I so enjoyed the feedback from my article on Chicago and Illinois politicians I decided to take on another sacred cow – so let's talk about education.
According to Inside Higher Education's article "In Search of Innovators" there is a distinct lack of innovation in higher education. They cite a number of studies that show colleges are much better at enrolling students than graduating them. Especially private schools and junior colleges. And, imagine this, professors and administrators are more interested in continuing their positions and jobs than what students learn ("learning outcomes" in the industry vernacular.) Seems that keeping things from changing is the highest interest for educators, rather than actually teaching anything students need to learn to compete today.
But, we all know this. We've all seen colleges that have courses taught by only one or two professors, who only teach at odd hours, only allow a few students, refuse to keep office hours, or refuse to post previous exams. We're all familiar with schools that limit the hours administration offices are open, and are intractable about the requirements for graduation – even if they were set 20 years ago.
Quite simply, Lock-in drives most schools. Programs like tenure which make it impossible to fire anyone help maintain Lock-in. And professors would rather argue about what they don't want to do than try anything new and different. For all of us who went to college, and especially for those of us with students in college, it's clear that students are a route to their money (or their parent's money) – sort of little money pumps – intended to allow the college to not change. Many colleges even brag about how little they've changed over the last 20, 50 or even 100 years! In a world where change is every present, and dealing with change is now one of the most important skills a young person needs!
According to The Chronicle of Higher Education "For Innovation to Occur, Colleges Need a Big Push, Scholars Say." This journal cites program after program where a college tried to start up something new, only to have the program fail. But of course, because there is no White Space in colleges. White Space is where you give Permission to break all Lock-ins and do whatever it takes to be successful – and then provide the resources for success to occur. This does NOT exist in a college, where none of the Lock-ins can be violated. A professor can't even decide to change from teaching in class to using video instruction or on-line training because it's not allowed. So how can something new really be tried?
Where we have seen growth in higher education has been in for-profit schools like Devry and Phoenix that have rapidly challenged tradition and moved into new education models. Traditional schools decry these institutions, claiming the quality isn't acceptable. Of course, the "quality" argument is what printers used to claim Xerox machines would never succeed. It's what DEC said about AutoCad – before DEC went out of business. It's what Kodak executives said would make digital photography a tiny market compared to film. It's what executives at Sony said would keep music customers from buying MP3 devices/music before Apple launched the iPod. Quality is the #1 excuse used by Locked-in organizations to justify why they shouldn't change.
Forty years ago it was pretty clear that if you could afford college and grad school, it was worth it. But as costs/prices have skyrocketed, and the relevancy of education in many institutions has declined, that argument has lost a lot of credibility. Increasingly students are saying they want their education to be meaningful, practical and applicable. The market has shifted. They want to study on their schedules, without giving up their incomes or struggling with horrible commutes. And increasingly, these customers are moving to the suppliers that meet their needs – rather than trying to Defend & Extend old practices.
It's ironic that in the one place where we should most be open to new models we have almost no innovation. But it's impossible without a change in the structures and processes – and that requires a willingness to create a lot of White Space. For most colleges, I'm not optimistic.
I was born in 1957. That year, a 3 bedroom track home in Wichita, KS sold for the same price as that very same track home in Palo Alto, CA – about $10,000. Of course, things have changed hugely since then. Agriculture value had declined markedly, and automation has allowed for dramatic productivity improvements, robbing the heartland states of hundreds of thousands of agricultural jobs. Without people on the farms, the need for agricultural cities supporting the farms declined. No growth, and values decline. Today that home in Wichita is worth something like $50,000.
The land where the track home once sat in Palo Alto is worth $500,000. Because the explosion of technology jobs in Silicon Valley made demand for housing much greater, and as the value of technology soared those employed in the industry saw their incomes rise, allowing for higher home values.
It all comes down to growth. Geographic areas are like businesses in that growth leads to all kinds of good things – including higher home values. People go where the jobs are. Especially good paying jobs. And that comes from investing in innovation, and the companies that develop new solutions aligned with market needs.
According to Forbes magazine in "Houston: Model City" Illinois has lost 260,000 jobs in the last decade. No wonder home values in Chicago never soared like San Jose. But it's also no mystery why the 15-20% decline in Chicago real estate seems never to be improving. When a city stops growing – well – look at Detroit.
Today Crain's Chicago Business reported "Chicago Economy Sees Signs of Life, But Rocky Recovery is Forecast." Why? Little has been done to improve job growth. Once an agricultural center (the famous stockyards of The Jungle fame) Chicago became a powerhouse manufacturing center. But over the last 15 years the city and state have done almost nothing to drive more jobs related to information or the coming biological growth wave.
Few realize that the University of Illinois is ranked as the 4th best engineering school in the world. Yet, most graduates end up "going coastal" in order to find high paying jobs. Worse, innovators who want seed money or venture capital find none from the state, as it continues struggling to support the costs of jobs and pensions related to the now-gone manufacturing economy! Spending money trying to Defend & Extend the old manufacturing base. And there is almost no angel or venture private financing, which has grown considerably on both coasts, because that is targeted largely in non-manufacturing industries. And the large companies in Chicago – from Kraft to Sara Lee to Motorola to Lucent – to even Boeing – invest nearly nothing in spin-off companies and innovators in their own back yard. Many start-ups report they have to move either west or east in order to obtain financing for their ideas and rapid growth.
For cities and states, growth is the key. It is OK that once all the cowboys ended their cattle drives in Wichita. And that the world's largest grain elevator is just southeast of town. When agriculture was the center of the universe that was a good thing. But because the leaders did not transition toward new job growth as the economy shifted, Wichita is now a backwater. It is so hard to recruit talent to Wichita that Pepsi moved the headquarters of Pizza Hut to Dallas, and most of the decisions for Beech aircraft are made at Raytheon Headquarters in suburban Boston. Face it, do you want to live in Wichita?
How quickly will people say the same thing about Chicago? Already, nobody wants to live in Detroit. If Chicago city leaders, and Illinois state leaders, can't get out of old Lock-ins to manufacturing mind sets we all may be surprised how quickly Chicago follows its sister cities into unattractive outcomes. For politicians, and corporate leaders, a focus on growth is extremely important if they want to keep their city vibrant.
For residents of Chicago, there is ample reason to be worried about the future of their infrastructure and home values.
In theory, Sustaining Innovations that help a company Defend & Extend its products are supposed to be cheap. The breakthrough is done, and the investments on variations, derivatives and enhancements are "engineering" as opposed to "science" so the development is supposedly more easily planned, the costs better understood and the returns more predictable. That's the theory, anyway, and as a result most managers constantly defend their decision to keep investing more in Defending & Extending past products rather than investing in new things which would develop new markets and new revenue streams.
But, like a lot of business myths, there's really no proof for this theory. It just sounds good. It seems "to make sense", and the big issue is that "it simply has to be less risky to spend on what you know rather than what you don't know." And "after all, this is investing in our own market and what could have a higher rate of return than defending our mother ship?" I'm sure everyone has heard these kind of comments when it comes time to allocate resources. Management supports doing more of what's been done, reinforcing Defend & Extend behavior. It just HAS to make sense to do more of what we know rather than invest in something new that we don't know as well – right?
Microsoft has spent billions of dollars in R&D Defending its desktop PC near-monopoly with enhancements to Office (Office 2007 and now Office 2010) and the operating System (Vista and System 7). It has spent heavily on other things as well, but in the end its entertainment division and mobile O/S products as well as others have not successfully grown revenues. As a result, Microsoft's value has not risen and Apple is about to eclipse Microsoft's value despite being a smaller company (see yesterday's blog for a more thorough review of valuation issues).
Now we can see that all this spending on R&D to Defend & Extend is in no way cheap. In dollars, Microsoft spent 3.5 times as much as Google and 8 times as much as Apple in 2009 – companies which as a result of their spending generated considerably more growth than Microsoft. Microsoft even spent more dollars, and more money as a percent of revenue, than IBM and Cisco (companies that rely heavily on hardware as well as software sales)! By any measure, Microsoft's efforts to Defend & Extend its "base," or its "core" has come at a very, very high price – in dollars or as a percent of revenue.
Consider that a good measure of R&D should be its ability to generate incremental revenue. Using that yardstick, Microsoft is a disaster, while Apple is a star.
Far too many companies Lock-in R&D and New Product Development to the existing business. The decision-making systems are geared to invest more in what is known. New investments are tagged with "risk adjustments" and "cannibalization charges" and a host of other costs to make them look less positive than doing more of what has historically been done. Lock-in to the Success Formula means that the financial review system, along with the technology assessments, are designed to give a major benefit to doing more of the same, while dramatically penalizing anything new!
In almost all companiess decision-making systems are designed to reinforce the Success Formula, not give an "independent" answer based upon markets. The processes are designed to do more, not do something new. And in the case of Microsoft, we can see how that has led to huge investments in simply defending the PC business while the technology marketplace is now rapidly shifting to new platforms – like mobile devices (smartphones and tablets), cloud-based applications and data access, and even gaming consoles. Competitors are developing a huge advantage by investing R&D and New Product Development dollars in new markets which provide greater growth opportunities – and higher rates of return over any time period other than the very short term.
Even if you're not in the computer/tech business, you don't want to end up like Microsoft. You don't want to over-invest in yesterday's solution trying to Defend it in the face of market shifts. That did not work out well for Polaroid, Kodak or Xerox which lost their luster as customers switched to new solutions and new competitors. Be sure to look not just at how much you spend, but that your spending is linked to markets and their growth, not simply doing more of what you already know!
The leadership of Microsoft's entertainment division are leaving, as reported at TechFlash.com "Bach, Allard leaving Microsoft in Big Shift for Consumer Businesses." Whether by their own choice or by request, the issue is simply that Microsoft has not driven the XBox to a dominant position versus the Sony Playstation or the Ninendo Wii. It is competitive, but not a big winner. The entertainment division has only recently moved beyond break-even, after years of losing billions of dollars. In the high-growth gaming business, Microsoft has simply not performed, despite its vast resources. And mobile devices developed in this division have lost over half their market share in under 2 years to Apple and Google.
Some of the weakness may have been that the leaders were long-term Microsoft veterans, comfortable to Mr. Ballmer and other leaders, rather than executives committed to their markets. Messrs. Bach and Allard were not they type of leaders to challenge the Microsoft Success Formula, instead willing to accept mediocre results rather than violate Microsoft Lock-ins that would have jeopardized their careers. Microsoft was willing to lose money, and not be a big winner, as long as the division leadership didn't challenge Lock-ins or the company focus on desktop computing products.
I'm not optimistic now that the division is reporting directly to CEO Steve Ballmer. He had an enormous role in the company decision to commit vast resources to Defending the old Success Formula by massing hundreds of billions of dollars behind development and rollout of Office 2007, now office 2010, Vista and now System 7. Yet, these projects have done nothing to grow Microsoft; instead only helping the company hold onto old customers. Worse, Mr. Ballmer himself recently informed the world in his CEO Summit (as reported in Computerworld "Microsoft's Ballmer admits 'Window's Vista was just not executed well") that he's not a good leader of product development – costing the company thousands of man-years in wasted development when admittedly mismanaging Vista!
Now, largely due to the ongoing Defend & Extend management practices of Mr. Ballmer, Microsoft and Apple's valuations are in a dead heat. Growth at Microsoft is poor, while Apple with its multiple new products is growing much faster – causing Apple's value to catch up to what has historically been the world's largest software company.
As I commented on the recent interview for bnet.com (available as a podcast) Microsoft's Defend & Extend management practices are deeply rooted in the industrial economy. But they are insufficient for success in today's rapidly shifting marketplace. I discussed this in more depth for my keynote address at the Western Michigan Innovation & Energy Summit last week, and a second article was published in the local newspaper on Saturday "Customer is Always Right? Columnist says not for Innovative Businesses." Specifically, Microsoft's total commitment to maintaining old operating system and Office customers has created an inability to re-focus resources on high growth markets like gaming and mobile devices.
Although Microsoft has solutions – including tablet technology – it's management is Locked-in to Defending what it always did and not committing to new growth markets. Anyone who thinks Microsoft will be the major player in cloud computing, just because it has demonstrated some new products, must look closely at how poorly the company has developed these other growth markets. Technology and products are not enough when management is Locked in to protecting past markets. Microsoft is far behind Google, and has practically no catch of being a major player with so much resource dedicated to Office 2010 and System 7.
Thus investors as well as customers and employees are not doing so well at Microsoft. In the rapidly shifting technology and gaming markets, this inability to commit to new markets is deadly. For Microsoft, replacing the heads of the entertainment division is most likely analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on ocean liner Titanic. The pending outcome is rapidly becoming inevitable. Time to look for lifeboats!
Do you lament "the way things used to be?" I remember my parents using that phrase. Now I often hear my peers. And it really worries me. Success requires constant growth, and when I hear business leaders talking about "the way things used to be" I fear they are unwilling to advance with market shifts.
For 5 years newspaper publishers have been lamenting the good old days, when advertisers had little choice but to pay high rates for display or classified ads. Newspaper publishers complain that on-line ads are too inexpensive, and thus unable to cover the costs of "legitimate" journalism. While they've watched revenues decline, almost none have done anything to effectively develop robust on-line businesses that can offer quality journalism for the future. Instead, most are cutting costs, reducing output and using bankruptcy protection to stay alive (such as Tribune Corporation.) Even as more and more readers shift toward the digital environment.
While most of the "major" newspapers (including Tribune owned LA Times) have been trying to preserve their print business (Defend & Extend it) HuffingtonPost.com has gone out and built a following. There's little doubt that with the last 3 years trajectory,HuffingtonPost will soon be the largest site. And reports are that HuffingtonPost.com is profitable.
In 2006 the CFO at LATimes told me he couldn't divert more resources to his web department. He felt it would be jeopardize to the print business. "After all," he said "you don't think that the future of news will be bloggers do you?" Clearly, he was unprepared for the kind of model Arianna Huffington was building – and the kind of readership HuffingtonPost.com could create.
On Tuesday I presented the keynote address at the Innovation and Energy Summit in Grand Rapids, MI – and as reported in West Michigan Business "Energy & Innovation Summit Speakers Urge Business Leaders to Seek New Businesses, Not Protect Old Ones." Defend & Extend management always "feels" right. It seems like the smart thing to try and preserve the old Success Formula, usually by cutting costs and increasing focus on primary revenue sources. But in reality, this further blinds the organization to market shifts and makes it more vulnerable to disaster. While NewsCorp and others are busy trying to think like newspapers, emerging news market competitors are developing entirely different models that attract customers – and make a profit.
That's why it is so important to use future scenarios to drive planning (not old products and customers) while passionately studying competitors. Talking to advertisers gave these publishers no insight as to how to compete, however had they spent more time watching HuffingtonPost.com, and other on-line sites, they might well have used Disruptions to change their investment models – pushing more resources to the web business. And had they set up dedicated White Space teams not constrained by old Lock-ins to traditional revenue models and goals of "avoiding advertiser cannibalization" they might very well have evolved to a more effective Success Formula necessary for competing on the internet into 2020.
Did you ever carve into a tree, then return to look at the carving years later? If you did, you would have seen that the carving is the same distance from the ground. The tree grew from the outside, from its branches, not from the bottom. The roots and trunk feed the growth, which occurs where the tree meets the environment – growing toward the sun for photosynthetic feeding.
Too many organizations, however, try to grow from the bottom rather than from the branches. Instead of looking to the environment for growth, they look inside. Instead of seeing the roots and trunk as sources of water and minerals (resources for growth) the strategists and leaders spend most of their time thinking about how to protect, or even grow, the "core" source of the tree. Far too little time is spent thinking about the environment and how to push resources where greatest growth can occur.
In a recent Harvard Business Review web posting "The Strategic Imperative Not to Hire Anybody" the author points out that many CEOs are now desirous of growth. But their approach is very flawed. They are enamored with all the headcount reductions of the last few years, and want to grow revenues without adding any additional resources. They are impressed that they grew profits by cutting employees, and now want to grow revenues and profits without any new ones. They "saved the core" by pruning branches, and expect the growth to rematerialize easily.
Discussing how these CEOs came to such a surprising position, that they should be able to grow without adding new resources, the author Walter Kiechel points out that most strategy in corporations has little to do with understanding new markets, new needs – new sunlight. Instead, strategists have been trained in how to improve the efficiency of the root system and trunk supply chain. Their focus has been on optimizing what exists, cutting resources, improving efficiency. What passes for strategy today has little to do with finding new sunlight, and competing effectively with other plants to get it. Instead, strategy is almost all internal analysis to improve how the existing tree maximizes its use of the dirt. How the tree will re-bark the old carving, and sustain its old position. Even ignoring other ground plants that are leaching away minerals and moisture, and other rapidly growing trees that are interfering with sunlight – each year coming closer to the original tree and making it impossible to find sun where it used to be plentiful.
Bloomberg-BusinessWeek makes note of this phenomenon discussing the problems at Goldman Sachs in "Goldman Sachs: Failure of Innovation." Author Rick Wartzman points out that within Goldman, and almost all other banks, the very smart MBAs from Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Wharton and elsewhere really weren't developing products which would help the banks grow. They weren't developing new financing or investing opportunities that would generate economic growth. Instead, an internal focus led them to develop collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which had only the intent of reducing risk and increasing return for the existing business. These were defensive, protective products intended to Defend & Extend the old products – not create anything new. Goldman wasn't creating economic growth for its clients, or itself, with CDOs. They were implementing classic D&E behavior – trying to protect the trunk.
Growth happens from the branches. On the edge of the business, where it meets the environment. Growth happens when we focus on how to competitively acquire more sunlight, and use that to maximize the value of our resources. An efficient resource delivery system is helpful, but continued optimizing of that system does not create growth. Unless there is a robust method of identifying new markets, and pushing resources toward those, you simply cannot grow. What strategists need to do is spend a lot more time thinking about markets and competitors if they want to create growth – and a lot less time thinking about how to optimize the "core." If the bankers at Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, etc. had done that we would have a far more robust economy now. And if leaders want to start growing in 2010 and 2011 they need to change the focus of their strategy group – and figure out how to put new resources into growth areas of the environment!
"CraigsList is for hookers." That's what the General Manager at the Los Angeles Times told me in 2005. In a meeting to discuss the newspaper's future profitability I pointed out that 1/3 of his newspaper's revenues came from Classified ads, and I had asked him if he was concerned about CraigsList.com. As you can tell, he was not.
At the same time, I asked him if he was concerned about on-line ads and the Google placement engine undermining his display ad business. He assured me that the internet was all for bloggers and no reputable news reader would pay much attention to on-line news. So no, he wasn't worried about internet competition to the newspaper sucking away this advertiser base. He just needed to keep old customers focused on the value of newspaper ads. In less than 6 months GM removed 70% of its newspaper ads – shifting all the money to on-line advertising – leading the auto pack on-line. And movie companies moved nearly 75% of their newspaper ad budget to on-line, while more than half of real-estate ads went on-line. Those happen to be the top 3 sources of display ad revenue for newspapers.
Today Tribune Corporation is in bankruptcy, and classified ads have dropped to a trickle for all major newspapers. Meanwhile, things are going pretty well at CraigsList and Google:
As can be seen, revenues per employee are phenomenal at CraigsList, and extremely good at Google. Much better than at the Tribune Company newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune – despite them shedding a high percentage of employees over the last 7 years!
According to Gavin O'Malley, at OnlineMediaDaily of MediaPost.com in "CraigsList Revenues Soar: But Problems Loom" revenues at CraigsList may exceed $4M/employee/year! Margins he asserts are in the range of 75-80%! And revenues, while still small at about $125M, are growing at 25%/year (for what everyone thinks of as "free.") Albeit, this is a small business. But what if Tribune Company had paid attention back 5 years ago and invested hard in creating the world's best CraigsList – rather than ignoring it? What would the possible revenues be today? And margins? And impact on Tribune Company growth in revenues and profits?
Most companies do only a surface analysis of competition. They are so busy listening to, and reacting to, big customers it's all they can do to keep operations going and make the marginal changes to keep big customers happy. As a result, maybe they look at 2 or 3 of their most similar competitors (like other newspapers in the local market for our example.) And that will be cursory, examining total revenues, perhaps margins (if public and data is available) and a quick glimpse at impact on existing customers and any new products recently launched. But overall, very little attention is paid to competition.
And practically none is paid to "fringe" competitors. Those with different business models. Polaroid ignored digital camera manufacturers (despite licensing them technology) until Polaroid went bankrupt. Digital Equipment(DEC) ignored AutoCad – calling their CAD/CAM products "toys." Wang and Lanier said no big company would use a PC, rather than an integrated centralized system, for corporate word processing so they discounted Apple and Microsoft. Motorola largely ignored Apple in mobile phones, even after doing a joint venture with them to create and launch the RoKR. Failure lists are strewn with companies that simply ignored "fringe" competitors – saying they didn't understand the industry, the customers and how "the business works."
Large or small size is not important when studying competition, it's the ability to change how customers buy that is important. As we've seen in the case of companies like Google, Apple, eBay and Amazon we can see that fringe competitors can grow extremely fast. They can alter the competitive landscape quicker than almost any traditional corporate planning group will give them credit. Just ask the folks at Sears or Home Depot about he impact of Amazon and other on-line retailers (do you think either of those traditional retailers have anywhere near $1M revenue/employee like Amazon?) Or ask Merrill Lynch about the impact of Schwab, eTrade and ScotTrade.
The second step in The Phoenix Principle is to obsess about competition. When you're "the big gun" in the industry it can be incredibly easy to ignore fringe competitors. But do so at your risk. When profits are something like $2M to $3M per employee (as in the case of CraigsList) there is a lot of resource to invest in growth. And strong indications that the business is able to very profitably grow! Ignoring "fringe" competition – especially because you are focused on existing large customers who are Locked-In to your Success Formula – leaves you remarkably vulnerable to rapid market shifts and a really fast demise.
Many of us remember the first Apple vs. Microsoft battle. Apple pioneered much of the personal computer business, and led the innovation curve for years with its implementation of the mouse and on-screen graphics. But eventually Microsoft successfully copied the innovations with Windows, and went on to drive Apple to the brink of bankruptcy at the turn of the millenium. At that time, it was inconceivable that Apple would ever challenge Microsoft for sales domination.
But the impact of a decade of Defend & Extend Management has left Microsoft with little to no growth. Its growth in operating systems now looks like it has been a single quarter event, with the OS7 launch which has done little to drive new PC sales. Meanwhile, office automation products actually saw a net decline in revenue year-over-year last quarter. Signs of a growth stall are imminent for Microsoft – and we all know that fewer than 8% of companies ever consistently grow at a mere 2% once revenues stall for 2 consecutive quarters.
It's not often we see a big company stall, and then falter. But I've been predicting this for months through this blog. Microsoft has been working at Defending its "base" but it has done too little trying to enter new markets and find growth. As people shift to mobile devices – from the smartphone to ereaders – Microsoft simply is seeing its "base" in the PC market threatened. How many PCs will be purchased in 2015? Versus how many smartphones or iPads (there will be 12million iPads sold in 2010 alone).
This inability to maintain growth translates into serious value deterioration for investors.
We now can see that Apple is entering new markets, and gaining revenue at 20-40% per year by moving beyond Defending the Mac. Because Microsoft has not done something similar, preferring Defend & Extend Management applied to old markets rather than applying The Phoenix Principle and getting into new markets aggressively, not only is its revenue superiority threatened, but Microsoft most likely will have a lower market capitalization than Apple within a few months
If it seems like I'm beating this horse — well it's not often we see the kind of changes happen to competitors in such short time as we're seeing happen to Microsoft and Apple. It takes more than a little courage to predict the demise of a behemoth (see "Microsoft's Dismal Future" at Forbes.com) that has had near-monopolistic power in a market the way Microsoft has.
More importantly, more companies are behaving like Microsoft in 2008-2010 than acting like Apple. And that is a shame. Until management teams reverse their thinking, how can we expect America to successfully return to high industrial growth rates and job creation?
There is little about Microsoft to excite investors. I'd go so far to say that there's little more exciting about Microsoft than there is at General Motors, or AIG. These companies are huge, and were once great, but unending defense of their outdated Success Formulas is leaving them extremely vulnerable to decline and failure.
In the end, you have to ask yourself – do you want to be Microsoft in 3 years, or Apple? Do you want to be working hard to maintain revenues and valuation – or growing and driving higher value? I think most of us know which is better. It's time we start
using scenario planning to develop future plans
obsess about competitors so we learn better ways to compete
implement Disruptions to move our businesses into growth markets and
use White Space teams to help us update into new Success Formulas.
Companies that follow these 4 steps of The Phoenix Principle can expect to have a great 2011. They can perform like Apple, Google, Cisco Systems, Virgin, Nike, Johnson & Johnson. For everyone else, we can expect growth stalls and, well, …..
Apple's most recent earnings surprised almost everyone, to the topside. At SeekingAlpha.com "Apple Soars: Is this a Great Country or What" the author points out that all analysts are now calling for Apple's equity value to continue increasing. Most expect prices to achieve $330 – $350/share. Right now Apple is worth about $235B. At $330/share it is worth $300B. Microsoft is worth $273B. That means within the next few months the expectation among investors is that Apple's value will eclipse Microsoft's.
Why? Because Apple has much faster growing revenue sources than Microsoft. Despite a plethora of products, Microsoft still depends for sales and profits on PC operating system and office automation products. And that market simply isn't growing. Even Microsoft optimists are depending upon a "PC replacement cycle" to drive more sales rather than any real growth in demand.
While Microsoft has spent the last decade Defending & Extending (D&E Management) its PC business, its value has been flat. Meanwhile, Apple has developed other revenue sources:
In 2000 Apple relied on Mac sales. But now, it has 2 businesses that are as large as the computer business. While defending the Mac business has maintained its sales, using White Space to launch other businesses has more than tripled Apple's revenue. Today the iPod/iTunes business is as large as the Mac business, and the iPhone business is as large as well. Both are growing. And with estimates that already a million iPads have been sold – with some estimates of reaching 6 million units in 2010 – who knows how big the publishing business could become for Apple.
As SeekingAlpha.com points out in "Everybody Loves Apple but Who's Left to Buy It" there are ample reasons to forecast substantial revenue and profit growth for Apple – causing it to lure many more investors to own the stock. Not only hardware sales are going up, but in both the music and smartphone business Apple has the envious draw of pulling follow-on download sales – songs, videos, and apps. Thus, each device pulls a series of ongoing revenue bites.
Readers should also note how fast this has happened. What has happened to your business in the last decade? In the last 3 years? As we can see, Apple created a $20B/year business since 2007 just in the iPhone. Another $16B/year business in iPod/iTunes during the last decade. That's over $36B/year of revenue from new sources, all organic (no acquisitions) in under 10 years. And that's the power of White Space. Instead of planning how to defend an understood and predictable market (like Microsoft) Apple studied new market needs, then launched a product and gave the team Permission to do what it took to succeed – unencumbered by the history of the Mac, or Apple or any of the Lock-ins that were part of the old Success Formula. This White Space teams then spawned revenue streams that are envied by everyone.
My recent Forbes column (Microsoft's Dismal Future) portended this week's earnings announcement and the changing fortunes of these two companies. Lacking White Space, Microsoft is an uninteresting company with limited growth forecasts and negligible value growth. By using White Space Apple is growing much faster, and will soon have a higher value than "the world's largest software company."
Effective use of scenario planning, competitor analysis, disruptions and White Space can launch growth in any company. You don't need a "hot economy" to generate growth. And Apple has been demonstrating this quarter after quarter for nearly a decade – with several more good quarters coming.
Hi, two readings recently have really surprised me.
Firstly, Dawn Beaupariant from the public relations firm Waggener Edstrom contacted me regarding my Forbes column. I learned this firm is the PR agency for Microsoft. They took exception to my Forbes column ("Microsoft's Dismal Future"). But not because any facts were inaccurate.
Rather, it was their point of view that because OS 7 is now the largest selling OS of all time that demonstrated it was a successful product. Of course, when the television standard was changed in the USA to digital and everyone had to transition set-top boxes those also became big sellers. But it wasn't because everybody wanted the new product. More, it was the impact of a monopolist. We all know Microsoft has had a near monopoly in PC operating systems (even though every year it is losing share to Linux), so the fact that they can force people to use a new one on new machines, or upgrade, is less than an enthusiastic market endorsement of the product. For every "reviewer" who likes OS 7, there are 100 users saying "this gives me bells and whistles I don't need or want, and complicates my life. Can I simply keep my old product, or do my work on my smartphone?"
The Forbes column didn't debate whether Microsoft was likely to remain dominant in PC operating systems – that is a foregone conclusion. The issue is that markets are shifting away from PCs to mobile devices. And Microsoft has lost 2/3 its market share in mobile operating systems. And it is not developing a strong product. If people keep shifting from PCs to Blackberry's, iPhones and Androids – and PC sales start declining – in 10 years Microsoft could dominate PC OS sales (and Office applications) but it may not matter. Too bad the PR firm didn't get that.
Secondly, the PR firm claimed that Microsoft could put forward new products readily, leading to capturing dominant share in new markets. Their one claim that Microsoft had accomplished this was xBox. The PR person conveniently ignored the smartphone market, the Zune-style handheld market, the market for mobile applications (where Apple sold 2billion apps in its first 18 months), the search market (where Microsoft lags Google and would be nowhere without picking up Yahoo!'s declining business) and a host of other markets where Microsoft simply let the horse out of the barn.
To make matters worse, as Microsoft has invested to Defend the PC operating system and office products business, xBox is losing market share (exactly the point I made in the article – using the smartphone example instead)! According to IndustryGamers.com "PS3 'Steadily Increasing' Market Share Across the Globe" (Feb, 2010). Bad pick Dawn!
The PS3 is dominant in Japan and Korea, and as of June 2008, has begun
to outsell the Xbox 360 in Europe. It is also steadily increasing its
market share in all other regions across the globe, including in the
North American market
Most commenters have reflected my viewpoint, saying that they see Microsoft so horribly Locked-in to its old business that it is almost GM-like in its approach to new products and markets. Not a good sign. Those who defend Microsoft simply take the point of view that Microsoft is huge, has high share in PCs, and is very profitable in OS and Office Product sales. Wow, just like people defended GM was in the 1970s comparing to offshore competitors! These defenders completely miss the point that the marketplace is now rapidly shifting to new solutions, and the companies driving that shift with the most product are Apple, Google and Research in Motion (RIM)! Microsoft may look like Goliath, but it would be foolish to ignore the slings of new technology being brought to the battle by these David's with their smartphones, Chrome O/S, mail products, etc.
I was struck this week at the backward thinking offered on the Harvard Business Review blog posting "Is This Innovation Too Disruptive for My Firm." The author justifies companies sticking to their defensive positions, just as Microsoft is doing, simply because most companies fail at moving away from their "core." He seems very content to offer that since most companies can't really move into new markets well, so they might as well not try. Exactly what they are supposed to do as revenues dwindle in their "core" markets he never resolves! I guess he'd rather management simply not try to grow, and go down valiantly with the sinking ship.
Quite concerning is that he takes up the mantle of "core capability." He points out that most of the failures happen when companies move away from their "core" and therefore he recommends that all innovation remain close to the "core." His big argument is that this is lower risk. Well, Xerox remained close to core with laser printers – and how'd that work out for long-term value growth? Apple remained close to its Macintosh core and was almost bankrupt in 2000 before jumping into music and smartphones. Polaraoid stayed close to its core of instant film photography, and Kodak stayed close to its similar core. Now one is erased from the marketplace and the other is a no-growth inconsequential competitor.
Analogies are risky, but here goes. For the HBR author, his arguement isn't a lot different than "Over the last 200 years we've noticed that ships which sail out past the horizon often never return. Therefore, we recommend you never sail beyond the horizon. Clearly, this is risky and returns are uncertain – so don't do it. Ever. Very likely, there is nothing out there you will ever capture of value." Sort of sounds like those who wouldn't back Columbus – good thing he finally convinced Queen Isabella to give him 3 ships.
In 2008 and 2009 we've seen many great companies driven to bad returns. Layoffs abound. Growth has disappeared. Listen to HBR, and behave like Microsoft, and you'll never grow again. In 2010 we need a different approach – a different solution. Companies must realize that focusing on "core" capabilities, customers and markets has rapidly diminishing returns these days. You cannot succeed by focusing on Defending your business – even if it is a near-monopoly like PC operating systems! Why not? Because markets rapidly shift to new solutions that obsolete your products and even when you have high share, and high margins, sales can disappear really fast (like Xerox machine sales or amateur film sales – and probably laptop sales). If you aren't putting a big chunk of resources into GROWING in new marketplaces, by using White Space teams to drive that learning and growth, you will eventually become an historical artifact.
