by Adam Hartung | Mar 19, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee." That was the jingle I still remember from my youth. For years we heard this on the TV, as we were coaxed to buy the delictable productss, frozen, refrigerated and fresh, offered by Sara Lee. But today, unfortunately, almost nobody likes Sara Lee anymore. Oh – the products are great – it's the company, primarily its leadership, that's a disaster.
It's tough to make money on food. After all, everyone has the same cost for the ingredients. And in the developed world, there's more than enough food to go around. For the last 50 years, to make money on food required adding to the product so it had more value. Such as freezing frozen potatoe slices rather than selling whole potatoes so french fries are more convenient - raising price and margin. Or adding preservatives and vitamins so the bread lasts longer than the other guy's, and may be a touch better for you. Or the biggest addition, advertising so you imbue the food with all kinds of personality elements urging customers to identify with the product. If you want to make money selling food, you have to taste better, prepare faster, sell cheaper and hopefully give me more value in myself — or else I'll by the generic product and kill your margin. And for a number of years, Sara Lee knew how to do this fairly well.
But then, Sara Lee stumbled. It quit launching new products and new brands. It's quality and branding was matched by competitors from Entenmann's to Little Debbie. Without innovation, the frozen, refrigerated and fresh pies, sausage and other products saw margins shrink. So Sara Lee hired a bright exec from PepsiCo to fix up the company named Brenda Barnes. Since then, the story has really gone downhill.
Ms. Barnes focused on her "problem," a low stock price, rather the market challenges Sara Lee faced. She built a 5 year plan to turn around Sara Lee. But his plan had no innovation involved. No plans for growth. Just the opposite, she intended to sell many assets to raise cash. And then use that cash to buy shares. And through this process, she would "prop up" the company stock to the benefit of shareholders. The company would be smaller – but she said it would be worth more – in some kind of weird economics. But, this stock ploy had worked for other industrial companies, she said, so it would work for Sara Lee. Since then, according to the chart at Marketwatch.com, Sara Lee stock has gone from 21 to 7! While the CEO wants to blame the tough economy for her performance, the chart shows that this "strategy" has been a dead loser since the day it was announced. Things have been downhill since long before banks trimmed their lending.
Now, in her latest move, the CEO wants to sell some more businesses. But in an FT.com article "Sara Lee Searches for Sell-off Suitor" there aren't any buyers for remaining businesses. As one analyst commented "it's a rather tired portfolio." That's a polite way of saying "when you don't innovate your business, why would someone want to buy it?" As another analyst said "it's not a very good business." Increasingly, instead of buying these product lines competitors realize they would prefer to compete against them, growing sales organically and profitably — without the headaches and cost of acquisition.
So, because the sale side of the strategy isn't working, we read in Crains ChicagoBusiness.com "Sara Lee to put stock repurchases on hold." After buying shares at $20, $18, $15, the CEO has decided not to buy shares when they are $7 – in order to conserve cash! Maybe if she had spent money on growing the business, expanding products and new business lines, using White Space to innovate new profitable opportunities the stock wouldn't be down to $7 with little interest on the part of any buyers.
Ms. Barnes tried to implement an industrial strategy when it can no longer work. Sara Lee brands aren't some kind of asset that will always go up in value. You can't just expect sales and profits to rise because you do more of the same, and cut costs. The world is highly competitive, and you have to prove the value of your business every day. Customers are demanding, and competitors are ready to steal them away in a heartbeat. You can't prop up the stock by trying to reduce the number of shares, unless you're ready to get down to $1 of revenue and 1 share left valued at $1. What good is that?
Sara Lee could have behaved very differently in 2005 – and CAN behave very differently now. The company clearly needs a new CEO that is ready to develop scenarios of the future which indicate what innovations could have high value. Instead of talking about what Sara Lee used to be, the CEO and management team needs to define what Sara Lee will be in 2015. And by obsessing about competitors, describe how Sara Lee can be a big winner. Then there needs to be Disruption in order to allow the company to consider the new business opportunities, and White Space with permission and resources to rebuild the Success Formula into one that can make above-average rates of return and grow! If Sara Lee will take these actions the company still has time to meet market challenges. But if it doesn't act fast, after 4 years of decline and a very shifted market, nobody's going to have any Sara Lee to nibble on sooner than Ms. Barnes is admitting.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 12, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lock-in
What do you think of when someone says "The Dow"? Most people think of the Dow Jones Industrial Average – a mix of some roughly 30 companies (the number isn't fixed and does change). But very few people know the names on the list, or why those companies are selected. As time has passed, most people think of "The Dow" as "blue chip" companies that are supposed to be the largest, strongest and safest companies on the New York Stock Exchange. For this last reason, it's probably time to think about killing "The Dow." It's certainly clear that what the selection committee thought were "blue chip" a year ago was off by about 50% – with many names gone or nearly gone (like AIG, GM, Citibank) and many struggling to convince people about their longevity (like Pfizer).
Quick history: "The Dow" is named afrer the first editor of the Wall Street Journal Charles Dow (co-founder of Dow Jones, owner of the Journal) who wrote in the late 1800s. Building on his early thoughts about markets, something called "Dow Theory" was developed in the early part of the 1900s. Simply put, this said to get a selection of manufacturing companies, and average their prices (the Dow Jones Industrials). Then, get a selection of transportation companies and average their prices (the Dow Jones Transportations [see, you forgot their were 2 "Dows" didn't you]). Then, watch these averages. If only one moves, you can't be predictive, but if both moves it means that businesses are both making and shipping more (or less) so you can bet the overall market will go the direction of the two averages. So it was a theory trying to predict business trends in an industrial economy by following two rough gages – production and transportation – using stock prices. [note: the first study of Dow Theory in 1934 said it didn't work – and it's never been shown to work predicatably.]
Don't forget, in this most quoted of all market averages the third word is "Industrial." The reason for creating the average was to measure the performance of industrial companies. And across the years, the names on the list were all kinds of industrials. Only in the most recent years was the definition expanded to include banks. But that was considered OK, because above all else "the Dow" was a measure of leading companies in an "industrial" economy and the banks had become key components in extending the industrial economy by providing leverage for "hard assets".
Marketwatch.com today asked the headline question "Is the Dow doing its job?" The article's concern was whether "the Dow" effectively tracked the economy because so many of its components have recently traded at remarkably low prices per share - 5 below $10 – and even 1 below $1! Historically these would have been swapped out for better performing companies in the economy. Faltering companies were dropped (like how AIG was dropped in the last year) – which meant that "the Dow" would always go up; because the owners could manipulate the components! [the owners are still the editors at The Wall Street Journal now owned by News Corp.] But even the editor of the Dow Jones Indexes said "While we wouldn't pick stocks that trade under $10 to be in the Dow [Citi and GM] are still representative of the industries they're in, and their decline in the recent past is part of the story of the market recently."
Recently, "the Dow" has taken a shellacking. And the reasons given are varied. But one thing we HAVE to keep in mind is that any measure of "industrial" companies deserves to get whacked, and we should not expect those industrial companies to dramatically improve. In the 1950s when the thinking was "what's good for GM is good for America" we were in the heyday of an industrial economy. And that phrase, even if never really used by anyone famous, made so much sense it became part of our lexicon. But we aren't in an industrial economy any more. And the failure of GM (as well as the struggles at Ford, Chrysler and Toyota) shows us that fact. If "the Dow" is a measure of industrial companies - or even more broadly, companies that operate an industrial business model – it is doing exactly what one should expect. And to expect it to ever recover to old highs is simply impossible.
The industrial era has been displaced, and in the future high returns will be captured by businesses that operate with information-intensive business models. Google should not be placed on the DJIA. We need a new basket – a new index. We need to put together a collection of companies that represent the strength of the economy – where new jobs will be created. Companies that use information to create competitive advantage and high rates of return — like how in an industrial economy businesses used "scale" and "manufacturing intensity" and "supply chain efficiency" to create superior returns. If we want to talk about "blue chip" companies that are more likely to show economic leadership, gauge the capability to succeed and the ability to drive improved economic output, we need a list of companies that are the big winners and demonstrate the ability to remain so by their superior understanding of the value in information and how to capture that value for investors, employees and vendors.
This index is not the NASDAQ. It would include Google, currently leading this new era as Ford did the last one 100 years ago. But other likley participants would be Amazon for demonstrating that the value of books is in the content, not the paper and that the value of retailing is not the building and store. Apple has shown how music can eclipse physical devices, and is leading the merger of computer/phone/PDA/wireless connectivity. Infosys is a leader in delivering information systems in 24×7 global delivery models. Comcast is leading us to see that computers, televisions, gaming systems, telephones and all sorts of communications/media will be delivered (and used) entirely differently. News Corp. is blurring the lines of media spanning all forms of content development as well as delivery in a rapidly shifting customer marketplace. Nike, or maybe Virgin, is showing us that branding is not about making the product – but instead about connecting products with customers. Roche for its ownership of Genentech and its deep pool of information on human genetics? What's common about these companies is that they are not about making STUFF. They are about using information to make a business, and capturing the value from that information.
RIP to the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It's future value looks, at best, unclear. What we need to do now is redefine what is a "blue chip" in this new economy. What are your ideas? Who should represent the soon to be exploding marketplace for biotech solutions based on genetics? Who will lead the nanotech wave? Who would you put on this new "blue chip information index"? Send me your ideas. And in the meantime, we can recognize that even those who created and manage the venerable "Dow" aren't really sure what to do with it.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
All businesses hurting in today's economy must significantly change if they want to improve their performance. In the early 1900s the world saw the advent of several new machines ushering in the industrial era. But, the economy was based on agriculture – and largely the "family farm." As the industrial era expanded landowners tried to Defend & Extend their old business models by leveraging up the family farms – borrowing more and more money to plant "fencerow-to-fencerow" as it was called. Borrowers overworked the land, and with all the debt piled on when a glitch happened (a combination of drought and falling commodity prices from expansion) the mountain of debt collapsed. The beginnings of the Great Depression hit the farmers in the 1920s. The coming of the industrial revolution made old Success Formulas based on land ownership and agriculture obsolete – and no amount of debt could defer the shift forever. It took 10 years (into the 1940s) to fully transition to the new economy, and when we did Ford, GM and other industrial giants overtook the land barrons of the earlier era.
I was reminded of this today when discussing scenario planning with Diane Meister, Managing Director of Meridian Associates in Chicago. Today she sees the deteriorating Success Formulas in her clients. Companies that keep trying to apply Industrial era Success Formulas in what is now an information economy. When they aren't prepared for big shifts – it can be devastating. But those who do prepare can improve position quickly. She told me how one of her clients had an excellent business selling toys to FAO Schwartz and other top toy chains. But Meridian could see that the growth of Target created a viable scenario for a big shift in how toys would be distributed. She implored her client to prepare for possibly the failure (note – failure – not just weakness) of several big toy chains. Good thing she did, within 2 years most of her client's retail distribution was bankrupt. Only by using scenarios to prepare for a big market shift were they able to survive – in fact come out a leader – due to the big shifts happening in retail as a result of the change in markets. (Don't hesitate to contact her firm at the link – good stuff!)
As we transition into the information economy, big changes are going to happen to all businesses. The source of value, and competitiveness, has changed. Today the Allstate Insurance's CEO was quoted in Crain's "Insurer's Should Have Federal Regulator." And in an article at Marketwatch.com, "Dimon Backs Regulation", the CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce he backs additional mortgage regulation. Both of these leaders are looking forward, and recognize that markets have shifted. New regulations will be critical to success. Their future scenarios show it will take a different approach to be a global competitor in 2015 – to be a winner in the global information economy that won't support industrial era Success Formulas.
Not everyone gets it. Also at Marketwatch.com in "AT&T Chief Sounds Alarm", the AT&T CEO decries rising health care costs and worries system changes will hurt his competitiveness. Wake up! What sort of scenario is he using that expects America to keep the current health care system – and the current employer-paid insurance? Even insurance companies now recognize the system is broken and needs change. In no other country are health care costs "baked in" to the cost of a company's P&L. Think about it – even where there is national health care (Britain, France, Canada, Germany, etc.) the companies don't carry the cost as a line item they must recoup via sales and margin. Elsewhere, the cost of health care is born by society through taxes. The reality is that any American company trying to compete has a whole host of incremental costs on its shoulders because we ask employers to pay in order to keep personal income taxes low. Until we change the whole basis of how America chooses to insure its population, employers are being forced to carry costs not seen by offshore competitors. In a global marketplace – this sort of "yesterday thinking" will not survive. Employers should be leading the charge for national health care – just so they can get the issue out of their plethora of problems and off the backs of their P&Ls!
Those that don't change will end up out of the game. Because they didn't do effective scenario planning, that considered the rise of "upscale discounters," FAO Schwartz (mentioned earlier) and Zany Brainy's failed — not even a Tom Hanks movie could keep customers coming in the doors. Markets are merciless in taking down companies that can't globally compete on what's important. We can prop up GM for a short time, but no country can afford to try to keep its people working (avoid unemployment costs) and insured by pumping money into a dysfunctional car company that isn't competitive. Sears has ignored the trends, and is one of the "walking dead." Once the world's greatest retailer, it built what was for years the world's tallest building (now 2nd). But now Crain's has reported in "Willis will get Sears Tower naming rights" that soon the great building the great retailer built in its home town of Chicago will likely be renamed for a London insurance company. Of course, Sears sold the building years ago in its effort to subsidize its failiing retail business – and hasn't even been a tenant in the building for decades. It won't be long before no one even remembers Sears. Sears remained Locked-in to what it once was, and ignored scenarios about a different future that would require change.
The world has shifted. If your scenarios for the future expect a return to old practices – well, that isn't going to happen. If you want to be a leader in the next economy, you better start building new scenarios TODAY!
error correction - in yesterday's blog I inadvertently said I was "not" twittering. Talk about a badly mistaken typo! I meant the opposite. I am twittering and hope you all hook up so we can tweek each other.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Those of you who follow my blog should have noticed a new look and feel today! If you receive this missive in your email box via an RSS feed, I encourage you to stop by www.ThePhoenixPrinciple.com to see the new look.
As most of you know, I'm quite serious about helping organizations realize that they all can rejuvenate. It's a mission I started in 2004, and devoted my life to in 2007 when I started writing Create Marketplace Disruption. And now, in the midst of this terrible recession, it is clearer than ever that we need to realize that different phases of the lifecycle take different management approaches. And for most companies today, old fashioned notions of "focus" and "hard work" simply won't pull them out of this recession and toward better returns.
So I've rededicated myself to this mission. And part of that rededication is hiring some professional help with this website! Thanks to Public Words for the new design – and this is just a small part of what they will be doing to help me over the next year to increase the awareness of this mission and expand the base of people who want to help their organizations recharge, reignite and regrow! I'm also spending more time public speaking to companies, leadership teams, industry events and multi-company conferences about what we need to do so we can get back to growing! (If you know of groups, please let them know how The Phoenix Principle and Adam Hartung can help them get growing again.)
So, let me know what you think of the new look and feel! Your comments can help the site be more productive for us all. If you want things added, speak up! I read all comments, whether here or emailed my way, and my new team will consider them all. In addition to the look and feel, please offer your ideas for how I can drive more links, and attract more readers to our mission. Some of you offered great ideas recently (special kudo to reader Bob Morris for his insightful recommendations) about how to better use tags, technoroti tags and trackbacks. Please keep telling me places I need to link, and other things which can help grow readership. Your help in spreading the word is greatly appreciated.
Also, if you haven't noticed I'm not twittering. So you all are invited to reach out to me on Twitter – there's even a link to twitter me on the blog now! I'll be getting my facebook page up soon as well.
I read a fascinating report published today you can dowload from Bank of America claiming that this recession actually began in 2000 – and we're somewhere between 60% and 70% of the way through. Real estate could decline another 15%, and the big equity averages may drop another 20-40%! Whether that's true, or maybe we're closer to "the bottom", for most of our organizations to be prosperous again will take a different approach to management. One that overcomes Lock-in to outdated Success Formulas (often created in a previous industrial era) by obsessing about competitors to learn about market trends, never fearing disruption – internal or in the marketplace – and utilizing White Space to test new business ideas which can create better, higher return Success Formulas that fit newly evolved markets.
"Hiring Plans or Firing Plans" is the headline on Marketwatch.com. Previously, the lowest number achieved for "net hiring plans" was in 1982 when a net 1% of firms were planning to hire. But in the entire 47 years of the Manpower hiring survey (since 1962) never was the index a negative – where more firms plan to lay off than hire!!! That was until now, with the index at -1%. Just one year ago the number was +17%! (Find the complete Manpower Employment Outlook Survey at this link to their site.) More of the same "ain't going to cut it". Instead of looking for reasons to lay off workers, we have to realize that there are a lot of reasons to hire more! If we follow the right management principles – The Phoenix Principle – we can get going again! If we encourage Disruption and keep White Space alive we can continue to grow!
A past client of mine recently discovered a way to introduce a new line of products with 80% less development cost. But the new product is being delayed because the CEO feels he must lay off workers and slow down product launches – due to what he's reading about the economy. The CEO is afraid that a new product launch, which would cement the company's #1 position ahead of competitors gnawing at their position the last 4 years, would be a tough sell to the Board of Directors. The CEO is clearly focusing on the wrong thing – because his Board would be happier with growing sales and profits, and a reinforced #1 market position, than anything else! Especially now! But this company is almost afraid to grow, locked in fear of what to do next. Instead of reallocating resources to growth projects, and jettisoning "sacred cow" products that are low-profit and declining in sales volume, management prefers to follow today's popular wisdom of cutting costs, cutting new product introductions, even cutting revenues by sticking with historical products nobody is buying - so that's what they will do!!!
So, please be a part of this journey. Participate, don't just be a spectator. Provide your feedback and comments. And share the word! Nothing is more valuable than debate. Great ideas are developed in the marketplace, not in someone's head! Pass along the message, and get others involved.
This blog can now be reached directly via:
by Adam Hartung | Mar 6, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
"U.S. Unemployment Rate Jumps to 25 Year High" is Crain's headline today (see article here). "Payrolls sink 651,000; jobless rate soars to 8.1%" headlines MarketWatch (see article here). It's the fourth consecutive month job losses exceeded 600,000 we are reminded, as 4.4 million becomes the latest tally of those losing jobs in this recession. Those unemployed plus those with part-time-only work has risen to 14.8% of the population – a number that the labor department says may reach 1930s proportions. There are fewer people working full time in the USA today than in 2000 – a combination of the "jobless recovery" followed by a whopping recession.
I remember 25 years ago when the unemployement numbers were this high. I was graduating business school, and there was a real fear that not all graduates would find a job (a horrible situation at a place like HBS). The economy was in terrible shape after several years of economy micro-rule under President Carter. A stickler for detail, and a workaholic, Carter had implemented complex regulations to control prices of oil and other energy products, as well as most agricultural products and commodities. The oil price shocks, combined with runaway printing of money by a highly accomodative Federal Reserve during the 1970s, had sent the American economy into "stag-flation" where growth was abysmal and inflation had skyrocketed.
In 1982, things didn't look good. And the Reagan-led republicans introduced an amazing set of recommendations to break out of the rut America's economy was in. A bold experiment was set up, to test whether "supply siders" were right and if we put our resources into creating supply (capacity) would demand follow and drive up the economy. The big test was a combination of historical tax cuts combined with increased federal spending on defense projects run by industry (in other words, changing from giving money directly to people through welfare or government jobs and instead giving money to businesses to build things – infrastructure and military.)
No one knew if it would work. Smaller government and lower taxes had been a political mantra for various political parties since the days of Benjamin Franklin. But what most Americans believed when they elected Ronald Reagan was that what had recently been tried was not working – it was time to try some new things.
Today is 2009, and while unemployment rates may look similar – not much else is like 1982. Then, marginal federal income tax rates were 80%, and most states relied heavily on "revenue sharing" money from the feds back into states to pay for many progroms – like roads and schools. Today, top rates are in the low 30s, and states have jacked up (from 2x to 10x) sales taxes, property taxes and even state income taxes to cover the loss of federal dollars. Interest rates on home mortgages were 14% to 18% in 1982 – and that was on a variable rate loan with 20% down – because you couldn't get a bank to offer a 30 year mortgage (for fear of inflaction wiping out the loan's value) and no one offered low-downpayment loans. There was a housing shortage, but people struggled to afford a home with interest rates that high! And materials cost (due to inflation) was driving up construction costs more than 12-15%/year. Today mortgages are available at 5% fixed for 30 years, and the prices of homes are dropping more than 10% annually while empty properties seem to be everywhere begging for buyers at discounted prices.
The signs of an impending collapse have been pretty clear for the last few years. First, there was the "jobless recovery." While the economists kept saying the economy was doing well, the fact that there were no new jobs was quite obvious to a lot of people. There was even considerable surprise at how robust the economy was, given that it had no job creation. But it didn't take long for several economists to recognize that the source of growth was largely a considerably more indebted consumer. From the government (federal, state or municipality) to the individual. Those who did have jobs were taking advantage of low interest rates to purchase. On metrics debt/person, debt/GDP, debt/earnings dollars, debt/payroll dollars were all hitting record high numbers as lower quality debt (lower quality because there was increasingly less earnings behind each loan) provided the economic fuel. The economic research team at no less a conservative stalwart than Merrill Lynch was predicting as early as 2006 big problems – and a revisting of 650 on the S&P 500.
Although the economy in 2005-2007 looked nothing like that of the late 1970s, it was pretty clear that a declining economy and high unemployment were soon to come. The 1980s solution, which unleashed the longest running bull market in history, dealt with the problems of the 1970s. But, as the decades passed increasingly the 1980 tools had less and less impact on sustaining growth. Cutting marginal tax rates on dividends when marginal rates on income is already at 30% has far less impact than halving tax rates on everyone! Lowering SEC regulations on capital market access for new hedge funds has less impact than deregulating pricing and labor costs for whole industries like airlines and trucking! What worked well in the past, and became Locked-in to the American economy, simply had lower marginal impact. Year after year of Lock-in produced weaker and weaker results. And opened the doors for aggressive competitors to copy those practices unleashing prodiguous competition for American companies – in places like Asia, India and South America.
All Locked-in systems become victim to these declining results. It's not that the ideas are bad, they just get copied and executed by aggressive competitors who catch up. Markets shift and needs change. People that once focused on buying a new car start focusing on how to retire. People that once wanted great schools want better parking. People that wanted cheaper and better restaurants want cheaper and better health care. The old approaches aren't bad, but trying to do more, better, faster, cheaper of the same thing simply has declining marginal benefit. Results slowly start declining, until eventually they fail to respond to old efforts at all.
Comparing our unemployment rate today to that in 1982 is an interesting historical exercise. We can see similar outcomes. And what's similar about the cause is that Lock-in to outdated practices led to declining performance. That the practices were about 180 degrees apart isn't the issue. Debating the merits of the practices in a vacuum – as if only one set of practices can ever work – simply ignores the pasasage of time and the fact that different times create different problems and require different solutions. The successful practices that fired a tremendously successful business community and stock market in the 1960s ran out of gas by the 1980s. Now, the practices of the 1980s have run out of gas in the competitive global economy of 2009. In both instances, those leading the economy – the companies, economists, banks, regulators – stayed too long with a set of Locked-in practices.
Today we need new ideas. To overcome rising unemployment requires we look to the future, not the past for our recommendations. We must start obsessing about competitors in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Brazil, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India – competitors we belittled and ignored for too long. We must be willing to Disrupt old practices to try new things – and use White Space to experiment. The Missile Defense Shield (mid-80s) turned out to be a project that wasn't appropriate for its time – but that we tried it gave a shot in the arm to all kinds of imaging and computing technologies which helped improve business. Those kinds of experiments are critical to figuring out how we will create jobs and economic growth in a fiercely competitive global economy where value is increasingly based on information (and neither land nor fixed assets - which dominated the last 2 long waves of growth for America).
by Adam Hartung | Mar 3, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Sears has been heading for the end of its game for several years. It's in the Whirlpool now, and we can be sure it won't come out. We can go back to when Sears dropped its catalog to see the first sign of putting costs before customers, and completely missing how competitors were changing and leaving Sears without an advantage. But the next big hurt happened when customers found out they could get credit for purchases from banks – via credit cards like MasterCard and Sears – that made it unnecessary to get a line of credit from Sears, or a Sears credit card (which eventually became Discover.) Increasingly, what made Sears stand out became difficult to find. And Sears lost market share year after year to the discounters (KMart, Target and Wal-Mart) as well as lower-priced soft goods retailers (J.C. Penney and Kohl's) and then DIY retailers that offered mowers and tools (Lowe's, Home Depot and Menards).
Why anyone would shop at Sears became a lot less clear – yet Sears kept trying to do more of what it had always done in its effort to stay alive. So hedge-fund jockey Ed Lampert swooped in and bought Sears with lots of hoopla about turning it around. But his approach was to do less of the same, not more, and he had no ideas for how to be more competitive. As he cut inventory, and cut costs, and closed stores it became easier and easier for customers to shop somewhere else. Sears was shrinking, not growing, and all the focus on the bottom line, in an effort to manage earnings rather than the business, just kept making Sears less relevant to customers, investors, vendors and employees.
Sales keep declining – down some 13% in the recent quarter (see article here). Increasingly, Sears is looking for distinction by going further down the credit quality spectrum. It's most promising "bright spot" was an increase in lay-away. Lay-away, for those not accustomed to the concept, is when people who can't get credit at all offer to put down 30-50% of the value of an item (say $100 on a $300 washer) and ask the retailer to hold it (literally, hold it in the back room) until the customer can come up with the rest of the money. Sometimes buyers will come in multiple times dropping off $10 or $20 until they come up with all the money for the washer, or a new suit, or a dress, or some tools. Only people that can't get credit at all buy on lay-away. For retailers it has the downside of increasing inventory as they wait for payment. It's the bottom-of-the-barrel for retailers that can't keep up with merchandise trends, and often requires they raise prices to cover the cost of increased inventory holding.
Increasingly there is little else Sears can do. The company has closed another 28 stores, and sales in stores remaining open the last year have declined on average more than 8% for each store (see article here). Net income has plunged 93%. Five years ago, about when Mr. Lampert took over the company, it was worth just about what it is worth today (see chart here). At that time, investors were thinking Sears (which had recently been de-listed as a Dow Jones Industrial Average component) might not survive. But those investors had a lot of dreams about Mr. Lampert turning around the company. They saw the shares increase 6-fold as analysts talked-up Mr. Lampert and his supposedly "magic touch." But all that value has disappeared. Mr. Lampert would like to blame the economy for his lack of success, but reality is that the economy only made more visible the Lock-in Sears has maintained to its outdated business model and the complete lack of Disruption and White Space Mr. Lampert has allowed during his personal direction of the company. Sears has had no chance of success as long as it remained Locked-in to a retail business model tied to the 1960s. And as retail crashed in 2008/2009 it's made obvious the complete lack of need for Sears to even exist.
Note: I was delighted with responses I received from many readers about their views on newspapers. Mostly folks told me they found the value gone, or dissipating quickly, from newspapers. Although there is still ample concern about where we'll find high-quality journalism once they disappear. Folks seem less confident in broadcast and network television – and wholly uncertain about the quality control of on-line news sources. I think we're all wondering how we'll get good news, and aware that there is bound to be a period of market disruption as the newspapers keep declining. But please keep your eyes open, and let myself and all readers know what quality news sources you find on the web. Keep the comments coming. During these periods is when new competitors lay the groundwork for new fortunes. I'd watch HuffingtonPost.com, and don't lose track of the big on-line investments News Corp. has made.
Likewise, please give me some comments (here on on the blog or via email) about where you are shopping today! Have readers all become Wal-Mart single-stop shoppers? With retail sales numbers down almost everywhere, where do you concentrate your shopping? Are you doing more on-line? Are you finding alternatives you favor during this recession. Let's share some info about what we see as the future of retailing. There are a lot of execs out there that seem in the dark. Maybe we can enlighten them!
by Adam Hartung | Feb 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
The Rocky Mountain News has folded up shop. After 150 years, no more newspaper in Denver, CO. (read article here). This is newsworthy because of the size of Denver, but the trend has been obvious. The newspaper's owner (Scripps) closed the Albuquerque Tribune and Cincinnati Post last year. And this is just the beginning. Hearst has already said it may well have to close the San Francisco Chronicle within weeks. Tribune Company, parent of The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times has filed for bankruptcy, as has Philadelphia Newspapers which publishes the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily Journal. The American Society of Newspaper Editors has cancelled its annual convention for 2009 (read article here.)
Just as I predicted in this blog months ago, when Sam Zell leveraged up Tribune in his buyout, the odds of any particular newspaper surviving is not very good. It was 3 years ago when I was talking to the CFO at the LATimes about the future of newspapers. He felt sure that cost cutting would get the company through "a tough stretch" and then things would get better. When I asked him if he was planning to increase spending in LATimes.com or other on-line media to make sure his projection was true – he asked me what the .com had to do with the paper. He felt the paper would soon recover. Even though there were no indicators that subscriptions would reverse trend and start growing, and even though advertisers were literally saying they never intended to return on-line ad spending back to newspapers, he felt sure the paper would succeed. When I asked why, he said "if we don't report the news, who will? Bloggers??????" and with that exasperation he reinforced in his own mind that there was no option to a successful city newspaper so no need for further discussion. He could not imagine a "democratized" newsworld without editors and publishers that controlled content and writers that were limited by that control.
February 6 I gave a speech in Chicago about growth strategies in this economy. One attendee asked me "what newspapers do you read?" As I formulated my answer, my discussion with the old LATimes CFO came to mind. "I don't read newspapers any more" I had to admit. Good thing I wasn't running for vice-president! But I realized that I'd quit reading newspapers and now picked up most of my alerts from bloggers! I am signed up to various web sites, including blogs, which send me ticklers all day long and aid my web searching for news. I get more information, faster today than ever before – and reading a newspaper seems like such a waste of time! And if that's my behavior, at age 50, I'm a joke compared to people under 30 who can use the web 10x faster than me with their better tool use.
The newspapers are going the way of magazines. That is clear. When we all started watching TV, LOOK, LIFE and The Saturday Evening Post lost meaning. Not all magazines disappeared, but the general purpose ones did. Now, even those have little value. In a connected, 24×7 world newspapers simply quit making sense a decade ago. It just took longer for everyone to realize it. While the newspapers would like to blame the recession for their failure, that's simply not true. The world shifted and they became obsolete – an anachronism. People today consume more news than at any time in history – including pre-recession years like 2007. The recession has not diminished the demand for news or journalism. And advertisers are reaching out for customers just like before. But neither readers nor advertisers are going to newspapers. The action is now all on the web – which continues growing pages at double digit rates every quarter!
So where will you get your news? If you read this blog, you likely already get most news from the web. And others will also do so. Increasingly, editors that have strong opinions (be they conservative or liberal) will have less influence on what is reported. Those who can find and report the news will themselves determine what's out there to be found – and they will capture that value themselves. To use 1990s language, Bloggers are "disintermediating" publishers. And with Google able to push ads to their sites (be they on computers or handhelds), these journalists will be able to capture the ad value themselves. If you want to see the new aggregator of the future, go to www.HuffingtonPost.com. Or www.Marketwatch.com for business info. By ignoring traditional printing and distribution, they can produce multiples of the news content of old aggregators, invest in technology to keep it updated in real time 24×7.
While people are bemoaning the decline of newspapers, take heart in the benefits. How much less newsprint will be created, reducing the demand for pulp from trees? How much less recycling of old newsprint will be required? What benefits to the ecology will come? How much more access will you have to find out all sides of various issues – rather than the point of view taken by the local newspaper publisher who mostly dictated what you used to hear about an issue? How much better educated will you be? Why, given the benefits of on-line news, would anyone want to go back to newspapers?
Bemoaning the loss of newspapers is like bemoaning the decline in rail travel – it may have romantic remembrances of a previous time, but who would ever want to give up their car and wait on trains again? As you look at YOUR business – do you blame the recession for troubles when in fact there's been a market shift? Have things "softened in the short-term," or have customers moved on to seeking new solutions that better fit their needs? It's easy to act like the LATimes CFO and project a return to old market conditions. But will that really happen? Or has the market you're in shifted, leaving you with a weak future? Will you act like Sam Zell and "double down" on a business that the market is shifting away from?
In today's economy, we can all too easily let hope for a return to the good old days keep us from using more realistic explanations. If so, we can end up like those who made kerosene for lamps (expecting electricity to be too hard to install), coal for heating, and passenger cars for trains. Be careful how easily you may think that tomorrow will look like yesterday – because most of the time it won't.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
In Create Marketplace Disruption I talk about how Sun Microsystems (see chart here) became wedded to a Success Formula which was tied to selling computers. In its early days Sun had to build its own systems, workstations and servers, to make its techology available to customers. As the company grew, it continued pushing the hardware, even though increasingly all of its value add was in the software. One of its more famous innovations was a software product called Java – now used all across the web. But because Sun could not figure out how to sell hardware with Java the company literally gave the product away – on the theory that growing internet use would increase demand for servers and workstations.
But like most Locked-in Success Formulas, Sun's fell into diminishing returns. The market shifted. First it's biggest buyers, telecom companies, fell into a depression early in the century. And corporate buyers struggled to maintain old IT budgets, increasingly transfering work offshore and demanding lots more performance at lower prices. Secondly, an emerging software standard, Linux, started competing with Sun at a much lower price point, and corporate buyers found this a viable solution. And thirdly, Linux and Microsoft both improved performance operating on somewhat "generic" PC hardware that was considerably cheaper than Sun's hardware, further augmenting corporate movement away from Sun.
But Sun continued to push forward with its old Success Formula. Now analysts are confused about Sun's direction, and largely think the company less likely to survive (read article here). With most analysts recommending investors sell Sun Microsystem shares, as one analyste (Rob Enderle) put it "They seem like a software company, but they are sort of like a hardware company." He added that after years of giving software away for free in efforts to entice hardware buyers Sun Microsystems is on the verge of being obsolete.
Sun Microsystems is just another example of a company so busy focusing on doing what it always did that it didn't evolve to what the market demanded – and rewarded. As software became the value, Sun did more but didn't figure out how to evolve its Success Formula to charge for it. The company remained Locked-in to its old practices, and refused to Disrupt and open White Space where it could find a more valuable Success Formula for the future. Too bad for employees, vendors and investors.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
GM is in intense negotiations with bondholders, employees (via the union) and the government over its future. At stake is nothing less than the future of America's largest auto company. A company that saw revenue decline more than 40% in January after deciding in December to idle most of its manufacturing plants.
The negotiations are focusing on whether GM can be competitive. But, unfortunately, GM seems to be directing that discussion toward cost reductions (read article here). As if all GM needs to do is somehow lower costs and it will be competitive with Toyota, which displaced GM atop the global auto industry as the world's largest in January. What customers globally know is that the issue at GM isn't just about cost (which can pretty much be translated into "union contract busting.") Customers want quality products that fit their needs, produced at high quality, with low service costs, and low cost of use (interpret – higher mileage.) It's been 20 years since the yen/dollar valuation gave Japanese manufacturers lower cost of production – and yet year after year Toyota, Honda, Subaru and Suzuki keep growing share while U.S. manufacturers keep declining.
One of the more difficult to understand articles this week was the lauding of GM's vice-chairman Bob Lutz. Mr. Lutz is more than 70 years old! He might well have been a great executive 35 years ago (in 1974) when he was an up-and-coming executive. But my how the world, and the auto industry, has changed since then. I'll never forget watching him interviewed on television about the Tesla (the electric sports car) and seeing him laugh. He literally dismissed Tesla as unimportant – not up to the standards of GM and it's industry leadership. At the time my thought was "I think you'd be a lot smarter to listen to these new guys than be so smug and ignore them." Of course, in short order, Toyota's hybrid vehicles helped lead Toyota past GM, and the approach of Mr. Lutz was looking less and less viable. Good bye, and good riddance, would be a better report for an executive who not only stayed around too long and didn't "save" GM, but ignored powerful competitors while trying to defend an outdated Success Formula.
It is time for GM, and the other domestic auto competitors, to move on. The old Success Formula has failed. It's not about just doing less well, with GM stock valued at $2.70 and the negotiation about converting bondholders to equity holders in order to get more government bailout money — the game is over. What worked for GM in the 1950s, and most of the 1960s, doesn't work any more. And the success of Toyota and Honda demonstrates that. America doesn't need Bob Lutz (and his compadres) any more – may he enjoy his retirement (which is a lot more secure than the thousands of GM retirees that weren't executives). If investors, employees and vendors of the American auto industry are to avoid even more downfall it is time to develop an entirely new game – with new leaders.
GM (and its brethren) need to quit villifying unions as the "boogeymen" causing all their problems. Management signed those union agreements – and if they weren't viable management should have dealt with them. The employees of GM - and all the citizens of Detroit, southeastern Michigan and northwester Ohio as well as the extended midwest – have a vested interest in the succes of this industry. They will agree to leadership which helps them succeed. Continue the old "company vs. union" battles will do no good. Leadership needs to be focused on offering an approach to delivering products that will energize employees and ucstomers alike.
GM must define a new future. Not one based upon a series of cost cuts – which will be matched by competitors. GM needs to demonstrate it can change its view of R&D, product development, customer finance and distribution to meet current customer needs. For GM to be viable, management must demonstrate it knows that tweaking the old model is insufficient. It's time to develop an "entirely new car company" as Roger Smith said when he funded the launch of Saturn. And America's banks, investors and auto buyers all know this.
Increasingly at GM, Disrupting the old business model seems unlikely. Current management is so Locked-in it continues searching for ways to Defend the old model, in spite of deteriorating results at the nadir of failure. If America is to invest in this company, it deserves new management which is able to develop a new company that can truly compete. It is time to demand new leaders who are not the "old guard", but instead leaders who are able to bring new products to market that are competitive by implementing White Space where these new products can be launched through new distribution. For America to keep supporting GM the company needs to move beyond old arguments about labor costs, and get serious about changing its product line and distribution system as well as its legacy employment costs. It's possible to turn around GM – but only if management will abandon its Defend & Extend Management practices and instead use Disruptions to open White Space for a better company to emerge.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Quotes, Web/Tech
Dell had a tough day Thursday when J.P.Morgan downgraded the stock to the equivalent of a sell (read article here). The stock continues its relentless slide – despite the return of Mr. Dell as CEO (chart here). Some quotes:
- "Our downgrade … focuses squarely on the potential that Dell's PC exposure..could force the company to seek revenue offsets" interpretation – revenues should go down
-
"looking for revenue from other sources, Dell could face new costst and competition that could destabilize margins and cause the company to dip into its cash reserves." interpretation – entering new markets isn't free, and new competitors will make the road tough so expect Dell to go cash negative
-
"Dell gets around 60% of its total revenue from PC sales, which is an example of how exposed the company is to a market that is widely expected to shrink this year…PC unit shiptmets to fall this year by 13.5% from 2008" interpretation – this is primarily a one product company and that product is not going to grow
-
"the enterprise replacement cycle … could be deferred to next year … Dell will be hard-pressed to maintain its profit margins this year as the company faces more-entrenched consumer-market competitors in Acer and Hewlett-Packard" interpretation – Dell sells mostly to companies, who are not replacing PCs, and in the consumer market Dell will find tough sledding competing with Acer and HP
-
"Dell is on track with its plan to cut $3billion in costs by 2011" interpretation – Dell is cutting costs, not growing revenue
To steal from an old Kentucky Fried Chicken ad "Dell did one thing, and did it right." Dell's Success Formula worked really well, and the company grew fantastically well as it improved execution while the corporate PC market was growing. But the market shifted. Dell had not developed any White Space to enter new markets, so it was unprepared to keep growing. When revenue growth slackened, the company did not Disrupt its Success Formula, but instead kept trying to do more, better, faster, cheaper. And lacking revenue growth opportunities, the company is slashing costs in its effort to Defend its bottom line and old business model. And all that has resulted in another downgrade – and a company worth a lot less than it was worth before. Just as you would expect for a company that fell out of the Rapids and into the Swamp.
