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was in search engine development, which the company turned into a massive on-line advertising placement business that superceded the first major player (Yahoo!).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"
by Adam Hartung | Jul 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Tribune Company Profitability Continues to Deteriorate" is the Crain's headline. Even though Tribune filed for bankruptcy several months ago, its sales, profits and cash flow have continued deteriorating. The company is selling assets, like the Chicago Cubs, in order to raise cash. But its media businesses, anchored by The Chicago Tribune, are a sinking ship which management has no idea how to plug. While the judge can wipe out debt, he cannot get rid of the internet and competitors that are reshaping the business in which Tribune participates. Bankruptcy doesn't "protect" the business, it merely delays what increasingly appears to be inevitable failure.
"GM Clears Key Hurdles to Bankruptcy Exit" is the BusinessWeek headline. In record time a judge has decided to let GM shift all its assets and employees into a "new" GM, leaving all the bondholders, employee contracts and lawsuits in the "old" GM. This will wipe out all the debt, obligations and lawsuits GM has complained about so vociferously. But it won't wipe out lower cost competitors like Kia, Hyuandai or Tata Motors. And it won't wipe out competitors with newer technology and faster product development cycles like Toyota or Honda. GM will still have to compete – but it has no real plan for overcoming competitive weaknesses in almost all aspects of the business.
It was 30 years ago when I first head the term "strategic bankruptcy." The idea was that a business could hide behind bankruptcy protection to fix some minor problem, and a clever management could thereby "save" a distressed business. But this is a wholly misapplied way to think about bankruptcy. In reality, bankruptcy is just another financial machination intended to allow Locked-in existing management to Defend & Extend a poorly performing Success Formula. Bankruptcy addresses a symptom of the weak business – debts and obligations – but does not address what's really wrong - a business model out of step with a shifted marketplace.
The people running GM are the same people that got it into so much trouble. The decision-making processes, product development processes, marketing approaches are all still Locked-in and the same. GM hasn't been Disrupted any more than Tribune company has. Quite to the contrary, instead of being Disrupted bankruptcy preserves most of the Locked-in status quo and breathes new life into it by eliminating the symptoms of a very diseased Success Formula. Meanwhile, White Space is obliterated as the reorganized company kills everything that smacks of doing anything new in a cost-cutting mania intended to further preserve the old Success Formula.
Everyone in the bankruptcy process talks about "lowering cost" as the way to save the business. When in fact the bankrupt business is so out of step with the market that lowering costs has only a minor impact on competititveness. Just look at the perennial bankruptcy filers – United Airlines, American Airlines and their brethren. Bankruptcy has never allowed them to be more competitive with much more profitable competitors like Southwest. Even after 2 or 3 trips through the overhaul process.
Bankruptcy does not bode well for any organization. It's a step on the road to either having your assets acquired by someone who's better market aligned, or failure. Those who think Tribune will emerge a strong media competitor are ignoring the lack of investment in internet development now happening – while Huffington Post et.al. are growing every week. Those who think the "new" GM will be a strong auto company are ignoring the market shifts that threw GM to the brink of failure over the last year. Both companies are still Defending & Extending the past in a greatly shifted world – and nobody can succeed following that formula.
Don't forget to download the ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes" for a primer on how to keep your business out of bankruptcy court during these market shifts.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 1, 2009 | Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
Two sides of a page, two sides of strategy. Two different approaches, two very different sets of results.
That's what struck me when I was waiting for a meeting recently. I picked up a print edition of Businessweek laying in the reception area. On page 13 was "Public Flac Grounds Private Jets." A soft economy has teamed up with bad impressions of executive perks to create a huge drop in orders for private jets. French manufacturer Dassault had 27 more cancellations than orders in the first quarter. U.S. based Cessna had 92 cancellations, and was bracing for 150 more by today (7/1/09). In the meantime, the company has laid off 42% of its workforce and discountinued development of its newest jet aircraft. And the market for used aircraft is flooded, boding poorly for future sales as the used inventory seeks buyers.
Here are two companies that definitely have their "hedgehog concept" as recommended by Jim Collins. They set out to be leaders in private aircraft manufacturing, focusing on two different continents. And they are leaders. They know how to do be product leaders, and they do it well. But look what happened when the market shifted. In dramatic fashion, they go from record profits in 2007 to barely viable. Being really good at making planes doesn't matter when nobody wants them.
Turn the page (literally), and on page 14 was "Now, the Nano Home." In this short article we hear about how Tata Group, which has launched the Nano automobile for under $2,000, is entering the housing development market. While builders in the USA are failing due to the real estate crash, Tata is creating entire apartment developments. But not U.S. style. These apartments sell for as little as $7,800 and come as small as 218 square feet! (There are larger and more expensive units – up to $40,000). While this may seem crazy to Americans, it fits the market where you're trying to convince someone to leave a squatters tenement and buy something legal to live in. It's a market I've never heard of a single American company trying to develop, yet the opportunity is huge!
So here's Tata Group, the company that started as a trading company in the 1860s, that went on to become an industrial powerhouse making chemicals, steel and industrial products. One of, if not the, largest IT services companies on the planet. An auto manufacturer for India that expands into the global market with an entirely new product. Now the company enters homebuildling, but not like other companies. Instead uniquely doing what will fit market needs. There is no hedgehog concept to Tata Group. Just a company that keeps looking for market needs, then develops unique products to fulfill those needs. And builds a 150 year history of growth in the process.
Anytime you have a narrow business, focused on a single market or product line, you are at risk of market shifts that can kill you. These shifts can come from new technologies, or different production processes, or different attributes offered by competitors. But the fact is, markets shift. The better you are at focusing on your hedgehog concept, the more likely it is you will eventually fail. Just look at the companies Mr. Collins claimed were the big winners in Good to Great – Circuit City and Fannie make are good examples. You can be really, really good at something and you end up reaching the pinnacle of expertise only to be clobbered by a market shift that sends you toppling into failure.
Think like Tata Group. Keep your eyes open for market needs. Then figure out new ways to fulfill them. Especially ways that competitors won't attack. Forget about "focus." No American car company is even trying to make a $2,000 car – despite the fact that the only big growth markets today are China, India and other emerging markets where a cheap auto makes the most sense. And all those big U.S. real estate developers that are declaring bankruptcy, after building billion dollar malls, U.S. condominium projects, and office parks aren't even considering building and selling $8,000 apartments to the fastest growing middle class on the globe. They know their hedgehog concept. But they don't know how to grow. You'll do better to focus on growth and leave that hedgehog in his hole.
For more on how following its hedgehog concept led to the bankruptcy of GM download the free ebook "The Fall of GM". Learn how to avoid the hedgehog mistake and keep your business growing.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 30, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
With all due respect to the great guitar playing songwriter Jerry Reed, today Starbucks and Dell continue to look like copies that were once hot – but now couldn't warm a nose in a blizzard.
"Starbucks continues food push with overhauled menu items" is the Advertising Age headline. Starbucks closed hundreds of stores last year, saw sales in stores open a year fall 8%, and profits dropped 77%. But they aren't bringing anything new to their business. They are revamping the food to make it more healthy. There's nothing wrong with introducing healthier food, but how does Chairman Schultze think this will turn around Starbucks? The company's "return to basics" program has made it overly sensitive to retail coffee prices, while robbing the company of its highly desired cache. An enhanced instant coffee did nothing for revenues. And now this overhauled menu doesn't really offer anything new to excite customers. It's still a ton of calories – even if they are healthy calories – offered at a high price.
Starbucks has given rejuvenated life to McDonald's. Nobody expected the McCafe to be a huge success. But Starbucks has played right into McDonald's sites by shutting down most of its "non coffee" operations and repositioning itself not as a destination but as a fast food outlet. McDonald's reminds me of the hunter who spends all day tramping the forest in search of a deer, only to get back to his pick-up and have a big buck walk within 20 yards of his vehicle. When he least expected to get his kill, it walked up on him. And that's what Starbucks has done. It's made McCafe much more viable than it appeared likely, simply because Starbucks chose to move into direct competition with McDonald's rather than continue on the new business programs it created earlier in the decade.
Starbucks has gifted McDonald's by choosing to fight them head-on right at McDonald's strengths – operational consistency and low price. And now Starbucks is showing complete foolishness by entering into traditional advertising – an area where McDonald's is a powerhouse (the inventor of Ronald McDonald is an expert at ad content and spending). Even worse, Starbucks, which eschewed advertising for years, has decided to promote its new food menu by placing ads in (drumroll please) newspapers! At a time when readership is dropping like a stone, and during summer months when seasonal readership is lowest, Starbucks is choosing to promote with the least effective ad medium available today. Even billboards would be a better choice! We have to ask, wouldn't the previous, much savvier, leadership have launched a wickedly intensive web marketing program to lure customers back into the stores? Some viral videos, lots of social media chat – that sort of thing which appeals to their target buyer? Why would anyone choose to fight a giant – like McD's – on their court, using their rules, against their resource strength? That's not savvy competition, it's suicide.
Simultaneously the once high-flying Dell has been in the doldrums for several years. Decades ago Dell built a Success Formula that ignored product developed, placing its energy into supply chain advantages. Competitors have matched those operational advances, and now Dell gives consumers little reason to make you prefer their product. Not to mention forays into service cost reductions like offshore customer support that absolutely turned off customers and sent them back into retail stores.
Now "Dell is working on a pocket web gadget" according to the Wall Street Journal headline. Not a phone, not a netbook, not a laptop the new device is an assemblage of acquired technology into a handheld internet device. How it will be used, and why, is completely unclear. That it will give you internet access seems to be the big selling point – but when you can accomplish that with your iPhone or Pre, or netbook should you choose a larger format, why would anyone want this device?
Dell seems to forget that it has to compete if it wants to succeed. It's products have to offer customers something new, something better. That's what made the iPHone so successful – it gave users a lot more than a traditional phone. And the same is true for Pre. And these devices now have dozens and dozens of applications available – everything from playing video games to ordering pizza at the closest delivery joint to reading MRI screens (if you happen to be a neurologist). Yet, this new Dell device has no new apps, and it's unclear it is in any way superior to your phone or netbook. Dell keeps trying to think it has distribution superiority, and thus can sell anything by forcing it upon customers. Even products that have no clear application. Dell is Locked-in to its old Success Formula, all about operational excellence, but that model has no advantage now that people with new technology – superior technology – can match their operational excellence.
When companies remain Locked-in too long they become obsolete. And it can happen surprisingly fast. Every reader of this blog can remember when Starbucks seemed invincible. And when Dell was the information technology darling. But both companies remain stuck trying to Defend & Extend their Success Formulas after the market has shifted – and their results are most likely going to end up similar to GM.
Don't forget to download my new ebook "The Fall of GM" and send it (or the link) along to your friends and social network pals. http://tinyurl.com/nap8w8
by Adam Hartung | Jun 29, 2009 | Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
In May "The Largest U.S. Bankruptcies" was published in BusinessWeek – and since then we've added General Motors to the list. From biggest down:
- General Motors
- Lehman Brothers
- Washington Mutual
- Worldcom
- Enron
- Conseco
- Chrysler
- Thornburg Mortgage
- Pacific Gas & Electric
- Texaco
Did you notice that only 1 of these happened prior to 2001 (Texaco)? As I pointed out in Create Marketplace Disruption, the number of bankruptcies has been skyrocketing from historical norms. And the number of bankruptcies of truly huge companies has been growing at an unprecedented rate.
Ever since the modern corporation was born, the theory has been that being large gave a company lower risk. Since the 1940s people have believed that their jobs, and careers, are safer in big corporations. But today big corporations are failing at a truly alarming rate. What's changed?
Very large companies usually have a Success Formula, locked into place with hierarchy, decision-making processes, narrow strategy programs, consistent hiring processes, tight employee review processes, rigid IT infrastructure and very large investments designed to provide economies of scale. Their approach to success was driven by the notion that with size they would create entry barriers which would protect them from competitors, allowing for years of ongoing profitability. These practices were designed to focus the business on its core technology, products, customers and markets. Management theorists believed that with focus came ongoing success. They did expected businesses to be stable. With limited change.
But today we're seeing dramatic market shifts. And locked-in Success Formulas are literally failing because the company, and leadership, is unable to adapt to these shifts. During the 1950s, '60s, '70s and '80s competition was relatively stable. But that is no longer true. Success no longer comes from Defending & Extending what you used to do.
Dramatic improvements in telecommunications connectivity, computer assisted data accumulation and analysis, and global access to resources has changed the basis of competition. Now businesses must adjust to an extremely dynamic marketplace. Scale is meaningless when a new competitor can access your customers with a web page, achieve global distribution with a logistics partner, access a low-cost outsourced manufacturing plant via telephone, and provide 24×7 service with an Indian-based service contractor. When a new technology can go from invention to market in weeks, adaptability becomes far more important than size.
The marketplace has been shifting dramatically since 2001. In everything from manufacturing to financial services to commodities. Yet, far too few companies are adjusting to the new competitive requirements. Too many analysts and business leaders still seek market segments, market share and developing entry barriers. To succeed today businesses have to overcome Lock-in to Success Formulas in order to Disrupt their old approaches and remain vital to customers through the use of White Space to develop, test and implement new solutions. During periods of dramatic shift, those who follow these practices are far more successful. Regardless of size.
Don't forget to download the new ebook "The Fall of GM" for more on how the world's largest auto company failed to adjust to market shifts – and how you can avoid the GM fate by taking actions to make your business more adaptable.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 26, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership
"Retailers cut back on variety, once the spice of marketing" is the Wall Street Journal.com headline. It seems one of the unintended consequences of this recession will be forced consumer goods innovation!
For years consumer goods companies, and the retailers which push their products, have played a consistent, largely boring, and not too profitable Defend & Extend game. When I was young there was one jar of Kraft Miracle whip on the store shelf. It was one quart. This container was so ubiquitous that it coined the term "mayonnaise jar" – everybody knew what you meant with that term. Now you can find multiple varieties of Miracle Whip (fat free, low fat, etc.), in multiple sizes. This product proliferation passed for innovation for many people. Unfortunately, it has not grown the sales of Miracle Whip faster than growth in the general population.
Do you remember when you'd go to Pizza Hut and they offered "Hawaiian Pizza?" Pizza Hut would concoct some pretty unusual toppings, mixed up in various arrangements, then give them catchy labels. Unfortunately, what passed internally as an exciting new product introduction was recognized by customers as much ado about nothing, and those varieties quietly and quickly left the menu. Like the Miracle Whip example, it expanded the number of choices, but it did not increase the demand for pizza, nor revenues, nor profits.
Expanding varieties is too often seen by marketers as innovation. I remember when Oreos came out with 100 calorie packs, and the CEO said that was an innovation. But did it drive additional Oreo sales? Unfortunately for Nabisco, no. It was plenty easy to count out the number of cookies you want and put in a baggie. Or buy fewer cookies altogether in these new, smaller packages.
These sorts of tricks are the stock-in-trade of Defend & Extend management. Clog up the distribution system with dozens (sometimes hundreds) of varieties of your product. Try to take over lots of shelf space by paying "stocking fees" to the retailer to put all those varieties (package sizes, flavor options, etc.) on his shelf – in effect bribing him to stock the product. But then when a truly new product comes along, something really innovative by a smaller, newer company, the D&E manager uses the stocking fees as a way to make it hard for the new product to even reach the market because the small company can't afford to pay millions of dollars to bump the big guy defending his retail turf. The large number of offerings defends the product's position in retail, while simultaneously extending the product's life to keep sales from declining. But, year after year the cost of creating, launching and placing these new varieties of largely the "same old thing" keeps driving down the net margin. The D&E manager is trying to keep up revenues, but at the expense of profits.
Simultaneously, this kind of behavior keeps the business from launching really new products. The previous CEO at Kraft said in 2006 that the best investment his company could make was advertising Velveeta. His point of view was that protecting Velveeta sales was worth more than launching new products – and at that time the last new product launched by Kraft was 6 years old! Internally, the decision-support system was so geared toward defending the existing business that it made all marginal investments supporting existing brands look highly profitable – while killing the rate of return on new products by discounting potential sales and inflating costs!
This D&E behavior isn't good for any business. Consumer goods or otherwise. And it's interesting to read that now retailers are starting to push back. They are cutting the number of product variations to cut the inventory carrying costs. As I mentioned, if you now have 6 different stock keeping units (SKUs) for Miracle Whip in various sizes, flavors and shapes but no additional sales you more than likely have doubled, tripled or even more the inventory – and simultaneously reduced "turns" – thus making the margin per foot of shelf space, and the inventory ROI, poorer. Even with those "shelf fee" bribes the consumer goods manufacturer paid.
For consumers this is a great thing! Because it frees up shelf space for new products. It frees up buyers to look harder at truly new products, and new suppliers. The retailer has the chance of revitalizing his stores by putting more excitement on the shelves, and giving the consumer something new. This action is a Disruption for the individual retailer – pushing them to compete on products and services, not just having the same old products (in too many varieties) exactly the same as competitors.
This action, happening at WalMart, Walgreens, RiteAid, Kroger and Target according to the article, is an industry Disruption. It impacts the manufacturers like Kraft and P&G by forcing them to bring more truly new products to the market if they want to maintain shelf facings and revenues. It alters the selling proposition for all suppliers, making the "distribution fees" less of an issue and turning those retail buyers back into true merchandisers – rather than just people who review manufacturer supplied planograms before feeding numbers into the automated ordering system. And it changes what the manufacturer's salespeople have to do.
The companies that will do well are those that now implement White Space to take advantage of this Disruption. As you can imagine, it's a huge boon for the smaller, more entrepreneurial companies that may well have long been blocked from the big retailer's stores. It allows them to get creative about pitching their products in an effort to help the retailer compete on product – not just price. And for any existing supplier, they will have to use White Space to get more new products out faster. And get their salesforce to change behavior toward selling new products rather than just defending the old products and facings.
Markets work in amazing ways. Almost never do things happen as one would predict. It's these unintended consequences of markets that makes them so powerful. Not that they are "efficient" so much as they allow for Disruptions and big behavior changes. And that gives the entrepreneurial folks, and the innovators, their opportunities to succeed. For those in consumer goods, right now is a great time to talk to Target, Kohl's, Safeway, et.al. about how they can really change the competition by refocusing on your innovative new products again!
by Adam Hartung | Jun 23, 2009 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
What is a brand worth? Do you spend a lot of time trying to "protect" your brand? A lot of marketing gurus spent the last 20 years talking about creating brands, and saying there's a lot of value in brands. Some companies have been valued based upon the expected future cash flow of sales attributed to a brand. Folks have heard it so often, often they simply assume a recognized name – a brand – must be worth a lot.
But, according to a Strategy + Business magazine article, "The trouble with brands," brand value isn't what it was cracked up to be. Using a boatload of data, this academic tome says that brand
trustworthiness has fallen 50%, brand quality perceptions are down 24%,
and even brand awareness is down 20%. It turns out, people don't think very highly of brands, in fact – they don't think about brands all that much after all.
And according to Fast Company in the article "The new rules of brand competition" the trend has gotten a lot worse. It seems that over time marketers have kept pumping the same message out about their brands, reinforcing the message again and again. But as time evolved, people gained less and less value from the brand. Pretty soon, the brand didn't mean anything any more. According to the Financial Times, in "Brands left to ponder price of loyalty," brand defection is now extremely common. Where consumer goods marketers came to expect 70% of profits from their most loyal customers, those customers are increasingly buying alternative products.
Hurrumph. This is not good news for brand marketers. When a company spends a lot on advertising, it wants to say that spend has a high ROI because it produces more sales at higher prices yielding more margin. Brand marketers knew how to segment users, then appeal to those users by banging away at some message over and over – with the notion that as long as you reinforced yourself to that segment you'd keep that customer.
But these folks ignore the fact that needs, and markets, shift. When markets shift, a brand that once seemed valuable could overnight be worth almost nothing. For example, I grew up thinking Ovaltine was a great chocolate drink. Have you ever heard of Ovaltine? I drank Tang because it went to the moon, and everyone wanted this "high-tech" food with its vitamin C. When was the last time you heard of Tang? It was once cache to be a "Marlboro Man" – rugged, virile, strong, successful, sexy. Now it stands for "cancer boy." Did the marketers screw up? No, the markets shifted. The world changed, products changed, needs changed and these brands which did exactly what they were supposed to do lost their value.
Lots of analysts get this wrong. Billions of dollars of value were trumped up when Eddie Lambert bought Sears out of his re-organized KMart. But neither company fits consumer needs as well as WalMart or Kohl's for the most part, so both are brands of practically no value. People said Craftsmen tools alone were worth more than Mr. Lampert paid for Sears – but that hasn't worked out as the market for tools has been flooded with different brands having lifetime warranties — and as the do-it-yourselfer market has declined precipitiously from the days when people expected to fix their own stuff. So a lot of money has been lost on those who thought KMart, Sears, Craftsman, Kenmore, Martha Stewart as a brand collection was worth significantly more than it's turned out to be. But that's because the market moved, and people found new solutions, not because you don't recognize the brands and what they used to stand for.
Every market shifts. Longevity requires the ability to adapt. But brand marketers tend to be "purists" who want the brand to live forever. No brand can live forever. Soon you won't even find the GE brand on light bulbs. That's if we even have light bulbs as we've known them in 15 years – what with the advent of LED lights that are much lower cost to operate and last multiples of the life of traditional bulbs. GE has to evolve – as it has with jet engines and a myriad of other products – to survive.
Think for a moment about Harley Davidson. Once, owning a Harley implied you were a true rebel. Someone outside the rules of society. That brand position worked well for attracting motorcycle riders 60 years ago. As people aged, many were re-attracted to the "bad boy" image of Harley, and the brand proliferated. A $50 jacket with a Harley Davidson winged logo might sell for $150 – implying the branding was worth $100/jacket!! But now, the average new Harley buyer is over 50 years old! The market has several loyalists, but unfortuanately they are getting older and dying. Within 20 years Harley will be struggling to survive as the market is dominated by riders who are tied to different brands associated with entirely different products.
If you see that your sales are increasingly to a group of "hard core" loyalists, it's time to seriously rethink your future. Your brand has found itself into a "niche" that will continue shrinking. To succeed long-term, everything has to evolve. You have to be willing to Disrupt the old notions, in order to replace them with new. So you either have to be willing to abandon the old brand – or cut its resources to build a new one. For example, Harley could buy Ducati, stop spending on Harley and put money into Ducati to build it into a brand competitive with Japanese manufacturers. This would dramatically Disrupt Harley – but it might save the company from following GM into bankruptcy.
The marketing lore is filled with myths about getting focused on core customers with a targeted brand. It all sounded so appealing. But it turns out that sort of logic paints you into a corner from which you have almost no hope of survival. To be successful you have to be willing to go toward new markets. You have to be willing to Disrupt "what you stand for" in order to become "what the market wants." Think like Virgin, or Nike. Be a brand that applies itself to future market needs – not spending all its resources trying to defend its old position.
Don't forget to download the new ebook "The Fall of GM" to learn more about why it's so critical to let Disruptions and White Space guide your planning rather than Lock-in to old notions.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Web/Tech
For years business leaders have sought advice which would allow their organizations to become "evergreen." Evergreen businesses constantly renew themselves, remaining healthy and growing constantly without even appearing to turn dormant. Of course, as I often discuss, most companies never achieve this status. Today investors, employees and vendors of Apple should be very pleased. Apple is showing the signs of becoming evergreen.
For the last few years Apple has done quite well. Resurgent from a near collapse as an also-ran producer of niche computers, Apple became much more as it succeeded with the iPod, iTunes and iPhone. But many analysts, business news pundits and investors wanted all the credit to go to CEO Steve Jobs. It's popular to use the "CEO as hero" thinking, and say Steve Jobs singlehandedly saved Apple. But, as talented as Steve Jobs is, we all know that there are a lot of very talented people at Apple and it was Mr. Jobs willingness to Disrupt the old Success Formula and implement White Space which let that talent come out that really turned around Apple. The question remained, however, whether Disruptions and White Space were embedded, or only happening as long as Mr. Jobs ran the show. And largely due to this question, the stock price tumbled and people grew anxious when he took medical leave (chart here).
This weekend we learned that yes, Mr. Jobs has been very sick. The Wall Street Journal today reported "Jobs had liver transplant". With this confirmation, we know that the company has been run by the COO Tim Cook and not a "shadow" Mr. Jobs. Simultaneously, first report on the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal is "Apple Claims 1M iPhone Sales" last weekend in the launch of its new 3G S mobile phone and operating system. This is a huge number by the measure of any company, exceeded analysts expectations by 33-50%, and equals the last weekend launch of a new model – despite the currently horrible economy. This performance indicates that Apple is building a company that can survive Mr. Jobs.
On the other side of the coin, "Walgreen's profit drops as costs hit income" is the Crain's Chicago Business report. Walgreen's is struggling because it's old Success Formula, which relied very heavily on opening several new stores a week, no longer produces the old rates of return. Changes in financing, coupled with saturation, means that Walgreen's has to change its Success Formula to make money a different way, and that has been tough for them to find. The retail market shifted. Although Walgreen's opened White Space projects the last few years, there have been no Disruptions and thus none of the new ideas "stuck." Growth has slowed, profits have fallen and Walgreen's has gone into a Growth Stall. Now all projects are geared at inventory reduction and cost cutting, as described at Marketwatch.com in "Higher Costs Hurt Walgreen's Profits."
Now the company is saying it wants to take out $1B in costs in 2011. No statement about how to regain growth, just a cost reduction — one of the first, and most critical, signs of Defend & Extend Management doing the wrong things when the company hits the Flats. And now management is saying that costs will be higher in 2009/2010 in order to allow it to cut costs in 2011. If you're asking yourself "say what?" you aren't alone. This is pure financial machination. Raise costs today, declare a lower profit, in order to try padding the opportunity to declare a ferocious improvement in future year(s). This has nothing to do with growth, and never helps a company. To the contrary, it's the second most critical sign of D&E Management doing the wrong thing at the most critical time in the company's history. When in the Flats, instead of Disrupting and using White Space to regain growth these actions push the company into the Swamp of low growth and horrible profit performance.
We now can predict performance at Walgreen's pretty accurately. They will do more of the same, trying to do it better, faster and cheaper. They will have little or no revenue growth. They may sell stores and use that to justify a flat to down revenue line. The use of accounting tricks will help management to "engineer" short-term profit reporting. But the business has slid into a Growth Stall from which it has only a 7% chance of ever again growing consistently at a mere 2%. This is exactly the kind of behavior that got GM into bankruptcy – see "The Fall of GM."
The right stuff seems to be happening at Apple. But keep your eyes open, a new iPhone is primarily Extend behavior – not requiring a Disruption or necessarily even White Space. We need to see Apple exhibit more Disruptions and White Space to make us true believers. On the other hand, it's definitely time to throw in the towel on Walgreen's. Management is resorting to financial machinations to engineer profits, and that's always a bad sign. When management attention is on accounting rather than Disruptions and White Space to grow the future is sure to be grim.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 19, 2009 | Boards of Directors, Books, Defend & Extend, eBooks, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Transportation
Of all the companies that typified America’s rise as an industrial superpower, none was more successful than General Motors.
What happened? Why has it fallen so far? GM at its biggest boasted some 600,000 well-paid employees. It will be left with something like 60,000 after it emerges from bankruptcy. How did that happen? Why did its stock price tumble from $96 per share at its height to 80 cents recently? Why did its market share shrink from one out of every two cars sold to less than one in five last quarter?
And thus begins the new ebook about the fall of GM. In 1,000 words this ebook covers the source of GM’s success – as well as what led to its failure. And what GM could have done differently – as well as why it didn’t do these things. Read it, and share it. Let folks know about it via Twitter. Post to your Facebook page and groups, as well as your Linked-in groups. As markets are shifting the fate of GM threatens all businesses. Even those that are following the best practices that used to make money. Let’s use the story of GM — and the costs its bankruptcy have had on employees, investors, vendors and the support organizations around the industry as well as government bodies — as a rallying cry to help turn around this recession and get our businesses growing again!
Download Fall of GM
by Adam Hartung | Jun 15, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lifecycle
Harvard Publishing recently posted an article from a professor at the London Business School, Freek Vermeulen "Can we please stop saying the market is efficient?" The good professor's point of view was that he observed a lot of companies that were efficient which didn't survive, and several not all that efficient that did survive. He even took time to point out where some Harvard professors had identified that companies who implement ISO 9000 often see their innovation decline!
Unfortunately, the good professor is all too correct. If markets were efficient, we'd see performance move in a straight line. But any follower of equities, for example, can show you where the stock of a company may have gone up, then declined 20%, then gone back to a new high, maybe to even fall back more than the original 20%, only to then climb to even greater highs. If the market for that equity were efficient, it would never have these sorts of wild price gyrations.
Likewise, the market for products, things like copiers, aren't all that efficient. A case I describe pretty deeply in Create Marketplace Disruption. When Xerox brought out the 914 copier it changed the world of office copies. But it didn't take off. Instead, for years companies maintained their duplicating shop in the basement, using small lithographic offset presses. This went on for years, and usually the basement shop was closed when (a) the operator retired, (b) the printing press simply gave up the ghost and was ready for the scrap heap, or (c) when the company realized it had so many copiers the basement would be better served to house copiers instead of the printing press. The fact is that marginal economics – the very low cost of continuing to operate an alread-paid-for-press meant that it was easy to simply keep using presses long after they had any economic advantage. Not to mention all kinds of kinks in the decision apparatus that funded things like a print shop just because the budget "always had." But eventually, as the retirees and metal scrappers started accumulating, the market shifted. What had been a "mixed market" of presses and Xerox copiers suddenly shifted to almost all copiers. Xerox exploded, and the small offset press makers disappeared.
That wasn't efficient. There was a huge lag between when the benefits of copiers were well known and the demise of print shops. In the end, those who had debts or equity in printing press companies suffered huge losses as the business "fell off a cliff." There was no "orderly migration" out of the marketplace. In a very short time, the market shifted from one solution to another.
As recently as 2007 almost every home in America had a newspaper delivered. By 2009 the market had begun to disappear with subscriptions down over 60% in some markets. For advertisers, the purchasing of print ads dropped by over 50% in just 24 months. Yet, the growth of web usage and internet ads had been growing for almost a decade. In an efficient market there would have been a smooth transition between the two, with say 5% of ads shifting every year. Again, the economists' "orderly transition" would have applied. There doesn't seem anything orderly if you're in a market where the newspaper has disappeared, filed for bankruptcy, or cut its pages 40% – and you're wondering how to get the local news or even the TV listings you once found in the newspaper.
Market shifts are sudden, and big. In the later half of the 1980s the PC market shifted from 60% Macintosh to 80% Wintel in just 5 years – while growth for PCs exploded. It didn't feel very efficient to people at Apple, the suppliers of apps for Macs or the user base. Thousands of people in corporations were told "surrender your Mac and get a new PC next week" with no discussion, explanation or concern.
Companies that fall victim to market shifts aren't without strategists, planners or quality programs. Many have robust TQM or Six Sigma projects. But these are all about optimizing performance against past performance – not necessarily what the market wants. When you optimize agains the past you depend on minimal change. When markets shift, these "efficiency" programs can cause you to be the last to know – and the last to react.
People like to think of evolution as sort of like Continuous Improvement. Get 5% better every year. Like a variety of mammal might lose 1/4" of tail each generation until it no longer has one. We now know that's not how it works. There are winners. They keep reproducing, get stronger and more of them every year. Like mammals with long tails. Meanwhile, an alternative develops – like a mammal with no tail. Then suddenly, without expectation, the environment changes. Tails become a big hindrance, and those with tails die off in a massive exodus. Those without tails suddenly find they are advantaged by the lack of tails, so they begin breeding fast and getting stronger. In short order, perhaps a single generation, the tailed mammals are gone and the no-tails become dominant. Not very efficient, or orderly. More like reactive to an environmental shift.
If you want to do good tomorrow, I mean one day from today, the odds are that you can accomplish that by being just slightly better at what you did yesterday. But if you want to be good in 5 years, you may well have to do something very different. If you wait for the market to tell you – well – you've waited too long. By the time you know you're out of date, the competitor has taken your position. You have no hope of survival.
We live with a lot of myths in business. The value of efficiency, and the belief in efficient markets, are just a couple of big ones. Kind of like the old myths about blood-letting. Before the USA, never before in history has anyone ever tried to establish a government of self-rule. And self-rule led America to a country dominated by businesspeople. No longer did the king determine winners, losers, prices and behavior. Now markets would do so. The people who would make these markets were the emerging business folks. But nobody knew anything about markets – except some theories about how they "should" work written by an Englishman who had grand thoughts about open-market behaviors. So most people accepted the earliest theory – with its ideas about "invisible hands" that would guide behavior.
Markets are dramatically inefficient. Just look at the prices of equities. Look at the bankruptcies all around us. GM, your local newspaper, Six Flags and your neighborhood furniture store. People who were often efficient, but didn't understand that markets shift quickly, and very inefficiently. They don't move in small increments – they change all at once. And if you want to survive, you have to
prepare for market shifts. Simply working harder, faster and cheaper won't save you when the market shifts. If you aren't ready to be part of the shift, you get left behind and won't survive.
Markets are shifting today faster than they ever have. Telecommunications, internet connections, massive amounts of computing power, television, jet airplanes – these things have made the clock speed on changes much faster. Market shifts that used to be seperated by decades are compressed into a few years. If you don't plan on market inefficiencies – on market changes – you simply can't survive.
Lots of people misunderstand Darwin. The prevailing view is that his study on the origination of species says that the strongest survive. In fact, his conclusion was quite the opposities. What he said was that it is not the strongest that survive, but the most adaptable.
