by Adam Hartung | Sep 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Stealing language from FDR, September 11, 2001 is a day that will go down in infamy. Dramatic shifts happened in the world resulting from the horrific attacks on American civilians in New York, Pennsylvania and D.C. . But can we say that most organizations have reacted effectively to those shifts?
Few industries were more affected by the attacks than the airline industry. Shut down for a week, revenues plummeted immediately and were hard to win back from a frightened public. But if ever there was an industry of needing to push the "reset button" on how things worked it was airlines. All the major players (except Southwest) had struggled with profitability, many declaring bankruptcy. Some never emerged (like PanAm, Eastern, Braniff). Mergers had been rampant as companies tried to expand into greater profits – unsuccessfully. Customer satisfaction had been on a straight southeasterly direction, lower and lower, ever since deregulation. Here was a collection of businesses for which nothing was going right, and in dire need of changing their business model.
The shut down and economic downturn provided a tremendous opportunity for the airlines to change their Success Formula. The government allowed unprecedented communication between companies, and unions were ready to make changes, to get the air traffic system working again. A sense of cooperation emerged for finding better solutions, including security. Market shifts which had been happening for a decade were primed for new solutions – perhaps implementing operational methods proven successful at Southwest.
Unfortunately, everybody chose instead to extend Lock-ins to old practices and bring their airline company back on-line with minimal change. Instead of using this opportunity to Disrupt their practices, taking advantage of a dramatic challenge to their business, and use White Space to try new approaches – to a competitor every single airline re-instituted business as usual. To disastrous results. Quickly profits went down further, customer satisfaction dropped further and in short order all the major players (except Southwest) were filing bankruptcies and hoping some sort of merger would somehow change the declining results.
The airlines' problems were not created by the events of 9/11/01. But on that day long-developing market shifts become wildly apparent. The airlines, and other industries like banking, had the opportunity to recognize these market shifts, admit their impact on future results (not good), and begin Disrupting old practices in order to experiment with new solutions that better fit changing market needs. None did. It wasn't long before America was mired in another long and expensive military conflict, and an extended deep recession. For most businesses, things went from bad to worse.
Leaders need to recognize when external events pose the opportunity to Disrupt things as they've been – Disrupt the status quo – and start doing things differently. These prime opportunities don't happen often. Reacting with reassurances, and efforts to get back to the status quo as quickly as possible prove disastrous. This is an emotional reaction, seeking a past sense of stability, but it creates additional complacency worsening the impact of market shifts already jeopardizing the future. Instead, one of the most critical actions leaders can take is to leverage these market challenges into a call for Disruptions and use White Space to implement new solutions which meet market needs.
If only the airlines had done that perhaps they could operate on-time, let customers check luggage without a charge, provide quality meals on long flights and internet access on all flights, and provide a reliable service that customers enjoy. If they had sought to find a better solution, rather than Defending & Extending what they had always done, airline customers would be in a far better shape. And that's a lesson all leaders need to learn from the events of 9/11 – use challenges to move forward, not try reclaiming some antiquated past.
To read how GM ended up bankrupt by refusing to recognize opportunities for changing to meet shifting market needs download the free ebook "The Fall of GM."
by Adam Hartung | Sep 3, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
I never cease to be startled by the optimism of businesspeople. Why would anybody buy a newspaper company these days? Yet, Crain's reports "Sun Times Sale Appears Near." It's believed the buyers are a group of independent investors, no media experience, led by Mesirow Financial Group.
Ever heard the term "smart money?" This is definitely not "smart money." Just like Cerberus was none to clever to spend billions buying Chrysler a couple of years ago. Shortly before it went bankrupt. Too often, those with lots of money to invest become full of hubris. They believe their experience allows them to "fix" any business. This almost always involves cost cutting – such as letting go any sort of R&D, product development, advertising, marketing and often sales. Assets are sold to raise cash and incur one-time write-offs (with tax deductions) and get rid of depreciation charges. These financiers believe they can "fix" any business if they are "tough" enough to cut enough costs, and get the remaining employees "focused" on specific segments with specific products.
Only we're finding out that just doesn't work. This sort of "company flipping" was prevalent in the early 2000s. But it added no value, and it wasn't long before market investors quit playing. The value of these cost-stripped businesses, with no growth potential, dropped like a stone. Without growth, the business just keeps on shrinking.
Tribune Corporation, parent of newspaper Chicago Tribune, has already filed bankruptcy. But it is expected to wipe out bondholders (lots of it the employee pension plan), and come out of bankruptcy. To a market which in which fewer and fewer people read newspapers, and fewer and fewer advertisers are buying ads. There is too much competition today for too few subscribers, and too few advertisers, in newspapers. Sun Times Media has no major on-line presence, nor television stations. So how will these investors make a return on their acquisition investment?
They won't.
It's hard to give up in business. It's hard to believe that there just isn't demand for buggy whips any more. It's hard to believe that the last remaining buggy whip manufacturers are so competitive, unwilling to give up, that they don't make much profit. We are romanced into believing that "if you really want to be a blacksmith, there's a way to make money at it." We want to believe that somehow if we work hard enough, if we're smart enough, we can "fix" any business. But when the market has shifted, and demand drops, the smart leaders know to say "no." They take their investing to where customers and demand are growing so they can make a much better rate of return.
Invest in the Rapids. Not the Swamp. Companies in the Swamp almost always end up in the Whirlpool. It's hard to think Sun Times Media isn't already there – what with their negative cash flow and very small cash hoard. Unless you know exactly how you're going to add growth to a troubled business, it's best to simply walk away.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 2, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Openness
"Huffington Says Her Site Is Close To Making Money" is the video headline at Marketwatch.com. For years this blog has chastised traditional news publishers for trying to Defend & Extend their traditional business, when the market has shifted on-line —- both for readers and advertisers. Of course, the newspaper companies counter this argument by saying that they can't make any money on-line. They have to defend their traditional business – even from web competitors.
When shifts happen it's best to get started experimenting and migrating early. You may hate the political bent of HuffingtonPost.com, but that it's near making money shows that the model can work. Just differently than a newspaper or magazine. Unfortunately, most traditional media have been too busy trying to fend off the web to learn anything. For example, Tribune Corporation has long owned equity stakes in CareerBuilder.com and Cars.com as well as FoodChannel.com. But the company refused to learn from these ventures and migrate toward a different Success Formula.
Now it's too late for these traditional companies. You may think that if HuffingtonPost.com is still not quite profitable there's still time to compete. But reality is that Ms. Huffington's organization has been experimenting and learning and creating this Success Formula for 4 years. That kind of learning you can't pick up overnight. You have to participate in the marketplace, then make what you learn (good and bad) available for everyone to see. Then you have to discuss what you've learned openly so the organization can become knowledgable about what works and migrate toward a new Success Formula in which they have confidence. And that's why most companies react to market switches way too late. They think they can jump in at the last minute. But by then the HuffingtonPost.coms and Marketwatch.coms and MediaPost.coms have already learned how to succeed at this business, developed a subscriber base and created a viable ad sales program.
Take for example "Clunkers Program Boosts Ford, But Not GM, Chrysler" as headlined on Marketwatch.com. Now that the results are in from the government stimulated "clunkers" program, we know that the market has shifted away from GM and Chrysler. Year-over-year, Hyundai sales were up 47%, Honda up 9%, Toyota up 6.4%. Ford scored big with sales up 17%. But GM sales were down over 20%, and Chrysler sales fell 15%. We can see from this data that people were ready to buy cars, given a boost. While the overall market was up, we can see that it has shifted to a new batch of competitors. GM and Chrysler simply weren't prepared to compete – and it's doubtful they ever will be. They've missed the market shift, and now they don't have the R&D, products, distribution, marketing, etc. to remain competitive with companies that are seeing volumes and revenues rise.
Of course, every company has the opportunity to shift with markets – or be crushed by changes. The latest economic reports show that too many American businesses, like GM and Chrysler, are waiting to be crushed. "US productivity rises at fastest pace in nearly 6 years, while labor costs plunge in spring" is the ChicagoTribune.com headline. This is bad news for those thinking an economic upturn will save them.
When an economy grows productivity improvements are good. Imagine you sell 100 items. You have 100 employees. Productivity is 1. A growing economy allows you to sell 105, your employment remains the same, and productivity jumped 5%. Lots of winners – between the employees (more pay or bonus), the customers (possibly lower prices down the road based on rising volume), for investors (more profits) and for suppliers (more volume and less pressure on prices.) Let's say the economy slackens – like 2009. Volume drops to 90. But through cost saving measures employment drops to 86. Productivity just went up almost 5%! But nobody won. And that's what's happening today. Labor rates keep dropping because there's more labor supply than product demand – and if businesses keep cutting costs we'll improve our productivity right up while the economy keeps going down.
Business leaders need to be more like Huffington Post, and less like GM. To improve profits they need to recognize that markets have shifted, and move quickly to develop new Success Formulas which get them growing. Trying to Defend & Extend the old business, like newspaper publishers, simply drives you toward bankruptcy. Instead, it's time to Disrupt the status quo and create some White Space projects to learn what the market wants. It's time to experiment and get the whole company involved in applying the collective brainpower to develop new a new Success Formula which gets you growing, making more money, and improving productivity for real!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 24, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Music, Openness
"Sears Axes Ad Budget As Sales Slide" is the latest Crain's article. Revenues have been falling at Sears ever since Mr. Ed Lampert took control of the venerable Chicago retailer. His initial actions were to cut costs in order to prop up profits. Which worked for about 8 quarters. But then the impact of cost cutting cracked back like a bullwhip, shredding profits. Mr. Lampert reacted by further cutting costs to "bring them in line with sales." And the whirlpool started. Cut costs, revenue falls, cut costs, revenue falls, cut costs…… And now he largely blames the recession for Sears poor performance. As if his Lock-in, and that of the management, to old approaches had nothing to do with the dismal results now at Sears.
There are those who think these actions are smart, to bring costs "in alignment with retail trends" as Morningstar put it. But reality is Sears is now in the Whirlpool of failure. Looking at the lifecycle, they've gone past the point of no return – out of the Swamp of slow growth – and into the last stage - failure. The stores would be closed and sold to other retailers, except there's a dearth of retail buyers out there these days. Thus shareholders are stuck with underperforming real estate, constantly declining revenues and falling cash flow.
Not all retailers are seeing declining revenues. Bloomberg.com reported today "Apple May Be Highest Grossing Fifth Avenue Retailer." While Sears and others are watching sales go down, Apple's retail store revenues rose 2.5% this year – and it's Fifth Avenue store has seen traffic increase 22% this last quarter. In a town where tourists often put an emphasis on shopping, they used to ask locals how to find Bloomingdales or Saks. Now they want to know where to find the Apple store.
Markets shift. When they do, you have to change your Success Formula or your results decline. When customers change their behavior, you have to change as well or your sales and profits go down. But most leaders react to market shifts by trying to do the same thing they've always done, only faster, better and cheaper. Oops. That only leaves you chasing your tail – just like Sears. You keep working harder and harder but results don't improve. Then eventually something happens that throws you into bankruptcy, or an acquisition for your assets, and it's "game over." Meanwhile, all the time you're watching returns shrink shareholders watch value decline, employees grow disgruntled as you whittle away bonuses, benefits, pay and jobs, and vendors grow tired of the impossible negotiations for lower costs while waiting to get paid on strung-out terms. Nobody is having a good time. Just go ask the folks at Sears.
But there are always businesses that catch the market shift and use it to propel their growth. Like Apple. Once a niche and low-profit computer manufacturer, they've turned into a producer of music players, music distributor and mobile phone supplier as well as computer manufacturer. And when everyone would have said that retail is a terrible investment, they've turned into a surprisingly successful retailer as well. Appple keeps throwing itself back into the Rapids of growth, rather than slipping into the Swamp of stagnation and Whirlpool of failure.
Apple keeps going toward the market shifts. Apple's CEO (and increasingly other executives) Disrupts the company's Success Formula, always challenging the company to do new things. And White Space is constantly created where permission is given to operate outside old Lock-ins and resources are provided for the opportunity to grow. Apple could have done a half-hearted job of retailing, trying to act like Best Buy or Nike with its stores and merchandise, or only funding stores in suburban malls instead of tier 1 retail space on the very best (and most expensive) retail avenues.
The next time you're asking yourself "when will this recession end?" think about Sears and Apple. If your business acts like Sears your recession won't be anytime soon. If you keep doing more of the same, cutting costs and hoping to hold on for a recovery, your doing nothing to end the recession and it's unlikely you'll find much improvement in your business. But if you develop scenarios about the future which allow you to attack competitors, using Disruptions to change your approach and the market, then using White Space to develop new solutions you can bring this recession to an end sooner than you think. People in your business will have chances to grow, and so will your revenues and profits.
For more about how we set ourselves up for failure, and how to avoid the traps download the free ebook The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
For almost 3 years this blog has discussed how newspapers, and most traditional media, have ignored the changes being created by shifting markets for news readers and advertisers. Unfortunately, not a lot has changed in how newspapers, magazines and traditional media companies operate. They still don't put enough energy into using the web, for distribution or revenue generation. They keep trying to Defend & Extend their old models – and these companies keep going bankrupt. So much the worse for investors, employees and suppliers.
Today the Chicago Sun Times reported "Everyblock acquired by MSNBC.com." The sort of short article you could easily miss. Because the Sun Times, and most traditional media, still don't like to talk about the web. But this is a pretty big deal.
Everyblock was started 2 years ago by a 28 year old in Naperville, Il. He acquired $1M on a Knight Foundation grant to see if he could build a reporting engine that would supply information at the local level to web sites. An ambitious undertaking. Something you would think every major newspaper would try to do. But they didn't. They were so Locked-in to their old business model that they kept crying about the decline in subscriptions and print ads – but didn't do anything beyond cost cutting. That's what Lock-in will do to you – leave you crying about the past but taking no affirmative action to deal with shifting markets. They left the market for on-line local reporting available for someone more ambitious. Someone age 28 who really wanted to see if he could make it work.
After Everyblock hired some folks and figured out this would work you'd think Tribune Corporation would be all over how to apply this in order to build its on-line business. Guess again. Mr. Zell is so Locked-in to his big debt deal that he's too busy trying to sell the Cubs and otherwise raise money. He doesn't have a dime to invest in building the future. Same at the Sun-Times where leadership is still realing from the old owner's plundering of traditional assets with no game plan for how to succeed long-term. Both companies are well into the Whirlpool. So close to failure they've lost track of any plan to grow. So they ignored the local talent, cutting costs to prolong the ride instead of investing smartly.
Now MSNBC.com is going where the newspapers wouldn't go. It's acquiring the Everyblock business, one that's desperate for cash to grow, in order to expand its footprint. MSNBC.com is ready to develop a new model for local news coverage. Good for them. We all know the day will come when we can get local news from the web, and it's good to see MSNBC set up the White Space to explore how to make it happen. MSNBC.com is in the Rapids of growth, building on growth of its cable TV partner. It's good news for GE shareholders, who could benefit from the next big thing since Google or Twitter. All for the mere investment of a few million dollars. Less than Mr. Zell spends on personal jets every year.
The world keeps changing. Too many businesses are simply trying to do the same thing, only cheaper or faster or somehow better. They aren't reacting to shifts by actually Disrupting their approach and setting up White Space to learn. At the media companies the impact is sevee as fewer and fewer magazines get printed, and newspapers get thinner, and more companies file for bankruptcy. But the smart ones do something – like MSNBC. And MSNBC could just end up being the one taking it to the bank!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 13, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership
"It's Hard to Like Sara Lee" was the Barrons headline this week. And how could you, after the company reported its third straight quarter with sales and earnings below expectation. Check out this quote "Failed expansion has become a hallmark of Sara Lee in recent years, as
the company entered and exited businesses more frequently than tourists
passing through Grand Central station."
Meanwhile, over at Businessweek the headline is "Sara Lee, Why Investors Won't Bite." The company keeps focusing on cost cutting. "Sara Lee Chairman and Chief Executive Brenda Barnes
said on Aug. 12 that she expects annual cost savings of $350 million to
$400 million by 2012." I wonder how far revenues will fall during that same period? Since Ms. Barnes took the helm 5 years ago, Sara Lee's value has shrunk 54% (chart here). Yet, her biggest plan remains more sales of existing businesses – now focused on selling the "houesehold and body care segments." Although after all the sales the last 4 years the takers keep getting thinner and thinner, and the prices lower and lower. Buyers recognize when a business has been stripped of its value and is nothing more than a shell of its previous self – no longer able to grow and produce cash flow.
Meanwhile at Sara Lee there are no real plans to sell any new products or services, so the P/E just keeps falling. Now at 11, it's one of the industry's lowest. But when you expect revenues and profits to keep getting smaller, you can't justify much of a P/E now can you? It takes growth to increase your P/E multiple.
Forbes tried putting lipstick on the pig with its headline "Sara Lee Sees Meaty Growth." The writer tried to focus on hopes the company has for selling more sausage and lunch meat. But there's no innovation. Just a hope that low commodity prices will improve the margins on these products – and the commodities will stay low so the margins don't dip. Sara Lee hasn't launched a new product since Ms. Barnes took the helm. Crain's summarized the situation more bluntly "Investors Find Little Tasty in Sara Lee."
Business is about creating shareholder value, not destroying it. And Ms. Barnes has been going the wrong way her entire tenure leading Sara Lee. As I pointed out in her first year of leadership in this blog, and have repeated often, Ms. Barnes has not developed any new products for the future, she has not identified competitive opportunities for growth, nor has she been willing to Disrupt old patterns and use White Space to develop and launch new revenue opportunities. Instead, she has slowly and painfully sold off one asset after another – and none of that money has come back to shareholders. Today all shareholders have as a result of her leadership is a smaller and less profitable declining company. And no cash to compensate for the shrinkage.
If we want to come out of this recession we have to replace leaders who are so wrong headed. There's no value in quarter after quarter of cost cutting. There's no value in selling off assets for one time gains to cover ongoing losses. There's no value in shrinking a company without distributing proceeds to the owners for investing elsewhere. Thus, there's no value to the leadership at Sara Lee. What's needed is someone at the helm willing to look to the marketplace for new product ideas and then use White Space to innovate those new solutions. Someone who will put energy and resources behind growth.
The employees, shareholders and vendors at Sara Lee have a lot of scars for waiting – and nothing good. Even the suburban Chicago town of Downer's Grove, IL is hurt by the loss of jobs. To get America going again we have to start growing – and there's no better place to start than Sara Lee. Before it disappears into oblivion – like the onetime Chicago retailer Montgomery Wards!
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 | Jul 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, eBooks, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Years ago there was a TV ad featuring the actor Pauly Shore. Sitting in front of a haystack there was a sign over his frowning head reading "Find the needle." The voice over said "hard." Then another shot of Mr. Shore sitting in front of the same haystack grinning quite broadly, and the sign said "Find the hay." the voice over said "easy." Have you ever noticed that in business we too often try to do what's hard, rather than what's easy?
Take for example The New York Times Company, profiled today on Marketwatch.com in "The Gray Lady's Dilemma." The dilemma is apparently what the company will do next. Only, it really doesn't seem like much of a dilemma. The company is rapidly on its way to bankruptcy, with cash flow insufficient to cover operations. The leaders are negotiating with unions to lower costs, but it's unclear these cuts will be sufficient. And they definitely won't be within a year or two. Meanwhile the company is trying to sell The Boston Globe, which is highly unprofitable, and will most likely sell the Red Sox and the landmark Times Building in Manhattan, raising cash to keep the paper alive.
Only there isn't much of a dilemma here. Newspapers as they have historically been a business are no longer feasible. The costs outweigh the advertising and subscription dollars. The market is telling newspaper owners (Tribune Corporation, Gannett, McClatchey, News Corp. and all the others as well as The Times) that it has shifted. Cash flow and profits are a RESULT of the business model. People now are saying that they simply won't pay for newspapers – nor even read them. Thus advertisers have no reason to advertise. The results are terrible because the market has shifted. The easy thing to do is listen to the market. It's saying "stop." This should be easy. Quit, before you run out of money.
Of course, company leadership is Locked-in to doing what it always has done. So it doesn't want to stop. And many employees are Locked-in to their old job descriptions and pay – so they don't want to stop. They want to do what's hard – which is trying to Defend & Extend a money-losing enterprise after its useful life has been exhausted. But if customers have moved on, isn't this featherbedding? How is it different than trying to maintain coal shovelers on electric locomotives? This approach is hard. Very hard. And it won't succeed.
For a full half-decade, maybe longer, it has been crystal clear that print news, radio news and TV news (especially local) is worth a lot less than it used to be. They all suffer from one-way communication limits, poor reach and frequently poor latency. All problems that didn't exist before the internet. This technology and market shift has driven down revenues. People won't pay for what they can get globally, faster and in an interactive environment. As these customers shift, advertisers want to go where they are. After all, advertising is only valuable when it actually reaches someone.
Meanwhile, reporting and commentary increasingly is supplied by bloggers that work for free – or nearly so. Not unlike the "stringers" used by news services back in the "wire" days of Reuters, UPI and AP. Only now the stringers can take their news directly to the public without needing the wire service or publishers. They can blog their information and use Google to sell ads on their sites, thus directly making a market for their product. They even can push the product to consolidators like HuffingtonPost.com in order to maximize reach and revenue. Thus, the costs of acquiring and accumulating news has dropped dramatically. Increasingly, this pits the expensive journalist against the low cost journalist. And the market is shifting to the lower cost resource — regardless of how much people argue about the lack of quality (of course, some [such as politicians] would question the quality in today's "legitimate" media.)
Trying to keep The New York Times and Boston Globe alive as they have historically been is hard. I would contend a suicide effort. Continuing is explained only by recognizing the leaders are more interested in extending Lock-in than results. Because if they want results they would be full-bore putting all their energy into creating mixed-format content with maximum distribution that leads with the internet (including e-distribution like Kindle), and connects to TV, radio and print. Pricing for newspapers and magazines would jump dramatically in order to cover the much higher cost of printing. And the salespeople would be trained to sell cross-format ads which run in all formats. Audience numbers would cross all formats, and revenue would be tied to maximum reach, not the marginal value of each format. That is what advertisers want. Creating that sale, building that company, would be relatively much easier than trying to defend the Lock-in. And it would produce much better results.
The only dilemma at The New York Times Company is between dying as a newspaper company, or surviving as something else. The path it's on now says the management would rather die a newspaper company than do the smart thing and change to meet the market shift. For investors, this poses no dilemma. Investors would be foolhardy to be long the equity or bonds of The New York Times. There will be no GM-style bailout, and the current direction is into the Whirlpool. Employees had better be socking away cash for the inevitable pay cuts and layoffs. Suppliers better tighten up terms and watch the receivables. Because the company is in for a hard ending. And faster than anyone wants to admit.
Don't miss my recent ebook, "The Fall of GM" for a
quick read on how easily any company (even the nation's largest employer) can be
easily upset by market shifts. And learn what GM could have done to avoid
bankruptcy – lessons that can help your business grow!
http://tinyurl.com/mp5lrm
by Adam Hartung | Jul 13, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Is Bob Lutz the right guy to run GM Marketing?" is the question headlined on Advertising Age. I'm sure you know I think the answer is a resounding "NO."
I'll never forget a few months when Mr. Lutz, being interviewed for a national magazine, said the Tesla sports car and the company that developed it was a joke. He said it wasn't a real car, nor was Tesla a real car company. He said the leadership at Tesla didn't know what it meant to be a professional auto company, and to be professional auto executives. He was condescending and rude as to the future of Tesla.
Let's see, Tesla has made a 100% electric car, sold 100% of its output, has investors that aren't the federal government, has never been bankrupt and has never asked for a bailout to stay in business. Meanwhile, the former vice-chairman of GM was a stanch critic of the electric car, saying it would never meet the driving needs of the American public, and fully supported GM killing its electric car program. While he was a leader at GM, the company couldn't even keep 100% of its capacity in operation, much less sell 100% of the output, the company begged the federal government for money to keep it in operation when private investors would no longer invest, and then wiped out the equity holders entirely – and over 80% of the value of bondholders, by leading the company into bankruptcy.
Mr. Lutz was an executive at GM. But that doesn't make him a good executive. In fact, given the performance of GM since 1975 (nearly 35 years) it might be more of a disqualifier than a qualifier. Why would anyone want to hire an executive who stayed in one industry for over 40 years, during which the companies he worked for lost share, saw their margins decline, led in no new technology categories, was perennially late introducing new products, saw their costs spiral out of control, had the lowest job satisfaction in the industry by its employees, had some of the lower quality scores among consumers in the industry and and eventually had to declare bankruptcy?
America loves to glorify, make heroes even, of business executives. Usually of large companies. But few of these executives actually made a significant positive impact on their companies, employees, investors or suppliers. Executives rise because they are very good at supporting the Success Formula, not because they produce significantly better results. As long as the manager turned director turned V.P. keeps reinforcing the Success Formula, in fact many mistakes can be overlooked. Especially if the executive's style is similar to the top brass at the company (same school, same degrees, same geographic origin, same religion, same politics, same views.) What gets an executive promoted at GM (and most large companies) is simply not results. It is consistent reinforcement of a Success Formula, burnishing and amplifying it, even in the face of deterioriating results. Like Mr. Lutz.
There is no popular election of executives. In this case, perhaps there should be. Given how disgusted most people are with GM, I doubt many people would vote to keep the original management in place. And I doubt fewer still would vote to place a 77 year old executive who was part of the long term industry decline and recent failure in a top position. And even fewer would say that a 77 year old is prepared to take on marketing leadership in a world where traditional advertising has declining value, and the best companies are creatively using all kinds of internet marketing programs. Not just because of his age – but because he's never developed the remotest skill to do the work. Many 30 year olds could explain in deep detail how to get viral campaigns working – while all Mr. Lutz could say is he's seen a YouTube! video and read a blog or two. And he gets to manage the 4th largest ad budget in the USA? Isn't that how GM got into this mess – having people in top jobs who were out of step with current market realities?
Businesses exist to put resources to effective use. We measure that effectiveness with cash flow and profits. We ask that the leaders who borrow money from investors (equity and debt) return that principle with a positive rate of return. And we ask that the executives honor their commitments to the employees and vendors. In the case of GM, the executives eliminated the investments made by investors, reneged on the employee commitments and left vendors holding the bag on long-term contracts the company will no longer honor. Even old customers can no longer hold the company accountable for its defective products. By all measures, these leaders failed. And yet someone thinks it's a good idea to keep the same people running this company?
GM needs new leadership. Leadership willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to develop a new Success Formula. Asking Mr. Lutz to be the head of marketing is not a Disruption. It is an action specifically intended to remain Locked-in to the old Success Formula and maintain the re-invention gap between GM and the marketplace. With this kind of decision making, GM will find itself back in bankruptcy court a lot faster than any of the experts even think.
Don't miss the new ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Jul 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Google is growing, and GM is trying to get out of bankruptcy. On the surface there are lots of obvious differences. Different markets, different customers, different products, different size of company, different age. But none of these get to the heart of what's different about the two companies. None of these really describe why one is doing well while the other is doing poorly.
GM followed, one could even say helped create, the "best practices" of the industrial era. GM focused on one industry, and sought to dominate that market. GM eschewed other businesses, selling off profitable businesses in IT services and aircraft electronics. Even selling off the parts business for its own automobiles. GM focused on what it knew how to do, and didn't do anything else.
GM also figured out its own magic formula to succeed, and then embedded that formula into its operating processes so the same decisions were replicated again and again. GM Locked-in on that Success Formula, doing everything possible to Defend & Extend it. GM built tight processes for everything from procurement to manufacturing operations to new product development to pricing and distribution. GM didn't focus on doing new things, it focused on trying to make its early money making processes better. As time went by GM remained committed to reinforcing its processes, believing every year that the tide would turn and instead of losing share to competitors it would again gain share. GM believed in doing what it had always done, only better, faster and cheaper. Even into bankruptcy, GM believed that if it followed its early Success Formula it would recapture earlier rates of return.
Google is an information era company, defining the new "best practices". It's early success was in search engine development, which the company turned into a massive on-line advertising placement business that superceded the first major player (Yahoo!). But after making huge progress in that area, Google did not remain focused alone on doing "search" better year after year. Since that success Google has also launched an operating system for mobile phones (Android), which got it into another high-growth market. It has entered the paid search marketplace. And now, "Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS" is the CNN headline.
"Google to unveil operating system to rival Microsoft" is the Marketwatch headline. This is not dissimilar from GM buying into the airline business. For people outside the industry, it seems somewhat related. But to those inside the industry this seems like a dramatic move. For participants, these are entirely different technologies and entirely different markets. Not only that, but Microsoft's Windows has dominated (over 90% market share) the desktop and laptop computer markets for years. To an industrial era strategist the Windows entry barriers would be considered insurmountable, making it not worthwhile to pursue any products in this market.
Google is unlike GM in that
- it has looked into the future and recognizes that Windows has many obstacles to operating effictively in a widely connected world. Future scenarios show that alternative products can make a significant difference in the user experience, and even though a company currently dominates the opportunity exists to Disrupt the marketplace;
- Google remains focused on competitors, not just customers. Instead of talking to customers, who would ask for better search and ad placement improvements, Google has observed alternative, competitive operating system products, like Unix and Linux, making headway in both servers and the new netbooks. While still small share, these products are proving adept at helping people do what they want with small computers and these customers are not switching to Windows;
- Google is not afraid to Disrupt its operations to consider doing something new. It is not focused on doing one thing, and doing it right. Instead open to bringing to market new technologies rapidly when they can Disrupt a market; and
- Google uses extensive White Space to test new solutions and learn what is needed in the product, distribution, pricing and promotion. Google gives new teams the permission and resources to investigate how to succeed – rather than following a predetermined path toward an internally set goal (like GM did with its failed electric car project).
Nobody today wants to be like GM. Struggling to turn around after falling into bankruptcy. To be like Google you need to quit following old ideas about focusing on your core and entry barriers – instead develop scenarios about the future, study competitors for early market insights, Disrupt your practices so you can do new things and test lots of ideas in White Space to find out what the market really wants so you can continue growing.
Don't forget to download the new, free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"
