by Adam Hartung | Nov 12, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
The Myth of Market Share by Richard Minitar is one of those little books, published in 2002 by Crown Business, that you probably never read – or even heard of (available on Amazon though). And that's too bad, because without spending too many words the author does a great job of describing the non-correlation between market share and returns. There are as many, or possibly more, companies with high profitability that don't lead in market share as ones that do. Even though the famous BCG Growth/Share matrix led many leaders to believe share was the key to business success. Another something that worked once (maybe) – but now doesn't.
"Moto Looks to Sell Set-Top Box Unit" is the Crain's Chicago Business headline. Motorola's television connection box business is #1 in market share. But even though Motorola paid $11B for it in 1999, they are hoping to get $4.5B today. That's a $6.5B loss (or 60%) in a decade. For a business that is the market share leader. Only, it's profitability + growth doesn't justify a higher price. Regardless of market share.
Kind of like Motorola's effort to be #1 in mobile handset market share by cutting RAZR prices. That didn't work out too well either. It almost bankrupted the company, and is causing Motorola to sell the set top box business to raise cash in its effort to spin out the unprofitable handset business.
On the other hand, there's Apple. Apple isn't #1 in PCs – by a long shot. It has about a 14% share I think. Nor is it #1 in mobile handhelds, where it has about a 2.5% market share. But Apple is more profitable than the market leaders in both markets. Today, Apple's value is almost as high as Microsoft – historically considered the undisputed king of technology companies.
Chart source Silicon Alley Insider 11/12/09
While Microsoft has been trying to Defend & Extend it's Windows franchise, its value has declined this decade. Quite the contrary for Apple.
Additionally, Apple has piled up a remarkable cash hoard with it's meager market shares in 2 of 3 businesses (Apple is #1 in digital music downloads – although not #1 in portable MP3 players).
Chart Source Silicon Alley Insider 11/11/09
"While Rivals Jockey for Market Share Apple Bathes in Profits" is the SeekingAlpha.com headline. Nokia has 35% share of the mobil handheld market. It earned $1.1B in the third quarter. With its 2.5% share Apple made $1.6B profit on the iPhone. While everyone in the PC business is busy cutting costs, Apple has innovated the Mac and its other products – proving that if you make products that customers want they will buy them and allow you to make money. While competitors behave like they can cost cut themselves to success, Apple proves the opposite is true. Innovation linked to meeting customer needs is worth a lot more money.
Bob Sutton, Stanford management professor, blogs on Work Matters "Leading Innovation: 21 Things that Great Bosses Say and Do." All are about looking to the future, listening to the market, using disruptions to keep your organization open, and giving people permission and resources to open and manage White Space projects.
If your solution to this recession is to cut costs and wait for the market to return – good luck. If you are trying to figure out how you can Defend & Extend your core – good luck. If you think size and/or market share is going to protect you – check out how well that worked for GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers and Circuit City. If you want to improve your business follow Apple's lead by developing thorough scenario plans you can use to understand competitors inside out, then Disrupt your old notions and use White Space to launch new products and services that meet emerging needs.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Leadership
Why The Pursuit Of Innovation Usually Fails
Adam Hartung,
11.09.09, 04:11 PM EST
It's not what we're trained for as leaders or how our businesses are set up to work.
Forbes published today "Why the Pursuit of Innovation Usually Fails." "Most companies everywhere are struggling to grow right now. With their
revenues flat to down, they're cutting costs to raise profits. But
cutting costs faster than revenues decline is no prescription for
long-term success….."
The article goes on to discuss how from Gary Hamel to Jim Collins to Michael Tracy and Fred Wiersema to Malcolm Gladwell to Tom Peters — managers have been taught to identify their "core" and "focus" upon it. Whatever that core may happen to be, the gurus have said that all you need to do is focus on it and practice and in the end – you'll win.
But unfortunately we all know a lot of very hard working business leaders that focused on their core, working the midnight hours, sacrificed pay and bonuses, and kept trying to make that core successful — only to end up with a smaller, less profitable, possibly acquired (at a low price) or failed business. While the best practices make sense when looking at past winners, reality is that they were followed by a lot of people that didn't succeed. Their best practices give no great insight to being successful. They are of no more value than saying "treat people well, be honest, don't lie to customers, don't break the law, don't get caught if you do, show up at work." Nice things to do, but they don't really tell you anything about how to succeed.
The mantra today is for innovation, but thirty years of these "best practices" now stand as a roadblocks to doing anything more than defend & extend the current business. Only by understanding the objective to defend & extend what already exists can you explain how can one of the world's largest consumer product companies can call Tide Basic an innovation.
Enjoy the read, and please comment!
by Adam Hartung | Nov 4, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Food and Drink, General, In the Swamp, Leadership
Walgreens is apparently going through a dramatic change in leadership. Drug Store News reported that the top 2 folks, including the top merchandiser, have left Walgreens in "." The article discusses the "old guard" departure and arrival of younger, new leaders. The magazine clearly paints this as a Disruption.
But I have my doubts. There's no discussion of future scenarios in which Walgreens is going to be a different company – not even a different retailer. There's no discussion about competitors, and how more prescription medications are being purchased on-line from new competiors, or even how Walgreens intends to be very different from historical brick-and-mortar competitors like CVS or Rite-Aid. No discussion about how the company might need to change its real estate strategy (being everywhere.)
There's really no discussion about changing the Walgreens' Success Formula. It's Identity has long been tied to being first and foremost a "drug store" (or pharmacy). A market which has been attacked on multiple fronts, from grocers and discounters like WalMart entering the business to the insurance mandates of buying drugs on-line. To be the biggest, Walgreens' strategy for several years has been tied to opening new stories practically every day. It was shear real estate domination – ala Starbucks. Although it's unclear how profitable many of those stores have been. Tactically Walgreens has moved heavily into cosmetics as a high turn and margin business, then items it an bring in and churn out very quickly – such as holiday material (Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentines Day, St. Patrick's Day, etc.), shirts, sweatshirts, on and on – stuff brought in then sold fast, even if it had to be discounted quickly to get it out the door. Churn the product because the goal is to sell the customer something else when they come in for that prescription.
There is no discussion of these executive changes creating in White Space to develop a new Walgreens. Without powerful scenarios drawing people to a new, different future Walgreens – and without a strong sense of how Walgreens intends to trap competitors in Lock-in while leveraging new fringe ideas to grow – and without White Space being installed to develop a new Success Formula to make Walgreens into something different —– this isn't a Disruption. It's a disturbance. Yes, it's a big deal, but it's unlikely to change the results.
Reinforcing that this is likely a disturbance the article talks about how the company is starting to obsess about store performance – down to targeting every 3 foot section for better turns and profits. The new leaders plan to work harder on supply chain issues, and store plannograms, to increase turns. They intend to put more energy into prioritization and reworking promotions. In other words, they want to execute better – more, better, faster, cheaper. And that's not a Disruption. It's just a disturbance. This may make folks feel better, and sound alluring, but experience has shown that this is not a route to higher growth or higher sustained profitability.
I don't expect these management changes to remake Walgreens. Walgreens has been a pretty good retailer. The Success Formula worked well until competitors changed the face of demand, and market shifts wiped out access to very low cost capital for building new stores. The Success Formula's results have fallen because the market shifted. Refocusing energy on being a better merchandiser won't have a big impact on growth at Walgreens. The company needs to rethink the future, so it can figure out what it needs to become in order to keep growing!
Real Disruptions attack the status quo. They don't focus on better execution. They attack things like "we're a pharmacy" by perhaps licensing out the pharmacy in every store to the pharmacist and changing the store managers. Or by selling a bunch of stores to eliminate the focus on real estate. Or by promoting the Walgreens on-line drug service in every store, while cutting back the on-hand pharmacy products. Those sorts of things are Disruptions, because they signal a change in the Success Formula. Coupled with competitive insight and White Space that has permission to define a new future and resources to develop one, Disruptions can help a stalled company get back to growing again.
But that hasn't happened yet at Walgreens. So expect a small improvement in operating results, and some financial engineering to quickly make new management look better. But little real performance improvement, and sustainable growth, will not occur. Nor will a sustained higher equity value.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
"IBM authorizes another $5Billion for share buybacks" is the Marketwatch.com headline. This brings the amount available for buying the stock to $9.2billion – or enough to buy about 73.6million shares. But it begs the question, what value will this bring anyone?
"The U.S. Workplace: A Horror Story" is the CIOZone.com headline. A survey by Monster.com and The Human Capital Institute of more than 700 companies (over 5,000 workers) discovered that by and large, employees are mad at their employers. They don't trust business leaders, and think those leaders are exploiting the recession for their own purposes (and gains). 79% of workers would like to find a better employer – to switch – but only 20% of employers have a clue how many workers have become disillusioned.
Simultaneously, "Many vanished jobs might be gone for good" is the Courier-Journal.com headline. Historically, increases in manufacturing (usually led by autos) and construction (primarily housing) caused recessions to diminish. But nobody expects either of those sectors to do well any time soon. Manufacturing is showing no signs of improving, in any sector, as we realize that all the outsourcing and offshoring has permanently reduced demand for American labor. And quite simply, very few investments are being made by business leaders that will create any new jobs.
"ALL BUSINESS: Innovation Needed Even in a Recession" is the Washington Post headline. The article points out that almost all recent improvement in profitability – boosting the stock market – has been through cost cutting. But that has done nothing to help companies improve revenues, or improve competitiveness. It's done nothing to bring new solutions to market that will increase demand. Quoting the former Intel CEO Gordon Moore – "you can't save your way out of a recession" – the article cites several consultants who point out that companies which earn superior rates of return use recessions to invest in new technologies and innovations that create new demand. And eventually new jobs. But today's CEOs aren't making those investments. Instead, they are taking short-term actions that dress up the bottom line while doing nothing about the top line.
Which brings me back to IBM. Who benefits from $9.2billion being spent by IBM on its own stock? Only the top managers who have bonuses and options linked to the stock price. The shareholders will benefit more if IBM invests in new products and services that will increase revenues and drive up long-term equity. Employees and vendors will benefit from creating new solutions that generate demand for workers and components. Almost nobody benefits from a stock buyback – except a small percentage of leaders that have most of their compensation tied to short-term stock price.
What new innovations and revenues could be developed if IBM put that $9.2billion to work (a) at its own R&D, product development labs or innovation centers, or (b) at some young companies with new ideas that desperately need capital in this market where no bank will make a loan, or (c) with vendors that have new product ideas that could meet shifting markets?
That's the beauty of an open market system, it supposedly funnels resources to the highest rate of return opportunities. But this doesn't work if managers only cut costs, then use the money to prop up stock prices short term. It's a management admission of failure when it buys its own stock. An admission that there is nothing management can find worth investing in, so it will use the money to artificially manipulate the short-term stock price. For capitalism to work resources need to go to those new business opportunities that generate new sales. Money needs to flow toward new health care products and new technologies – not toward keeping open money-losing auto companies and failed banks that won't make loans.
If we want to get out of this recession, we have to invest in new solutions that will increase demand. We have to seek out innovations and fund them. We cannot simply try to Defend & Extend Success Formulas that are demonstrating their inability to create more revenues and profits. Laid off workers do not buy more stuff. We must put the money to work in White Space projects where we can learn what customers need, and fulfill that need. That in turn will generate jobs. And only by investing in new opportunity development will workers begin to trust employers again. IBM, and most of the other corporate leaders, need to "get it."
by Adam Hartung | Oct 23, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, eBooks, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Music
If you try standing in the way of a market shift you are going to get treated like the poor cowboy who stands in front of a cattle stampede. The outcome isn't pretty. Yet, we still have lots of leaders trying to Defend & Extend their business with techniques that are detrimental to customers. And likely to have the same impact on customers as the cowpoke shooting a pistol over the head of the herd.
Book publishers have a lot to worry about. Honestly, when did you last read a book? Every year the demand for books declines as people switch reading habits to shorter formats. And book readership becomes more concentrated in the small percentage of folks that read a LOT of books. And those folks are moving faster and faster to Kindle type digital e-book devices. So the market shift is pretty clear.
Yet according to the Wall Street Journal Scribner (division of Simon & Schuster) is delaying the release of Stephen King's latest book in e-format ("Publisher Delays Stephen King eBook"). They want to sell more printed books, so they hope to force the market to buy more paper copies by delaying the ebook for 6 weeks. They think that people will want to give this book as a gift, so they'll buy the paper copy because the ebook won't be out until 12/24.
So what will happen? Kindle readers I know don't want a paper book. They wait. Giving them a paper copy would create a reaction like "Oh, you shouldn't have. I mean, really, you shouldn't have." So the idea that this gets more printed books to e-reader owners is faulty. That also means that the several thousand copies which would get sold for e-readers don't. So you end up with lots of paper inventory, and unsatisfactory sales of both formats. That's called "lose-lose." And that's the kind of outcome you can expect when trying to Defend & Extend an outdated Success Formula.
Simultaneously, as book sales become fewer and more concentrated a higher percent of volume falls onto fewer titles. And that is exactly where WalMart, Target and Amazon compete. High volume, and for 2 of the 3 companies, limited selection. This gives the reseller more negotiating clout against the publisher. So as the big retailers look for ways to get people in the store, they are willing to sell books at below cost – loss leaders.
So now publishers are joining with the American Booksellers Association to seek an anti-trust case against the big retailers according to the Wall Street Journal again in "Are Amazon, WalMart and Target acting like Predators?" . Publishers want to try Defending their old pricing models, and as that crumbles in the face of market shifts they try using lawyers to stop the shift. That will probably work just as well as the lawsuits music publishers tried using to stop the distribution of MP3 tunes. Those lawsuits ended up making no difference at all in the shift to digital music consumption and distribution.
"Movie Fans Might Have to Wait To Rent New DVD Releases" is the Los Angeles Times headline. The studios like 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers want individuals to buy more DVDs. So their plan is to refuse to sell DVDs to rental outfits like Netflix, Redbox and Blockbuster. Just like Scribner with its Stephen King book, they are hoping that people won't wait for the rental opportunity and will feel forced to go buy a copy. Like that's the direction the market is heading – right?
If they wanted to make a lot of money, the studios would be working hard to find a way to deliver digital format movies as fast as possible to people's PCs – the equivalent of iTunes for movies – not trying to limit distribution! That the market is shifting away from DVD sales is just like the shift away from music CD sales, and will not be fixed by making it harder to rent movies. Although it might increase the amount of piracy – just like similar actions backfired on the music studios 8 years ago.
Defending & Extending a business only works when it is in the Rapids of market growth. When growth slows, the market is moving on. Trying to somehow stop that shift never works. Only an arrogant internally-focused manager would think that the company can keep markets from shifting in a globally connected digital world. Consumers will move fast to what they want, and if they see a block they just run right over it – or go where you least want them to go (like to pirates out of China or Korea.)
They only way to deal with market shifts is to get on board. "Skate to where the puck will be" is the over-used Wayne Gretzsky quote. Be first to get there, and you can create a new Success Formula that captures value of new growth markets. And that's a lot more fun than getting trampled under a herd of shifting customers that you simply cannot control.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 21, 2009 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Boeing is the world's largest aircraft manufacturer. But the Crain's headline "Boeing Loses $1.6B, slashes 2009 profit estimate" should get your attention. Revenues in 2008 dropped some 10% – which the company blamed on a strike. Of course, management always has some bogeyman to blame for poor performance. But revenues have not yet recovered to 2007 levels. Much, much worse is the fact that its newest product launch, the 787 Dreamliner, is some 2 years behind schedule, leaving industry experts skeptical of when it will get out the door.
The reason to really be wary of Boeing isn't just this one plane. Instead, look at the market shift happening in all transportation – including aircraft. It's unclear that the marketplace has much interest in the Dreamliner. Boeing's Success Formula has long been to develop really big projects, billions in investment, and make bigger and bigger aircraft. And the Dreamliner is the latest in Defending & Extending this Success Formula. Even though the product is way over budget, really late and will be a big aircraft when it's unclear that's what people want.
From cars to buses to planes, we're seeing people change to smaller and more efficient products. The last time you flew, were you on a big aircraft? Or did you find yourself on a small plane from Bombardier (of Canada) or Embraer (of Brazil)? Airlines need to keep planes fairly full if they have any hope of making a profit. Couple that with customer desires for convenience – meaning several flights to a city daily, and you can quickly see why smaller airplanes make sense. As a result, the leader (Embraer) in small commercial planes is growing at over 20%/year!
Meanwhile, people are getting less and less excited about flying commercial airlines every year. TSA hassles, flight delays, extra charges for bags, there's a long list of reasons business people are looking for alternatives. And that's where the Jet Taxi business comes in. Whether you buy a fractional interest in an aircraft, or simply rent a plane for a single trip, businesses are figuring out that small aircraft from Beechcraft, Cessna, Lear Jets and even the new Honda jet are providing a very affordable option to commercial flying when even a few people are traveling – and with a lot more convenience. The largest manager of this option is NetJets owned by Berkshire Hathaway – who's lead investor is Warren Buffet.
Add on top of this webinars and video conferencing. Increasingly, people are using digital technologies to communicate without flying at all. Again, with hassles up – and terrorism threats more real than 10 years ago – people are turning to really low cost, and ultra convenient, alternatives to traveling at all.
So are you really optimistic about the future demand for big jet aircraft that take more than a decade to develop and get approved? And built by a company that competes with a government subsidized player supported as a matter of national defense in Europe (Airbus)? It's really hard to be optimistic about the future for Boeing – and the Dreamliner delays seem to just be the early warning signs of a Success Formula very long in the tooth. Boeing is definitely stuck in the Swamp, and it's unclear the company has any effort underway to develop new options.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Can you believe a BusinessWeek headline like "Dell's Extreme Makeover"? We read about turnarounds and makeovers all the time. Only most of the time they don't turn, and they don't get made over. Most companies cut a lot of costs, make a lot of promises, but keep on doing the same stuff. They get worse. They get acquired, or they fail. And readers of this blog know that I've long chastised Dell as an example of a Locked-in company with little hope of turning around.
But, I'm changing position today. There's a LOT of the right stuff happening, and the seeds are being sown, doing what really works, for Dell to be a good future story.
Scenario planning for the future:
- Michael Dell admits in the article that he stuck to his original Success Formula of supply chain expertise feeding direct sales too long. He admits that future success requires a new Success Formula. Specific future scenarios aren't disclosed, but it is apparent that the company does not expect future markets to look like the markets of 1995-2005.
Focus on Competition:
- Management says Dell is "not trying to become like the competition"!! That is great, because winners do new and different things. They don't try to copy/catch existing competitors.
- Dell did not chase Apple into opening its own stores. Good move. Dell isn't Apple, and can't win trying to be like Apple.
- Dell was previously obsessed with its top, big customers. Big corporate accounts. It slavishly built a business trying to please the top 10%. Now Dell is winning by putting considerably more attention on customers it previously ignored: consumers, small business, medium business and government. This not only balances the company, it keeps Dell from chasing Locked-in customers into the same old fox holes.
Disruptions:
- Michael Dell has replaced 7 of his top 10 direct reports. That's a huge step in the right direction. GM should follow that lead!
- Dell has defied its old "direct to customer" mantra by taking consumer products into retail stores! The added cost to do that, and new skills required, must have shaken buildings at the Texas headquarters campus.
- A new head of design developed options customers could specify for their consumer computers. Manufacturing said it would violate the supply chain efficiency so "NO." Michael Dell over-rode the manufacturing group and said "do it." He reinforced that efficiency would not save Dell. Manufacturing would have to adjust to innovations for Dell to succeed.
- The company has reorganized away from products (how almost all tech companies structure – including Apple) and installed a new structure organized around MARKETS!! What a great way to quit being product-push and become market-learn!
White Space:
- A board member said that after eating dinner with Michael Dell he could see that this"journey at Dell is just in its first or second inning." Although not much White Space was discussed, this implies some big things are being discussed and planned for the future.
- The article says Dell is preparing to launch smart phone sales soon. This is critical, because smart phones are part of the market shift away from PCs. Dell has a lot of learning to do in that market to be part of the shift.
This is not a "done deal." I wish I knew more about Dell's scenario planning – to be sure the company has switched to planning for the future and away from planning from the past. And I really wish I knew more about what White Space is being planned. Because we know you can't transition by changing the big organization all at once. The behemoth needs some wins it can use to lead the migration. And seeing White Space projects, with a group shepherding them into the lifecycle, is a really critical step to follow-up the many Disruptions.
So things could still go badly for Dell. But they WON'T go as badly has they went from 2005 to 2007. From this one article, the first interview with Michael Dell since he took the reigns back in 2007, it is clear lots of the right things are happening to move Dell from the Swamp backinto the Rapids. There is improvement happening, and The Phoenix Principle looks to be in early implementation stages. If Michael Dell and his team stick with it, this could be a big winner for your portfolio!
by Adam Hartung | Oct 1, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
In "Why Apple Can't Sell Business Laptops" Forbes gives the case to be pro-Dell. The author points out that Dell has 32% of the computer market within companies that have more than 500 employees. He then explains this happens because Dell makes machines that are constantly the next generation beyond the previous laptop – a little better, a little faster, a little cheaper. Comparing the new Lenovo Z to the Mac Air, the author concludes that anyone who sits in a corporate office, with a lot of corporate IT requirements, who wants the next small laptop would find it easiest to fit the Dell product into their work.
He's right. Which is why investors, employees, suppliers and customers should worry.
Everything described is Lock-in. Dell has focused on big IT departments, and sells products which cater to them. Dell is listening to its dominant customers. Each quarter Dell gets more dependent upon these customers – and walks further out on the PC gangplank when servicing their needs.
But, large corporations are laying off more workers than any other part of the economy. Both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of employment. They are not the "growth engine" or the companies that will lead us out of this recession. And while Dell caters to these customers, Dell is missing major shifts that are happening in how people use computers. Shifts that are already demonstrating the market for traditional laptop technology is waning.
In PC technology, people are moving away from laptops and toward netbooks. By far, netbooks have overtaken laptops as users shift how they access the web and get work done. Additionally, people are moving away from traditional computing platforms for lots of things, like email and web browsing (to name 2 big ones), and using instead mobile devices like Blackberry and iPhone. Apple appears to be very careful to not chase the netbook curve, instead appearing to advance the mobile device curve with future iPhones and a possible Tablet product.
As Dell keeps getting closer and closer to its "core" customers, its customer and technology (traditional PC) Lock-ins are making it increasingly vulnerable. When users simply stop carrying laptops, what will Dell sell them? When corporations move applications to cloud computing, and users no longer need their "heavy" laptop, where will that leave Dell?
The Forbes writer made the big mistake of measuring Dell by looking at its past – and glorifying its focus. But this points out that Dell is really very vulnerable. Technology is shifting, as are a lot of users. The author, and Dell, should spend more time looking at the competition — including solutions that aren't laptops. And they should spend more time building scenarios for 2015 to 2020 — which would surely show that having a better "corporate laptop" today is not a good predictor of future competitiveness for changing user needs.
Apple keeps looking better and smarter. Instead of going "head-to-head" with the PC makers, Apple is helping users migrate to mobile computing via different sorts of devices with better connectivity (the mobile network) and lighter interfaces. They are providing applications that support a wider variety of user needs, like GPS as a simple example, which make their devices addictive. They are pulling people toward the future, rather than trying to hold on to historical computing structures. As the shift continues, eventually we'll see corporate IT departments make this shift – just as they shifted to PCs from mainframes and minicomputers throwing IBM and DEC into the lurch. As this shift progresses, the winners will be those with the solutions for where customers are headed. And Dell doesn't have anything out there today.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 29, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Last week was big news for technology. Hewlett Packard announced it was killing the EDS brand name, pushing to make HP more of an integrated solutions company (like IBM). And Dell bought Perot Systems to launch itsfirst push into services. According to Washington Technology "HP, Dell Know They Have to Change or Die." The article talks about the dramatically shifting marketplace (love that language!), and how these two hardware oriented companies are trying to avoid the Sun Microsystems finality by getting into services. The author says the companies must "adapt or die," and "there's no sitting still." He goes on to say "it may take years," but he thinks they will transition and eventually be successful. His success forecast hinges on his belief that they must change to survive – and that will be sufficient motivation.
I love the awareness of shifting markets, and the recognition that shifts are demanding changes in these former leaders. But I don't agree with the conclusion that future success is highly likely. Because even with big acquisitions and name changes – HP and Dell haven't laid the groundwork to change. They have taken some rifle shots, but they haven't followed The Phoenix Principle and that means the odds are less than 10% they will successfully transition.
Lots of companies have tried to transition via acquisition. Heck, GM once bought EDS (and Hughes Electronics) – and look what it did for them. Just because a company buys something doesn't mean they'll change. McDonald's bought Chipotle, and then sold it despite double digit growth to fund acquisition of additional McDonald's. Just because a company needs to change its Success Formula to succeed – or even survive – is a long way from proving they will do it.
Neither HP or Dell show they are building a company for the future. Unfortunately, they look to be chasing a model built by IBM in the 1990s. Taking action in 2009 to recreate "best practices" of 15 – 20 years ago is far from creating a company positioned for success. There is no discussion of future scenario planning from either company – about technology use or changing business practices. No description of their scenarios for 2015 and 2020 – scenarios that would demonstrate very high growth and payoff from their action. To the contrary, all the discussion seems to be defensive. They are getting into services – finally – because they realize their growth has slowed and profits are declining. It's not really about the future, it's action taken by studying the rear view mirror.
Additionally, there is no discussion of any Disruptions at either company. To change organizations must attack old Lock-ins. Embedded processes – from hiring and reviews to product development and resource allocation – all exist to Defend & Extend past behavior. If these aren't attacked head-on then organizations quickly conform any potential change into something like the past. In the case of these companies, lacking a clear view of what future markets should look like, they have opted to forgo Disruptions. Mr. Gerstner attacked the sacred cows around IBM viciously in his effort to transition the company into more services. But the CEOs at HP and Dell are far less courageous.
And there's no White Space here for developing a new Success Formula aligned with market needs as they are emerging. Instead of creating an environment in which new leaders can compete in new ways, these businesses are being instructed on how to behave – according to some plan designed by someone who clearly thinks they are smarter than the marketplace. Without White Space, "the plan" is going to struggle to meet with markets that will continue to shift every bit as fast the next 2 years as they did the last year.
I have very limited expectations that these actions will increase the performance of either company. I predict organic growth will slow, as "integration" issues mount and "synergy" activities take more time than growth initiatives. They will not see a big improvement in profits, because competition is extremely severe and there is no sign these companies are introducing any kind of innovation that will leapfrog existing competitors – remember, mere size is not enough to succeed in today's marketplace. They will largely be somewhat bigger, but no more successful.
It's easy to get excited when a company makes an acquisition off the beaten path. But you must look closely at their actions and plans before setting expectations. These companies could make big changes. But that would require a lot more scenario planning, a lot more focus on emerging competitors (not the existing, well known behemoths), much more Disruption to knock back the Lock-in and White Space for building a new Success Formula. Without those actions this is going to be another acquisition followed by missed expectations, cost cutting and discussions about size that cover up declining organic growth.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 8, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
When they can't figure out how to grow a business, leaders often turn to acquisitions. This despite the fact that every analysis ever done of public companies buying other public companies has shown that such acquisitions are bad for the buyer. Yet, after no new products at Kraft for a decade, and no growth, "Kraft shares fall on Cadbury bid, Higher offer awaited" is the Marketwatch.com headline.
Some analysts praise this kind of acquisition. And that's when we can realize why they are analysts, in love with investment banking and deals, and not running companies. "Kraft is demonstrating its operational and financial strength" is one such claim. Hogwash. After years of cost cutting and no innovation, the Kraft executives are worried they'll get no bonuses if they don't grow the top line. So they want to take a cash hoard from all those layoffs and spend it, overpaying for someone else's business which has been stripped of cost by another CEO. After the acquisition the pressure will be on to cut costs even further, in order to pay for the acquisition, leading to more layoffs. It's no surprise that 2 years after an acquisition they all have less revenue than projected. Instead of 2 + 1 = 3 (the expected revenue) we get 2 + 1 = 2.5 as revenues are lost in the transition. But the buyer will claim revenues are up 25% (.5 = 25% of the original 2 – rather than a 12.5% decrease from what the combined revenues should be.)
With rare exceptions, acquisitions generate no growth. Except in the pocketbooks of investment bankers and their lawyers through deal fees, the golden parachutes given to select top executives of the acquired company, and in bonuses of the acquirer who took advantage of poorly crafted incentive compensation plans. These are actions taken to Defend & Extend an existing Success Formula. The executives want to do "more of the same" hoping additional cost cutting (synergies – remember that word?) will give them profits from these overpriced revenues. There is no innovation, just a hope that somehow they will work harder, faster or better and find some way to lower costs not already found. Kraft investors are smart to vote "no" on this acquisition attempt. It won't do anybody any good.
Simultaneously we read in MediaPost.com, "Del Monte To Hike Marketing Spend 40%." If this were to launch new products and expand the Del Monte business into new opportunities this would be a great investment. Instead we read the money is being spent "to drive sales of Del Monte's core brands and higher-margin businesses." In other words, while advertising is off market-wide Del Monte leadership is attempting to buy additional business – not dissimilarly to the goals at Kraft. By dramatically upping the spend on coupons, shelf displays and advertising Del Monte will increase sales of long-sold products that have shown slower growth the last few years. Del Monte may well drive up short-term revenues, but these will not be sustainable when they cut the marketing spend in a year or two. Nor when new products attract customers away from the over-marketed old products. Lacking new products and new solutions such increased spending does not improve Del Monte's competitiveness.
You'd think after the last 10 years business leaders would have learned that investors are less and less enamored with financial shell games. Buying revenues does not improve the business's long term health. A cash hoard, created by cutting costs to the bone, is not well spent purchasing ads to promote existing products – or in buying another business that is already large and mature. Instead, companies that generate above-average rates of return do so by developing and launching new products and services.
You don't see Google or Apple or RIM making a huge acquisition do you? Or dramatically increasing the marketing budget on old products? Compare those companies to Kraft and you see in stark contrast what generates long-term growth, higher investor returns, jobs and a strong supplier base. Disruptions and White Space lead these companies to new innovations that are generating growth. And that's why even the recession hasn't shut them down.
