by Adam Hartung | May 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Gannett to shut down print version of Tucson newspaper" is the latest headline. Yet another newspaper either cutting staff, cutting content, cutting print days, or stopping printing altogether. That this would happen isn't really surprising. Even Warren Buffett recently said he didn't see any way newspapers could make money. (Yet, according to Marketwatch Berkshire Hathaway still owns shares in Gannett – primarily a newspaper company.)
What's surprising is that Gannett isn't doing anything to change the company. A quick visit to www.Gannett.com and you'll learn that the company has almost no on-line business. They company's profile says that it's online business consists of a 50% ownership in CareerBuilder.com and Shoplocal. That's it. No financial news site, no social networking site, no food site, no sites dedicated to the TV stations owned by Gannett, or the newspapers owned by Gannett. A visit to the page dedicated to the Gannett online network is actually a page where you can ask for a salesperson to call you for placing an ad on USAToday.com.
Everyone today has to deal with market shifts. Everyone. The newspapers are in a position where their very survival depends upon making a shift. This isn't new. It's been clear for several months – and for those in the media actually well known for a few years. So why hasn't Gannett done anything to reposition its business? Over the last year equity value has declined 85% – some $6Billion of lost value. Since June, 2007 the equity value has dropped from $60/share to $4/share (a loss of some $10Billion in value) [see chart here].
Leadership should not be allowed to behave like the lonely deer, caught on a rural road in the evening. The proverbial animal caught staring into the headlights of the car speeding directly at it – and sudden death. Leadership's job is to react to market changes in order to keep the business viable. Gannett has succumbed to Lock-in – unwilling to take actions necessary to keep its customers (advertisers and readers) engaged. Unwilling to help employees mobilize toward a new future, and help vendors identify growth opportunities. By simply doing more of what the company has always done, leadership is dooming the investors to lose their money, and their employees their jobs and pensions.
Everybody knows that the future for newspapers is bleak. All of us will face these sorts of market shifts in our careers. Doing nothing is not an option. Leadership must engage the workforce in open dialogue about what the future holds, taking great pains to discuss competitors and how they are changing the market. And leadership is responsible to Disrupt the Lock-ins, attacking them, so that new ideas can be brought forward and new investments can be made in White Space where the company can grow and migrate to a new Success Formula.
If somebody steals $100 that's a crime. But if you lose $10Billion in market value that's not. When market shifts are as obvious as those in newspapers, and management doesn't take action to reposition the company and engage employees in transition, not taking action seems criminal. No wonder shareholders file class action lawsuits.
by Adam Hartung | May 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
"Chrysler delivers the bad news to 789 dealers" was yesterday's headline. Today the headline read "GM notifies dealers of shutdowns" as the company sent 1,100 dealers the notice they would no longer be allowed to stay in business. Thousands are losing jobs. Chrysler is bankrupt, and GM looks destined to file shortly. But wait a minute, GM was the market share leader for the last 50 years!! These big companies, in manufacturing, were supposed to be able to protect their business and become "cash cows." They weren't supposed to get beaten up, see their cash sucked away and end up with nothing!
About 30 years ago a fairly small management consultancy that was started as a group to advise a bank's clients hit upon an idea that skyrcketed its popularity. The fledgling firm was The Boston Consulting Group, and its idea was the Growth/Share matrix. It created many millions of dollars in fees over the years, and is now a staple in textbooks on strategic planning. Unfortunately, like a lot of business ideas from that era, we're learning from companies like GM and Chrysler that it doesn't work so well.
The idea was simple. Growth markets are easier to compete in because people throw money at the companies – either via sales or investment. So it's easier to make money in growing businesses. Market share was considered a metric for market power. If you have high share, you supposedly could pretty much dictate prices. High share meant you were the biggest, which supposedly meant you had the biggest assets (plant, etc.) and thus you had the lowest cost. So, low growth and low share meant your business was a dog. High growth and low share was a question mark – maybe you'd make money if you eventually get high share. High growth and high share was a star. And low growth but high share is a cash cow because you could dominate a business using your market clout to print money – or in the venacular of the matix – milk the money from this cow into which you put very little feed.
In the 1970s/80s, looking at the industrial era, this wasn't a bad chart. Especially in asset intensive businesses that had what were then called "scale advantages." In the industrial world, having big plants with lots of volume was interpreted as the way to being a low-cost company. Of course, this assumed most cost was tied up in plant and equipment – rather than inventory, people, computers, advertising, PR, viral marketing, etc. The first part of the matrix has held up pretty well; the last part hasn't. We now know that it's easier to make money in growth. But it doesn't turn out that share really gives you all that much power nor does it have a big determination in profitability.
We know that having share is no defense of profits. The assumption about entry barriers keeping competitors at bay, and thus creating a "defensive moat" around profits, is simply not true. Today, companies build "scale" facilities overnight. They obtain operating knowledge by hiring competitor employees, or simply obtaining the "best practices" from the internet. Distribution systems are copied with third party vendors and web sites. Even advertising scale can be obtained with aggressive web marketing at low cost. And so many facilities are "scale" in size that overcapacity abounds – meaning the competitor with no capacity (using outsourced manufacturing) can be the "low cost" competitor (like Dell.).
Thus, all markets are overrun with competitors that drive down profits any time growth slows. As GM learned, even with more than 50% share (which they once had) they could not stop competitors from differentiating and effectively competing. Not even Chrysler, with the backing of Mercedes, could maintain its share and profits against far less well healed competitors. When growth slows, the cash disappears into the competitive battles of the remaining players. Unfortunately, even new players enter the market just when you'd think everyone would run for the hills (look at Tata Motors launching itself these days wtih the Nano). Competitors never run out of new ideas for trying to compete – even when there's no growth – so they keep hammering away at the declining returns of once dominant players until they can no longer survive.
Competition exists in all businesses except monopolies, and threatens returns of even those with highest share. Today it might be easy to say that Google cannot be challenged. That is short-sighted. People said that about Microsoft 20 years ago – and today between Apple, Linux and Google Microsoft's revenue growth is plummeting and the company is unable to produce historical results. People once said Sears could not be challenged in retailing. Kodak in amateur photography. And GM in cars. Competitors don't quit when growth slows – until they go bankrupt – and even then they don't quit (again, look at Chrysler). High share is no protection against competition.
And thus, there is no "easy cash in the cow" to be milked. It all gets spent fighting to stay alive. Trying to protect share by cutting price, paying for distribution, advertising. And if you don't spend it, you simply vanish. Really fast. Like Lehman Brothers. Or Bennigans.
The only way to make money, long term, is to keep growing. To keep growing you have to move into new markets, new technologies, new services – in other words you have to keep moving with the marketplace. And that produces success more than anything else. It's all about growth. Forget about trying to have the "cash cow" – it's like the unicorn – it never existed and it never will.
by Adam Hartung | May 13, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
"Invest in America – but Savings Bonds." I grew up seeing those signs. Of course, I'm over 50. They came from the World War era, when America asked people to buy "war bonds" to pay for involvement. At the time, pre-Bretton Woods, America was still on a gold standard. The country couldn't tust print all the money it wanted. To pay for war goods, Americans were asked to buy bonds. Not for the rate of return – nor even for the eventual gain on principle. It was pure patriotism. Buy bonds to pay for the war. As the clock turned, this patriotic thinking migrated to buying government bonds to help pay for highways, bridges, dams and other projects to help grow America.
I was reminded of this when I saw the Marketwatch.com headline "Ford raises $1.4billion in stock offering". I thought to myself, why would anyone on earth buy newly issued shares in Ford? It's hard to conceive of buying shares in the company as it exists, what with its very long history of weak profits, tepid product lines, limited innovation and lack of attachment to market trends. But to give the company new money, in form of equity with guarantee of a return on or of your principle…. Why that is simply befuddling. This money is not intended to go for new products or improving the company's links to customers. Rather, it all is intended to pay for part of a health care trust that might assuage growing total labor costs. Sort of like paying for part of a clean up on a previous toxic spill. Not something that makes money.
Ford is a company in the Whirlpool. It's odds of surviving are low. It's odds of making high rates of return and being globally competitive are almost nonexistent. Ford wants people to help management defend its past actions – which won't even extend past horrible perfornce – much less improve it. None of this mone is for White Space to do anything new. There is nothing in this offering to make you think Ford will ever be able to repay your investment – or even ever pay a dividend on it.
So I was left thinking that I guess you could buy this offering because you are patriotic. Sort of "Defend America by Defending Ford" and it's management ability to keep running a company that doesn't meet customer, investor or employee expectations. Henry Ford advanced civilization with his ideas for automation and how he applied them at his company – so we need to keep his namesake company alive, I guess (and conveniently forget he was opposed to civil rights, opposed to women's rights and opposed to all forms of organized labor.) And perhaps you want to invest in defending & extending America's involvement in auto production – even though we have a long history of being #1 in making something before exiting it - like shipbuilding, steelmaking and television set production. And maybe you just feel like its your duty to give money to Ford because it represents a great American brand – like RCA, Woolworth's, Studebaker and Hotpoint once did.
Or we can realize this is simply an investment intended to keep Ford alive for another year or two. A form of corporate life support hoping something new comes along to save the patient. For most of us, we're better off with the mattress. There are pension funds out there that receive cash quarter after quarter. They are always looking for investments. Some have billions of newly arrived dollars to invest. And for many, investing that money is done by "rules" rather than analysis. They have to invest x% in equities, and that's allocated Y% and Z% and A% into specific categories. And they will probably buy these shares, after their fund managers have some greatly expensive steak dinnbrs courtesy of the underwriters. Unfortunately, that doesn't make our pensions funds any healthier – but we have little or nothing we can do to affect those decisions.
Keep your money in companies that have White Space. Companies that don't fear Disruption in order to keep themselves aligned with market shifts. Invest in companies that talk about the future, and how their new products will open new opportunities for their customers to accomplish new things. Pay attention to those with long track records of above-average performance – like Google, Apple, Cisco – or Nike, GE and Johnson & Johnson. Invest in the Disruptors that are going to grow the new economy, not those hoping to suck off its benefits with no innovation or other contribution. That will more likely get your 401K back where you want it.
PS – for regular readers – I opologize for being offline without comments for a few days. Computer gremlins attacked me and it's been a struggle to regain control of the machine. Hopefully I'm back on track.
by Adam Hartung | May 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Good public policy and good management don't always align. And the banking crisis is a good example. We now hear "Banks must raise $75billion" if they are to be prepared for ongoing write-downs in a struggling economy. This is after all the billions already loaned to keep them afloat the last year.
But the bankers are claiming they will have no problem raising this money as reported in "The rush to raise Capital." "AIG narrows loss" tells how one of the primary contributors to the banking crisis now thinks it will survive. And as a result of this news, "Bank shares largely higher" is another headline reporting how financial stocks surged today post-announcements.
So regulators are feeling better. They won't have to pony up as much money as they might have. And politicians feel better, hoping that the bank crisis is over. And a lot of businesses feel better, hearing that the banks which they've long worked with, and are important to their operations, won't be going under. Generally, this is all considered good news. Especially for those worried about how a soft economy was teetering on the brink of getting even worse.
But the problem is we've just extended the life of some pretty seriously ill patients that will probably continue their bad practices. The bail out probably saved America, and the world, from an economic calamity that would have pushed millions more into unemployment and exacerbated falling asset values. A global "Great Depression II" would have plunged millions of working poor into horrible circumstances, and dramatically damaged the ability of many blue and white collar workers in developed countries to maintain their homes. It would have been a calamity.
But this all happened because of bad practices on the part of most of these financial institutions. They pushed their Success Formulas beyond their capabilities, causing failure. Only because of the bailout were these organizations, and their unhealthy Success Formulas saved. And that sows the seeds of the next problem. In evolution, when your Success Formula fails due to an environomental shift you are wiped out. To be replaced by a stronger, more adaptable and better suited competitor. Thus, evolution allows those who are best suited to thrive while weeding out the less well suited. But, the bailout just kept a set of very weak competitors alive – disallowing a change to stronger and better competitors.
These bailed out banks will continue forward mostly as they behaved in the past. And thus we can expect them to continue to do poorly at servicing "main street" while trying to create risk pass through products that largely create fees rather than economic growth. These banks that led the economic plunge are now repositioned to be ongoing leaders. Which almost assures a continuing weak economy. Newly "saved" from failure, they will Defend & Extend their old Success Formula in the name of "conservative management" when in fact they will perpetuate the behavior that put money into the wrong places and kept money from where it would be most productive.
Free market economists have long discussed how markets have no "brakes". They move to excess before violently reacting. Like a swing that goes all one direction until violently turning the opposite direction. Leaving those at the top and bottom with very upset stomachs and dramatic vertigo. The only way to avert the excessive tops is market intervention – which is what the government bail-out was. It intervened in a process that would have wiped out most of the largest U.S. banks. But, in the wake of that intervention we're left with, well, those same U.S. banks. And mostly the same leaders.
What's needed now are Disruptions inside these banks which will force a change in their Success Formula. This includes leadership changes, like the ousting of Bank of America's Chairman/CEO. But it takes more than changing one man, and more than one bank. It takes Disruption across the industry which will force it to change. Force it to open White Space in which it redefines the Success Formula to meet the needs of a shifted market – which almost pushed them over the edge – before those same shifts do crush the banks and the economy.
And that is now going to be up to the regulators. The poor Secretary of Treasury is already eyeball deep in complaints about his policies and practices. I'm sure he'd love to stand back and avoid more controversy. But, unless the regulatory apparatus now pushes those leading these banks to behave differently, to Disrupt and implement White Space to redefine their value for a changed marketplace, we can expect a protracted period of bickering and very weak returns for these banks. We can expect them to walk a line of ups and downs, but with returns that overall are neutral to declining. And that they will stand in the way of newer competitors who have a better approach to global banking from taking the lead.
So, if you didn't like government intervention to save the banks – you're really going to hate the government intervention intended to change how they operate. If you are glad the government intervened, then you'll find yourself arguing about why the regulators are just doing what they must do in order to get the banks, and the economy, operating the way it needs to in a shifted, information age.
by Adam Hartung | May 4, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
Today Yahoo.com picked up on Mr. Buffett's recent comments, with the home page lead saying "Buffett's Gloomy Advice." The article quotes Buffett as saying newspapers are one business he wouldn't buy at any price. Even though he's a reader, and he owns a big chunk of the Washington Post Company (in addition to the Buffalo, NY daily), he now agrees there are plenty of other places to acquire news – and for advertisers to promote.
I guess the topic is very timely given the Marketwatch.com headline "N.Y. Times hold off on threat to close Boston Globe". Once again, in what might remind us of an airline negotiation, the owner felt it was up to concessions by the workers, via their union, if the newspaper was to remain in business. After squeezing $20million out of the workers, the owners agreed not to proceed with a shutdown – today. But they still have not addressed how a newspaper that is losing $85million/year intends to survive. With ad revenue plunging over 30% in the first quarter, and readership down another 7% in newspapers nationally, union concessions won't save The Boston Globe. It takes something that will generate growth.
And perhaps that innovation was also prominent in today's news. "Amazon expected to lift wraps on large-screen Kindle" was another Marketwatch headline. Figuring some people will only read a magazine or newspaper in a large format, the new Kindle will allow for easier full page browsing. According to the article, the New York Times company has said it will be a partner in providing content for the new Kindle.
Let's hope the New York Times does become a full partner in this project. People want news. And the only way The Boston Globe and New York Times will survive is if they find an alternative go-to-market approach. Printing newspapers, with its obvious costs in paper and distribution, is simply no longer viable. Trying to defend & extend an old business model dedicated to that approach will only bankrupt the company, as it already has bankrupted Tribune Company and several other "media companies." The market has shifted, and D&E practices like cost cutting will not make the organizations viable.
It's pretty obvious that the future is about on-line media distribution. We've already crossed the threshold, and competitors (like Marketwatch.com and HuffingtonPost.com) that live in the on-line world are growing fast plus making profits. What NYT now needs to do is Disrupt its Lock-ins to that old model, and plunge itself into White Space. I'm not sure that an oversized Kindle is the answer; there are a lot of other products that can deliver news digitally. But if that's what it takes to get a major journalistic organization to consider switching from analog, physical product to digital on-line distribution as its primary business I'm all for the advancement. Those who compete in White Space are the ones who learn, adapt, and grow. Being late can be a major disadvantage, because the laggard doesn't have the market knowledge about what works, and why.
This late in the market evolution, the major print media players are all at risk of survival. While no one expects The Chicago Tribune or Los Angeles Times to disappear, the odds are much higher than expected. These businesses are losing a tenuous hold on viability as debt costs eat up cash. Declining readership and ad dollars makes failure an equally plausible outcome for The Washington Post, New York Times and Boston Globe. Instead of Disrupting and using White Space, as News Corp started doing a decade ago (News Corp owns The Wall Street Journal and Marketwatch.com, as well as MySpace.com for example), they have remained stuck in the past. Now if they don't move rapidly to learn how to make digital, on-line profitable they will disappear to competitors already blazing the new market.
by Adam Hartung | May 3, 2009 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Warren Buffet held the annual meeting for Berkshire Hathaway this weekend, and upwards of 40,000 people came to hear his opinions. For hours he waxed eloquently, offering opinions on a wide range of topics sure to cover websites, blogs and tweets for a few days. But I was interested in the comment "Buffett, Munger praise Google's 'moat" according to Marketwatch.com's headline. It's pure 1980s industrial thinking, and why you have to be careful about forecasting and investing following Mr. Buffett.
The concept is that a business can be like an old castle, with a moat around it protecting it from competitors. The company can prosper because no competitor can jump the moat, and thus the profits of the business are protected. And today, Buffett and his partner think Google has such a moat. Now, remember, Buffett bought only 100 shares in Microsoft and long eschewed other high tech companies like Apple, Oracle, SAP and Cisco systems. His favorite phrase was to say he didn't understand these businesses. Now, suddenly, the elder Buffett is becoming tech-savvy, he'd have us think, and he loves Google. Or perhaps he's late to the game, and trying to apply outdated concepts.
I too like Google. But not for the reasons Buffett does. There is no doubt Google is far in front in the search business, and coupling that with ad placement gives them a huge market share today producing double digit revenue and profit growth. Big growth and profits is a good thing. But moats have a way of being jumped, or drained, or filled incredibly rapidly these days. And as good as Google is, what makes Google a good company is how it does not rest on its business success. The company keeps branching into other businesses which have the ability to extend company growth even if search runs into some unforeseen problem.
"Moats" are the industrial classicists way of thinking about strategy. Moats were powerful tools a few hundred years ago, but competitors changed tactics and moats lost their value. Even America's moats – the Pacific and Atlantic oceans - have been breeched by attackers from Japan and the middle east. And the same is true for business moats. They were an industrialists tool, based on big investments and high share, but they no longer have the ability to defend a business's profits. Just look at the Buffalo newspaper Buffett owns. "Newspapers face 'unending losses,' Buffett says" as he now admits newspapers (including his) are not going to make profits any more. Their "local market moat" was made obsolete by internet news competitors and ad sites like Craig's list and Vehix.com.
And now even Berkshire Hathaway is facing a growth stall. Nobody would dare predict bad things for the "oracle of Omaha." But reality is that Berkshire stock is at the same value it was 6 years ago as "Berkshire quarterly operating profit falls." Even the amazing financial machinations and sophisticated tools (like derivatives and credit default swaps) almost nobody understands and Berkshire has been famous for have been unable to overcome losses in the 60+ operating units. And even some of these financial tools are losing money – something Buffett historically avoided completely. But he's learning that competitors are making even these products less profitable.
Times have changed. It's no longer the era for the industrialist, and the financial whiz that can extend an industrialists profits. We live in a fast-paced world where adjusting to market shifts is at the core of maintaining ongoing profits. Google's willingness to Disrupt and use White Space to expand makes it a company worth watching. But stay away from those "moat' protected businesses. Not even one of the world's richest men can make money in that game any longer.
by Adam Hartung | May 1, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
My book talks about Growth Stalls. Whenever a company sees two consecutive quarters of flat or declining sales or profits, or 2 consecutive quarters where year over year sales or profits were flat or declining, it is in a growth stall. Unfortunately, only 7% of companies that hit a growth stall will ever again consistently grow at a mere 2%. Yes, that's damning and almost unbelievable. And very worrisome given how many companies are now entering growth stalls.
Take a look at Motorola. They stumbled badly in mobile phones because they didn't keep pushing out new products into the market. They tried to Defend & Extend their popular Razr product, and eventually profits disappeared as they cut price. Then sales fell off a cliff as people shifted to newer products. The stall was created by the company insufficiently pushing innovation into the market, and the market shifted to new solutions.
Now "Motorola to cut more jobs as non-cell business weakens" according to ChicagoBusiness.com by Crain's. When the mobile business weakened, management took action to "shore up" the business. It went hunting for a buyer (none found), and it started cutting resources. Including monster layoffs. But it still had to keep investing or the business would collapse entirely. This had a cascading, spiraling negative effect on the rest of Motorola. With resources pushed into the failing cell phone business, there was less management attention and money spent on other businesses. Those also stopped pushing new innovations to the market. Now sales of network gear, set-top boxes, and 2-way radios are all down double digits.
So Motorola plans to cut another 7,500 jobs. More resource cuts, which will cause more cuts in innovation, fewer new products, less White Space. The process of Defending & Extending the past becomes more entrenched, because there are fewer resources around. What gets cut most is anything new. The stuff that could generate growth. Cuts lead to people hoping for an economic recovery that will somehow improve their competitive position. But it won't.
Motorola is now pinning its future on successful smart phone sales. But reality is that every quarter Motorola becomes a far more distant provider in mobile phones. While the best performer had flat volume last quarter, Motorola saw unit sales drop 46%. Motorola moves farther from the market, and into role of niche player. And even though cell phones is supposed to be for sale as a business, as we can see the company is diverting resources from the best part of Motorola (non-cell phones) to mobile handsets because they won't quit trying to Defend & Extend that business.
It's now clear that Motorola is in a vicious circle of cutting resources, losing sales, losing market share, discontinuing innovation, delaying new products, cutting more resources, losing more sales, losing more profits, doing even less innovation, offering up even fewer new products, …… Almost no one ever recovers from this spiral. By trying to Defend & Extend the old business, the actions – including layoffs – significantly harm the business. With less and less innovation, and fewer resources, the company slips into decline and failure.
And that's why growth stalls are deadly. They exacerbate Defend & Extend's weakness as a management approach. The lack of innovation, remaining Locked-in, was what caused the stall. Blaming a recession is just looking for a bogeyman so the business doesn't have to take responsibility for its own mistake. But after a couple of quarters of bad performance, the next wave of actions – the "best practices" to "shore up a problem company" – kill it. The layoffs and resource cuts – especially the delaying or killing of White Space projects and new products – cause customers to accelerate their move to competitors. And the company simply fails.
Today employees in those companies in growth stalls have a lot to worry about – as do their investors. If you hear leadership talking about job cuts and other D&E actions – while deflecting blame elsewhere besides the lack of meeting new market needs – then you're best off to find a new job and sell the stock. These companies will only continue to get weaker, and competitors will displace them as market leaders. An improving economy will be created by their growing competitors, not them, and their boat will not rise with the tide.
The solution is obviously not to practice D&E management. When you identify a growth stall is when all attention needs to be focused on rolling out new solutions to return to growth. Instead of cutting costs while trying to save the past, the business needs to move as rapidly as possible to the solutions needed in the future. Old businesses that caused the stall need to see dramatic resource constraints, while the new opportunities take front and center attention.
It wasn't "the economy" that got Motorola into desperate straits. It was Apple's iPhone and Nokia's relentless new product introductions. Without commensurate innovation, Motorola will never return to its former leadership position. And without resources, that cannot happen.
By the way, thanks Carl Icahn. You were the first to really push Motorola down this track of resource cutting. You're efforts to push Motorola this direction worked, even if you didn't get to lead the cuts. But the results are the same. And if Motorola isn't careful, the whole company may disappear as both halves of what now remain continue declining.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 29, 2009 | Books, Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Today the U.S. Federal Reserve indicated that the worst of America's economic downturn may be over, according to "Fed stands pat, and says worst may be over" at Marketwatch.com. Fed officials seem to think that the rate of decline has slowed. Note, they didn't say the economy is growing. The rate of decline is slowing. They hope this points to a bottoming, and eventually a return to growth.
With interest rates between banks at 0%, and short-term rates for strong companies near that level, there really isn't much more the Fed can do to create growth. It will keep buying Treasury securities and keep pushing banks to loan. But growth requires the private sector. That means businesses – or what reporters call "Main Street."
The government doesn't create growth. It can stimulate growth with low interest rates and money that will stimulate business investment. Growth requires people make products or services, and sell them. Those who are waiting on the government to create a growing economy will never gain anything from their wait, because it's up to them. Only by making and selling things do you get economic growth.
Recent events, closing banks and massive write-offs, are a big Challenge to old ways of doing business. Those who keep applying old practices are struggling to generate profits. The tried-and-true practices of American industrialism just aren't turning out gains like the once did. And they won't. The world has shifted. Entrepreneurs in India, Malaysia and China – places we like to think of as poor and "third world" – are building fortunes in the information economy. American businesses have to shift. If you make posts to install on highway sides, well lots of people can do that and competition is intense. To make money you need to make products that help move more people on the highway faster and safer – some kind of post that perhaps can provide traffic information to web sites and aid people to look for alternate routes. Posts aren't what people want, they want better traffic flow and today that ties to more information about the highway, who's using it, and what's happening on it.
Growth will return when businesspeople move toward supplying the shifted market with what it wants. Like Apple with a solution for digital music that involved players and distribution. Or Amazon with a solution for digitally obtaining books, magazines and newspapers, storing them, presenting them and even reading them to you. These companies, and products, appeal to the changed market – the market that values the music or the words and not the vinyl/tape/CD or the ink-on-paper. The customers that want the information, not necessarily the tangible item we used to use to get the information.
For the economy to grow requires a lot more businesses realize this market shift is permanent, and adjust. During the Great Depression those who refused to shift from agriculture to industrial production found the next 40 years pretty miserable – as rural land prices dropped, commodity prices dropped and the number of people working in agriculture dropped. Agrarianism wasn't bad, it just wasn't profitable. And going forward, industrialism isn't bad – but to grow revenues and profits we have to start thinking about how to deliver what people want – not what we know how to make. You have to deliver what the market wants to grow sales – even if it's different from what you used to make.
Starbucks offered people a lot of different things. And the old CEO tried to capitalize upon that by expanding his brand into liquor, music recording, agency for entertainers, movie production, and a widespread set of products in his stores – including food. But then an even older CEO returned, and he said Starbucks was all about coffee. He launched some new flavors, and he pushed out an instant coffee product. But a year later "Starbucks profit falls 77% on store closure charges" reports Marketwatch.com. His "focus" efforts have cut revenues, and cut profits enormously. He's cut out growth in his effort to "save" the company.
By trying to go backward, Chairman Schultz has seriously damaged the brand and the company. He has closed 570 stores – which were a big part of the brand and perhaps the thing of greatest value. Stores attracted people for a lot more than just coffee. People met at the stores, and buying coffee was just one activity they undertook. So as the stores were shuttered, the brand began to look in serious trouble and people started staying away. The vicious cycle fed on itself, and same store sales are down 8%. No new flavor or packaged frozen coffee bits for take home use is going to turn around this troubled business. It will take a change to giving people what they need – not what Mr. Schultz wants to sell.
With more and more people working from home the "virtual office" for many small businesspeople can still be a local Starbucks. When you can't afford take a client out for a snazzy lunch you can afford to take them for a coffee. When your wasteline can't take ice cream, you can afford a no-cal hot coffee in a great environment. Starbucks never was about the coffee, it was about meeting customer needs in a shifted market. And when the CEO realizes this he has the chance to save the company by taking into the new markets where customers want to go. Not by bringing out new instant coffee granules.
Starbucks is sort of a model of the recession. When you try to do what you always did, and you blame the lousy economy for your troubles, you'll see results worsen. As businesspeople we must realize that the recession was due to a market shift. We went off the proverbial cliff trying to extend the old business – just like Apple almost did by trying to be the Mac and only the Mac. To get the economy growing we have to look to see what people really want, and supply that. And what they want may be somewhat, or a whole lot, different from what we used to give them. But when we start supplying this changed market what it wants then the economy will quit contracting and start growing.
So be more like Steve Jobs, and less like Charles Schultz. Quit trying to go backward and regain some past glory. Instead, look into the future to figure out what people want and that competitiors aren't giving them. Be willing to Disrupt your business in order to take Disruptive solutons to the market. And get your ideas into White Space where you can develop them into profitable businesses. Don't wait for someone else to turn the economy around – just to find out then it's too late for you to compete.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 28, 2009 | Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership
"Chrysler Avoids Bankruptcy as GM steps toward it" is the Marketwatch.com headline. According to the article, Chrysler has a deal to manage its debt while Ford has never been as close to the edge as its two brethren. But GM is trying to get bondholders to take a 60% value reduction AND exchange the bond value for equity value – which of course has no assurance and could easily go to zero. The bondholders are squawking, and it's unclear they will agree. Which would plunge GM into bankruptcy. Are the bondholders just greedy? Or do they see the chance of getting some of their money back better via liquidation?
Ford has some of the most popular and fuel efficient vehicles in the world. They just aren't sold in the USA. But they've long had high share in Europe, where Ford has built smaller cars with both diesel and gasoline engines that have met market needs. Now Ford is preparing to build and sell those cars in the USA, which would move them a lot closer to recent market shifts than the worn out Lincoln line and the renamed 500 (rebadged as Taurus under the guise of the name making all the difference.) These European cars offer an opportunity for Ford to Disrupt the U.S. market and regain a positive footing.
Meanwhile, Chrysler has some of the most innovative cars on the market. Its 300, Charger and Challenger cars use technology that allows V8 engines to shut off 4 when not needed – allowing them to achieve over 30 MPG in a "large" and "performance" format. Further, for those seeking safety and control, the 300 and selected other models are available in all wheel drive, which has been proven to be the #1 safety enhancer possible. And of great value in northern climates where foul weather (rain and especially snow or ice) makes driving treacherous. All included in dramatic styling that appeals to American consumer tastes.
But GM? "GM to focus on four keeper brands" is the MediaPost.com headline. Most GM innovation is concentrated in Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn and Saab. The first of these is to be closed down for sure, and the latter 3 either sold or closed. As the CEO says "the company will focus on four brands it defines as core: Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC." Anytime the CEO of a failing company says he plans to save the place by "focusing on the core" and thereby cutting back to some aged part of the company RUN, RUN, RUN. The past is the past, and you NEVER regain it. Making these brands exciting is about as likely as making Holiday Inn a high-end hotel chain.
Think about it. Remember Izod with those alligators on the breast plate? Would you consider buying those shirts in Macy's? Or how about resurrecting Howard Johnson's as the place to stay and eat while traveling? Or shopping at KMart? Or taking instant photos on a Polaroid? When the market moves on, it's moved on. No business can recapture past profit levels by "focusing" on old brands and products that were once great. The clock never runs backward. T he market has shifted, and companies have to shift with it – not try to pretend "focusing on the core" will create profits simply because they are dedicated and focused.
It's Ford's offshore innovation that may save the company. It's Chrysler's engine, drive train and styling innovations that may save it. But GM is getting rid of anything that looks like innovation – and anything that might look like a Disruption or White Space. It has no hope of ever regaining market strength. It's plan is faulty, and won't work. Even if bondholders accept the swap of debt for equity, in short order GM sales will continue declining (as will profits), and there's no way bondholders can sell all that equity in order to recover their invested value in the bonds.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 26, 2009 | Books, Current Affairs, Food and Drink, Games, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Sports, Television
I recently listened to a great presentation on innovation by Bill Burnett, partner at Launchpad Partners. I recommend you download the slides to his presentation, "The CEO's Role in Innovation," in order to understand just how important innovation is to profitability as well as the CEOs role in creating the right culture. I also hand it to Bill that he not only lays out the CEO's role, but discusses what it takes organizationally to implement innovation – including getting the right people involved to go beyond just coming up with good ideas.
Markets shift. Sometimes there are long periods in which the market is reasonably the same (like newspapers). And sometimes it seems like new changes are happening rapidly (like computers). How long between shifts is impossible to predict. But it is certain that all markets shift. Some new technology, or a new form of solution, or a new way of pricing, or a new competitor will enter the market and change things such that the profitability of previous solutions declines. And it is the role of CEOs to create an open culture in which the management team feels it must keep its eyes peeled for market shifts, bring them to the company for discussion, and propose innovations which can increase the longevity of company sales and profits by addressing the market shifts.
Take for example the current shift in the sports market. This is important, because a throng of businesses advertise in the sports market. Everything from TV or radio ads during games, to ads inside event brochures, to putting logos on equipment and uniforms, to paying athletes as endorsers. Being aligned with the right sports, the right teams and the right athletes is worth a lot of money. You can legitimately ask, would Nike be Nike if they hadn't been the first company to sign up Michael Jordan – and later Tiger Woods? So the money is very large (billions of dollars) making mistakes very expensive. But getting it right can be worth billions in returns.
So catching a recent MediaPost.com blog "The Allure of Action Sports" is important. While most of us think of basketball, baseball, American football and possibly NASCAR – for GEN Y (young folks) sports is taking on an entirely new meaning. These are sports with almost no rules – just technique. They pack the stands at events such as the Dew Tour and X Games. Active participants include almost 12 million skateboarders, 7 million snowboarders and 3 million BMX riders. Not only do people watch these sports, but the most popular performers have their own cable TV shows – like "Viva La Bam." Just like football and basketball overtook our fathers' love of baseball as America's pastime – young competitors are shifting to watch and practice action sports. For people in consumer goods and many retailers, it becomes critical that the CEO provide an environment where the company can Disrupt its old marketing practices and create White Space to explore how to link with these new markets. The winners will rake in millions of higher profits. The laggards will see the value of their sports market spending decline.
Have you recognized this shift in the sports market? Are you prepared to take advantage of this shift? Are you considering sponsoring a local skateboard competition – for example – to promote a restaurant, quick stop, or T-Shirt store? You can react faster than Wal-Mart, Coke or GM – are you considering the options to grab loyal customers when they are still "McDonald's targets"?
A great example of the right kind of CEO has been Jeff Bezos of Amazon. As I reported in this blog back in January, book sales declined about 10% in 2008. You would think this would spell a huge problem for the world's largest bookseller. But SeattlePI.com recently reported "Amazon Profits Jump Despite Recession." CEO Bezos recognized long ago that book readership was jeapardized by changing lifestyles. Fewer people have the willingness to buy printed books, carry them around and take time to read them. So he Disrupted his retail Success Formula and implemented White Space to develop something new. This led to Kindle, a product which is small, light, can hold hundreds of books, can be read "on the go", accepts downloads of journals (magazines and newspapers) and can even read the book to you (Kindle has an audio feature.) And that's just product rev 2 – who knows where this will be in 3 years. By focusing on the future he could see the market for reading shifting – and he created an environment in which new innovation could be developed to keep Amazon growing even when the traditional products (and business) started declining. Kindle is now outselling everyone's expectations.
Innovation is the lifeblood of businesses. Without innovation Defend & Extend management leads to declining returns as competitors create market shifts. So it is crucial leaders, from managers to the CEO, keep their eyes on the future to spot market challenges and obsess about competitor actions that are changing market requirements. Then be willing to Disrupt the old Success Formula by attacking Lock-ins, and use White Space to test and implement new innovations which can lead to a new Success Formula keeping the business evergreen.
