by Adam Hartung | Sep 1, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, General, In the Swamp, Innovation
Innovation comes in many forms, and some are a lot more valuable than others. The most valuable bring in users formerly un-served or under-served thus expanding the market and offering new growth – like mobile phones did. The least valuable are variations of something that exists, which do little more than give variety to existing customers.
"Pizza Hut Intros Stuffed Crust Pan Pizza" from Mediapost.com is without a doubt the latter. The company takes a product introduced in 1980, then adds an enhancement developed in 1995, and in 2009 launches a product that is merely the combination of the two. At first blush you say "why not?" But this launch costs money – quite a bit of money. There's the cost in product formulation, the cost in training tens of thousands of store workers to make it, cost in new menus, cost for in-store marketing materials, and cost for media advertising of the new product. The same costs (only much higher now) as incurred to launch the totally new innovation pan pizza 30 years ago.
Only this won't generate new revenue. These kind of variation innovations largely provide an alternative for existing customers. Restaurants are famous for selling 70% of their product to repeat customers that return week after week. These people often look for new, sometimes strange, variations. Remember Hawaiian pizza with pineapple, or Bar-B-Que pizza with roasted pork and BBQ sauce? These are the kinds of things that don't bring in new customers, they aren't finding an under-served market and bringing those people to the restaurant. They merely offer variations, which might catch the interest of returning customers, but few others. They are very expensive defensive product launches meant to keep the loyal customer from considering the competition. But because these incur cost, with little new revenue, they are negative to the bottom line.
Part of the fallacy comes from the old logic of "ask customers what they want." Unfortunately, customers can only think of cheaper, faster and usually fractionally better. Their ideas about innovation are almost exclusively variations on existing themes. They already are your customer, thus not thinking hard about alternatives. To find new products that can really grow your market, use lost customers to lead you to the new ideas. And scan other industries and markets to see what's happening on the fringe of competition – things that can serve newly developing market needs.
Companies that make high rates of return do not merely try to maintain revenues and cater to existing customers. They use breakthroughs to tap into new markets and new customer segments. Think about the "personal pan pizza" a product innovation Pizza Hut pioneered 35 years ago. That made it possible for customers to buy a pizza for lunch – it was small enough, cheap enough, and could be served fast enough that it expanded the market for lunch pizza buyers in non-urban locations where "a slice" wasn't available. There are new needs emerging in the restaurant business today – but putting cheese in the crust of your old pan pizza isn't the kind of thing that's going to bring new customers into the restaurant any time soon.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Openness
Did you know that last night the Japanese turned over their government? For 54 years one party has ruled Japan – a very pro-business, conservative party. Then last night the voters threw out the old guys and in a landslide replaced 3/4 of their elected government officials. The new politicians are considerably left of center by U.S. standards, a dramatic shift. "Calls for Fast Action after Historic Vote" is the Yahoo! News headline.
You may be so tired of American politics that your interest in a Japanese election may be – let's say muted? But this is really a very big deal. Japan is the second largest global economy. A change from the conservative, pro-business leadership to a more free-spending and liberal government is sure to have an impact on businesses everywhere – including the USA. Remember we are Japan's #1 trading partner, they buy (and hold) a substantial portion of U.S. Treasury securities, and Japanese industrialists are often credited with having killed the U.S. steel and auto industries. This is a market shift well worth paying attention to.
Ever since the great Japanese stock market melt-down in the early 1990s the U.S. has been pushing Japan to reflate the economy. But the conservative government was opposed. Thus, deflation kept Japanese from buying many goods. But it now appears that several new stimulus programs will begin in Japan, which would raise the prices of Japanese imports (look out U.S. consumers) while increasing demand for offshore goods.
Historically Japan bought loved U.S. goods, but shunned products from China, Taiwan and Korea – a leftover from their significant invasions and horrible treatment of people in those countries in the early 1900s until the end of WWII (Japanese Emporer Hirohito was about as popular in those countries as Hitler is in the USA.) But new liberalism is likely to lead to more apologies from Japan, and a thawing of relations. Which could lead to more trade with China and Korea – which would only exacerbate the U.S. economic problems. We could see prices go up on imports, but no significant increase in exports!
Think we have a growth problem? Since peaking earlier in this century at 126M people, the Japanese population has actually been shrinking. Most demographic experts believe the population will fall to below 100M by mid-century (that's just 40 years folks!) Activities to stimulate the economy, creating more domestic demand and more domestic production could pull money away from buying U.S. Treasury bonds to fund domestic programs, making the interest rates on Treasuries go up, further dampening the U.S. economy due to debt costs (we running a bit of a deficit – in case you missed the news lately.) Higher Treasury cost means higher corporate debt cost means harder to raise money – and dampers profits. Meanwhile, inflation gets worse as we struggle to refund our debt load.
Japan has no domestic petroleum. If you think our energy supply/demand is out of balance you ain't seen nothin' till you look at Japan. They have to buy almost all their energy. Reflate the economy, increase domestic demand for housing and cars (including dropping all road tolls – which can be $60 or $100 on a Japanese roadway) and you get increased energy demand, driving up prices, and putting more dampening on the U.S. economy as we pay more for oil, gas and electricity imports.
If you don't sell in Japan today, why not? The new government promises to reduce the power of heavy handed bureaucrats (like at MITI) who have blocked expansion for decades. For the first time in our lifetimes, we can anticipate a Japanese economy that will accept significantly more imports. Stimulus money, strong currency and pent-up demand all indicate a much more desirable place to make and sell things than, say, America?
Market shifts happen at lots of levels. And when they happen at the level of an economy, (read more about this in Create Marketplace Disruption) everything higher – like industries, companies, functional resources and work teams – have to shift with it. If you don't, you become like the manufacturers being wiped out by today's global industrial shift. The Japanese economy is on the precipice of a really big shift. Intentionally. If you don't prepare, you could see really bad things happen to your business. On the other hand, if you watch closely, learn from the shift, and take action this just might be one of the biggest opportunities ever to grow your business. So you'd better update your scenarios about the future, rethink Asian competition, Disrupt your patterns to consider new ideas and open some White Space to deal with this. Because it could make a huge difference in just a year or two.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 25, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
I think it's a lose – lose – lose. "Brett Favre Signs with Vikings" was the ESPN.com headline. I wasn't going to bring this up, but in 2 days I've had 8 requests, so I guess people are more interested in Mr. Favre at the start of this American NFL season than I imagined. The situation is simply dripping with Defend & Extend behavior, and an inability to focus on the future. And it's hard t see how anybody wins.
The first loss goes to the Minnesota Vikings. Every team is built by growing a powerful squad. By hiring "yesterday's hero" the Vikings have admitted they are not looking to the future. The coaches are trying to somehow capture yesterday. Were they concerned the team would repeat last year's Detroit fiasco and lose every game? Because if they weren't why sacrifice the team's future by hiring an on-field leader that everyone knows is unable to play much longer? This isn't a lot different than GM putting Mr. Bob Lutz, at age 77, in charge of marketing. What was a great past does not make for a great future.
The young people in Minneapolis want to see their home-town team be Super Bowl champs in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and onward. With someone age 39 in the job, slower than ever, it is certain that the team is not "building" toward a potential legacy like teams have had in Green Bay and Dallas. Sixteen year old attendees weren't even alive when Mr. Favre started his football career. They want to see people in the jobs who can help their team become a dynasty – and that's not Mr. Favre. Minnesotans, especially young ones, have to question coaches and owners that would hire someone who, at best, is good (impossible to be great) for a year or two. It rings of defeatism, of desperation, to take this action.
Mr. Favre himself loses with this move by denying his own ability to grow. Americans have great respect for sports heroes that prove themselves after playing ball. Look at those who are revered for not only their play, but their after-play prowess
- Troy Aikmen won Super Bowls at Dallas, then never skipped a beat becoming a respected and popular sports announcer
- Roger Staubach won Super Bowls also at Dallas, but worked summers learning real estate then built his own multi-million dollar real estate development empire
- Jack Kemp played football for the Buffalo Bills, then went on to be a successful Congressman and even was a Vice Presidential candidate with Bob Dole
- Bill Bradley played basketball for championship winning New York Knicks, then became a 3 term senator from New Jersey
- Roger Penske was a world winning race car driver, but is even better known today for building the largest auto dealership company in North America, one of the largest truck leasing companies and recently bidding to purchase Saturn from GM.
By returning to football, Mr. Favre demonstrates he is so Locked-in to playing ball that he isn't looking forward for himself. He can't play football forever, so what will he do next? He has enough money to retire, but there's not much personal growth in retirement. Life is about growth, and at age 39 Mr. Favre has a lot of time to grow into new and even more powerful roles. But he can't if he keeps going back and playing football. It's not a good thing that Mr. Favre isn't growing into other roles where he can be a significant contributor.
The third loser is Wrangler jeans, a division of VF Corporation. "Favre Should Add Bang to Wrangler Effort" is the MediaPost.com headline. Mr. Favre recently agreed to be advertising spokesperson for Wrangler, and the initial view is that his return to football will sell more jeans. To whom? Forty-ish men who dream of a sports career? Cast as an outdoorsman, or new businessman, with a proud legacy Mr. Favre has appeal to a wide group of buyers. But as an aged football player he represents all the people who are questioned as "over the hill."
Mr. Favre could be a role model for younger people as a retired football player. But as an active one he has limited appeal to younger people who are more attuned to Phil Rivers or Tony Romo. Young people don't desire to be the oldest quarterback in the NFL. By Mr. Favre playing football, Wrangler de facto gets positioned as the "jeans for old guys." Mr. Favre could have been a powerful young sports hero starting a new career – a much more favorable position for Wrangler.
When we slip into Defend & Extend thinking nobody wins. Success comes from focusing on the future, and taking the actions that will beat your competitors. Reaching into the past does not bode well for anybody looking to beat the competition, because the competition knows all those old moves. Everyone involved would have been better off if Minnesota had Disrupted its plans by bringing in a quarterback with a sizzling chance to be THE NEXT Brett Favre, rather than Mr. Favre himself. And then building a program that would position them as the next dynasty, not one trying to protect its Defend its current season by Extending the career of somone who's already twice retired. And Wrangler should have thought about this in advance, with a clause in Mr. Favre's contract not allowing him to play football any more if he wants to continue representing their brand.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
I was struck to learn that most people with a growth plan simply think they will sell more to customers in existing markets. About 2/3 of respondents to a Harvard study.
Chart from Harvard Business School Publishing
But we know that not only you, but your competitors are all hoping to sell more to the existing market! This is the fodder for price wars, and declining returns. When we think we can somehow eke more out of existing customers – even if we think we'll take them a new product – we are ignoring competitors. As a result, we rarely get the growth. The results are pre-ordained, when everyone is trying to do the same thing all you get is a war to Defend your existing business!
The encouraging sign is that about 40% of respondents are considering new markets. And that's a good thing. A GREAT Wall Street Journal article "The New, Faster Face of Innovation" tells us that everyone has the opportunity to apply more innovation today. At length this article explains how today's computer deep, networked world allows for testing of almost everything, almost anywhere, pretty nearly continuously, for very small cost. The biggest obstacle to testing more options, trying more innovation, is the self-imposed limits management puts on the tests!
Now, more than ever, businesses need to be oriented on growth. But that doesn't mean entering gladiator style battles to see who can win, usually coming out the bloodiest, battling in existing markets. Quite to the contrary, now is the perfect time for trying new things to connect with shifted markets. People are looking for new solutions to their problems, and willing to evaluate more options than ever. But management Lock-in to traditional notions about the market – set at an earlier time, under different conditions – will often keep a company from trying new things, entering new markets, testing new solutions. Too often management wants to remain "focused" on its "core offerings" and "core strengths" creating the gladiator-style environment!
Use innovation to test! Leaders need to let lower level managers test new options. The most important thing leaders can do today is give PERMISSION to the organization to create new options, and the RESOURCES (now smaller commitments than ever) for testing those options. These become White Space projects where we can forget the conditions which initially created the old Success Formula and find out what works NOW. Those companies that are willing to Disrupt Locked-in notions about how markets should behave will use these market tests to create the most desirable solutions in the future. And these companies will come out the winners.
Just think like these folks:
- Amazon retailer creating the Kindle e-reader
- Apple computer creating iTunes and the iPod
- Google search engine creating AdWords for on-line advertising placement
- Singer Sewing Machines becoming a defense contractor
- Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum building wind farms
[And, like I wrote in my latest Forbes article, this will work for health care as well
http://tinyurl.com/pkupxv]
by Adam Hartung | Aug 12, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Weblogs
GM. Those two letters call up a lot of emotion these days. People ask,
"What went wrong?" "How could a company that large, that successful, go
bankrupt?" The less polite say: "General Motors' leadership is
corrupt." "They ignored customers." "The union killed them."
"Government interference." "Idiots."
This is the first paragraph of my new column on Forbes.com. You can read it, and future articles, in the Leadership section – Link Here.
I'm very excited to find new audiences for discussing what's caused the latest round of business problems – and failures. As well as spreading the message about how businesses can start growing again. Check out the column.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership
I've long been a fan of GE. The only company to be on the Dow Jones Industrial Average for more than 100 years. A company that has transitioned through countless businesses, willing to get into and out of many opportunities in order to find ways to keep growing. Buried deep in the heart of this company's operating principles are tools which keep it from becoming too Locked-in. The constant 360 degree evaluations, the demand for results, the willingness to disagree, the acceptance of Disruptions, the investments in White Space. These have done GE well for years, allowing the company to evolve its Identity, Strategy and Tactics.
But recently, GE has been more disappointing. The stock crashed to $6/share earlier in 2009. And now Forbes reports "Accounting Tricks Catch Up With GE". One of the misguided tools of Defend & Extend Managers is using financial machinations – in effect generating profits out of thin air by playing with the accounting rules rather than making and selling something. I talk this through at length in "Create Marketplace Disruption" (FT Press, 2008) because for the CEO of a publicly traded company, it's an easy route to take. By playing with the accounting a business looks better, allowing the CEO to do more of the same instead of more deeply investigating market shifts that jeopardize the future.
I was deeply disappointed to read where GE allowed this to happen. They counted as revenue, and profit, sales of locomotives to financial institutions – rather than end users. And the use of derivatives at GE was an outright D&E practice to try making money on financial investments that weren't so good. I've decried the use of derivatives loudly – even by Warren Buffett – in previous blogs because they are a tool designed to make weak financial practices look better. This isn't what made GE great, but apparently these were the tools of "modern management" current executives used to prop up sales and profits – instead of focusing on the business. And now the SEC has forced GE to pay a fine for its actions.
Investors, employees and vendors need to be very wary of this. It could mark a sea-change in GE. For years, top executives made their mark by developing new businesses that were attuned to shifting markets. Jet engines and NBC are just a couple of huge businesses GE entered as a result of recognizing shifting markets and the huge opportunity being created. And GE has always been quick to pull the trigger on selling a business when a market shift meant the growth was starting to slow.
But now we can see that GE has used financial machinations to make some businesses look better. These kind of D&E actions are telltales of a company slipping from Phoenix Principle actions – which help you grow – into a company that could stall. And growth stalls are deadly. Only 7% of stalled companies every consistently grow at a mere 2% ever again.
So far, we know that these actions have hurt GE pretty badly. Firstly, there's the $50million fine. You may think this is chump change to GE – but it's money that didn't go into developing a new water filtration system, for example, which could make money down the road. Or invested into a new business plan that could turn into something big. Secondly, its use of financial instruments, including derivatives, and the SEC mark has dramatically eroded investor confidence. Like I said, over $150billion in market cap eroded (about 50%) in the last year alone – and that's after a recovery from $6 to nearly $15 per share (chart here).
High performing companies do NOT resort to D&E Management. It's a Siren's song, straight from Homer's travels, to lure the company ship onto the rocky shores. It seems so simple, and it is, to protect the existing business with financial adjustments that make it look better. But reality is that these poor returns indicate the market is shifting, and that action is needed to reconnect with the shifted marketplace. Whenever executives use D&E practices, including financial machinations (even legal ones) to make the business look better they are ignoring market shifts – which undermines the organization's ability to develop new scenarios, understand the impact of emerging competitors, disrupt old practices and develop White Space projects that can help the company move forward and meet market needs.
It was the willingness to resort to D&E Management that started GM on its long path to bankruptcy. Read "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes" for more info on how easy it is to slip into a rut wiping out future returns.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 3, 2009 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
"Honda's New CEO is Also Chief Innovator" is the recent Businessweek headline. Think of the contrast with GM. Both companies have seen their auto sales hurt this year. Although the downdraft at GM is about 130% of that at Honda. But the reactions to the weakness could not be different.
GM kept trying to sell more of its existing cars until it finally declared bankruptcy, dropping half its models and all its obligations. Then the same people that lead GM into bankruptcy remained in place. While the Chairman was forced out of a job in order to obtain government loans to stay alive, he was replaced by his own #2 who is just as Locked-in as the old Chairman was. Even worse, to me, was bringing back a 77 year old industry veteran to head marketing. He may have been one of the more creative of the "old guard" but he was every bit as much "old guard" as anyone — to the point of belittling Tesla and those succeeding today with electric and hybrid vehicles.
Honda reacted by replacing the CEO of Honda Motors. But the person put into the job comes from a background in R&D. Rather than trying to do more of the same, Honda's approach is to get product developers closer to customers — even at the very top job. Honda isn't leaving the same people in charge, nor even people with the same backgrounds. Honda is planning, from the outset, to use product innovation (rather than financial engineering) to get Honda Motors back on track.
And this aligns with Honda's approach to business. Where GM was once a company with multiple businesses (IT in its ownership of EDS and aviation electronics in Hughes) GM leadership sold off those assets, using profits to subsidize the ailing auto business. Comparatively, Honda has thriving businesses in robotics, factory automation, motorcycles, small yard equipment and new ventures in aircraft and elsewhere. GM reacts to market shifts by ignoring them, and trying to do what it's always done better, faster and cheaper. GM behaves as if its returns will do better if it can just do what it has always done – but more. Honda reacts to market shifts by entering new markets, developing new products and getting itself aligned with market requirements. Honda develops new solutions to changing market needs.
There is no doubt which approach is more sensible, and into which you might consider investing. Honda uses its scenarios about the future to help it develop new products and solutions. Honda obsesses about competition, offering new products for almost every niche opportunity and learning how to be profitable across the market spectrum. Honda is very open to Disrupting its old Success Formula, getting into new businesses that will help it grow even when not "core" to the company's history or its current capabilities. And Honda gives its new business leaders the White Space to succeed, with permission to do what the market requires even if different that the past and the resources to develop new solutions through ongoing market tests.
If you have any doubts about who will grow share over the next 5 years, and who will lose share, check out the free new ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How to Avoid Its Mistakes." Pay attention to the results of America's "Cars for Clunkers" program to see who comes out a winner. It will be important to see if this raises sales at the American companies – or elsewhere.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Lock-in
"Deeper Recession Than We Thought" is the Marketwatch headline. As government data reporters often do, today they revised the economic numbers for 2008. We now know the start to this recession was twice as bad as reported. The 3.9% decline was the worst economic performance since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The consumer spending decline was the worst since 1951 (58 years – a very low percentage of those employed today were even born then.) Business investment dropped a full 20%. Residential investment dropped 27%. Stark numbers.
How did business people react? Exactly as they were trained to react. They cut costs. Layed people off. Dropped new products. Stopped R&D and product development. They quit doing things. What's the impact? The decline slows, but it continues. Just like growth begets growth, cutting begets more decline.
Then really interesting bad things happen.
"ComEd loses customers for first time in 56 years" is the Crain's headline. There are 17,000 fewer locations buying electricity in the greater Chicago area than there were a year ago. That is amazing. When you see new homes being built, and new commercial buildings, the very notion that the number of electricity customers contracted is hard to fathom. People aren't even keeping the lights on any more. They've gone away.
In the old days we said "go west." But that hasn't been the case. Everyone remembers the dot.com bust ending the 1990s. "Silicon Valley Unemployment Skyrockets" is the Silican Alley Insider lead. Today unemployment in silicon valley is the highest on record – even higher than the dot bust days. When even tech jobs are at a nadir, it's clear something is very different this time.
The old approaches to dealing with a recession aren't working. While optimism is always high, what we can see is that things have shifted. The world isn't like it was before. And applying the same approaches won't yield improved results. "For Illinois, recession looking milder – but recovery weaker" is another Crain's headline. Nowhere are there signs of a robust economy.
We can't expect an economic recovery on "Cars for Cash" or "Clunker" programs. By overpaying for outdated and obsolete cars we can bring forward some purchases. But this does not build a healthy market for ongoing purchases. These programs aren't innovation that promotes purchase. They are a subsidy to a lucky few so they pay significantly less for an existing product. To recover we must have real growth. Growth from new products that meet new customer needs in new ways. Growth built on providing solutions that advantage the buyer. Only by introducing innovation, and creating value, will customers (businesses or consumer) open their wallets.
Advertising hasn't disappeared. But it has gone on-line. Today you don't have to spend as much to reach your target. Instead of mass advertising to 1,000 in order to reach the 100 (or 15) you really want, today you can target that buyer through the web and deliver them an advertisement far cheaper. I didn't learn about Cash for Clunkers from a TV ad, I learned about it on the web. As did thousands of people that rushed out to take advantage of the program at its introduction – exceeding expectations. It no longer takes inefficient mass advertising through newspapers or broadcast TV to reach customers – so that market shrinks. But the market for on-line ads will grow. So Google grows – double digit growth – while the old advertising media keeps shrinking. To get the economy growing businesses (like Tribune Corporation) have to shift into these new markets, and provide new products and services that help them grow.
I live in Chicago. Years ago, in the days of The Jungle Chicago grew as an agricultural center. There was a time the West Side of Chicago was known for its smelly stockyards and slaughter houses. But Chicago watched its agricultural companies move away. They moved closer to the farms. They were replaced by steel mills in places like Gary, IN and Chicago's south side. But those too shut down, moved to lower cost locations offshore. These businesses were replaced with assembly plants, like the famous AT&T Hawthorne facility, and manufacturers such as machine tool makers. Now, for the last decade, these too have been moving away. With each wave, the less valuable work, the more menial work, shifted to another location where it could be done as good but cheaper and often faster.
Historically growth continued by replacing those jobs with work tied to the shifting market – jobs that provided more value. So now, for Chicago to grow it MUST create information jobs. The market has moved. Kraft won't regain its glory if it keeps trying to sell more Velveeta. Kraft has not launched a major new product in over 9 years. Sara Lee has been shedding businesses and cutting costs for 6 years – getting smaller and losing value. McDonalds sold its high growth business Chipotles to raise money for defending its hamburger stores by adding new coffee machines. Motorola has let mobile telephony move to competitors as it remained too Locked-in to old technologies and old products while new companies – like Apple and RIM – brought out innovations that attracted new customes and growth.
Growth doesn't come from waiting for the economy to improve. Growth comes from implementing innovation that gives us new solutions. Every market, whether geographic or product based, requires new solutions to maintain growth. If we want our economy to improve, we must change our approach. We can't save our way to prosperity. Instead we must create solutions that fit future scenarios, introduce new solutions that Disrupt old patterns and use White Space to help customers shift to these products.
If we change our approach we can regain growth. Otherwise, we can expect to keep getting what we got in 2008.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
"Pfizer reports lower profit, revenue" is the Marketwatch headline. Unhappy news has become the norm for Pfizer shareholders. Since peaking in 2000 at just under $50/share, the stock has gone nowhere but down for the entire decade – going below $13.00 in 2009 (see Yahoo Finance chart here). You have to go back to 1997 to find the last time Pfizer was valued this lowly. Despite its ownership of several well known, branded drugs – like Viagra and Lipitor – Viagra cannot regain revenue growth or investor interest.
Leadership has done a lot of things the last 10 years to try and improve the business. In 2000, at the valuation peak, the company bought Warner Lambert. In 2002 Pfizer bought Pharmacia (the merged Upjohn/Searle company). In 2005 they spent massively on legal work to protect the remaining patent life on Lipitor. In 2006 they sold the consumer products business to Johnson & Johnson. Across the last 4 years the company has dramatically cut R&D costs for both human and animal products. And earlier this year they agreed to pay a premium to buy Wyeth. But none of this has increased valuation for the last 8 years. To the contrary, value has continued to step down again, and again, and again – losing about 70%.
The problem at Pfizer is management built a Success Formula many years ago, and keeps trying to defend it. They believe in the model of finding, or buying, blockbuster drugs – meaning a product with wide appeal. And selling this only if it has patent protection in order to generate a huge price premium. This made Pfizer huge and profitable long ago. And the company keeps trying to find a way to replay that tune, hoping to achieve the old results.
But the world has shifted. The science of pharmacology has been mined for nearly 100 years. Today, most new drugs have as many problems as benefits. Increasingly, improvement happens only in narrow population niches where genetics align with the chemical additive. Pharmacology is running out of gas. Medical science has shifted to biologics. Instead of looking for a chemical solution, the focus is on nano-tech to isolate product delivery directly to diseased cells. Or engineering to alter genes through cell modification for superior healing performance. These bio-engineering solutions are now offering far better results at far lower cost – while the costs of pharmacology skyrocket amidst diminishing returns.
Pfizer has not shifted. Pfizer management keeps trying to Defend & Extend its old business. Locked-in to the old Success Formula, leadership looks for new drugs, new therapy programs, new solutions that "fit" its approach to the market. But it simply isn't paying off. And everyone from investors to employees to suppliers is at risk. Desperately, leadership is willing to overpay for Wyeth to avoid falling into oblivion when existing drugs come off patent protection in the next few years. But everyone knows this game is nearly over. This may extend the senior leader's jobs, and their pay, it doesn't provide a return to shareholders. Unless leadrship changes the Success Formula Pfizer will never again be as profitable as it once was, or grow as it once did.
Even though it is located in New Jersey, not Michigan, and is full of phramacology Ph.Ds and medical doctors rather than mechanical engineers, Pfizer is more like GM than it would ever admit. It developed a Success Formula, and it is doing everything possible to keep it alive – rather than shift with the market. As GM has shown, no matter how big you are if you don't shift with the market eventually you go bankrupt. Size is no protection from market shifts. Too bad for investors and employees that size is the only thing leadership is trying to use to protect itself.
Don't forget to download the free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Jul 1, 2009 | Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
Two sides of a page, two sides of strategy. Two different approaches, two very different sets of results.
That's what struck me when I was waiting for a meeting recently. I picked up a print edition of Businessweek laying in the reception area. On page 13 was "Public Flac Grounds Private Jets." A soft economy has teamed up with bad impressions of executive perks to create a huge drop in orders for private jets. French manufacturer Dassault had 27 more cancellations than orders in the first quarter. U.S. based Cessna had 92 cancellations, and was bracing for 150 more by today (7/1/09). In the meantime, the company has laid off 42% of its workforce and discountinued development of its newest jet aircraft. And the market for used aircraft is flooded, boding poorly for future sales as the used inventory seeks buyers.
Here are two companies that definitely have their "hedgehog concept" as recommended by Jim Collins. They set out to be leaders in private aircraft manufacturing, focusing on two different continents. And they are leaders. They know how to do be product leaders, and they do it well. But look what happened when the market shifted. In dramatic fashion, they go from record profits in 2007 to barely viable. Being really good at making planes doesn't matter when nobody wants them.
Turn the page (literally), and on page 14 was "Now, the Nano Home." In this short article we hear about how Tata Group, which has launched the Nano automobile for under $2,000, is entering the housing development market. While builders in the USA are failing due to the real estate crash, Tata is creating entire apartment developments. But not U.S. style. These apartments sell for as little as $7,800 and come as small as 218 square feet! (There are larger and more expensive units – up to $40,000). While this may seem crazy to Americans, it fits the market where you're trying to convince someone to leave a squatters tenement and buy something legal to live in. It's a market I've never heard of a single American company trying to develop, yet the opportunity is huge!
So here's Tata Group, the company that started as a trading company in the 1860s, that went on to become an industrial powerhouse making chemicals, steel and industrial products. One of, if not the, largest IT services companies on the planet. An auto manufacturer for India that expands into the global market with an entirely new product. Now the company enters homebuildling, but not like other companies. Instead uniquely doing what will fit market needs. There is no hedgehog concept to Tata Group. Just a company that keeps looking for market needs, then develops unique products to fulfill those needs. And builds a 150 year history of growth in the process.
Anytime you have a narrow business, focused on a single market or product line, you are at risk of market shifts that can kill you. These shifts can come from new technologies, or different production processes, or different attributes offered by competitors. But the fact is, markets shift. The better you are at focusing on your hedgehog concept, the more likely it is you will eventually fail. Just look at the companies Mr. Collins claimed were the big winners in Good to Great – Circuit City and Fannie make are good examples. You can be really, really good at something and you end up reaching the pinnacle of expertise only to be clobbered by a market shift that sends you toppling into failure.
Think like Tata Group. Keep your eyes open for market needs. Then figure out new ways to fulfill them. Especially ways that competitors won't attack. Forget about "focus." No American car company is even trying to make a $2,000 car – despite the fact that the only big growth markets today are China, India and other emerging markets where a cheap auto makes the most sense. And all those big U.S. real estate developers that are declaring bankruptcy, after building billion dollar malls, U.S. condominium projects, and office parks aren't even considering building and selling $8,000 apartments to the fastest growing middle class on the globe. They know their hedgehog concept. But they don't know how to grow. You'll do better to focus on growth and leave that hedgehog in his hole.
For more on how following its hedgehog concept led to the bankruptcy of GM download the free ebook "The Fall of GM". Learn how to avoid the hedgehog mistake and keep your business growing.
