by Adam Hartung | Jul 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Lock-in
"Deeper Recession Than We Thought" is the Marketwatch headline. As government data reporters often do, today they revised the economic numbers for 2008. We now know the start to this recession was twice as bad as reported. The 3.9% decline was the worst economic performance since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The consumer spending decline was the worst since 1951 (58 years – a very low percentage of those employed today were even born then.) Business investment dropped a full 20%. Residential investment dropped 27%. Stark numbers.
How did business people react? Exactly as they were trained to react. They cut costs. Layed people off. Dropped new products. Stopped R&D and product development. They quit doing things. What's the impact? The decline slows, but it continues. Just like growth begets growth, cutting begets more decline.
Then really interesting bad things happen.
"ComEd loses customers for first time in 56 years" is the Crain's headline. There are 17,000 fewer locations buying electricity in the greater Chicago area than there were a year ago. That is amazing. When you see new homes being built, and new commercial buildings, the very notion that the number of electricity customers contracted is hard to fathom. People aren't even keeping the lights on any more. They've gone away.
In the old days we said "go west." But that hasn't been the case. Everyone remembers the dot.com bust ending the 1990s. "Silicon Valley Unemployment Skyrockets" is the Silican Alley Insider lead. Today unemployment in silicon valley is the highest on record – even higher than the dot bust days. When even tech jobs are at a nadir, it's clear something is very different this time.
The old approaches to dealing with a recession aren't working. While optimism is always high, what we can see is that things have shifted. The world isn't like it was before. And applying the same approaches won't yield improved results. "For Illinois, recession looking milder – but recovery weaker" is another Crain's headline. Nowhere are there signs of a robust economy.
We can't expect an economic recovery on "Cars for Cash" or "Clunker" programs. By overpaying for outdated and obsolete cars we can bring forward some purchases. But this does not build a healthy market for ongoing purchases. These programs aren't innovation that promotes purchase. They are a subsidy to a lucky few so they pay significantly less for an existing product. To recover we must have real growth. Growth from new products that meet new customer needs in new ways. Growth built on providing solutions that advantage the buyer. Only by introducing innovation, and creating value, will customers (businesses or consumer) open their wallets.
Advertising hasn't disappeared. But it has gone on-line. Today you don't have to spend as much to reach your target. Instead of mass advertising to 1,000 in order to reach the 100 (or 15) you really want, today you can target that buyer through the web and deliver them an advertisement far cheaper. I didn't learn about Cash for Clunkers from a TV ad, I learned about it on the web. As did thousands of people that rushed out to take advantage of the program at its introduction – exceeding expectations. It no longer takes inefficient mass advertising through newspapers or broadcast TV to reach customers – so that market shrinks. But the market for on-line ads will grow. So Google grows – double digit growth – while the old advertising media keeps shrinking. To get the economy growing businesses (like Tribune Corporation) have to shift into these new markets, and provide new products and services that help them grow.
I live in Chicago. Years ago, in the days of The Jungle Chicago grew as an agricultural center. There was a time the West Side of Chicago was known for its smelly stockyards and slaughter houses. But Chicago watched its agricultural companies move away. They moved closer to the farms. They were replaced by steel mills in places like Gary, IN and Chicago's south side. But those too shut down, moved to lower cost locations offshore. These businesses were replaced with assembly plants, like the famous AT&T Hawthorne facility, and manufacturers such as machine tool makers. Now, for the last decade, these too have been moving away. With each wave, the less valuable work, the more menial work, shifted to another location where it could be done as good but cheaper and often faster.
Historically growth continued by replacing those jobs with work tied to the shifting market – jobs that provided more value. So now, for Chicago to grow it MUST create information jobs. The market has moved. Kraft won't regain its glory if it keeps trying to sell more Velveeta. Kraft has not launched a major new product in over 9 years. Sara Lee has been shedding businesses and cutting costs for 6 years – getting smaller and losing value. McDonalds sold its high growth business Chipotles to raise money for defending its hamburger stores by adding new coffee machines. Motorola has let mobile telephony move to competitors as it remained too Locked-in to old technologies and old products while new companies – like Apple and RIM – brought out innovations that attracted new customes and growth.
Growth doesn't come from waiting for the economy to improve. Growth comes from implementing innovation that gives us new solutions. Every market, whether geographic or product based, requires new solutions to maintain growth. If we want our economy to improve, we must change our approach. We can't save our way to prosperity. Instead we must create solutions that fit future scenarios, introduce new solutions that Disrupt old patterns and use White Space to help customers shift to these products.
If we change our approach we can regain growth. Otherwise, we can expect to keep getting what we got in 2008.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
"Pfizer reports lower profit, revenue" is the Marketwatch headline. Unhappy news has become the norm for Pfizer shareholders. Since peaking in 2000 at just under $50/share, the stock has gone nowhere but down for the entire decade – going below $13.00 in 2009 (see Yahoo Finance chart here). You have to go back to 1997 to find the last time Pfizer was valued this lowly. Despite its ownership of several well known, branded drugs – like Viagra and Lipitor – Viagra cannot regain revenue growth or investor interest.
Leadership has done a lot of things the last 10 years to try and improve the business. In 2000, at the valuation peak, the company bought Warner Lambert. In 2002 Pfizer bought Pharmacia (the merged Upjohn/Searle company). In 2005 they spent massively on legal work to protect the remaining patent life on Lipitor. In 2006 they sold the consumer products business to Johnson & Johnson. Across the last 4 years the company has dramatically cut R&D costs for both human and animal products. And earlier this year they agreed to pay a premium to buy Wyeth. But none of this has increased valuation for the last 8 years. To the contrary, value has continued to step down again, and again, and again – losing about 70%.
The problem at Pfizer is management built a Success Formula many years ago, and keeps trying to defend it. They believe in the model of finding, or buying, blockbuster drugs – meaning a product with wide appeal. And selling this only if it has patent protection in order to generate a huge price premium. This made Pfizer huge and profitable long ago. And the company keeps trying to find a way to replay that tune, hoping to achieve the old results.
But the world has shifted. The science of pharmacology has been mined for nearly 100 years. Today, most new drugs have as many problems as benefits. Increasingly, improvement happens only in narrow population niches where genetics align with the chemical additive. Pharmacology is running out of gas. Medical science has shifted to biologics. Instead of looking for a chemical solution, the focus is on nano-tech to isolate product delivery directly to diseased cells. Or engineering to alter genes through cell modification for superior healing performance. These bio-engineering solutions are now offering far better results at far lower cost – while the costs of pharmacology skyrocket amidst diminishing returns.
Pfizer has not shifted. Pfizer management keeps trying to Defend & Extend its old business. Locked-in to the old Success Formula, leadership looks for new drugs, new therapy programs, new solutions that "fit" its approach to the market. But it simply isn't paying off. And everyone from investors to employees to suppliers is at risk. Desperately, leadership is willing to overpay for Wyeth to avoid falling into oblivion when existing drugs come off patent protection in the next few years. But everyone knows this game is nearly over. This may extend the senior leader's jobs, and their pay, it doesn't provide a return to shareholders. Unless leadrship changes the Success Formula Pfizer will never again be as profitable as it once was, or grow as it once did.
Even though it is located in New Jersey, not Michigan, and is full of phramacology Ph.Ds and medical doctors rather than mechanical engineers, Pfizer is more like GM than it would ever admit. It developed a Success Formula, and it is doing everything possible to keep it alive – rather than shift with the market. As GM has shown, no matter how big you are if you don't shift with the market eventually you go bankrupt. Size is no protection from market shifts. Too bad for investors and employees that size is the only thing leadership is trying to use to protect itself.
Don't forget to download the free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Jul 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, eBooks, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Years ago there was a TV ad featuring the actor Pauly Shore. Sitting in front of a haystack there was a sign over his frowning head reading "Find the needle." The voice over said "hard." Then another shot of Mr. Shore sitting in front of the same haystack grinning quite broadly, and the sign said "Find the hay." the voice over said "easy." Have you ever noticed that in business we too often try to do what's hard, rather than what's easy?
Take for example The New York Times Company, profiled today on Marketwatch.com in "The Gray Lady's Dilemma." The dilemma is apparently what the company will do next. Only, it really doesn't seem like much of a dilemma. The company is rapidly on its way to bankruptcy, with cash flow insufficient to cover operations. The leaders are negotiating with unions to lower costs, but it's unclear these cuts will be sufficient. And they definitely won't be within a year or two. Meanwhile the company is trying to sell The Boston Globe, which is highly unprofitable, and will most likely sell the Red Sox and the landmark Times Building in Manhattan, raising cash to keep the paper alive.
Only there isn't much of a dilemma here. Newspapers as they have historically been a business are no longer feasible. The costs outweigh the advertising and subscription dollars. The market is telling newspaper owners (Tribune Corporation, Gannett, McClatchey, News Corp. and all the others as well as The Times) that it has shifted. Cash flow and profits are a RESULT of the business model. People now are saying that they simply won't pay for newspapers – nor even read them. Thus advertisers have no reason to advertise. The results are terrible because the market has shifted. The easy thing to do is listen to the market. It's saying "stop." This should be easy. Quit, before you run out of money.
Of course, company leadership is Locked-in to doing what it always has done. So it doesn't want to stop. And many employees are Locked-in to their old job descriptions and pay – so they don't want to stop. They want to do what's hard – which is trying to Defend & Extend a money-losing enterprise after its useful life has been exhausted. But if customers have moved on, isn't this featherbedding? How is it different than trying to maintain coal shovelers on electric locomotives? This approach is hard. Very hard. And it won't succeed.
For a full half-decade, maybe longer, it has been crystal clear that print news, radio news and TV news (especially local) is worth a lot less than it used to be. They all suffer from one-way communication limits, poor reach and frequently poor latency. All problems that didn't exist before the internet. This technology and market shift has driven down revenues. People won't pay for what they can get globally, faster and in an interactive environment. As these customers shift, advertisers want to go where they are. After all, advertising is only valuable when it actually reaches someone.
Meanwhile, reporting and commentary increasingly is supplied by bloggers that work for free – or nearly so. Not unlike the "stringers" used by news services back in the "wire" days of Reuters, UPI and AP. Only now the stringers can take their news directly to the public without needing the wire service or publishers. They can blog their information and use Google to sell ads on their sites, thus directly making a market for their product. They even can push the product to consolidators like HuffingtonPost.com in order to maximize reach and revenue. Thus, the costs of acquiring and accumulating news has dropped dramatically. Increasingly, this pits the expensive journalist against the low cost journalist. And the market is shifting to the lower cost resource — regardless of how much people argue about the lack of quality (of course, some [such as politicians] would question the quality in today's "legitimate" media.)
Trying to keep The New York Times and Boston Globe alive as they have historically been is hard. I would contend a suicide effort. Continuing is explained only by recognizing the leaders are more interested in extending Lock-in than results. Because if they want results they would be full-bore putting all their energy into creating mixed-format content with maximum distribution that leads with the internet (including e-distribution like Kindle), and connects to TV, radio and print. Pricing for newspapers and magazines would jump dramatically in order to cover the much higher cost of printing. And the salespeople would be trained to sell cross-format ads which run in all formats. Audience numbers would cross all formats, and revenue would be tied to maximum reach, not the marginal value of each format. That is what advertisers want. Creating that sale, building that company, would be relatively much easier than trying to defend the Lock-in. And it would produce much better results.
The only dilemma at The New York Times Company is between dying as a newspaper company, or surviving as something else. The path it's on now says the management would rather die a newspaper company than do the smart thing and change to meet the market shift. For investors, this poses no dilemma. Investors would be foolhardy to be long the equity or bonds of The New York Times. There will be no GM-style bailout, and the current direction is into the Whirlpool. Employees had better be socking away cash for the inevitable pay cuts and layoffs. Suppliers better tighten up terms and watch the receivables. Because the company is in for a hard ending. And faster than anyone wants to admit.
Don't miss my recent ebook, "The Fall of GM" for a
quick read on how easily any company (even the nation's largest employer) can be
easily upset by market shifts. And learn what GM could have done to avoid
bankruptcy – lessons that can help your business grow!
http://tinyurl.com/mp5lrm
by Adam Hartung | Jul 13, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Is Bob Lutz the right guy to run GM Marketing?" is the question headlined on Advertising Age. I'm sure you know I think the answer is a resounding "NO."
I'll never forget a few months when Mr. Lutz, being interviewed for a national magazine, said the Tesla sports car and the company that developed it was a joke. He said it wasn't a real car, nor was Tesla a real car company. He said the leadership at Tesla didn't know what it meant to be a professional auto company, and to be professional auto executives. He was condescending and rude as to the future of Tesla.
Let's see, Tesla has made a 100% electric car, sold 100% of its output, has investors that aren't the federal government, has never been bankrupt and has never asked for a bailout to stay in business. Meanwhile, the former vice-chairman of GM was a stanch critic of the electric car, saying it would never meet the driving needs of the American public, and fully supported GM killing its electric car program. While he was a leader at GM, the company couldn't even keep 100% of its capacity in operation, much less sell 100% of the output, the company begged the federal government for money to keep it in operation when private investors would no longer invest, and then wiped out the equity holders entirely – and over 80% of the value of bondholders, by leading the company into bankruptcy.
Mr. Lutz was an executive at GM. But that doesn't make him a good executive. In fact, given the performance of GM since 1975 (nearly 35 years) it might be more of a disqualifier than a qualifier. Why would anyone want to hire an executive who stayed in one industry for over 40 years, during which the companies he worked for lost share, saw their margins decline, led in no new technology categories, was perennially late introducing new products, saw their costs spiral out of control, had the lowest job satisfaction in the industry by its employees, had some of the lower quality scores among consumers in the industry and and eventually had to declare bankruptcy?
America loves to glorify, make heroes even, of business executives. Usually of large companies. But few of these executives actually made a significant positive impact on their companies, employees, investors or suppliers. Executives rise because they are very good at supporting the Success Formula, not because they produce significantly better results. As long as the manager turned director turned V.P. keeps reinforcing the Success Formula, in fact many mistakes can be overlooked. Especially if the executive's style is similar to the top brass at the company (same school, same degrees, same geographic origin, same religion, same politics, same views.) What gets an executive promoted at GM (and most large companies) is simply not results. It is consistent reinforcement of a Success Formula, burnishing and amplifying it, even in the face of deterioriating results. Like Mr. Lutz.
There is no popular election of executives. In this case, perhaps there should be. Given how disgusted most people are with GM, I doubt many people would vote to keep the original management in place. And I doubt fewer still would vote to place a 77 year old executive who was part of the long term industry decline and recent failure in a top position. And even fewer would say that a 77 year old is prepared to take on marketing leadership in a world where traditional advertising has declining value, and the best companies are creatively using all kinds of internet marketing programs. Not just because of his age – but because he's never developed the remotest skill to do the work. Many 30 year olds could explain in deep detail how to get viral campaigns working – while all Mr. Lutz could say is he's seen a YouTube! video and read a blog or two. And he gets to manage the 4th largest ad budget in the USA? Isn't that how GM got into this mess – having people in top jobs who were out of step with current market realities?
Businesses exist to put resources to effective use. We measure that effectiveness with cash flow and profits. We ask that the leaders who borrow money from investors (equity and debt) return that principle with a positive rate of return. And we ask that the executives honor their commitments to the employees and vendors. In the case of GM, the executives eliminated the investments made by investors, reneged on the employee commitments and left vendors holding the bag on long-term contracts the company will no longer honor. Even old customers can no longer hold the company accountable for its defective products. By all measures, these leaders failed. And yet someone thinks it's a good idea to keep the same people running this company?
GM needs new leadership. Leadership willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to develop a new Success Formula. Asking Mr. Lutz to be the head of marketing is not a Disruption. It is an action specifically intended to remain Locked-in to the old Success Formula and maintain the re-invention gap between GM and the marketplace. With this kind of decision making, GM will find itself back in bankruptcy court a lot faster than any of the experts even think.
Don't miss the new ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Jul 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Google is growing, and GM is trying to get out of bankruptcy. On the surface there are lots of obvious differences. Different markets, different customers, different products, different size of company, different age. But none of these get to the heart of what's different about the two companies. None of these really describe why one is doing well while the other is doing poorly.
GM followed, one could even say helped create, the "best practices" of the industrial era. GM focused on one industry, and sought to dominate that market. GM eschewed other businesses, selling off profitable businesses in IT services and aircraft electronics. Even selling off the parts business for its own automobiles. GM focused on what it knew how to do, and didn't do anything else.
GM also figured out its own magic formula to succeed, and then embedded that formula into its operating processes so the same decisions were replicated again and again. GM Locked-in on that Success Formula, doing everything possible to Defend & Extend it. GM built tight processes for everything from procurement to manufacturing operations to new product development to pricing and distribution. GM didn't focus on doing new things, it focused on trying to make its early money making processes better. As time went by GM remained committed to reinforcing its processes, believing every year that the tide would turn and instead of losing share to competitors it would again gain share. GM believed in doing what it had always done, only better, faster and cheaper. Even into bankruptcy, GM believed that if it followed its early Success Formula it would recapture earlier rates of return.
Google is an information era company, defining the new "best practices". It's early success was in search engine development, which the company turned into a massive on-line advertising placement business that superceded the first major player (Yahoo!). But after making huge progress in that area, Google did not remain focused alone on doing "search" better year after year. Since that success Google has also launched an operating system for mobile phones (Android), which got it into another high-growth market. It has entered the paid search marketplace. And now, "Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS" is the CNN headline.
"Google to unveil operating system to rival Microsoft" is the Marketwatch headline. This is not dissimilar from GM buying into the airline business. For people outside the industry, it seems somewhat related. But to those inside the industry this seems like a dramatic move. For participants, these are entirely different technologies and entirely different markets. Not only that, but Microsoft's Windows has dominated (over 90% market share) the desktop and laptop computer markets for years. To an industrial era strategist the Windows entry barriers would be considered insurmountable, making it not worthwhile to pursue any products in this market.
Google is unlike GM in that
- it has looked into the future and recognizes that Windows has many obstacles to operating effictively in a widely connected world. Future scenarios show that alternative products can make a significant difference in the user experience, and even though a company currently dominates the opportunity exists to Disrupt the marketplace;
- Google remains focused on competitors, not just customers. Instead of talking to customers, who would ask for better search and ad placement improvements, Google has observed alternative, competitive operating system products, like Unix and Linux, making headway in both servers and the new netbooks. While still small share, these products are proving adept at helping people do what they want with small computers and these customers are not switching to Windows;
- Google is not afraid to Disrupt its operations to consider doing something new. It is not focused on doing one thing, and doing it right. Instead open to bringing to market new technologies rapidly when they can Disrupt a market; and
- Google uses extensive White Space to test new solutions and learn what is needed in the product, distribution, pricing and promotion. Google gives new teams the permission and resources to investigate how to succeed – rather than following a predetermined path toward an internally set goal (like GM did with its failed electric car project).
Nobody today wants to be like GM. Struggling to turn around after falling into bankruptcy. To be like Google you need to quit following old ideas about focusing on your core and entry barriers – instead develop scenarios about the future, study competitors for early market insights, Disrupt your practices so you can do new things and test lots of ideas in White Space to find out what the market really wants so you can continue growing.
Don't forget to download the new, free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"
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 | 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 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 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
