Guy Kawasaki contacted me a couple of weeks ago, asking me to write a short piece for him. I was happy to do so, and he published it at the BusinessInsider.com War Room as "10 Ways to Stay Ahead of the Competition." Fortunately for me, the article was also picked up at IBMOpenForum.com with the alternate title "How to Stay Ahead of the Competition." Full explanations of each bullet are at both locations (although the graphics are outstanding at Business Insider so I prefer it.)
Develop future scenarios
Obsess about competitors
Study fringe competitors
Attack your Lock-ins
Seek Disruptions
Don't ask customers for insight
Avoid Cost Cutting
Do lots of testing
Acquire outside input
Target competitors
Blog followers know that this program has now worked for many companies who want to grow in this recession. The reason it works is because
You focus on the market, not yourself
You avoid Lock-in blindness by avoiding an over-focus on existing products, services and customers
You use outside input, from advisers and competitors to identify market shifts that can really hurt you
You put a competitive edge into everything you do. Competitors kill your returns, not yourself.
You use market feedback rather than internal analysis guide resource allocation
Of course this works. How can it not? When you are obsessed about markets and competitors and you let it direct your flow of money and talent you'll constantly be positioned to do what the market values. You'll have your eyes on the horizon, and not the rear view mirror.
The biggest objection is always my comment about "don't ask customers for insight." So many people have been indoctrinated into "always ask the customer" and "the customer is always right" that they can't imagine not asking customers what you ought to do. Even though the evidence is overwhelming that customer feedback is usually wrong, and more likely destructive than beneficial.
Just remember, IBMs best customers (data center managers) told them the PC was a stupid product, and IBM dropped the product line 6 years after inventing the PC business. DEC's customers kept asking for more bells and whistles on their CAD/CAM systems, then dropped DEC altogether for AutoCad ending the company. GM customers kept asking for bigger, faster more comfortable cars – improvements on previous models – then moved to imports with different designs, better gas mileage and better fit/finish. Circuit City customers asked for more in-store assistance, then took the assistance across the street to buy from cheaper Best Buy stores. The stories are legend of failed companies who delivered what the customer wanted, and ended up out of business.
Enjoy the links, and thanks to Guy for publishing this short piece. Follow these 10 steps and any business can stay ahead of the competition.
Google keeps on growing. While many companies bemoan revenue losses and poor results in 2008 and 2009, Google keeps new products flowing out the door and revenues continue to increase. New markets are being developed.
This Google revenue growth is powered by use of White Space, as CNN.com reported in "Gmail holds Graduations and Funerals." GMail labs is a White Space team that develops new applications and uses for Gmail. Its operating premise is that it should develop the products rapidly, then push into the market to get feedback. Then the team can determine what to modify and test further, what to push into the market as non-beta and what to kill. As recently demonstrated in the headlined behavior, Google is ready to keep some things and kill others based upon market feedback – not just what the internal people or analysts think.
"This isn't the first time Gmail Labs has graduated and killed some test
features since Gmail Labs started in June 2008, but the event does
underscore an idea that Google says is key to its success as an
innovative company: Let people create products they'd use themselves,
get those products out to the public as soon as possible, and make
consumers think it's OK for things to break."
""At Google, in general, the philosophy is to get things out quickly in
front of our users and not make huge promises," said Ari Leichtberg,
another Google engineer"
Nothing is more accurate than real market feedback, as readers of this blog have heard me say often. Scott Anthony of Innosight recently took up this mantra in a Harvard Business Review blog "How to Kill Innovation: Keep Asking Questions." He relates how a large company with a new idea kept asking "what if" questions about a new idea. Each piece of research led to more "what if" questions. With its massive resources, the company could keep asking and researching forever, never getting real market input and never getting the innovation to market.
In traditional companies, with a new product funnel and stage gate implementation process which can take years to run through, once something moves into the market the internal "champions" are so vested in the innovation they can't stand for it to fail. Far too often, if the innovation were to fail the champions would lose their jobs – or see their careers tank. Too much analysis causes too few ideas to make it to market, and causes the organization to overspend on the innovation that does. After launch market feedback is often ignored, or manipulated, to allow the innovation to be pushed harder and longer on the hopes that with "just a little more time and effort" it will succeed.
What keeps Google growing, and attracting top talent, is its willingness to use White Space. It is willing to develop ideas quickly and obtain real market feedback. Then decide what to keep, and what not to keep. Because it moves quickly, market input shapes the offering. Market input allows the company to see what people really use, and thus worthy of additional investment. Or what people don't use, and thus needs to be dropped before too much is sunk into the idea.
When Microsoft decided to add "clippy" to its products it was a herculean effort to install it across all products. This computerized help tool has had little use, and is often despised by users. Microsoft decided to create this feature based on almost no market input, instead relying on some customer focus groups. After making the enormous investment – in lieu of many other opportunities passed over internally – Microsoft simply became "married" to the innovation. Now "clippy" is still on the applications, but is almost never used. And it gives Microsoft's products no user advantage.
All companies can grow in 2010. You need to act more like Google. Develop early stage products quickly, and get them into White Space projects which will market test them. Don't spend too much time, money and effort "what iff-ing" or doing "market research" trying to predict future customer behavior. Listen carefully for market input, then modify. Have more than one opportunity in White Space, because you don't want to over-invest in any single idea that ran the internal gauntlet. Be ready to move forward quickly with things that work, and abandon those that don't. If you use give yourself permission to test new things in White Space, and resources, you too can grow in 2010 and climb out of this recession.
About 30 years ago Roberta Flack hit the top of the record charts (remember records anybody?) with "Killing Me Softly" – a love song. Today we have 2 examples of CEO's softly killing their shareholders, employees and investors. Definitely NOT a love song.
Sears has continued its slide, which began the day Chairman Lampert acquired the company and merged it with KMart. I blogged this was a bad idea day of announcement. Although there was much fanfare at the beginning, since day 1 Mr. Lampert has pursued an effort to Defend & Extend the outdated Sears Success Formula. And simultaneously Defend & Extend his outdated personal Success Formula based on leveraged financing and cost cutting. The result has been a dramatic reduction in Sears stores, a huge headcount reduction, lower sales per store, less merchandise available, fewer customers, empty parking lots, acres of unused real estate and horrible profits. Nothing good has happened. Nobody, not customers, suppliers or investors, have benefited from this strategy. Sears is almost irrelevant in the retail scene, a zombie most analysts are waiting to expire.
Today Crain's Chicago Business reported "Sears to Offer Diehard Power Accessories for Sale at Other Retailers." Sears results are so bad that Mr. Lampert has decided to try pushing these batteries, charges, etc. through another channel. At this late stage, all this will do is offer a few incremental initial sales – but reduce the appeal of Sears as a retailer – and eventually diminish the brand as its wide availability makes it compete head-to-head with much stronger auto battery brands like Energizer, Duralast, Optima and the heavily advertised Interstate. Sears has attempted to "milk" the Diehard brand for cash for many years, and placed in retail stores head-to-head with these other products it won't be long before Sears learns that its competitive position is weak as sales decline.
Mr. Lampert needed to "fix" Sears – not try to cut costs and drain it of cash. He needed to rebuild Sears as a viable competitor by rethinking its market position, obsessing about competitors and using Disruptions to figure out how Sears could compete with the likes of WalMart, Target, Kohl's, Home Depot, JC Penneys and other strong retailers. Now, his effort to further "milk" Diehard will quickly kill it – and make Sears an even less viable competitor.
Simultaneously, Chairperson Barnes at Sara Lee has likewise been destroying shareholder value, employee careers and supplier growth goals since taking over. During her tenure Sara Lee has sold buisinesses, cut headcount, killed almost all R&D and new product development, sold real estate and otherwise squandered away the company assets. Sara Lee is now smaller, but nobody – other than perhaps herself – has benefited from her extremely poor leadership.
As this business failure continues advancing, Crain's Chicago Business reports "Sara Lee to Spend $3B on Stock Buyback." In 2009 Sara Lee announced it was continuing the dismantling of the company by selling its body-care business to
Unilever and its air-freshener products and assets to Procter & Gamble Co. for approximately $2.2 billion. As an investor you'd like to hear all that money was being reinvested in a high growth business that would earn a significant rate of return while adding to the top line for another decade. As a supplier you'd like to hear this money would strengthen the financials, and help Sara Lee to invest in new products for growth that you could support. As an employee you'd like this money to go into new projects for revenue growth that could help your personal growth and career advancement.
But, instead, Ms. Barnes will use this money to buy company stock. This does nothing but put a short-term prop under a falling valuation. Like bamboo poles holding up a badly damaged brick wall. As investors flee, because there is no growth, low rates of return and no indication of a viable future, the money will be spent to prop up the price by buying shares from these very intelligent owner escapees. After a couple of years the money will be gone, Sara Lee will be smaller, and the shares will fall to their fair market value – no longer propped up by this corporate subsidy. The only possible winner from this will be Sara Lee executives, like Ms. Barnes, who probably have incentive compensation tied to stock price — rather than something worthwhile like organic revenue growth.
Both of these very highly paid CEOs are simply killing their business. Softly and quietly, as if they are doing something intelligent. Just because they are in powerful positions does not make them right. To the contrary, this is an abuse of their positions as they squander assets, and harm the suburban Chicago communities where they are headquartered. That their Boards of Directors are approving these decisions just goes to show how ineffective Boards are at looking out for the interests of shareholders, employees and suppliers – as they ratify the decisions of their friendly Chairperson/CEOs who put them in their Board positions. The Boards of Sears and Sara Lee are demonstrating all the governance skill of the Boards at Circuit City and GM.
It's too bad. Both companies could be viable competitors. But not as long as the leadership tries to Defend & Extend outdated Success Formulas unable to produce satisfactory rates of return. Lacking serious Disruption and White Space, these two publicly traded companies remain on the road to failure.
It's easy to misunderstand White Space. About twenty years ago Apple launched the Newton. The company sold about 375,000 of the first commercial PDAs, but Apple's leadership thought the market wasn't really there – and decided instead to focus on growing Mac sales. Obviously, as Palm and other PDA makers demonstrated, there was a tremendous market for PDAs. Apple misread the feedback from White Space.
Look now at the recent iPad launch. Silicon Alley Insider headlined "Now That They've Seen Apple's iPad, Most People Don't Want One." The headline keys on the fact that after the launch the number of people who said they were not interested to buy doubled (26% to 52%). Wrong fact to grab onto.
Instead, look at the fact that the number who said they would buy one tripled, from 3% to 9%. This is incredible, and should excite Apple's management as well as employees, suppliers and shareholders.
Most people will see a new, innovative product and say "why would I want that? I already have this other thing and it works great." And that is what marketers should expect. Most people are just trying to Defend & Extend what they regularly do, and thus all the want is a product that helps them do their thing a little easier, faster, better and cheaper. They want minor improvements – variations and derivatives of what they already have. Improvements that are immediate, without them doing anything new or different.
All new deeply innovative products start with customers who are under-served or unserved. And this is why it is so important they be launched in White Space. White Space teams aren't intended to develop the big, mass market of known customers looking for something new. White Space is about doing new things that bring in new customers, give new solutions that attract real growth. And White Space teams have to learn how the market is evolving, how they fit into the market shift and how their solution will advance the market in order to sell more.
For the iPad, the 3% to 9% shift in likely buyers is huge because it shows that the iPad is an offering that appeals to people who are not today well served by their existing PC, laptop, netbook, mobile phone, kindle or mix of these solutions. 9% of respondents are saying that they see the iPad and they see a solution for what they want to get done. And if 9% of potential buyers see this option, that is HUGE. By White Space standards, often there are only .5% or 1% or 2% of people who initially see how the new product fulfills their under-served needs.
Set expectations right for White Space. White Space is not for launching variation 4 of an existing product – targeted at existing customers. That's what the marketing and sales department can do fine, thank you very much. White Space is the team that finds the 3% (or in Apple's case 9%) of users that see value in this solution, then works with them to implement the product/solution in order to make sure it fulfills the market need and is priced to sell effectively while providing a profit to the company.
Apple understands this, you can be assured. Look at how successfully the Apple White Space teams found the underserved users that jumped all over the iPod and iTunes, the iTouch and then the iPhone. They got the product positioned and selling in a hurry. And now that Apple has that skill, the company is going to apply it to the iPad. If you understand this chart correctly, you understand that it bodes very, very good things for Apple.
And it tells you the importance of having White Space teams, setting their expectations correctly, and managing them for the kind of results that can turn your organization into the next Apple. It took Apple 10 years to reach this skill level. It did not happen overnight. Or with one product introduction. And it will take your organization a few years to build this skill. So, what are you waiting on?
Lots of new things are happening with technology. Everyone knows that. We see the emergence of new communication vehicles like Facebook, and new ways to exchange data – like Apple's iPhone and RIM's Blackberry. Skype replaces the telephone and in-person meetings. iTunes replaced CDs. The list is pretty long. But how much of these new technologies do you use regularly, how many do you use in your business, and how many do you use in "mission critical" applications of things you do?
Most of us watch new markets develop. Many even think the smart thing to do is to wait, let things evolve, see what happens. Be a late adopter when technology is "stabilized" and prices are lower. These are spectators to the world of innovation, doing what they've always done and waiting for some future time when it will seem better to switch.
Then there are participants. The participants are learning. While others watch, they actually learn how to get new customers, how to sell more product, how to apply technology to lower cost while improving the solution, how to be more competitive, how to read market shifts (and prepare) – how to make more money. Like Google.
Google just launched Buzz ("Google Betting on Mo Better Buzz" at Mediapost.com. Buzz is a new product that links up to social media sites for a variety of functions – one of which is its ability to deliver ads (imagine that) while also adding benefits to users like location tagging and enhancing email. It does new things, and some things already available via Facebook or Yelp. That it's market position, or even its functional position in the technology environment, isn't clear is not terribly important to Google management. In "A Buzz and A Shrug: Why Should Google Kill Anything?" MediaPost.com goes on to describe that at the launch meeting management went out of its way refusing to declare a specific position, or competitive plan, for Buzz.Google is in the market, trying something, learning and participating – being part of making Disruptions happen and seeing if it can find a way to create sales and profits.
And that's what White Space, and participation, is all about. While spectators watch and get left behind, participants are in the market. Spectators fall off the S-curve, as their capabilities fall away from market needs they become less relevant, sell less and profits fall. Participants use White Space to jump the curve – to move from an old product/market S curve to a new one. They are in the market learning, and adapting, and moving toward that point where the technologies and solutions collide – thus they are ready and able to move to the next new thing. While spectators are stuck, doing the same old thing, falling farther behind.
Being a participant isn't hard, nor is it all that expensive. It requires the willingness to get in the game. To start. To do less "planning" and instead get in there and do it – like the NIke ad recommends. Instead of devoting all your money to defending and extending what you know, take some and invest in the places where growth is rampant. The learning will pay for itself as it allows your business to move into new markets and generate new revenues. You will have to Disrupt your thinking and processes to do this, but the payoff is it could save your company!
Long ago business education started with a lot of focus on industrial engineering. Improving operations to get more stuff out the door. This was augmented by sales and marketing, to help sell stuff so we could get more out the door. And finance was added as a way to understand cash flow and funding in order to get more stuff out the door. All of that was predicated on endless demand for the stuff. But today, it's not about making lots of your stuff and cramming it down customer throats. Instead, winners have to be adaptable to market needs – to be part of creating new solutions that generate more revenues and higher profit rates.
You don't need all the answers. White Space is about having a plan, and goals, based upon scenarios. But then avoiding analytical paralysis and getting into the market. Google is phenomenal at this. Not everything Google launches is a big hit. Google Wave appears to be struggling. But that's OK. If you don't put all your eggs in one basket, because you get into markets earlier and faster, you can afford to have misses. You still get the benefits of market learning – and move forward to possibly jumping the next S curve. Google's Buzz is another stereotypical White Space entry into the market. A product with a lot of possibilities, looking for how to fit into a quickly shifting market, teaching Google more about the marketplace and aiding the company toward maintaining its torrid growth pace.
Sustaining growth is really hard. Consulting firm Bain & Company just published the statistic that only 12% of companies were able to grow revenues and profits more than 5.5% from 1998 to 2008 (read more in the Harvard Business Review downloadable book excerpt Profit from the Core.) Given that all companies want to grow, it seems remarkable so many stall.
But while most managers blame lack of growth on the economy, truth is we can learn a lot from those who DID sustain growth. What doesn't work, and what does, can be found by starting with a great OpEd column about Microsoft published in The New York Times "Microsoft's Creative Destruction." Former Microsoft Vice President Dick Brass provides insight to why Microsoft has become a market laggard in new products – despite enormous revenues, profits and new product development spending. Calling Microsoft "a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator," he says products are "lampooned" and the company is "failing." Harsh words.
He points out that profits are almost entirely from legacy products Windows and Office. "Microsoft has lost share in Web browsers, high-end laptops and smartphones. Despite billions in investment, its Xbox line is still at best an equal contender in the game console business." He explains how internal managers set up false hurdles, often claiming quality was the primary issue, for ClearType and a tablet PC. He claims the internal executives "sabotaged" new projects and he blames inability to meet market needs on "internecine warfare."
But all of that could be said about Apple as well. It once was just like Microsoft. In the 1990s Apple stopped everything but new Macs from making it to market. Remember that the first PDA (personal digital assistant) was Apole's Newton? Killing that product became a priority for several Apple executives, and caused the ouster of then CEO John Scully
So the Microsoft described behaviors can happen anyplace. When organizations begin to focus on Defending & Extending their "core" business it leads to hurdles and growth stalls. "Operational improvements" leads to "focusing" on doing what the business always did, perhaps just a touch better (like a next generation operating system [Vista], or a new variation on Office [2007].) The culture, decision-making processes and operating cost model all are geared to doing more of the same. Without intending any downside, in fact in pursuit of improved competitiveness in the "core" products, the business begins erecting hurdles to doing anything new, or different.
This problem isn't limited to Microsoft Although we can clearly see the impact and feel pessimistic about Microsoft's future. It has afflicted many companies, and is why they cannot adjust to market shifts. Even if loaded with executives and enormous budgets for R&D, technology or marketing. Don't forget how Apple looked even worse than Microsoft in 2000.
And that's why so few companies maintain growth. The desire to do more, better, faster, cheaper of what we've always done is overwhelming. Defending & Extending the existing business always looks marginally better, and marginally less risky, than doing something new, or different. In trying to maintain growth by getting better at what you've always done – you kill it.
Why? Because Defend & Extend management does not take account of market shifts. New products, new competitors, new technologies, new business models, new customer approaches — the list is endless of variations which competitors bring to the marketplace. And these variations change the market. Trying to stay on the same course becomes suicide when customers begin moving on.
And that's where Apple has excelled. When Steve Jobs took over he quit trying to Defend & Extend the Mac platform. To the contrary, he reduced the number of Mac models. Instead of planning based on old market share and sales, he pushed a rigorous scenario planning exercise to create a robust view of future markets – and what needs customers would like solved. He then led Apple to study competitors, both in-kind and on the fringe, to identify new markets being developed and new solutions being tested. He then Disrupted Apple – by cutting the Mac platforms and investing heavily in other market opportunities like music (iPod and iTunes). And he encouraged product managers to rush new products to market in order to obtain market feedback, using White Space teams to rapidly learn what would sell. And he repeated this again and again, agreeing to a joint development project with Motorola before entering into mobile phone testing and launch (iPhone.)
Microsoft's proclivity toward D&E management is putting its future at grave risk. All signs are it will become another fateful, negative statistic. But it doesn't have to be that way. Microsoft can learn a lesson from its resurrected competitor and follow The Phoenix Principle. It can escape from xBox, and other new product, second-tier status if it will get a lot more robust about scenario planning, quit acting like the only game in town and start obsessing about competition. Disrupt its culture and decision making, and start using White Space to rapidly get new products in the market and learn how to match them with market needs to succeed!
We all love awards and lists. Who doesn't like being rewarded for their accomplishments. At the same time, we have acquired a strong taste for lists "The best…" Another verification of success. But both can be harbingers of potential problems – and even destruction.
Ben Bernanke became Time magazine's "Man of the Year" and now he's at some risk of losing his job (see 24/7WallStreet.com "In Not Bernanke, Who?" Think about the list of Great Companies that appear in books, like Good to Great, only to end up in big trouble – like Circuit City and Fannie Mae. Why does it seem those who top awards and lists end up shortly struggling?
Too often businesses, and business people, "win" by doing more of the same. They work hard to optimize their Success Formula. They get really committed to practicing what they do (remember Outliers by Malcolm Glaldwell and his recommendation to practice, practice, practice?) They get better and better. And in fields like sports and music, where the rules are well understood and the approach is clear, this often works. And as long as they keep practicing top athletes and musicians often remain near the top of competitors.
But we have to recognize that most of the time those "at the top" in business have emerged within a given market. Then they are knocked off by a shift. Like Ed Zander of Motorola being named #1 CEO in 2004, only to be fired within 2 years as RAZR sales toppled. Like Sun Microsystems perfecting Unix servers for an emerging client/server technology market that became saturated and shifted to PC servers. Like Michael Dell (and Dell Corporation) which emerged when lower cost made supply chain efficiencies critical for PCs, before the PC market became saturated and iPhones plus Blackberries started dominating the landscape. Or WalMart which also used a new supply chain to grow the emerging discount retailing sector, only now it is laying off 10,000 employees as it shuts Sam's stores across the country. These companies created a Success Formula and honed it quarter after quarter to maximize performance in a high growth environment. But the market shifted.
In business the rules are not "set". There is no written music to
perform. Instead, the market is highly dynamic. New competitors
emerge, new ways of competing emerge, new technologies emerge and new
solutions emerge. The market keeps changing. Suddenly, what worked last year isn't successful any more. When the market shifts, the previous winner becomes the new goat. That optimized business starts to look like the world's best wrestler, only to be obsolete when a flood occurs making swimming the new, necessary skill. Being last year's best is impossible to repeat because the market shift makes the old approach less valuable – possibly obsolete.
"Best practices" are usually little more than copying last year's list topper. In the 1990s everyone wanted to copy product development practices at Sun, and supply chain practices at Dell. But both led to horrible returns when demand for servers and PCs diminished. Best practices are almost guaranteed to be a solution developed to late, and applied even later, to solve previous years' problems. They aren't forward looking, and not designed to meet the needs 2 years into the future.
Business success isn't about topping a list. And, to a great degree, the Outlier approach (as is a hedgehog concept) is very risky. If you spend 10,000 hours doing something, only to see the value for that something go away, what good was it? Remember when Cobol writers were in demand? Being the world's best at something in business can cause you to be optimized on the past and inflexible to market change.
Business success requires adaptability. And that requires a focus on future markets. It requires the ability to constantly Disrupt your approach, to build capability in many different areas and markets. It requires skill at establishing and operating White Space projects to learn about new markets and shifts – the ability to know how to test and then understand the results of those tests. In business adaptability trumps optimization, because you can be sure that things will change – markets will shift – and the highly optimized find themselves behind the shift and struggling.
Most people misunderstand evolution. They think that changes happen slowly. Imagine an animal with a 12 inch tail. Every generation or so it's imagined that the tail gets a little shorter, then a little shorter, then a little shorter until after some very long time it simply disappears. But that's not at all how evolution works.
Instead, most of the animals have a long tail. Some small number of animals are born each year with very short or no tails. For the most part, this matters little. If the tail is valuable – say for warding off parasites – those without tails may suffer and die off quickly. And that's the way things are, largely unchanged, for decades. But then, something happens in the environment. Perhaps the emergence of a predator able to catch these animals by the tail and hold them in place to let the pack kill it. Within one generation almost all of the tailed animals are killed by the predator, and only the no-tail animals survive. Some of these have developed an immunity to the parasite. So then this "evolved" animal becomes dominant. No-tail animals replace the tailed animals. That's how evolution really works. It happens fast, with drastic change (and this time of change is referred to as a punctuated equilibrium.)
Once we know how evolution really works, we can start to better understand business competition. A Success Formula works for a really long time, until something changes in the marketplace. Suddenly, the old Success Formula has far poorer results. And a replacement takes over.
Consider newspapers. They played a very important role in society for at least 100 years (maybe 200 or 300 hundred years.) But with the advent of the internet, their role is no longer viable. Printing and delivering a daily paper is too expensive for the value it can provide. So think of newspapers as the long-tail animal. And digital news delivery is a short-tail animal. The internet is the attack pack that kills the newspapers. And within short order, the world is a different place – in a new equilibrium. And everything about the surrounding environment is shifted. Regardless of how much you enjoyed newspapers, they simply cannot compete and new competitors are a better fit in the new marketplace.
Now consider Netflix. Netflix played a major influence in obsoleting traditional movie rental shops – like Blockbuster. Netflix was a winner. But markets – new attack packs – keep emerging. And the latest shift are products like the Kindle and Apple Tablet (as well as other tablet PCs.) These products make Hulu and YouTube a lot more viable. Suddenly, Netflix is the long-tail animal, and the short-tail animals are doing relatively better.
According to The Wall Street Journal, in "Apple Sees New Money in Old Media" Apple is close to a deal with several newspapers to deliver their content to readers via their internet device. They also are negotiating rights to deliver movies and television (small format) entertainment. Simultaneously, Amazon keeps marching forward as MediaPost.com reports in "Take That Apple: Kindle Introduces Apps." We see that there are a LOT of potential different versions of the short-tail animal. Tablets, phones, netbooks, etc. Which will be the biggest winners? Not clear. But what is clear is that the old long-tail competitors (newspapers, print magazines, network television, traditional PCs) are not going to flourish as they once did. The market has permanently shifted. Those competitors are in the back end of their lifecycle.
Simultaneously, this market shift causes ripple effects through the environment. The market shift affects ALL players – not just the one most visibly being attacked. So, as SiliconBeat.com reports in "Looks Like Netflix is Dead, Again" this change suddenly imperils Netflix which has mostly counted on postal delivery rather than digital. And it provides a boost to short-tail players like Hulu and YouTube which could see much larger revenue given their digital-based delivery models.
And this affects you. What do you print, or say, that could be better handled on a mobile device? Could you deliver user instructions via an iPhone or Kindle app? If so, why aren't you doing it? Are you still working on traditional web pages, with embedded text in graphics that can't be seen by a mobile phone, when most people are likely to find you first on their mobile device? Are you busy working on your web site, while ignoring having a Linked-in or Facebook account? Are you advertising on television, or in newspapers, and ignoring Facebook ads – or YouTube links? Do you have a YouTube channel with short clips to instruct users on your product, or how to install an upgrade, or even why to buy? Are you still competing with a long tail, while the pack is rapidly killing off the long-tail species?
Market shifts are happening fast today. If you don't react, you just may find yourself deep into the pack with declining results. Or you can shift with the market to keep your business competitive.
Over the last week everyone has heard stories about how Facebook, and Twitter, became primary communication conduits for people with connections in Haiti. Telephone and slower communication vehicles simply have not been able to connect family and friends in this crisis like Facebook. When shift happens, it accelerates as new uses come to the forefront quickly. For everyone trying to connect with employment candidates, suppliers and customers this shift has immediate and important impact on behavior.
For advertisers, the impact is significant. Where should ad dollars be placed? On a traditional home page and search site – like Yahoo! – or on Facebook?
And it's not just the sites themselves, but how long people are on these sites. From an advertising point of view, you can start to think about Facebook – and YouTube – almost like a "channel" from early television days. Where the audience comes back again and again – offering you not only a large audience, but more opportunities to reach them more often. Facebook and YouTube are beginning to dominate the "user views."
Of course, the impact isn't just regarding the web, but how any business would use media to reach a target audience. Most advertising agencies, and ad people, are still focused on traditional media. But, as we can see, that WILL shift — even more than it traditionally has.
Anybody investing in newspapers, expecting a resurgence in value, is pretty foolish. Newspapers are going to lose ad dollars – not gain. Relatively, newspapers already are getting too much of the ad spend. Talk radio has growth. And clearly the web. Since we can expect that newspaper and magazine readership will continue recent downward trends, and television is fragmenting as well as stalling, the big growth is on the internet.
The market shift is really pretty clear. We aren't speculating about the market direction with this data. The question becomes, will you be an early adopter of these new media channels or not? Given that the web and mobile have the lowest ad rates of all media, why wouldn't you? Over the last 2 months Pepsi has decided to NOT advertise on the Super Bowl, instead putting the money into social media. And after introducing the Granite Concept car at the Detroit auto show, even behind-the-times GM is now considering a launch of this vehicle, intended for buyers under 35, using only web advertising.
So what are your plans? Do you have scenarios where Facebook and YouTube are integral to your marketing? Do you have pages, groups and channels on these sites? Do you post content? Are you using them to interact with potential customers, vendors and employees? If not – what are you waiting on? Do you need a Disruption to create some White Space and get started? If so – isn't it time to get going?
Many people think the best way to grow is by setting big goals – even Big Audacious Hairy Goals (BHAGs). But increasingly we're learning that goal setting is not correlated with success. At AmericanPublicRadio.org there's a partial text, and MP3 download, of a recent interview between General Motors leaders and a University of Arizona Professor titled "It's not always good to create goals."
The story relates how about a decade a go, with market share hovering at 25%, GM set the goal of moving back to 29%. It became a huge, multi-year campaign. Lapel pins with "29" were made and all kinds of motivational programs were put in place. The GM organization had its goal, and it was highly aligned to the goal. But it didn't happen. Despite the goal, and all the energy and talent put into focusing on the goal, GM continued to struggle, lose share – and eventually file bankruptcy. The goal made no difference.
Worse, the interview goes on to discuss how goals often lead to decidedly undesirable, sometimes unethical – even illegal – behavior. Instances are cited where goal obsession led company employees to falsify documents, even ship bricks in place of products to meet sales targets. No executive wants this, but goals and goal obsession – especially when there is a lot of reinforcement socially and monetarily on the goal – can become a serious problem.
Results are exactly that. Results. They are an outcome. They are the way we track our behaviors and activities – our decisions. When we focus on goals – usually some sort of result – we lose track of what is important. We have to focus on what we do. And for most organizations a big goal merely leads people to try working harder, faster,better, cheaper. But when the Success Formula is mis-aligned with the market – even when the whole organization is aligned on maximizing the Success Formula results will still struggle – even falter. Goals don't help you fix a Success Formula returning poor results. Just look at GM.
In fact, it can make matters worse. In "White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts" (available on Amazon.com) the authors point out that when you try to turn a negative (a problem) into a positive (a challenge, or goal), you often achieve a rebound effect making people obsess about the problem. Tell somebody not to think about a white bear – and it's all they think about. When your company has a problem and you try to tell employees "hey, don't think about the problem. Go do your job. Work harder, increase your focus, and all will work out. Sure share is down, but don't think about lost share, instead think about the goal of higher market share" frequently the employees will start to become obsessive about the problem. It will reinforce doing more of the same – perhaps manicly. Instead of becoming innovative and doing something new, obsessive devotion to trying to make the old methods produce better results becomes the norm. Goals don't produce innovation – they produce repetition.
So what should you do when facing a problem? Disruptions. GM didn't need a big goal. GM needed to Disrupt its broken Success Formula. GM needed to attack a Lock-in (or two). GM leaders needed to admit the market had shifted, and that competitors were changing the game. GM needed to recognize, admit and encourage employees to engage in attacking old assumptions – and recognize that market share would continue eroding if they didn't do things differently. Setting a big goal reinforced the old Lock-ins and even an aligned organization – working it's metaphorical tail off – couldn't make the outdated Success Formula produce positive results.
Only a Disruption would have helped save GM. After attacking some Lock-ins, like the desire to move all customers to bigger and more expensive cars, or the desire to focus on long production runs, GM should have set up White Space teams to discover new Success Formulas. Instead of putting all its management energy and money into growing volume at Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GM nameplates, General Motors leadership should have revitalized the innovative Saturn and Saab to do new things – to develop new approaches that would be more competitive. Instead of pushing Hummer to have 3 identical cars in 3 sizes, GM leadership should have unleashed Hummer to explore the market for truly unique, limited production vehicles. GM should have allowed Pontiac to really take advantage of the design breakthroughs happening at the Australian design studio – to change the nameplate into a performance car segment leader. By attacking Lock-ins, Disrupting, and using White Space GM really could have turned around. Instead, by creating a BHAG GM reinforced its focus on its Hedgehog concept – and drove the company into bankruptcy.
