by Adam Hartung | Sep 14, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Summary:
- Success Formulas age, losing their value
- To regain growth, you have to identify with market trends – not reinforce old Lock-ins
- KFC is losing sales due to a market shift, but its response is not linked to market trends
- KFC’s plan to invest heavily in its old icon is Defend & Extend management
- Market to what it takes to regain new customers, and lost customers, not what your current customers (core customers) value
- The Status Quo Police have driven a very bad decision at KFC – more poor results will follow
- You have to market toward future needs, not what worked years ago.
Who’s Colonel Sanders? According to USAToday, in “KFC Tries to Revive Founder Colonel Sanders Prestige” 60% of American’s age 18 to 25 don’t know. For us older Americans, this may seem amazing, because we were raised on advertising that promoted the legend of a cooking Kentucky Colonel who “did chicken right” creating the recipe for what became today’s enormous Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchise. But it’s been a very, very long time since “the Colonel” left KFC in the 1980s, declaring that the chain, then owned by Heublein, didn’t make chicken so “finger lickin’ good” any longer. Were he alive today, the famed Colonel – who became a caricature of himself before death, would be an astounding 120 years old! Now most people don’t have a clue who’s picture that is in the red logo – if they notice there’s even a picture of someone there.
KFC is the largest chicken franchise, with 15,000 stores. But size has not been any help as the chain has lost its growth. Last quarter’s same-store sales fell 7%. A clear sign a deadly growth stall has started that bodes badly for the future! People have stopped going to KFC outletd. So management needs to do something to bring new customers into the stores – in American and globally. In a remarkable display of defending the Status Quo, leadership’s recommended solution for this problem is to put a heavy marketing blitz into “educating” consumers about the Colonel, and the oompany’s history!
Are we to believe that knowing about some long dead company founder will drive customers’ decisions where to eat lunch or dinner next week? Or next year?
I don’t know why people are eating less KFC, but it’s a sure bet it’s NOT because the Colonel has faded from the limelight. Times have changed dramatically. Everything from the acceptance of fried food, to concerns about chicken raising, to menu variety, to store appearance, and alternative competitive opportunities have had an impact on sales at KFC. What KFC needs is to understand these market trends, recognize where consumers are headed with their prepared food purchases, and position the company to deliver what consumers WANT this year and in the future. If KFC finds the trend – even if it’s not chicken – it can regain its growth. KFC needs to give the market what it wants – and is that a heavy education about a dead icon?
KFC is trying to turn back the clock. It is looking internally, historically, and hoping that by promoting the Colonel it can regain the glorious growth of previous decades. KFC leadership is remaining firmly committed to its old and clearly tiring Success Formula (the one that is producing declining sales and profits.) So it is holding fast to its menu, its preparation methods, its store appearance, its “brand” image and now even its iconic founder that is irrelevant to this current generation and any international consumer!
Does anyone really think reviving the Colonel – a white haired senior
citizen in his heyday -will create double digit growth? Or bring in
those young people between ages 18 and 25? There’s not one shred of
market input which says this is the way to grow KFC. Only a belief that
somehow future success will come from an attempt to replay what worked
when the Success Formula was created over 40 years ago.
In a telling quote from the article “KFC’s trying to paint a new picture — actually asking its core consumers to paint it for them.” The marketers are actually hoping a contest to re-sketch the lost icon will drive people to “reconnect” with the franchise. What’s worse, clearly they are hoping to appeal to the “core” customers – current customers – rather than find out why lost customers left, and what new customers might want to encourage a switch to KFC. They are “focusing on their core” rather than figuring out what the market wants.
Add on top of this that management has admitted it expectsmost (possibly all) future growth to come from international expansion, and you really have to question how focusing marketing on the Colonel makes any sense. Why would people in Europe, South America, India, China or elsewhere have any connection to a character more attuned to America’s civil war than today’s global economy and international high-energy brand images?
This is the kind of decision that is driven by a strong Status Quo Police. Of all the options, from changing the menu and name, to developing a new icon, to creating a new image for the alphabet soup that is KFC (most young people don’t even relate KFC to the original name – and international customers have no connection at all) – all the things that could be based on market trends – leadership went down the road of doing more of the same.
It’s a sure bet we’ll be reading about further declines in KFC over the next year. There will be a big store closing program. Then a quality program to improve customer service and cleanliness. Layoffs will happen. Some kind of lean program to tighten up the supply chain and cut costs. Revenues will probably decline another 15-25%. Exactly what McDonald’s did about 6 years ago when it sold Chipotle’s to “refocus on its core.” Management will talk about how its “core” customers relate well to the Colonel, and they are sure if given time the marketing will return KFC to its old glory.
And the only people who will enjoy this are the Status Quo Police. For the rest of us, it’s watching another great company fall victim to its past, rather than migrate toward a better, high growth future.
Read my Forbes.com column “Fire the Status Quo Police” for more insight to how consumer branded companies hurt long-term viability by maintaining brand status quo rather than migrating with market trends.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 4, 2010 | Books, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Religion
Summary:
- When we don’t know what works, we create myths to describe what might work
- Much of business theory is little more than myth
- “Good to Great” has been a best seller, but it is not helpful for good management
- To grow business today requires abandoning management myths and aligning with changing market needs
Good to Great by Jim Collins has been a phenomenal business best seller. Almost 10 years old, it has sold millions of copies. It continues to be featured on end caps in book stores. That it has sold so well, and continues selling, is a testament to a much better book by the legendary newsperson Bill Moyers with Joseph Campbell, “The Power of Myth.” (Original PBS 2001 TV show available on DVD, or get the new release this month.)
When we don’t understand something we develop theories as to how it might work. These theories are based upon what we know, our assumptions, and our biases. They could be right, or they might not. Only testing determines the answer. However, sometimes the theory is so powerfully connected to our beliefs that we don’t want to test it – don’t feel the need to test it. And if the theory hangs around long enough, people forget it wasn’t tested. What easily happens is that “logical” theories (based upon assumptions and beliefs) that don’t explain reality become myth. And the myth becomes very comforting. Over time, the myth becomes part of the assumption set – unchallenged, and actually used as a basis for building new theories.
For example, the founder of modern medicine – Galen – didn’t understand the circulatory system. So he thought blood was oxygenated by invisible pores. As time passed it became impossible to challenge, or even test, this theory. Eventually, blood letting was developed as a medical practice because people thought the blood stored in the affected area had gone bad. It was several hundred years before Harvey, through careful testing, proved there were no invisible pores – and instead blood circulated throughout the body. Millions had perished from blood letting because of a myth. Bad theory allowed to go unchallenged and untested. It just sounded so good, so acceptable, that people followed it. Dangerous practice.
Thomas Thurston now gives us great insight to the popular myth developed by Jim Collins in Good to Great. Published by Growth Science International (http//growthsci.com) “Good to Great: Good, But Not Great” Mr. Thurston puts Mr. Collins thesis to the test. Is it a usable framework for predicting performance, and do followers actually achieve superior performance? In other words, does the advice in Good to Great work?
Mr. Thurston’s conclusions, quoted below, are quite clear, and mirror those of academics and lay people who have studied the storied Mr. Collins’ work:
- Even with the copious guidelines set forth by Collins, sorting CEOs into each category proved a highly subjective process. The classification scheme was ambiguous
- Level 5 leadership was difficult to categorize with reliability and consistency
- Our sample [100 well known firms] did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the performance of firms led by Level 5 and Not-Level 5 leaders. Performance in each category was approximately the same.
- Level 5 leadership classifications were, in practice, highly subjective and not predictive of superior firm performance.
- In other words, our results concluded that one can not predict whether a firm will perform good, great or bad based on its having a Level 5 Leader.
We like myth. It helps us explain what we previously could not explain. Like early Greek gods helped people explain the complex world around them. But, when we build our behaviors on myth it becomes extremely dangerous. We depend upon things that don’t work, and it can have serious repercussions. Mr. Collins glorified Circuit City and Fannie Mae in his book – yet now one is gone and the other in disrepute. Meanwhile his list of “great” companies have been proven to perform no better than average since his publication.
In Good to Great Mr. Collins offers a theory for business success that is very appealing. Be focused on your strengths. Get everybody on the bus to doing the same thing. Make sure you know your core, and protect it like a hedgehog protects its home. And make sure all leaders follow a Christ-like approach of humbleness, and leader servitude. It sounds very appealing – in an Horatio Alger sort of way. Work hard, be humble and good things will happen. We want to believe.
But it just doesn’t produce superior performance. There are no theories that have identified “great” leaders. Success has come from all kinds of personalities. And, despite our love for being “passionate” and “focused” on doing something really “great” there is no correlation between long-term success and the ability to understand your core and focus the organization upon it. Thousands of businesses have been focused on their core, yet failed.
What we need is a new theory of management. As the Assistant Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Alan Murray, wrote in “The End of Management,” industrial era management theories about optimization and increased production do not help companies deal with an information era competitiveness fraught with rapid change and keen demands for flexibility.
Increased flexibility and success can be assured. If companies make some critical changes
- Plan for the future, not from the past. Do more scenario planning and less “core” planning
- Obsess about competition – and listen less to customers
- Be disruptive. Don’t focus on optimization and continuous improvement
- Embrace White Space to develop new solutions linked to changing market needs
This does work. Every time.
update links on Thomas Thurston 5/2014:
http://startupreport.com/thomas-thurston-on-innovation-malpractice-and-the-dangers-of-theory-via-startupreport-com/
http://newsle.com/person/thomasthurston/2870934#reloaded
http://thomasthurston.com/
by Adam Hartung | Aug 23, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Market shifts can lead to new solutions that are free
- Free products often cause historical competitors to fail
- Microsoft is at great risk as the market for business applications is shifting to free solutions from Google
More than a decade ago Microsoft made the decision to bundle, at no extra charge, an encyclopedia with its software. Almost nobody had heard of Encarta, and it had never been a serious competitor to Encyclopedia Britannica. But when it came on a CD for free it stopped a lot of people from buying a new set of books for the family. It only took months for Encarta to become the #1 encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica found itself in bankruptcy. While quality is always an issue, it's very tough to compete with "free." Now Wikipedia, another free product, dominates the encyclopedia market.
For decades people paid for access to news – via newspapers and magazines. Advertisers and subscriptions paid for news. But when newswriters started offering news on the internet for free, and when readers could access news articles on the web without subscriptions, publishers found out how hard it is to compete with "free." Several magazines and newspapers have failed, and several publishers have entered bankruptcy – such as Tribune Corporation.
Now Crain's New York Business headlines "Google's Free Appls Click with Entrepreneurs." Companies are learning they can accomplish the tasks of word processing, spreadsheets, website creation and enterprise email for free via Google apps. And this is not good news for Microsoft.
Microsoft has 2 product lines that make up almost all its sales and profits. Operating systems for PCs (Windows 7) and office automation software for businesses (Office 2010). That there is now a viable offering which is free has to be very, very troubling. How long can Microsoft compete when the competitive product is, quite literally, free? If you adopt cloud computing applications, you no longer need a PC with an operating system. You can use a much simpler device. And you can use Google apps for business applications at no charge.
Microsoft is a huge company, with an incredible history. But how is it going to compete with free? And as computing becomes more and more networked, and Microsoft loses share in mobile devices from smartphones to tablets, what will be the sustaining revenue at Microsoft?
Investors in Microsoft have a lot to fear. As do its employees and suppliers. As do supply chain partners like Dell. When markets shift – especially when led by a shift to free solutions – the impact on traditional competitors can be extreme. Even the very best – such as Encyclopedia Britannica – can be destroyed. Sun Microsystems led the server business in 2000, with a +$200B market cap. Sun is now gone. Market shifts can happen fast, and when products are free shifts often happen even faster.
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 2, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech, Weblogs
Things are tough for the printed word these days. Not for writing, or demand for information. That is doing great – with more volume than ever! But the issue is “printed” material. Clearly, the format is changing. But are business leaders changing with it?
The Los Angeles Times reported “Amazon.com Says It’s Selling 80% More Downloaded Books Than Hardcovers.” This is a big switch. Clearly Kindles are making a big difference as people are buying a lot less paper, and reading a lot more bits. Do you remember when your colleagues all said “I want a book, I don’t want to read looking at a screen?” Do you remember when businesspeople actually printed their emails? Clearly a sentiment gone by the wayside.
Accuracy in Media reported “U.S. Newspaper Circulation Dropped 30% Since ’07.” And it’s a global phenomenon, with the U.K. down 25%, Greece 20%, Italy 18% and Canada 17%. Fully 2/3 of major countries are seeing newspaper demand decline. No wonder Tribune Corporation, publisher of The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun, as well as others, is having such a hard time emerging from bankruptcy. Every month this looks more like the buggy whip business. Can you really expect the company to survive?
Amidst this backdrop, magazines have a dire future. I can remember when browsing magazines was the norm, and trade magazines arrived in my inbox daily. Often 60 or 100 page affairs. No longer. Magazines have disappeared like rain in the Sahara. Their savior is supposedly to go digital, but according to TwistedImage.com magazine leaders are at a loss how to proceed. In “The Media Disruption Within” Mitch Joel describes how a panel of magazine publishers are approaching the industry change mostly with despair that the internet is here – and no concerted effort to define a new model. Lock-in was prevalent as they kept hoping for a return to the good old days for print publishers, which we know is never going to happen.
So today the New York Post reported “Mag Publishers, Apple in Subscription App Scrap.” Most of us can acquire newspapers for an iPad issue by issue – but subscriptions aren’t possible. The magazine fears it will be the big loser – and rightfully so. If Apple controls the subscription and delivery, why couldn’t it repackage? Where would Apple stop, and what value would the magazine actually deliver? Since iTunes changed music buying, how many people buy albums? It would require the editors and publishers be really sharp to know their market – something most gave up a long time ago when they turned to focusing on narrow content for their “core product” and trying to maintain their “core competency.” Neither of which are very “core” any more.
We all want news that’s exactly what we want, and we’ll simply go to Google to get it. Who published it isn’t nearly as important to readers any more. Nor is the packaging. Pretty soon Amazon via Kindle, Apple via iPad, and we can expect a Google tablet to do the same, can start packaging up the chapters of various books for readers giving them just what they want. And with that they can link off to source articles from newspapers and magazine archives – or to current events. The role of publisher will get a lot less clear, as writers and editors can go directly to the electronic distributor with content.
Into this fray is an interesting new approach reported by CNBC.com, “Rupert Murdoch’s New Digital Game Changer?” The claim is that News Corp. is preparing an all-new interactive product designed just for on-line and mobile users. It wouldn’t be a re-treaded newspaper. Text, photo and video designed just for the medium. Now that would be the right way to go about preparing for 2020. Unfortunately, the way News Corp. handled MySpace.com doesn’t give us a lot of comfort this will be a truly White Space project. But if it is, it might just be the start of toward the product which will be journalism in 2020.
If you’re in publishing you have no choice but to get White Space going. The intermediaries – from the tech companies to new-age publishers like HuffingtonPost.com – are moving forward. The business as it used to be is gone. But the demand for news – for content – is bigger than ever. It will require a new business model. A new Success Formula. And this is clearly a case of change or die. The world will never again be as it previously was.
Even if you don’t think of yourself as a publisher – you probably are. Do you put out customer literature – like user or repair manuals? Do you put out sales literature? Do you communicate with investors or industry analysts? If so, how do you “publish” your material? Paper? Packaged pdf? In today’s world, an advantage can be created by moving quickly to what’s new.
Today there are a plethora of luxury automobiles on the market. These beautifully high tech luxury machines have manuals that can run 500+ pages! It is impossible to figure out how anything works by trying the manual! Why don’t manufacturers of $60,000+ cars have a Kindle (or iPad) built into the console? Those cost less than a set of brake pads today, they can be updated automatically, and are interactive.
Are you thinking about how you could use a $100 device to make life easier for your customers and supply chain partners? Or are you printing? If you’re printing, what’s your budget? How much would you save if your salespeople, customers, etc. were given a Kindle? Or iPad? Can you afford not to be thinking differently about your future?
by Adam Hartung | Jul 30, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Quotes, Web/Tech
This week Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer said the company would get out a tablet soon, and that it would be a big success. Do you believe him? You have good reason to be doubtful. When it comes to new products, Microsoft has been a big dud under his leadership. But I’m not the only one complaining. Mediapost.com ran an article quoting some very well respected sources who are very, very skeptical. Below is part of the article. You can read the whole thing here:
“Of course that’s often the case with Microsoft,” notes Digital Daily.
“The problem is, it doesn’t always manage to do things really right.
Certainly, it didn’t manage it with Windows Vista. Or Windows Mobile. Or
Zune. Or, more recently, Kin. Who’s to say this time will be any
different?”
“As it stands now, Microsoft’s lack of details on
the upcoming Windows tablets is not encouraging, despite Ballmer’s
promises,” concludes PCWorld.
Seemingly overwhelmed by the rapid innovation and successes of rivals like Apple, Google, and even Facebook, Fortune
calls Ballmer “a train wreck,” and “a salesman whose only answer to
technological change seems to be the operating system he inherited from
Bill Gates.”
Thinking of Microsoft as an “innovator,”
however, will leave you disappointed every time, Jefferies analyst
Katherine Egbert wrote in a note Friday morning. “If you stop thinking
of Microsoft as an innovator and start thinking of them as a fast, low
cost, mass market follower, you’ll stop being disappointed in their
inability to divine new markets and realize they are staring at some of
their largest growth opportunities ever.”
Microsoft is too focused on its core business to do new things correctly. Long ago Mr. Ballmer took a Defend & Extend approach to the business. The company doesn’t do much scenario planning to determine how markets can be disrupted – in fact they hope the opposite. They do very little competitor analysis, because they view themselves as market dominant so beyond having to study competitors. They ignore fringe competitors – including upstarts like Apple and Google. Internal disruptions are verboten, and politics abound. And there is no white space where teams can violate old lock-ins to develop a new success formula that will compete better with the likes of Apple, Google and Cisco.
Focusing on your core can get any business in trouble (read Forbes article “Stop Focusing on Your Core Business” here). Even one with a near monopoly. Over time, all markets shift. When they do, the least prepared are the ones who think they “dominate” their industry. Maybe Mr. Ballmer should have lunch with Mr. Wagoner of GM to learn what happens when you take your industry position for granted.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 26, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Web/Tech
“Blackberry’s Era May Be Ending” is the New York Times title on a Reuter’s story about the pioneering leader in smartphones. That RIM is in trouble is undoubtedly true – so much so it will not likely survive as a stand-alone company, if it survives at all! The company is in a growth stall, with U.S. market share in the first quarter dropping to 41% from 55% last year. Selling cheaply priced products outside the U.S. has masked the deep revenue problem developing at RIM – as the company tries to convince investors that it really isn’t falling way behind new competitors.
It was just April 8 when I published on this blog “Enterprise Customer Risk” in which I described how Blackberry’s ongoing focus on corporate customers allowed it to fall far behind in the applications development area ( see the 2 critical charts in previous blog showing the application weakness as well as market share problems). Now Apple has 30 TIMES the number of apps available on the Blackberry. On January 10 in “Winners and Losers from Shifts” this blog posted a chart showing how Apple hit 1 billion application downloads in its first 14 months of iPhone sales. Two weeks ago MediaPost.com reported “Android Hits 1 Billion Downloads.” Android now has about 100,000 apps, while Apple has about 225,000 apps. RIM doesn’t even have 10,000 apps.
RIM made a huge mistake. It focused on its core market of enterprise Blackberry customers. It tried to Defend its historical market share by focusing on its historical customers – and ignoring the smartphone non-user markets being developed by Apple (and now Google.) As a result it’s price/earnings multiple has fallen to 10 – amidst clear indications that RIM is unlikely to ever regain much growth as this growth stall continues.
We might like to think this sort of rapid problem creation is limited to technology companies. Unfortunately, not so. Crain’s Chicago Business today reports that “Kraft Foods Sees Slowdown in U.S. Cookie and Cracker Sales, Complicating CEO Rosenfeld’s Growth Agenda.” Kraft has had no measurable organic growth for over a decade, nor successful entries into new markets. The last year Kraft’s CEO demonstrated no commitment to organic growth by putting all her energy into the acquisition of Cadbury in order to expand Kraft’s “core” market position – dominated by Oreo, Chips Ahoy, Ritz Crackers and Wheat Thins. But now sales for the last quarter in the historical business are down 3.8%!
Kraft is another example of what happens when a company hits a growth stall. It may have a few up periods, but overall it is 93% likely to never again consistently grow at a mere 2%! Defend & Extend management uses obfuscation, like acquisitions, to hide underlying problems in the company’s ability to meet changing market needs. Resources are poured into price cutting promotions and advertising, looking only at the marginal cost and the initial sales, which props up the over-spending on worn out products in a worn-out Success Formula – and in Kraft’s case even these aren’t able to keep customers buying brands that are over 50 years aged. Ms. Rosenfeld will try to keep everyone’s attention on the top-line, hoping they forget that “growth” was manufactured by acquisition and that in fact both sales and margins are deteriorating in the “core” brands.
So, are you still trying to find your growth in this “Great Recession” by doing more of what you’ve always done – hoping customers will for some reason flock to your old way of doing business? That, quite frankly, has almost no hope of working. Customers are looking for new solutions every day. If you focus on protecting old markets, maybe by asking old customers what to do, you’ll miss the emergence of new markets where underserved customers are creating all the growth. If you don’t have plans to expand your business by 20% or more in new markets across the next 2 years you have more chance of burning up your resources than growing – and you might well end up like GM, FAO Schwarz or Sharper Image!
by Adam Hartung | Jul 20, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
According to Crain’s Chicago Business “Sara Lee Looks to Sell Bread Business.” Large investors seem to support the sale, hoping this will expedite a take-over by a larger consumer goods company or a privage equity firm. They hope the sale of this laggard company will finally bail them out of a bad investment. Should either takeover happen, Sara Lee would likely cease to exist as a company. Most employees would lose their jobs, more products “streamlined” into the dustbin, and another Chicago headquarters would disappear.
Since taking the helm in 2005 CEO Brenda Barnes has systematically dismantled Sara Lee. Then a $19B company, Sara Lee has shrunk by almost 50% to just over $10B. From 2005 to 2009, as asset sales dominated management attention, value declined by 75%, from $20/share to $5. On the hope of high values for the asset balance as the company is shopping its very existence, value has risen to $15/share – a 25% decline from the starting point. Hard to call that “excellent” CEO performance.
Sara Lee leadership was so focused on trying to Defend & Extend legacy business models that when they didn’t improve the business was sold. Year by year, Sara Lee got smaller. And the end of the road looks to be the end of Sara Lee. Customers lost many products, with almost no new product introductions to replace them. Employees had almost no growth opportunities as the company shrank. Suppliers saw margins shrink as they were beat upon to lower prices. And investors have suffered losses. There is no “winner” at the end of the road for Defend & Extend Management. When the company moves into the Whirlpool little is said as the remnants slip away.
Today we are fascinated by BP’s effort to cap the Deepwater Horizon oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Will it work? Everyone certainly hopes so. But what will it mean for BP if the leak is capped? Unfortunately, precious little.
The New York Times reported recently “In BP’s Record: A History of Boldness and Costly Blunders.” In classic Defend & Extend behavior, Tony Hayward early on implemented a “back to basics” campaign to “refocus” BP on its “core strengths.” These are all warning signs. When management looks backward, it is not looking forward. Taking “bold action” to “do what the company has always done best” is simply using euphemisms to ignore added risk in effort to protect a Success Formula with declining value. People feel pushed to improve performance by constant optimization – including a lot of cost cutting. And cost cutting leads to blunders.
BP is far from the Whirlpool. But things don’t look good for BP. As Forbes published in “BP’s Only Hope for Its Future” BP has to change its direction pretty remarkably or it’s employees, investors, suppliers and customers could find out BP has a long way yet to fall. Drilling ever riskier wells, in riskier places, for less reserves is not a long-term viable Success Formula.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 12, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
What do Tony Hayward, Jeff Skilling and Bernard Ebbers possibly have in common? They all might end up convicted felons.
While this may sound ridiculous, and very, very scary to corporate CEOs, nobody expected Skilling, the CEO of Enron, or Ebbers, the CEO of Worldcom, to go to jail. They were hailed as heros, and admired for their leadership of large, high growth companies. Yet, Ebbers is waiting out a 25 year sentence, convicted of acting illegally in the value destruction at Worldcom (CNNMoney.com “Ebbers Gets 25 Years.”) And Skilling is working on a 24 year sentence for the downfall of Enron (CNNMoney.com “Skilling Gets 24 Years.”)
Now, BusinessWeek.com is asking if the same fate awaits Tony Hayward in “The Oil Spill: Will BP Face Criminal Charges?“ As the spill goes on and on, and the damages increase, the public sentiment against BP is increasing. If the spill goes around Florida to the east coast there will be millions more citizens, and businesses, affected. It is clear that many laws were broken, as the article lays out. So it’s not a mute question that an aggressive prosecutor would go after imprisoning Hayward.
As reprehensible as many may find each of these 3 men, how did they end up facing criminal prosecution? Even The Washington Post has asked “Did Jeff Skilling Do Anything Illegal?“ A Harvard MBA and former McKinsey partner, Mr. Skilling calmly described the practices at Enron completely unapologitically. He was certain he’d done nothing wrong. Mr. Ebbers was a devout Christian and Sunday School teacher who claimed all through the trial and to reporters on the way to jail he’d done nothing wrong. I’m sure Mr. Hayward believes similarly.
What all 3 did was simply push the Success Formula too far. Worldcom, Enron and BP were wildly successful companies. They created Success Formulas that earned billions of dollars. For years they grew. But unfortunately, they kept trying to push the Success Formula to better results when market shifts left that formula earning lower returns. Rather than recognize that lower returns were an indication of a Success Formula needing change, they dug in their heals and “got creative” in Defending & Extending it. They used “best practices” to lower costs, and to seek out financial machinations which would allow the business to look more profitable – even as they undertook more, and more risk.
To them, taking risk rather than change the Success Formula wasn’t thought of as risk. They were out to protect something they felt had to be protected, at all cost. The Success Formula that had made money for years, enriching not only themselves but investors, employees and suppliers. They were blind to the added risk, because it was assumed that doing incrementally more was the “right thing to do” for the company. They were doing what they believed were “best practices” for the “health” of their companies.
Defending a Success Formula can become very risky, as I wrote in Forbes “BP’s Only Hope For Its Future.” Years of doing the same thing, only more, better, faster, cheaper, makes it harder and harder to do something different. The culture and decision-making systems are designed, and modified — Locked-in — to push employees to make the same decision over and over, regardless of risk. In BPs case we now know that cheaper parts and practices were employed to improve profitability – something each employee felt was in the company’s best interest. Only, in the end, it served to layer risk upon risk – and lead to an eventual disaster.
Are you “doubling down” on risk in your business? Are you investing more and more into trying to improve returns in a business that is earning less and less – and growing less and less? If so, you could be setting yourself up for disaster as well. Let’s hope in doing so you don’t run afoul of the law. 25 years in prison is a hefty price to pay for spending too much energy “focused on your core” business at a time when you should be looking for new ways to expand and grow where the risks are less.
