jul 21, 2010 | Current Affairs, Food and Drink, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership
“I Failed Fast and Completely Re-invented My Company” is the BNET.com article title. Pixability.com of Cambridge, Mass. started out as a video conversion and editing business for families. Unfortunately, it cost more than most families could afford. Lacking revenue, the entrepreneurs thought up making highlight reals for youth athletes competing for college scholarships. Neat idea, but only 3 sales in 3 months was less than covering costs. Despite the original plan, and a desire to raise more money, it hit the founders that if they “stuck to their core” business plan they weren’t going to survive. More money or not. That’s when they realized that turning down corporate work might not be such a great idea – even though such work wasn’t in the plan. Turning to what the market wanted, editing corporate videos, the company is now growing fast and making a profit.
Same song, different verse, for Blue Buddha Boutiques of Chicago as reported in “Small Businesses Have Flexibility to Make Big Changes” at The Chicago Tribune. The company started out making chain mail jewelry sold on the internet. Not much sales. But when the entrepreneur listened to customers she heard there was more demand for jewelry supplies – so customers could make their own jewelry – than for the finished product. A quick shift in the business, aligning it to market needs, and the company shot up to a half million dollars revenue.
Far too often entrepreneurs hear “find your passion, and go with it.” “Write a business plan, stick with it, persevere, fight for success.” “Do what you’re good at.” Of course, most entrepreneurs fail. Why, because this is such lousy advice. Nobody cares about your passion, nor your plan, or your ability to persevere. Customers care about you selling them what they want. If your products or services don’t align with market needs, all the passion, business planning, fighting and perseverance isn’t worth spit.
Of course, this flies in the face of “Built to Last” author Jim Collins. To him, all winners are those who persevere. Looking backward, he can say entrepreneurs he studied were passionate and hard working. Maybe they wore white shirts, and enjoyed Juicy Fruit gum as well. The point is, that isn’t what made them successful – even if their personality traits were as he described. What’s important is that you find a market with growth, and more customers than suppliers, so you can readily sell something at a profit. Adaptability is the hallmark of great entrepreneurs. They have no product or service religion – no commitment to “excellence” – no predefined notions of how to succeed in business. Rather, they have a keen ear for the marketplace and the mental flexibility to rapidly shift into what customers want!
I beg you to be careful about listening to gurus – and especially Jim Collins. I was appalled by his column “Tuned in to four New Realities” published on Leadership Academy. Still unable to explain why companies he glorified in “Good to Great” such as Circuit City, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were such horrible failures – he tenaciously sticks to his guns. To him, all leaders must persevere. His new realities:
- “Define your business according to core values”. Values are great, but if they aren’t somehow intricately linked to delivering a product or service the market wants, and wants in enough demand to produce a profit, it doesn’t matter. Simple. I don’t say give up your soul. But values are not where you start. You must be flexible to align with the market. If your values won’t let you do that you need to do something else.
- “Organize by freedom of choice.” Honestly, how you organize should relate to meeting the market requirements. Whether its hierarchical or matrix or some other form – it must meet the critical market needs. Freedom is great – as long as it supports meeting the market need. You are free in America to do whatever you want, but if you don’t sell enough stuff at a high enough price you don’t eat. And for all its benefits, “freedom of choice” in the workplace is less important than positive cash flow.
- “Lead without using power.” Whether you use carrot or stick, people have to deliver what markets want. And companies have to adapt quickly to shifting wants. Sometimes it happens naturally, and leaders can just guide the process. Sometimes Lock-in to old assumptions get in the way, and then leaders have to get out a 2×4 and redirect attention to where the market wants it. It’s good to be kind and a servant-leader, but employees appreciate a good paying job with some clear guidance (at times dictatorial) to unemployment from “such a nice guy.”
- “Walls are dissolving.” I haven’t even figured out what this one means. But it’s clear that any walls which keep you from seeing the real market need is a bad thing. After that, aligning to market needs is “job #1” as Ford ads once touted quality.
Are you flexible to go where the market leads you? Or are you adamant about doing what you want to do? Are values something you use to help align to market needs, or a crutch you use to defend doing what you’ve always done? Are you able to change your management style, and organizational design, to meet market needs – or do you prefer to remain Locked-in to old management ideas and business models? Whether your company is big or small, old or young, does not matter. Lock-in will kill you when markets shift. Whether it’s structural Lock-in to an existing business, or mental Lock-in to a business plan. Adaptability to meet shifting market needs separates the winners – like Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter – from the market losers – like Microsoft and Dell.
If you have any doubt, just ask the folks at Tasty Catering in Chicago. While others are still complaining about he recession, crying about lower sales, and food service businesses (including restaurants) are half full or closing shop — the folks at Tasty Catering are challenging the monthly revenues they set in peak years of 2007 and 2008. Instead of doing what they always did, the leaders – from the CEO to the 20-something managers talking to customers – are listening to the market and opening new businesses that meet market needs. While most employers are cutting staff, employees at Tasty Catering are working overtime – and in some businesses second shifts are being added. What was once a hot dog stand has been turned by the leaders into the winner of Best Caterer in the USA more than once – and a business that is thriving even in this “Great Recession.” Because they know how to adapt.
PS – Tasty Catering is one of the most value-responsible companies in America. Filled with employees that listen and care, and managers that want their employees to succeed. That’s because the leaders don’t see a trade-off between values and giving the market what it wants. If they keep the business moving forward, through keen connection to the marketplace, everyone wins – and values are not an issue. By being market-savvy, and flexible, Tasty Catering is considered one of the Top 10 employers in Chicago, and in its industry. And if you cater from anybody else in Chicago, or buy your delivered baskets or trays of cookies and muffins from anyone else, you simply don’t know what you’re missing!
by Adam Hartung | Jul 14, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
For good reason, a lot of controversy is swirling around Apple’s iPhone 4 problems. With Consumer Reports saying the product’s antenna is defective, and the company admitting there’s a software glitch regarding signal strength reporting, Apple’s newest smartphone release is looking not so smart. Even CNN television was running reports about Apple’s “debacle” and what the company should do this morning – including product recalls, software upgrades, issuing new cases, etc. Recommendations that could cost billions of dollars!
Beyond the cost to fix outstanding customer problems, shareholders and employees have good reason to be concerned. According to MediaPost.com “Quantcast: Android Keeps Gaining Steam.” For the most recent quarter Google is now #2 in phone shipments, exceeding Apple and trailing only RIM. Google has gained 14 share points this year, while Apple has lost 7.7 share points and RIM 5.7 points. There are now 60 Android models on the market.
And Google’s open development platform seems to be picking up steam compared to the more closed/controlled Apple platform. Share of handhelds is less critical than number, and share, of downloadable (and downloaded) apps. That Google’s app base is growing quickly, as is Apple’s, is really the story to watch. But with the iPhone 4 issues, will app developers look closer at Android?
This story is a microcosm of Lock-in and Defend & Extend management. Apple was the big pioneer in pushing smartphone apps, and with only 3.5% of the phone market garnered huge PR, unit sales and profits with its early generation. It’s closed environment, along with sleek style and commitment to AT&T network, were all part of the Success Formula. Apple Locked-in on that, and through 3 generations kept growing. But now we see the kind of thing that happens when a business unit Locks-in. In an effort to make rev 4 the team starts pushing for more, better, faster, cheaper – optimizing what’s been working – and suddenly a mistake happens. A parallel to BP – only happening in “warp speed.” The team is trying to push hard to maintain, even grow, handset and app share – and using D&E management to do so. The risk, as we see, is that optimization can lead to cutting costs (antenna design and implementation), and then getting defensive when you’re caught making a mistake!
Google is still pushing forward in smartphones with largely a White Space team approach. Not yet Locked-in, it is still experimenting with new solutions. New vendors and markets. It is learning how to attack the Lock-ins at both RIM (the enterprise market) as well as Apple. And as a result, it’s share is gaining. This is good for Google – and definitely not good for Apple.
The biggest screaming is for Steve Jobs to quit being defensive and become apologetic, as BusinessInsider.com recommends in “Here’s How Apple Can Recover from the Snowballing iPhone 4 Disaster.” The claim is that Mr. Jobs is so personally magnetic that his mere verbal apologies will keep customers and developers loyal – and keep Apple in the lead.
Not so fast. Mr. Jobs is a good CEO, but if your phone doesn’t work…..
Apple needs to get the iPhone team back into White Space work. Today the iPad is the big White Space project at Apple. The Mac, iPod, iTunes and iPhone have started to lose their edge. As Apple has brought forward new products, in new markets, it has pulled off the big goal of “jumping the curve” – by going from one growth market to the next. It has been able to keep up high growth through new market entries. The iPad is the latest in this series, as it is developing the emerging – and rapidly growing – tablet marketplace.
But as we can see, the risk is that D&E behavior creeping into the other markets becomes risky. Luckily competitors for iPod, iTunes and iTouch have been rather feckless. So locked-in to their old, outdated Success Formulas they have done little to effectively attack Apple. Apple has maintained share rather easily.
But this is not the case with iPhone. Another new entrant, Google, is using new scenarios about the future, a deep understanding of competitors and a willingness to Disrupt itself and the marketplace. In a characteristically Phoenix Principle way, Google is attacking the iPhone by taking advantage of the Lock-in Apple has to its initial Success Formula. If Apple doesn’t change, not only will it continue to make unwise decision errors – such as the antenna problem and the horribly defensive PR reaction to its discovery – but it will rapidly lose its advantage. Apple’s advantage came from understanding the market – not optimizing iPhone capability. And Google looks to be gaining the marketplace understanding advantage now.
Apple has to redesign the iPhone management. The team must push itself back into White Space. Be driven not by its internal goals for iPhone, iPhone apps and capabilities – but driven by future scenarios. The team has to get a LOT, LOT savvier about competitors. RIM and Palm are non-competitors now. It’s about understanding Google and its partners – including Facebook. Apple has to rethink its future scenarios and how competitors will try to do things differently. And Apple has to Disrupt its Lock-in to the original Success Formula in order to develop new innovations that can allow it to not only grow (in a very high growth market) but maintain share!
The iPhone 4 problems should be a wake-up call to Apple. Falling into D&E management thinking is easy. Anybody can become inwardly focused on optimizing historical strengths and capabilities. It’s remarkable how you can lose sight of emerging competitors, hoping your Success Formula will win if you just work at it harder. Apple needs to keep winning with the iPad, as that’s a tremendous opportunity. But it also needs to get the iPhone team back into using White Space to behave like a Phoenix Principle organization for the smartphone business.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 9, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness, Web/Tech
“To Boost Innovation Just Keep the Boss Away” titles the BQF Innovation website. Citing data from The Nielsen Company’s study of 30 large consumer products companies showed that companies with White Space Teams (what they call Blue Sky) teams are far more successful at creating revenue generating innovation than companies trying to innovate through the traditional organization structure. And, as recommended in this blog, these teams are more than twice as effective when they are dedicated off-site teams! And, organizations with minimal senior executive involvement generate 80% more product revenue than those with heavy senior level participation.
Hierarchy is an innovation killer. The higher a manager goes, the more he feels compelled to “weed out” options. Unfortunately, most of this weeding is based upon Defending & Extending the existing Success Formula. Doing more of the same better, faster and cheaper dominates innovation thinking the higher the manager is placed! Rather than championing new innovations that could take the business into new markets with new products, senior people will apply the 20 Innovation Killers from my last blog posting! They will say the idea doesn’t fit, for a variety of reasons, and feel justified they’ve added their managerial “value.”
The Heart of Innovation column from IdeaChampions.com amplifies this in “Breakthrough as an Accident Waiting to Happen.” The author describes how many innovations are the result of ongoing experimentation. Trying new combinations. Learning, and trying again. Managers too often want the innovation to be fully developed “in the lab.” They are unwilling to set up teams that are given the permission, and resources, to try, get market feedback, and keep trying. To learn how to compete in order to eventually win!
All companies want to grow. All claim to want innovation. But too often, the senior people just want small improvements that don’t affect any Lock-ins. They hope for spectacular results from minimal input. Contrarily, the organization itself frequently contains a large number of people who have great insights for things that could work – if given the opportunity to be applied, tested, reworked and made to fit emerging needs. We need are more managers willing to set up White Space teams and let them do their job – while holding the teams accountable for results! Like the leadership at Apple and Google, let people work and learn, and evaluate them on the outcomes – rather than trying to tell them what they need to do, how they need to do it, and setting up boundaries to keep innovation within the Locked-in Succeess Formula!
