by Adam Hartung | Jan 8, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
"You never get a second chance to make a first impression." I'm not sure who said that first, but it's appropriate for the speech given by Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's head, at the current Consumer Electronics Show.
Almost 2 years ago, after almost 2 years of delay, Windows launched its new operating system named Vista. In the past, such announcements caused great excitement as customers looked forward to upgraded capability. But when Vista came out, it was like the old joke "he threw a party, and nobody came." Customers ignored the release, preferring to keep keep using Microsoft XP. New PC buyers even requested that vendors supply their computers with XP instead of Vista. And competitor Apple had an advertising field day making fun of the complaints PC customers had about Vista as Apple promoted its Macintosh. Microsoft simply didn't offer customers the necessary innovation to make Vista interesting.
Now Microsoft (chart here) has announced it intends to launch Windows 7 (read article here). What struck me most about the announcement was its lack of interest. On Marketwatch.com, the article wasn't even on the first page – you have to scroll down to find it. The equivalent of "not making it above the fold" in old newspaper lingo. Worse, Microsoft's announcement didn't even get top billing regarding the CES show – as its announcement took second fiddle to the article lead about Palm's announcement of a new device and operating system.
Clearly, reporters are savvy to what's important in information techology these days. And efforts to Defend & Extend the PC platform is not where the excitement is. Customers are quickly moving from the PC to handheld devices and remote applications. Interest about what you can do on your handheld is now eclipsing what you can do on a bigger, heavier PC. It's clear to most people, even if not to Microsoft leadership, that Defending & Extending the PC platform is suffering diminishing returns.
Simultaneously, folks woke up today and realized that "not failing" is not the same as succeeding.
As retailers went through the worst holiday season in possibly forever, some folks kept talking about how good Wal-Mart (chart here) was doing. In reality, at best Wal-Mart was possibly holding even or slightly growing. Wal-mart wasn't failing, like Circuit City, Bed Bath & Beyond, Linens & Things and Sharper Image – but it wasn't doing well. Sales at Wal-Mart have been stagnant for years. Now, even Wal-Mart has admitted its sales for December and the fourth quarter were below forecast (read article here). So the stock dropped 7.5%
Really. What did folks expect? Wal-Mart hasn't done anything new to attract customers in well over a decade. The ASSUMPTION analysts kept making was that because Wal-Mart was synonymous with cheap, in a bad recession Wal-mart would do well. But consumers showed that there's more to being a good retailer than being cheap. And gift giving is about more than giving any gift. People still want a good shopping experience, even when unemployed, and the concrete floors and cheap merchandise at Wal-Mart doesn't make them feel any better. Many decided it was better to go on-line looking for values, where overhead is even lower than at Wal-Mart, and where merchandise quality was top rate and wide brand selection was available.
Both Microsoft and Wal-Mart were great companies. They made huge differences as leaders in their industries. But both are now trying to Defend & Extend out of date Success Formulas. And even in a recession – maybe especially in a recession – that does not excite people. Customers want innovation, not just more of the same, but finally working right or at a cheaper price. And when dimes get tight, innovation speaks even louder. Customers want to know how innovation can create greater satisfaction – not just how the same old thing can be — cheap. Until Microsoft and Wal-Mart disrupt their Lock-ins and open White Space there is no reason to be optimistic about their futures.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 6, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
The Marketing Executives Network Group (site here) has just released its second annual top marketing trends study (read press release and overview here, and study results here). Kudos to MENG for keeping up the effort – and especially so given the surprising results.
Many people think marketers lead their customers. Often, employees think marketers are the people charged with being ahead of customers, scanning the horizon for market shifts that can affect future sales. The perception is that marketers are looking for ways to Disrupt markets, introducing new technologies, products and services to generate competitive advantage. But the results of this survey show that isn't exactly what's going on – at least today. Statistically, according to responses, it appears that most marketers are firmly Locked-in to Sustaining past company sales. The results indicate that the 650 people responding to this survey are more deeply rooted in the past than in the changes now happening which are affecting results at many businesses to their core.
- The #1 business book was considered Good To Great by Jim Collins, and #2 was The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. No doubt, both of these books have been big sellers. But, the first was published in 2001, and the second in 2000 – neither are exactly "latest thinking" about business, marketing or innovation. Worse, both have been extensively reviewed in academia – and despite their popularity have been proven to be without merit as guidebooks for success. While their logic is appealing, when backtested and when applied, both led to worse results, rather than better, than average. Rosenzweig even has taken the time to publish The Halo Effect which is dedicated to disproving the validity of Mr. Collins (and other's) tales as benefactors of increased sales or profits. A book not even on the list.
-
As gurus, the marketers like Seth Grodin, Warren Buffet and Malcolm Gladwell in the first 3 spots, with Tom Friedman in fifth. Again, interesting array. While Seth has an MBA, he was never a successful marketer – until he started selling short books with catchy titles and simple answers for complex problems. Malcolm Gladwell and Tom Friedman neither have any business training or business experience at all – both having been writers and editors by academic training and career (The New Yorker and The New York Times, respectively). I asked Malcolm what led him to write "The Tipping Point" and he said "you get paid a lot more to write a catchy business book than to do serious writing." And Warren Buffet is famous for his total disdain for marketing. As he said in an interview once "if you have to spend on marketing your product doesn't sell itself – so what good is it? Marketing dollars can be spent better elsewhere."
-
By far the #1 target market is considered Baby Boomers. Interesting, given that all studies show that as Boomers are nearing and entering retirement their spending (in dollars, and as percent of income) is declining precipituously. Neither Gen X or Gen Y received more than 2/3 the interest of Boomers – even though both are driving more consumption individually than the long-focused-upon but aging Boomers. Given that by 2015 there will be more non-European ancestry Americans than European, hispanics were only 76% as interesting as Boomers, and Asians were only 1/3 as interesting. With President-elect Obama taking the most recent election while losing a majority of the Boomer vote – yet winning the younger and the non-white vote, it is interesting where these marketers showed a preference to focus.
-
Aligned with other responses, these marketers felt that Marketing Basics were the #1 issue for marketers, more than twice as important as innovation or "green"and more than 3 times as important as using technology. Further, the leading disliked buzzwords included Web 2.0, Social Networking, Social Media, Blogs and Viral marketing. Yet, the President-elect pulled off an incredible upset primarily by jumping past the old marketing basics and using the latter techniques to reach a new audience, build an amazing brand and create intense loyalty surpassing much better known and initially better funded competitors. At the same time, in 2008 MTV stopped running music videos entirely because they could not compete with YouTube.com, and blogs have shown the ability to spread messages at a fraction of the speed used by traditional advertising or public relations
There is no doubt business saw a lot of change happen in 2008. And we all expect considerable additional change in 2009. But it would appear that the marketers in this study are customers of their own product – potentially to a fault. Old brands (Collins, Buffett, Boomers) still captivate their attention, while newer, upcoming trends and messages are considered far less interesting. As market shifts are happening, they seem more interested in defending past marketing approaches than moving to the front edge of what's working in a rapidly changing, digitized, globally competitive marketplace.
There's no doubt that a lot of marketing is about sustaining an existing business. In most companies, Defending & Extending old products, old brands and old distribution systems get the lion's share of attention. Unfortunately, this behavior can set up many companies to be "knocked off" by emerging competitors who don't operate by the old rules, or in the same way. Google paid absolutely no attention to the gentlemanly behavior of the media as it systematically pulled advertisers to the internet – leaving newspapers and magazine publishers to decline, merge, declare bankruptcy and completely fail. It's these Disruptive competitors, using new techniques, that today are putting many of our oldest businesses at risk.
At times of great change, great opportunity emerges. Someone has to lead the charge for identifying these opportunities and moving forward. Success cannot happen by trying to Defend old Success Formulas after market change makes their rates of return sub-optimal. For many of us, we want to turn to marketers. And my guess is that marketers ARE the best people to discern these opportunities, and take the lead. It's important that now, more than ever, we encourage them to lead customers, rather than follow old markets. Now, when investing in legacy brands, products and technologies is suffering rapidly declining returns, is when we most need our marketers to take to the forefront of exploration and chart a course toward new markets and opportunities.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership
The New York Times Company is in a heap of trouble (see chart here). Long the #1 daily newspaper in the USA, advertising revenues fell 21% versus a year ago in November – a feat similar to its revenue decline in December, 2007. NYT is in a growth stall – and shows no signs of making a turnaround. The decline in ad revenue and subscriptions is horrific. The company has recently slashed its dividend 74%, and is taking out a $225million loan against the value of its headquarters location raising cash to keep its newspaper operations going. The company is running television ads in most major markets – like Chicago and LA – to seek out new subscribers. And now the newspaper is placing ads on its page 1 – an act that is a big deal to people in the newspaper business. (Read about New York Times front page ads here.)
So by taking these actions, is the New York Times Company preparing itself for change? After all, the problem with newspapers is that increasingly people want their news via the internet – not a paper. So even though the management at "the Times" is distressed over the actions they have taken, investors should be asking if these actions are likely to turn around the company. Value fell 67% in 2008 – and is down practically 90% for the last 5 years.
Long term successful companies Disrupt their Lock-ins – those behaviors, decision-making practices and policies that keep the company doing what it always did. As businesses grow, developing their Success Formulas, they figure out ways to Lock-in that Success Formula so it repeats. While the market is growing, and the Success Formula is meeting customer needs, these Lock-ins help the business focus on execution and grow with the market. Lock-ins are great, helping people do more, better, faster.
That is, until markets shift. When external markets shift – because of new technology, new services, new competitors or other factors – the Success Formula loses its advantage. The solution to market shifts isn't to continue optimizing the Success Formula. Returns are declining because the Success Formula is becoming obsolete. The solution is to migrate the business to a new Success Formula which supports market needs and regain growth. And that migration happens after the old Success Formula is Disrupted – through attacks on the Lock-ins – demonstrating to everyone that the company is serious about advancing to meet new market needs.
Unfortunately, far too many companies claim they are Disrupting – and preparing for the future – when in fact they are merely disturbing the Success Formula. Layoffs, financial adjustments, asset sales and outsourcing may be painful, but they don't attack the old Lock-ins nor alter the Success Formula. People are often dramatically disturbed by the changes, but the Success Formula is unaffected. When this happens, the business keeps deteriorating despite the actions.
And that's what's happening at the New York Times Company. Leadership has not taken the actions necessary to demonstrate to customers, employees, vendors or investors that they have to change. They have not Disrupted. To be a world leading news organization now requires deep expertise and success on the internet – yet NYT is in no way a major player on the web. And they have shown no signs of investing there in a major turnaround effort. NYT has not Disrupted its operations to set the stage for new White Space where a powerful new Success Formula can be developed (similar to the major programs like MySpace.com at News Corp., for example). To the contrary, the actions taken by the New York Times Company are directed at trying to preserve an outdated past. Advertising on page 1 is almost unimportant to the vast majority of readers – and completely unimportant to internet news mavens. It's not even newsworthy.
Like Tribune Corporation (owner of The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times as well as other papers), New York Times Company is focused on the wrong things. And as a result, is just as likely to end up in bankruptcy. Even Tribune management invested in Careers.com, Cars.com and Food Network along the way – each of which show demonstrably more promise for growth than any of the newspaper companies. But because management won't Disrupt – won't attack old Lock-ins – these companies keep hoping for a return to the days when newspapers were central to life. And that isn't going to happen. The world has moved onward. So, like Tribune, New York Times will eventually run out of resources and find itself in bankruptcy as well.
Unwillingness to Disrupt is a key indicator of a company likely to fail. Over time, all markets change. New competitors create new products that serve customers differently. Old Success Formulas see their returns evaporate as customers move to the new market solutions. And these companies end up, like Polaroid, being companies with a great past – but no future.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 4, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
2009 starts in earnest for businesses this week. And for many leaders and managers, the focus will be about "what should I do now?" Things were tough in 2008, and many are wondering if 2009 will be even worse. So the tendency is to look at how things have been done, talk to existing customers, and see if there's a way to keep doing things but possibly with fewer resources. Many businesses are looking for some new way to Defend & Extend the old business – even as leaders realize the returns are declining.
And that just might make you a target for competitors – thus worsening your situation.
Think about what's gone on in Detroit. GM, Ford and Chrysler have kept focusing on what they should do. In the process, they've paid precious little attention to competitors. As a result, they've kept slipping share year after year, while profits have disintegrated. Now, each American company keeps focusing on its own problems, and trying to find a way to deal with them. Meanwhile, as the Wall Street Journal is reporting (link to article here), competitors such as VW and BMW – at the least – are targeting the U.S. Big 3 automakers.
Recognizing how weak these U.S. companies have begun, the German manufacturers are taking aim. The other German manufacturers, as well as Japanese, Korean and Indian are doing the same, we can be sure. And why not? In business, the best time to attack your competitor is when they are ignoring you and focusing on themselves. All the layoffs, reorganizations, pay cuts, plant shut-downs and other internal actions give the company a false sense of "doing something" to solve their problems, when in fact it makes them a target for more market-aware competitors. By focusing internally, even if talking to existing customers, these companies make themselves targets for those who understand their Success Formulas and have developed ways to attack it.
Woolworth's was a leader in American retailing for decades – until they were displaced by more aggressive retailers they chose to ignore. But after going bankrupt in the U.S., the chain lived on in the U.K. until this week – where after 99 years the chain will close on Tuesday (see video about Woolworth's failure here). Woolworth's spent its energy trying to figure out what it should do in a weak market environment, and it missed more aggressive competitors who moved faster to liquidate inventory at lower prices and keep customers coming in the store as sales declined. Yet, Sears and its KMart subsidiary keep trying to find ways to "resurrect" their out-of-date business – oblivious to more aggressive competitors such as Kohl's that are rapidly making Sears obsolete. How long will Sears survive ignoring the aggressive actions of competitors that would like to drive it out of business?
It's tempting, especially in a tough economy, to look inward. Phrases like "cut the fat" and "get lean" sound very appealing. It makes managers think solving problems is all about improving execution of the old Success Formula. But it's the Success Formula itself that needs addressing – not execution! When markets shift, it's competitors that make the Success Formula value decline. It's competitors that create the market evolution obsoleting your business. Competitors generate the "Creative Destruction" which pushes down results.
Competitors are what makes for tough business conditions. Instead of talking to ourselves, and customers that know us only for what we've been in the past, we should be a lot more focused on competitors and what they are doing. The competitors that act quickly to introduce new products, new technologies, new services and new customer programs are the ones that will steal share in these tough times. It's competitors that deserve a lot more of our attention – because they are the ones who are causing our market share to decline, our prices to stagnate and our profits to drop.
Phoenix Principle companies obsess about competitors. They eschew spending lots of planning time on what they used to do, and what the old plans were. Instead, they spend time talking about actions taken by competitors – and then figuring out how those competitors accomplish those actions. Competitors show us new technologies to introduce, new features and variations desired by customers, and new ways to improve sales and profits. As the chairman of Intel, Andrew Grove, once said about competitors "only the paranoid survive."
No one wants to get chewed up in this recession. But focusing internally makes you a target – like GM, Ford, Chrysler, Woolworth's U.K. and Sears have become. While they obsess internally, competitors are taking innovation to market. Those who want to not only survive, but thrive, in 2009 will be the ones who look at competitors to understand the actions they take, and to move competitively to thwart those actions. As they understand competitors, they will launch actions intended to make competitors' lives miserable – thus stealing share from them. Winning in 2009 is about being a tough competitor, not waiting for someone to bail you out.
Success rarely comes from doing more of the same – even if better, faster or a touch cheaper. Success comes from developing and launching new offerings that steal sales from competitors. To hold onto your share, you have to fight off competitors. To grow, you have to outdo competitors. And in 2009, with things as tough as they are, those companies who will avoid having a target on their backs will be the ones who focus on competitors, rather than themselves.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 22, 2008 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Leadership, Lifecycle
Walgreens (see chart here) has been one heck of a company. It's growth has been unparalleled for such a large retailer the last 2 decades. But quarterly earnings just came out, and management announced they were down 10% versus a year ago (read here). That's a big warning signal. Two consecutive quarters of such performance and Walgreens will officially hit a Growth Stall. Company's that hit Growth Stalls only find the ability to grow a mere 2% a remarkably low 7% of the time. Or – stated another way – after a growth stall 93% of companies never again find consistent growth.
Why would such short term performance – only 6 months – indicate such horrible ongoing performance years into the future? The answer is that most companies Lock-in on a Success Formula, and they practice perfecting it. As long as they grow, such behavior is sensible. But, when markets shift and growth slows the company is unable to change to meet market needs. It only takes a couple of quarters to bring out the market shift. And most organizations react by trying to do more, better, faster, cheaper of what they've previously done (the old Success Formula) hoping results will return. But because what's needed is a change in the Success Formula – not just cost cutting or "better execution" – the returns stagnate. Companies fail to realize that they were already executing really well, so execution isn't the problem. The market has shifted and what's needed is more permanent Success Formula change.
Walgreens has been a marvel at opening new stores. Somewhat like Starbucks, there seemed to be a new Walgreens opening every time we drove down the street. All across the country. Similar to WalMart, Walgreens was riding a wave of perfecting the success of their unique stores – which were a rare combination of goods unlike any other competitor. So Walgreens kept opening more and more of them – almost one per day. Many of us have wondered if that sort of new store opening rate could continue. When would there be all the Walgreens (like all the McDonalds or all the Starbucks) we need. With the recent credit squeeze, we've found out that in fact the number of additional stores needed may not be nearly as great as thought. And as store openings have slowed the overheads are rising as a percent of sales – and results are struggling. Walgreens NEEDS to open all those stores to keep the Success Formula working, without them it's unclear the company is worth anywhere near its old valuation.
Walgreen has had other options. I've even blogged about them. Walgreen's brought out its own cosmetic line, including "cosmoceuticals" which are cosmetics with pharmaceutical properties. Walgreen's brought out exclusive clothing. The company built relationships to offer unique photo services for digital photographers seeking prints. And they launched a printer ink cartridge refill service. These are just some of the things they brought to stores the last few years.
But Walgreens didn't create any Disruptions when launching these new business ideas. The ideas did not find true White Space – because although they had permission to do new things, they were not given adequate resources. Instead, money was poured into opening new stores rather than developing new Success Formulas which could generate growth. As a result, they consistently did not receive sufficient management attention. And they consistently fell by the wayside as management kept focus on opening new stores. Certainly some of these ideas (or others not on this list, but taken to market), would have been able to generate incremental revenue across all stores – had they been pursued, analyzed, developed and grown to take a leading market position. But that didn't happen because everyone was happy to keep pushing the old Success Formula – opening more stores. Lacking a Disruption, the White Space didn't "stick" and the opportunities disappeared.
Now, Walgreens' growth has slowed. Walgreen's needs to figure out how to make more money with the stores it has, not just open more stores. But the organization and people at Walgreens are not geared for this new task. They are Locked-in to the new store opening Success Formula. Unless Walgreens Disrupts really fast, growth will remain slack – and profits will struggle. We can expect the reaction to be layoffs and other cost cutting – but that will not help Walgreens become a "great" retailer. "Survival" behavior does not make for "great" companies.
Walgreens is on the precipice of change. The stock is down over 50%, to values not seen for almost a decade. Either they Disrupt and fast open White Space to learn how they can change their Success Formula and regain growth — or they will end up cost slashing to prop up profits but erode their ability to succeed. We need to watch Walgreens closely, because the direction they take NOW will determine what employees, investors, customers and suppliers can expect for the next several years.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 18, 2008 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Leadership, Lock-in
I was talking to a restaurant waiter this week. He was bemoaning his fate. He had a large van, complete with overstuffed chairs, movie player – the works – for his family to drive in comfort and his children to enjoy. But when gasoline hit $4.00 a gallon he thought it unaffordable. So, as he told me, when he paid $150 to fill it one day he quickly sold it for almost nothing. He took out a loan and bought a car that used less gasoline. Now gas is under $2.00, and his family is tired of his smaller car. But he's locked-in to the payments, so now he can't afford to switch back. (Read about low oil prices here.)
He didn't plan for oil to go over $100/barrel, and he was caught with too costly transportation. But he didn't do a careful analysis of the fixed versus variable cost of trading for a higher gas mileage car – and now he's unhappy with oil at less than $40/barrel. Because he didn't think about the future possibilities he was unprepared for BOTH scenarios – and he's "one unhappy camper" these days.
But like my waiter, most businesses don't do enough scenario planning either. Instead, they simply plan for the future to be mostly like the past. When things shift, they simply try to Defend & Extend old business practices without thinking about what is most sensible. Most were unprepared for higher energy prices when they came along – even though analysts had been saying for years that America was primed for supply chain shocks from natural events or refinery problems. So too many made investments on the short-term price run-up, investments that are likely to take a lot longer to pay off with lower energy prices.
Likewise, most businesses aren't planning for unexpectedly low energy prices. Instead of investing these savings on new innovations that could make them big winners when the recession subsides, most are using what's likely to be a fairly short-term windfall to subsidize old business practices that are rapidly becoming obsolete. Instead of using the gains to create a new future, they are using them to subsidize out-of-date business models at a time when investing is likely to have enormous future payoffs. They are acting like cheap oil will be here forever – a situation we know isn't likely to occur from all we've heard the last 2 years!!!
Planning isn't about doing more of the same – and trying to figure out how to preserve past practices. Planning is about looking into the future and asking "what if something unexpected happens? Am I prepared?" We don't have crystal balls, and for that reason it is incredibly important to plan for situations which aren't like the past – because those are the ones which create competitive opportunities for us, and against us.
Scenario planning isn't done by many organizations. Instead, planning is designed to whittle down the number of potential options. As a result, the forecast is for something most like what is occuring today. Six months ago, everyone was planning for $150 oil. Now they are planning for $35 oil. And the answer is to plan for both! By understanding the impact of both options it allows us to be far better competitors, and to guide our businesses toward opportunities. And never had that been more true than in the chaotic competition characterized by our currently shifting global markets!
by Adam Hartung | Dec 16, 2008 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Quotes
In 1993 Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam wrote a book about the 1950s – called appropriately "The Fifties". He takes time in this book to talk about GM – a company today that has seen its leadership embarrassed, and its value for investors disintegrate in the face of mounting competition. It's humiliated executives have asked Congress for a bailout to save the employees and customers from total failure – because they seem unable to figure out a solution themselves. Read what Mr. Halberstam, a New York Times reporter, had to say about GM's rise to prominence:
*******************************************
"No one at GM could ever have dared forecast so much prosperity over such a long period of time. It was a brilliant moment, unparalleled in American corporate history. Success begat success… The postware economic boom may have benefited many Americans, but no one benefited more than General Motors. The average car, which had cost $1,270 at the beginning of the decade, had risen to $1,822 by the end of it…twice as fast as the rest of the wholesale cost index.
There was in all of this success for General Motors a certain arrogance of power. This was not only an institution apart; it was so big, so rich, and so powerful that it was regarded in the collective psyche of the nation as something more than a mere corporation: It was like a nation unto itself, a seperate entity, with laws and a culture all its own.
The men who ran the corporation, almost without exception, came from small towns in America… Everything about them reflected their confidence tht they had achieved virtually all there was to achieve in life. Others, critics, outside Detroit, might believe that these men were not such giants and might believe that they did not so much create that vast postwar economic wave as they had the good fortune to ride it… As for the intellectuals, if they wanted to drive small foreign cars, live in small houses, and make small salaries, why even bother to argue with them?
As success of the company grew, its informal rules gradually became codified. The culture was first and foremost hierarchical: An enterprising young executive tended to take all signals, share all attitudes and prejudices of the men above him, as his wife tended to play the sports and card games favored by the boss's wife, to emulate how she dressed and even to serve the same foods for dinner.
The essential goodness of the corporation was never questioned. It as regarded as, of all the many places to work, the best, because it was the biggest, the most respected, made the most money and, very quietly, through bonuses and stock, rewarded its top people the most handsomely."
*********************************************************
If this was the world of GM, codified as Mr. Halberstam explains, it becomes easier to understand the behavior of GM in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s - as competitors kept chipping away at market share and power. From 50% share of all automobiles sold in the 1950s, GM's share is now only half that. Executives, managers and even union employees quickly came to believe (in the late 40's and 50's)the future would always be like the past. But Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Kia and others didn't accept GM's claim to a monarchy. And now, everyone is paying for it.
Lock-in is built when companies are doing well. And Lock-in keeps the organization from changing. It is easy to belittle challenges, and blame poor performance on others. As competitors evolve, at times making big improvements, the Locked-in organization will explain away poor performance – but resist accepting the need to change. In the end, if we don't learn how to Disrupt the Lock-in and use White Space to become more competitive we all end up in the Whirlpool. Even GM.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 10, 2008 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool
Illinois' Governor Rod Blagojevich has burst onto the national scene. Not in a good way, obviously. What's surprising, though, is how people are reacting to the fact that today he returned to work and has shown no inclination to resign. They seemed surprised. They seem perplexed that he did not immediately resign. One newsperson on superstation WGN television said he thought this case was in greater need of a psychologist to explain the governor's behavior than a lawyer. I could not help but chuckle when I heard an NBC political analyst on "Countdown" say the "logical" thing for the Governor to do was resign. None of these people are taking the time to think about the Governor's Success Formula.
Rod Blagojevich is the product of some pretty rough-and-tumble politics, still carried out in the wards around Chicago. This is not to imply any wrongdoing on the part of Chicago's Mayor or his administration, nor any of the state employees of Illinois. But reality is that for many years politics in Chicago meant, "you wash my hands and I'll wash yours." While things have changed at the top, for many people in the bowels of government work, this Success Formula was ingrained. For many, if you want your street plowed of snow early, you make sure you contribute to the Alderman's re-election fund – and that was considered absolutely normal. In the old Secretary of State's office you could buy a truck driver's license without even taking the test. Even though several leaders have changed, there's been no real Disruption in local politics and so for many participants, many work teams and some functional groups, this Success Formula has endured. (Although the Secretary of State's office is a model example of change – and nothing at all like it was for many years under previous Secretaries.)
Governor Blagojevich got his "jump start" into politics by marrying the daughter of a powerful Chicago Alderman – Richard Mell. Mell has been powerful for a long time, and as a result he's learned how to play big time, hard ball politics. You don't back down easily, and you play each and every situation to win – not tie – and certainly not to withdraw. You never quite know what might happen, and those who attack may be attacked before they can make something stick. Play to win, all the time, every time. Horse trading is part of the game.
I would not be surprised to learn that similar hard-ball poiticing is common in many city halls and state offices across America – and between most of our representatives in the Congress and Senate. Even Presidents learn how to make compromises – albeit a lot more subtly and ethically than how we're hearing the Governor did it. To some extent, he seems less the "political criminal" (as characterized by the U.S. Attorney) than the politically naive who got too high without the proper training in "how to get things done" politically.
A result of his training was that the Governor learned to play to win. Never give up. Thus, he's utterly predictable. From his point of view, so far he's been convicted of nothing. He may be disliked right now – but there are many examples of politicians who see themselves publicly rehabilitated. In the 1980s a highly discounted politician, who had not even bothered to pay taxes for more than a decade, was elected Chicago's mayor and was quite popular (Harold Washington). Why would the Governor give up? Why resign? He still has the power of the governorship, and any effort to impeach him will take months – if it should succeed. Until the day comes when he absolutely, positively has to stop – why stop?
That's the way of Success Formulas. They don't work by other people's rules. They don't work by consensus, or public opinion, or even common sense. George Wallace extolled the virtues of segregation and even launched a campaign for the Presidency long after segregation was widely deplored in America. Richard Nixon felt humiliated as Vice-President by the lack of respect he was given from Eisenhower – including a complete lack of endorsement when he ran for President. And of course he lost his first run for President, and he was not well liked in his own party. Yet, he successfully positioned himself to win 2 terms as President before resigning in disgrace due to his involvement in ordering the Watergate break-in. None of these people did what would seem "normal" to most people. But they were entirely consistent with their Success Formulas.
We can expect that Governor Blagojevich will work very hard to protect himself, his family and his future. After all, if you listen to the counts against him you can see that was exactly what he was doing as Governor. There is no reason to think he will change that behavior now. While he is now severely challenged, and he has a big stack of problems, he has not been Disrupted – and he has not taken on any White Space where he would try anything new. To the contrary, he is in the same job, with the same people, doing the same work. What he will do is very predictable – it will be the action most likely to help himself and his family. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to understand the Governor – you just need to look at his past and understand his Success Formula. And notice that nothing has happened which is likely to make the Governor think he should change that Success Formula now.
After all, his predecessor (a Republican) didn't change his Success Formula and now the #2 Democrat in the U.S. Senate (Dick Durbin) is asking the President to pardon him for past wrongdoings so he can get out of prison. Why wouldn't Blagojevich ask the incoming President to pardon him in exchange for stepping down from the Governorship (for the good of the state)? To this day, many people think that was "the deal" Nixon made with Congressman Ford when he gave him the Vice-Presidency - which led to him becoming the first President to never be voted on by the American population when Nixon resigned. It was rather quickly that the new President Ford pardoned ex-President Nixon "for the good of the country."
Never underestimate the power of Success Formulas. People will follow them long, long after their results have proven unsatisfactory. Lock-in, established years (often decades) before keeps the person going in the same direction despite the lack of recent success. As small wins come in, they reinforce that the Success Formula will work again, if just adhered to closely enough. And many leaders – in government or in industry (don't forget Bernie Ebbers at Worldcom or Mr. Skilling at Enron) will deny wrongdoing and remain committed to their course even in the face of considerable evidence that to change would be more beneficial.
Of course, if you allow yourself to be Disrupted – and you keep White Space alive in your life – you can avoid this problem. You can learn to adapt your Success Formula to produce better results as environments around you shift. But that has not been the way of Governor Blagojevich. Do you allow Disruptions and White Space in your life? Or are you risking a drift into weaker results while remaining tied to old Lock-ins?
by Adam Hartung | Dec 8, 2008 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
So we now hear that Congress will loan $15billion to GM, Ford and Chrysler intended to keep them going concerns until at least March. We've been told that there are requirements on the loans that will better the industry. But honestly, there's nothing new being proposed that makes any difference, nor the proper teeth in Congress's proposed bill. (Read about the bill here.)
The bill limits executive bonuses and severance packages. But why does it let management (and the Boards of Directors) keep their jobs? It is clear that these leaders, and their management teams, led these companies into desperate circumstances. They put their bondholders, equity investors and employees all at risk. They passed the "brink" and got to the point of requiring government assistance to stop a cataclysmic disaster. So why are these people left in their jobs? How can anyone expect a really changed industry if the people who sold off assets for 2 decades trying to Defend & Extend a thoroughly out of date and broken Success Formula are given the money to invest?
Oh, we can expect a "car czar" who is supposed to oversee these loans and assure a the industry invests appropriately for change. Who's the right guy for this job (don't forget – I applied!)? We now read that the lawyer who oversaw the handout of money to survivors of 9/11/01 victims. This is, of course, the right qualifications to evaluate business plans, investment rates and innnovation programs for an industry. He's shown he can hand out money – but where has he shown he knows anything about re-engineering a very broken, large company? Where does he have credentials for un-knotting the Lock-in that keeps these companies dysfunctional? And how is he supposed to stand up to management teams that claim to have superior knowledge about auto company management – despite driving these companies into the proverbial financial ground.
The union leadership apparently wants Board seats in exchange for concessions. What difference will that make? Do union leaders know how to turn around companies where they encouraged Lock-in that cost them thousands of jobs? Are they trying to reach back to the kind of union practices that kept coal stokers on trains long after electric automotives were introduced? Defending & Extending out of date union practices won't fix these companies either. What these union leaders need to be asking for is government promises to secure the unfunded pension obligations, and creating a government program to preserve heath care costs that are likely to be stripped in an effort to lower variable costs. There is no bailout that can cover these costs indefinitely – and that is where labor restructuring needs to focus.
As investors, Americans deserve better than leftover thinking for their investment. More of the old management won't fix the problems. What's required is White Space to make significant changes:
- Auto design has to change from backward integration and standardization for manufacturing to forward-thinking which brings customers
- Distribution has to allow customers more opportunites to buy than the old-fashioned, and tedious, dealer structure which puts off almost all customers (and makes buying an unpleasant event). Customers deserve the right to buy direct if they like, and from dealers if they enjoy what dealers offer.
- Manufacturing has to change from "scale" to "build to order". Flexibility has to overtake 80 year old industrial design practices which have made the products inflexible and too expensive.
- Pension reform is essential. The overhead costs of pensions makes these companies unviable. This will require government intervention.
- Health care reform is essential. Perhaps Michigan should follow the Oregon example (and Massachusetts), and be a leader in developing programs to have state-assisted insurance coverage for everyone. Perhaps this should be an experiment in changing from employer paid health coverage, which offshore competitors do not have to shoulder, to self-paid coverage with guaranteed protection.
These are complex problems. They defy simple solutions. They require White Space. Cut Saturn free (again, like when it was founded) to experiment with new solutions. Give other nameplates the indepence to experiment with other possibilities. Monitor performance, see what works, and migrate toward what succeeds.
Now is the time to implement Disruptions and try something new. When the airline industry was grounded in 2001 there was a tremendous opportunity to restructure from unprofitable hub-and-spoke systems with outdated practices to new approaches using White Space. But neither government, nor the industry, took advantage of the stoppage to really try something new. Everyone was in a rush to start operating again, with practically no change. A huge opportunity was lost. And that sounds like the direction we're headed with the desperately uncompetitive auto industry.
We should not make that mistake again. Now is the time to Disrupt these companies. Fire the executive teams and the Boards. They've never been shy about firing employees or vendors. Put new management in place that understands how to manage innovation – rather than Lock-in. Get people in the jobs who don't want to Defend & Extend what's broken – but instead want to make changes and learn what will make these companies world class once again. And put in place competent oversight that can make sure change happens.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 7, 2008 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
A year ago Sam Zell was telling Chicago that he knew how to make money in newspapers. He was certain, absolutely certain, that Tribune Company newspapers – including The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times – would soon be returned to higher readership, higher ad rates and greater profits. Now, Tribune Company is preparing for bankruptcy (read article here.)
Sam Zell did a horrible job of scenario planning. He didn't look into the future and develop scenarios about what was likely to happen in news. Instead, he simply assumed that readers would return if he made a few format and editorial changes, the economy would strengthen and he could depend on advertisers returning as well. He expected a fast, big payback for his investment. Just like he'd done in real estate all those years.
Sam Zell had a very Locked-in Success Formula. He had spent a lifetime buying property, usually properties already in locations demanded. All he had to do was fix up the property and let growing demand for the scarce resource – his building in a demanded location – drive up the value. He didn't stick around to make money off rent. He didn't run a business that made a product and sold it. He bought properties, dressed them up and sold them at a profit. To him, Tribune Company was a property that was being ignored. All he had to do was fix it up a bit, wait a bit, and sell it to someone for more than he paid.
Oops. That Success Formula doesn't work when customers are walking away from the property to pursue a better one. News seekers in droves are going to the internet for their news. They no longer want to browse a newspaper – understanding that takes time, and it gives only a single source. The internet gives them fast answers to their queries from multiple sources. And advertisers are going where the readers are going – to the internet as well. The cost for a printed medium is high, and the results are hard to prove. Whereas internet ads can be tracked for number of page views, number of click-throughs and even sales. The readers are more, and the follow-up is superior. Advertisers have found it easy to forget about newspaper ads, especially in a soft marketplace.
Meanwhile, the Tribune Company Success Formula was firmly stuck in the 1990s. From sales people to editors, denial about shifting reader needs was everywhere. Even though each news company – from newspaper to radio and TV – had great access to reporters and first touch at many news stories, they did not realize that readers were looking for that news on the web first. Each newspaper and station was Locked-in to pushing the news through its format, ignoring the enormous audience opportunity they had in their local markets by using cross-media approaches, including the web. There was no one approaching customers with multi-format advertising opportunities. Nor was the company investing heavily into web sites or portals that could attract large numbers of on-line readers. The on-line environments were under-invested, and selling ads was completely fractured. There was limited, at best, sales efforts to get advertisers onto the weak websites running news from each individual business unit.
What Tribune Company needed was not only scenario planning that identified the range of opportunities for ad sales – but a sincerely intense analysis of on-line competitors. Instead of bragging that the company had leading newspapers in major cities, the leadership should have recognized its fast declining share of total news coverage – due to shifts in how people acquire their news. By focusing internally, cutting costs and trying techniques like new formats, Sam Zell missed the opportunity to really study competitors and figure out how to transform Tribune into a competitive news company – like, say, News Corp.
And while he was busy firing people and making changes on the periphery, Sam Zell was unwilling to really Disrupt Tribune Corporation. He didn't change the business model – the Success Formula. He whacked the chicken coop, scaring employees, readers and advertisers alike as he talked about firing people until he made money. But he never caused his leadership team to really stop and talk about the future of news. They were too busy looking for people to lay off or protecting their own jobs — while Sam was trying to find buyers for the Cubs, Wrigley Field and the Tribune Tower as a potential condo project.
And Sam's Success Formula had no space for White Space. Sam didn't see any reason to try new things – like having salespeople sell internet ads as well as print ads. Or trying to drive traffic to the Tribune or L.A. Times web sites. As a property "flipper" extra-ordinary, Mr. Zell was not interested in developing a new business model. So none was developed – nor any energy spent trying to create one.
Now, America's second and third largest cities are at risk of losing their primary local newspapers. The suppliers are seeing their customer shrink, and possibly their accounts receivable jeopardized. Advertisers are wondering how they reach their local customers. And employees are looking for new jobs. Meanwhile, citizens are wondering who will be out interviewing the mayors, governors and congresspeople of their fine states. Who will be supplying the news?
The cost to Sam Zell Defending & Extending both his Success Formula and that at Tribune Company is enormous. The bond holders – most certainly pension funds and bond mutual funds - will take a horrible hit. The employees and employees of suppliers pay as well. And the citizens, dependent upon a robust news community will also suffer. It's too bad Mr. Zell didn't talk less, and listen more – implementing White Space to make a leading news company that would impress his customers across the U.S.A. I guess he'll have a lot of time to read Mr. Murdoch's newspapers (like the Wall Street Journal), watch Mr. Murdoch's Fox television stations and look at Fox's web site (have a MySpace page yet Sam?) after Mr. Zell's equity value gets wiped out in bankruptcy. Surely the creditors will ask for a new leader – who faces a much more difficult challenge now that the resources have been gutted by Mr. Zell.
