by Adam Hartung | Nov 1, 2010 | Defend & Extend, Leadership, Lock-in
Summary:
- When something works, we do more of it
- But markets shift, and what we did loses its ability to create growth
- Out of high growth comes Lock-in to old practices that blind us to potential market changes which could create price wars or obsolescence
- Lock-in gets in the way of seeing emerging market shifts
- Ikea is doing well now, but it is already seriously locked-in on an aging strategy
- Will Ikea continue succeeding as it runs into Wal-mart and other price-focused competitors?
- Will Ikea be able to adapt to changing markets as developed economies improve?
“If it works, do more of it” is a famous coaching recommendation. “Nothing succeeds like success” is another. Both are age old comments with simple meanings. Don’t overthink a situation. If something works, keep on doing it. And the more it works, the more you should “keep on keepin’ on” as once famous pop song lyrics recommended. One could ask, why should you try doing anything else, if what you’re doing is working? Many people would sagelyl recommend another common comment, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
And this seems to be the philosophy of the new CEO at Ikea, Mikael Ohlsson as descibed in an Associated Press article on Chron.com, the web site for the Houston Chronicle, “New Ikea CEO Cuts Prices, Targets Frugal U.S. Families.”
A lifelong Ikea employee, Mr. Ohlsson joined Ikea right out of college in 1979 as a rug salesperson. He’s watched the company grow dramatically across his career. And he’s watched the company essentially grow by doing one thing – make home goods people need cheaply, figure out how to keep shipping and distribution costs to a minimum, and offer them directly to customers through your own stores. All designed to keep prices at a minimum. Most people would applaud him for focusing on doing more of the same.
And certainly today Ikea’s strategy is benefitting from the “Great Recession,” as we’ve come to call it. A flat economy, no job growth, little income growth, rampant unemployment, declining home values and limited credit access has helped Americans move along the road of penny-pinching.
Somewhat stylish, but primarily low-priced, furniture and other goods long appealed to college students. The fact that most of the furniture was designed for very economical shipping was a big plus with students that changed dorms and apartments frequently. Low price, in addition to the fact that most students are poor, was a benefit in case someone had to leave the stuff behind due to a longer move, downsizing, or simply lost their abode for a while. That the furniture and some of the other items didn’t hold up all that well wasn’t such a big deal, because nobody intended to keep it once school ended and they could afford something better.
But recent cheapness has caused a lot more people to start buying Ikea. That has contributed to a lot more growth than the company originally expected in developed countries like the USA. As sales grew, the company has been pushing year after year to keep lowering costs – and prices. The CEO proudly touted his ability to relocate manufacturing and distribution in order to drive down U.S. prices on several items. In language that sounds almost like Wal-Mart, he talks about constantly driving down cost, and price, in order to appeal to Americans – and even continental Europeans – in the throes of being cheap. Cost, cost, cost in order to sell cheap, cheap, cheap seems to have worked well for Ikea.
And that’s the worry foundation owners should have (Ikea is not publicly traded, it is owned by a foundation.) Ikea is rapidly catching the Wal-Mart Disease (see this blog 13 October). Focusing on execution, in order to lower cost, keep lowering price and expecting the market to expand. This will eventually lead to two very unpleasant side effects:
- Eventually Ikea will run headlong into Wal-Mart. And other price-focused competitors in the USA and other countries. In doing so, margins will be crimped, as will growth. When 2 (or more) companies compete on cost/price it creates a price war, and if it’s between Ikea and Wal-Mart expect the war to be incredibly bloody (this is also bad news for Microsoft shareholders, who are going to increasingly see Ikea join other competitors in pressuring Wal-Mart’s strategy.)
- What will happen to Ikea’s growth if the market shifts? What will happen if customers quit focusing on price, and start looking for better products (longer lasting, higher quality materials, increased sturdiness – for examples)? Or if they want different designs? Or they get tired of the long drives to those huge Ikea stores, and prefer shopping closer to home? Quite simply, what will happen to Ikea’s growth if something besides price retakes importance for customers in developed countries?
There is no doubt Ikea has had a great run. But in large part, fortuitous economic events played a big role. The rising percentage of youth going to colleges, as well as the large migration of developing country students to developed country universities, helped propel the need for affordable items appealing to students. Then the economic faltering post-2000, combined with the banking crisis, created a very slow economy in developed countries. Suburbanization gave Ikea the opportunity to build massive stores at affordable cost to which customers could flock. For 30 years these trends benefitted companies with a price focus – such as Ikea (and Wal-Mart). And all the company had to do was “more of the same.”
But will that remain the long-term trend? As households downsize, home prices stabilize then recover, developed economies improve, jobs grow again and incomes start rising is it possilble that customers will want something beyond low price?
And when that happens, will Ikea find itself so locked-in to its strategy that it cannot adjust to market shifts? What will it do with those manufacturing centers, distribution hubs and huge stores then? How will it be able to recognize the change in customer needs, and alter its merchandise – and stores – to meet changing needs? Or will Ikea rely far too long on improving execution of the strategy that got it where the company is today? Will its decision-making processes, designed to improve execution, keep Ikea making cheap furniture and other goods long after competing on price is sufficient?
Ikea is likely to do well for at least a couple more years. But one can already see how the company, and its CEO, have locked-in on what worked early in the company lifecycle. And now the focus is on executing the old strategy – reinforcing what the company locked-in upon. And there doesn’t seem to be a lot of concern about dealing with potential market shifts.
Most worrisome of all was the CEO’s comment, “I tend not to look so much at competition.” In a very real way, this shows a blindness towoard looking for price wars and market shifts. A blindness toward identifying emerging trends. A blindness toward identifying there may be groth opportunities in a year or two that are better than simply continuing to do what Ikea has always done. And even for a fast growing company, luckily positioned in the right place at the right time, this is something to be worried about.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 13, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Summary:
- Many large, and leading, companies have not created much shareholder value the last decade
- A surprising number of very large companies have gone bankrupt (GM) or failed (Circuit City)
- Wal-Mart is a company that has generated no shareholder value
- The Wal-Mart disease is focusing on executing the business's long-standing success formula better, faster and cheaper — even though it's not creating any value
- Size alone does not create value, you have to increase the rate of return
- Companies that have increased value, like Apple, have moved beyond execution to creating new success formulas
Have you noticed how many of America's leading companies have done nothing for shareholders lately? Or for that matter, a lot longer than just lately. Of course General Motors wiped out its shareholders. As did Chrysler and Circuit City. The DJIA and S&P both struggle to return to levels of the past decade, as many of the largest companies seem unable to generate investor value.
Take for example Wal-Mart. As this chart from InvestorGuide.com clearly shows, after generating very nice returns practically from inception through the 1990s, investors have gotten nothing for holding Wal-Mart shares since 2000.
Far too many CEOs today suffer from what I call "the Wal-Mart Disease." It's an obsession with sticking to the core business, and doing everything possible to defend & extend it — even when rates of return are unacceptable and there is a constant struggle to improve valuation.
Fortune magazine's recent puff article about Mike Duke, "Meet the CEO of the Biggest Company on Earth" gives clear insight to the symptoms of this disease. Throughout the article, Mr. Duke demonstrates a penchant for obsessing about the smallest details related to the nearly 4 decade old Wal-Mart success formula. While going bananas over the price of bananas, he involves himself intimately in the underwear inventory, and goes cuckoo over Cocoa Puffs displays. No detail is too small for the attention of the CEO trying to make sure he runs the tightest ship in retailing. With frequent references to what Wal-Mart does best, from the top down Wal-Mart is focused on execution. Doing more of what it's always done – hopefully a little better, faster and cheaper.
But long forgotten is that all this attention to detail isn't moving the needle for investors. For all its size, and cheap products, the only people benefiting from Wal-Mart are consumers who save a few cents on everything from jeans to jewelry.
The Wal-Mart Disease is becoming so obsessive about execution, so focused on doing more of the same, that you forget your prime objective is to grow the investment. Not just execute. Not just expand with more of the same by constantly trying to enter new markets – such as Europe or China or Brazil. You have to improve the rate of return. The Disease keeps management so focused on trying to work harder, to somehow squeeze more out of the old success formula, to find new places to implement the old success formula, that they ignore environmental changes which make it impossible, despite size, for the company to ever again grow both revenues and rates of return.
Today competitors are chipping away at Wal-Mart on multiple fronts. Some retailers offer the same merchandise but in a better environment, such as Target. Some offer a greater selection of targeted goods, at a wider price range, such as Kohl's or Penney's. Some offer better quality goods as well as selection, such as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. And some offer an entirely different way to shop, such as Amazon.com. These competitors are all growing, and earning more, and in several cases doing more for their investors because they are creating new markets, with new ways to compete, that have both growth and better returns.
It's not enough for Wal-Mart to just be cheap. That was a keen idea 40 years ago, and it served the company well for 20+ years. But competitors constantly work to change the marketplace. And as they learn how to copy what Wal-Mart did, they can get to 90%+ of the Wal-Mart goal. Then, they start offering other, distinctive advantages. In doing so, they make it harder and harder for Wal-Mart to be successful by simply doing more of the same, only better, faster and cheaper.
Ten years ago if you'd predicted bankruptcy for GM or Chrysler or Circuit City you'd have been laughed at. Circuit City was a darling of the infamous best seller "Good To Great." Likewise laughter would have been the most likely outcome had you predicted the demise of Sun Microsystems – which was an internet leader worth over $200B at century's turn. So it's easy to scoff at the notion that Wal-Mart may never hit $500B revenue. Or it may do so, but at considerable cost that continues to hurt rates of return, keeping the share price mired – or even declining. And it would be impossible to think that Wal-Mart could ever fail, like Woolworth's did. Or that it even might see itself shredded by competitors into an also-ran position, like once powerful, DJIA member Sears.
The Disease is keeping Wal-Mart from doing what it must do if it really wants to succeed. It has to change. Wal-Mart leadership has to realize that what made Wal-Mart once great isn't going to make it great in 2020. Instead of obsessing about execution, Wal-Mart has to become a lot better at competing in new markets. And that means competing in new ways. Mostly, fundamentally different ways. If it can't do that, Wal-Mart's value will keep moving sideways until something unexpected happens – maybe it's related to employee costs, or changes in import laws, or successful lawsuits, or continued growth in internet retailing that sucks away more volume year after year – and the success formula collapses. Like at GM.
Comparatively, if Apple had remained the Mac company it would have failed. If Google were just a search engine company it would be called Alta Vista, or AskJeeves. If Google were just an ad placement company it would be Yahoo! If Nike had remained obsessed with being the world's best athletic shoe company it would be Adidas, or Converse.
Businesses exist to create shareholder value – and today more than ever that means getting into markets with profitable growth. Not merely obsessing about defending & extending what once made you great. The Wal-Mart Disease can become painfully fatal.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 5, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Research in Motion has launched a tablet, competing with the iPad
- But the Playbook does not have the app base that iPad has developed
- RIM's focus on its "core" IT customer, without spending enough energy focusing on Apple and other competitors, it missed the shift in mobile device user needs
- Now companies, like Abbott, are starting to roll out iPads to field personnel
- RIM's future is in jeopardy as the market shifts away from its products
- You cannot expect your customer to tell you how to develop your product, you have to watch competitors and move quickly to address emerging market needs
Research in Motion has launched a new tablet called Playbook to compete with the Apple iPad. But will it succeed? According to SeekingAlpha.com "Playbook Fails to Boost Research in Motion Price Targets." Most analysts do not think the Playbook has much chance of pushing up the market cap at RIM – and except for home town Canadian analysts the overall expectation for RIM is grim. I certainly agree with the emerging consensus that RIM's future is looking bleak.
Research in Motion was the company that first introduced most of us to smartphones. The Blackberry, often provided by the employer, was the first mobile product that allowed people do email, look at attachments and eventually text – all without a PC. Most executives and field-oriented employees loved them, and over a few years Blackberries became completely common. It looked like RIM had pioneered a new market it would dominate, with its servers squarely ensconced in IT departments and corporate users without option as to what smartphone they would use.
But Apple performed an end-run, getting CEOs to use the iPhone. People increasingly found they needed a personal mobile phone as well as the corporate phone – because they did not want to use the Blackberry for personal use. But they didn't pick Blackberries. Instead they started buying the more stylish, easier to use and loaded with apps iPhone. Apple didn't court the "enterprise" customer – so they weren't even on the radar screen at RIM. But sales were exploding.
Like most companies that focus on their core customers, RIM didn't see the market shift coming. RIM kept talking to the IT department. Much like IBM did in the 1980s when it dropped PCs in favor of supporting mainframes – because their core data center customers said the PC had no future. RIM was carefully listening to its customer – but missing an enormous market shift toward usability and apps. RIM expected its customers to tell them what would be needed in the future – but instead it was the competition that was showing the way.
Now RIM is far, far behind. Where Apple has 300,000 apps, and Android has over 120,000, RIM doesn't even have 10,000. RIM's problem isn't a device issue. RIM has missed the shift to mobile computing and missed understanding the unmet user needs. According to Crain's Chicago Business "Chicago CEOs embrace the iPad." Several critical users – and CEOs are always critical – have already committed to using the iPad and enjoying their news subscriptions and other applications. According to the article, Abbott, which has provided Blackberries to thousands of employees, is now beginning to roll out iPads to field personnel. RIM's Playbook may be a fine piece of hardware, but it offers far too little in the direction of helping people discard PCs as they migrate to cloud architectures and much smaller, easier to use devices such as tablets.
RIM followed the ballyhooed advice of listening to its core customer. But such behavior caused it to miss the shift in its own marketplace toward greater extended use of mobile devices. RIM should have paid more attention to what competitors Apple and Android were doing – and started building out its app environment years ago. RIM should have been first with a tablet – not late. And RIM should have led the movement toward digital publishing – rather than letting Amazon take the lead (Kindle) with Apple close behind. Creating valuable mobility is what the leading company with "motion" in its name should have done. Instead of merely providing the answers to requests from core IT department customers. Now RIM has no chance of catching up with competitors.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 22, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Film, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Music, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Video retailer Blockbuster (and competitor Hollywood Video) are now bankrupt
- Video rentals/sales are at an all time high – but via digital downloads not DVDs
- Nokia, once the cell phone industry leader, is in deep trouble and risk of failure
- Yet mobile use (calls, texts, internet access, email) is at an all time high
- These companies are victims of locking-in to old business models, and missing a market shift
- Commitment to defending your old business can cause failure, even when participating in high growth markets, if you don’t anticipate, embrace and participate in market shifts
- Lock-in is deadly. It can cause you to ignore a market shift.
According to YahooNews, “Blockbuster Video to File Chapter 11.” In February, Movie Gallery – the owner of primary in-kind competitor Hollywood Video – filed for bankruptcy. It’s now decided to liquidate.
The cause is market shift. Netflix made it possible to rent DVDs without the cost of a store – as has the kiosk competitor Red Box. But everyone knows that is just a stopgap, because Netflix and Hulu are leading us all toward a future where there is no physical product at all. We’ll download the things we want to watch. The market is shifting from physical items – video cassettes then DVDs – to downloads. And both Blockbuster and Hollywood Video missed the shift.
Blockbuster (or Hollywood) could have gotten into on-line renting, or kiosks, like its competition. It even could have used profits to be an early developer of downloadable movies. Nothing stopped Blockbuster from investing in YouTube. Except it’s commitment to its Success Formula – as a brick-and-mortar retailer that rented or sold physically reproduced entertainment. Lock-in. And for that commitment to its historical Success Formula the investors now will get a great big goose egg – and employees will get to be laid off – and the thousands of landlords will be left in the lurch, unprepared.
As predictable as Blockbuster was, we can be equally sure about the future of former powerhouse Nokia. Details are provided in the BusinessWeek.com article “How Nokia Fell from Grace.” As the cell phone business exploded in the 1990s Nokia was a big winner. Revenues grew fivefold between 1996 and 2001 as people around the globe gobbled up the new devices. Another example of the fact that when you enter a high growth market you don’t have to be good – just in the right market at the right time.
But the cell phone business has become the mobile device business. And Nokia didn’t anticipate, prepare for or participate in the market shift. From market dominance, it has become an also-ran. The article author blames the failure, and decline, on complacent management. Weak explanation. You can be sure the leadership and management at Nokia was doing all it possibly could to Defend & Extend its cell phone business. The problem is that D&E management doesn’t work when customers simply walk away to a new technology. It may take a few years, and government subsidies may extend Nokia’s life even longer, but Nokia has about as much chance of surviving its market shift as Blockbuster did.
When companies stumble management sees the problems. They know results are faltering. But for decades management has been trained to think that the proper response is to “knuckle down, cut costs, defend the current business at all cost.” Yet, there are more movies rented now than ever – and Blockbuster is failing despite enormous market growth. There are more mobile telephony minutes, text messages, remote emails and mobile internet searches than ever in history – yet Nokia is doing remarkably poorly. It’s not a market problem, it’s a problem of Lock-in to a solution that is now outdated. When the old supplier didn’t give the market what it wanted, the customers went elsewhere. And unwillingness to go with them has left these companies in tatters.
These markets are growing, yet the purveyors of old solutions are failing primarily because they stuck to defending their old business too long. They did not embrace the market shift, and cannibalize historical product sales to enter the new, higher growth markets. Because they chose to protect their “core,” they failed. New victims of Lock-in.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Businesses usually try defending an old solution in the face of an emerging new solution
- Status Quo Police use “cannibalization” concerns to stop the organization from moving to new solutions and new markets
- If you don’t move early, you end up with a dying business – like newspapers – as new competitors take over the customer relationship – like Apple is doing with news subscriptions
- You can adapt to shifting markets, profitably growing
- You must disrupt your lock-ins to the old success formula, including stopping the Status Quo Police from using the cannibalization threat
- You should set up White Space teams early to embrace the new solutions and figure out how to profitably grow in the new market space
When Sony saw MP3 technology emerging it worked hard to defend sales of CDs and CD Players. It didn’t want to see a decline in the pricing, or revenue, for its existing business. As a result, it was really late to MP3 technology, and Apple took the lead. This is the classic “Innovator’s Dilemma” as described by Professor Clayton Christenson of Harvard. Existing market leaders get so hung up on defending and extending the current business, they fear new solutions, until they become obsolete.
In the 1980s Pizza Hut could see the emergence of Domino’s Pizza. But Pizza Hut felt that delivered pizza would cannibalize the eat-in pizza market management sought to dominate. As a result Pizza Hut barely participated in what became a multi-biliion dollar market for Domino’s and other delivery chains.
The Status Quo Police drag out their favorite word to fight any move into new markets. Cannibalization. They say over and over that if the company moves to the new market solution it will cannibalize existing sales – usually at a lower margin. Sure, there may someday be a future time to compete, but today (and this goes on forever) management should keep close to the existing business model, and protect it.
That’s what the newspapers did. All of them could see the internet emerging as a route to disseminate news. They could see Monster.com, Vehix.com, eBay, CraigsList.com and other sites stealing away their classified ad customers. They could see Google not only moving their content to other sites, but placing ads with that content. Yet, all energy was expended trying to maintain very expensive print advertising, for fear that lower priced internet advertising would cannibalize existing revenues.
Now, bankrupt or nearly so, the newspapers are petrified. The San Jose Mercury News headlines “Apple to Announce Subscription Plan for Newspapers.” As months have passed the newspapers have watched subscriptions fall, and not built a viable internet distribution system. So Apple is taking over the subscription role – and will take a cool third of the subscription revenue to link readers to the iPad on-line newspaper. Absolute fear of cannibalization, and strong internal Status Quo Police, kept the newspapers from embracing the emerging solution. Now they will find themselves beholden to the device providers – Apple’s iPad, Amazon’s Kindle, or a Google Android device.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Netflix built a profitable growth business delivering DVDs to subscribers. Streaming video clearly would cannibalize revenues, because the price is lower than DVDs. But Netflix chose to embrace streaming – to its great betterment! The Wrap headlines “Why Hollywood should be Afraid of Netfilx – Very Afraid.” As reported, Netflix is now growing even FASTER with its streaming video – and at a good margin. The price per item may be lower – but the volume is sooooo much higher!
Had Netflix defended its old model it was at risk of obsolescence by Hulu.com, Google, YouTube or any of several other video providers. It could have tried to slow switching to streaming by working to defend its DVD “core.” But by embracing the market shift Netflix is now in a leading position as a distributor of streaming content. This makes Netfilx a very powerful company when negotiating distribution rights with producers of movie or television content (thus the Hollywood fear.) By embracing the market shift, and the future solution, Netflix is expanding its business opportunity AND growing revenue profitably.
Don’t let fear of cannibalization, pushed by the Status Quo Police, stop your business from moving with market shifts. Such fear will make you like the proverbial deer, stuck on the road, staring at the headlights of an oncoming auto — and eventually dead. Embrace the market shift, Disrupt your Locked-in thoughts (like “we distribute DVDs”) and set up White Space teams to figure out how you can profitably grow in the new market!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 14, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Summary:
- Success Formulas age, losing their value
- To regain growth, you have to identify with market trends – not reinforce old Lock-ins
- KFC is losing sales due to a market shift, but its response is not linked to market trends
- KFC’s plan to invest heavily in its old icon is Defend & Extend management
- Market to what it takes to regain new customers, and lost customers, not what your current customers (core customers) value
- The Status Quo Police have driven a very bad decision at KFC – more poor results will follow
- You have to market toward future needs, not what worked years ago.
Who’s Colonel Sanders? According to USAToday, in “KFC Tries to Revive Founder Colonel Sanders Prestige” 60% of American’s age 18 to 25 don’t know. For us older Americans, this may seem amazing, because we were raised on advertising that promoted the legend of a cooking Kentucky Colonel who “did chicken right” creating the recipe for what became today’s enormous Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchise. But it’s been a very, very long time since “the Colonel” left KFC in the 1980s, declaring that the chain, then owned by Heublein, didn’t make chicken so “finger lickin’ good” any longer. Were he alive today, the famed Colonel – who became a caricature of himself before death, would be an astounding 120 years old! Now most people don’t have a clue who’s picture that is in the red logo – if they notice there’s even a picture of someone there.
KFC is the largest chicken franchise, with 15,000 stores. But size has not been any help as the chain has lost its growth. Last quarter’s same-store sales fell 7%. A clear sign a deadly growth stall has started that bodes badly for the future! People have stopped going to KFC outletd. So management needs to do something to bring new customers into the stores – in American and globally. In a remarkable display of defending the Status Quo, leadership’s recommended solution for this problem is to put a heavy marketing blitz into “educating” consumers about the Colonel, and the oompany’s history!
Are we to believe that knowing about some long dead company founder will drive customers’ decisions where to eat lunch or dinner next week? Or next year?
I don’t know why people are eating less KFC, but it’s a sure bet it’s NOT because the Colonel has faded from the limelight. Times have changed dramatically. Everything from the acceptance of fried food, to concerns about chicken raising, to menu variety, to store appearance, and alternative competitive opportunities have had an impact on sales at KFC. What KFC needs is to understand these market trends, recognize where consumers are headed with their prepared food purchases, and position the company to deliver what consumers WANT this year and in the future. If KFC finds the trend – even if it’s not chicken – it can regain its growth. KFC needs to give the market what it wants – and is that a heavy education about a dead icon?
KFC is trying to turn back the clock. It is looking internally, historically, and hoping that by promoting the Colonel it can regain the glorious growth of previous decades. KFC leadership is remaining firmly committed to its old and clearly tiring Success Formula (the one that is producing declining sales and profits.) So it is holding fast to its menu, its preparation methods, its store appearance, its “brand” image and now even its iconic founder that is irrelevant to this current generation and any international consumer!
Does anyone really think reviving the Colonel – a white haired senior
citizen in his heyday -will create double digit growth? Or bring in
those young people between ages 18 and 25? There’s not one shred of
market input which says this is the way to grow KFC. Only a belief that
somehow future success will come from an attempt to replay what worked
when the Success Formula was created over 40 years ago.
In a telling quote from the article “KFC’s trying to paint a new picture — actually asking its core consumers to paint it for them.” The marketers are actually hoping a contest to re-sketch the lost icon will drive people to “reconnect” with the franchise. What’s worse, clearly they are hoping to appeal to the “core” customers – current customers – rather than find out why lost customers left, and what new customers might want to encourage a switch to KFC. They are “focusing on their core” rather than figuring out what the market wants.
Add on top of this that management has admitted it expectsmost (possibly all) future growth to come from international expansion, and you really have to question how focusing marketing on the Colonel makes any sense. Why would people in Europe, South America, India, China or elsewhere have any connection to a character more attuned to America’s civil war than today’s global economy and international high-energy brand images?
This is the kind of decision that is driven by a strong Status Quo Police. Of all the options, from changing the menu and name, to developing a new icon, to creating a new image for the alphabet soup that is KFC (most young people don’t even relate KFC to the original name – and international customers have no connection at all) – all the things that could be based on market trends – leadership went down the road of doing more of the same.
It’s a sure bet we’ll be reading about further declines in KFC over the next year. There will be a big store closing program. Then a quality program to improve customer service and cleanliness. Layoffs will happen. Some kind of lean program to tighten up the supply chain and cut costs. Revenues will probably decline another 15-25%. Exactly what McDonald’s did about 6 years ago when it sold Chipotle’s to “refocus on its core.” Management will talk about how its “core” customers relate well to the Colonel, and they are sure if given time the marketing will return KFC to its old glory.
And the only people who will enjoy this are the Status Quo Police. For the rest of us, it’s watching another great company fall victim to its past, rather than migrate toward a better, high growth future.
Read my Forbes.com column “Fire the Status Quo Police” for more insight to how consumer branded companies hurt long-term viability by maintaining brand status quo rather than migrating with market trends.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 9, 2010 | Defend & Extend, Leadership, Lock-in
Leadership
Fire The Status Quo Police
Adam Hartung, 09.08.10, 06:00 PM EDT
Their power to prevent innovation can devastate your business.
“That’s not how we do things around here.” How often have you heard that? And what does it really mean? It is said to stop someone from doing something new. It is no way to promote innovation, is it?”
That’s the lead paragraph to my latest column on Forbes.com, published yesterday evening. Forbes launched a new editorial page covering Change Management, and gave my column’s link the premier placement!
All companies want to grow. But early in the lifecycle they Lock-in on what works, and then implement Status Quo Police that intentionally do not allow anything to change. Their belief is that if nothing changes, the business will always grow. So conformance to historical norms is more important than results to them. To Status Quo Police results will return when conformance to old norms is returned!
Of course, this completely ignores the marketplace. Market shifts, created by competitors launching new technologies, new pricing models, new delivery models or other new solutions cause the value of old solutions to decline. No matter how well you do what you always did, you can’t achieve historical results. The market has shifted!
To keep any company growing you must know who the Status Quo Police are in your organization. They can be in HR, controlling hiring, promotions and pay. In Finance controlling what projects receive resources. In Marketing, tightly controlling branding, product development or distribution. The Status Quo Police are committed to keeping things tightly controlled, and saving the organization from change that could send the company in the wrong direction! No matter what the marketplace may require.
But it’s not enough to know who the Status Quo Police are, its up to leaders to eliminate them! If you want to have a vibrant, profitably growing organization you have to constantly adjust to market shifts. You have to sense what the market wants, and move to deliver it. You have to be very wary of the Status Quo, and instead be open to making changes in order to grow. To do that, you have to hold those who would be the Status Quo Police in check. Otherwise, you’ll find the obstacles to innovation and growth overwhelming!
Please read the article at Forbes, review it and comment! Let me know what you think!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 4, 2010 | Books, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Religion
Summary:
- When we don’t know what works, we create myths to describe what might work
- Much of business theory is little more than myth
- “Good to Great” has been a best seller, but it is not helpful for good management
- To grow business today requires abandoning management myths and aligning with changing market needs
Good to Great by Jim Collins has been a phenomenal business best seller. Almost 10 years old, it has sold millions of copies. It continues to be featured on end caps in book stores. That it has sold so well, and continues selling, is a testament to a much better book by the legendary newsperson Bill Moyers with Joseph Campbell, “The Power of Myth.” (Original PBS 2001 TV show available on DVD, or get the new release this month.)
When we don’t understand something we develop theories as to how it might work. These theories are based upon what we know, our assumptions, and our biases. They could be right, or they might not. Only testing determines the answer. However, sometimes the theory is so powerfully connected to our beliefs that we don’t want to test it – don’t feel the need to test it. And if the theory hangs around long enough, people forget it wasn’t tested. What easily happens is that “logical” theories (based upon assumptions and beliefs) that don’t explain reality become myth. And the myth becomes very comforting. Over time, the myth becomes part of the assumption set – unchallenged, and actually used as a basis for building new theories.
For example, the founder of modern medicine – Galen – didn’t understand the circulatory system. So he thought blood was oxygenated by invisible pores. As time passed it became impossible to challenge, or even test, this theory. Eventually, blood letting was developed as a medical practice because people thought the blood stored in the affected area had gone bad. It was several hundred years before Harvey, through careful testing, proved there were no invisible pores – and instead blood circulated throughout the body. Millions had perished from blood letting because of a myth. Bad theory allowed to go unchallenged and untested. It just sounded so good, so acceptable, that people followed it. Dangerous practice.
Thomas Thurston now gives us great insight to the popular myth developed by Jim Collins in Good to Great. Published by Growth Science International (http//growthsci.com) “Good to Great: Good, But Not Great” Mr. Thurston puts Mr. Collins thesis to the test. Is it a usable framework for predicting performance, and do followers actually achieve superior performance? In other words, does the advice in Good to Great work?
Mr. Thurston’s conclusions, quoted below, are quite clear, and mirror those of academics and lay people who have studied the storied Mr. Collins’ work:
- Even with the copious guidelines set forth by Collins, sorting CEOs into each category proved a highly subjective process. The classification scheme was ambiguous
- Level 5 leadership was difficult to categorize with reliability and consistency
- Our sample [100 well known firms] did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the performance of firms led by Level 5 and Not-Level 5 leaders. Performance in each category was approximately the same.
- Level 5 leadership classifications were, in practice, highly subjective and not predictive of superior firm performance.
- In other words, our results concluded that one can not predict whether a firm will perform good, great or bad based on its having a Level 5 Leader.
We like myth. It helps us explain what we previously could not explain. Like early Greek gods helped people explain the complex world around them. But, when we build our behaviors on myth it becomes extremely dangerous. We depend upon things that don’t work, and it can have serious repercussions. Mr. Collins glorified Circuit City and Fannie Mae in his book – yet now one is gone and the other in disrepute. Meanwhile his list of “great” companies have been proven to perform no better than average since his publication.
In Good to Great Mr. Collins offers a theory for business success that is very appealing. Be focused on your strengths. Get everybody on the bus to doing the same thing. Make sure you know your core, and protect it like a hedgehog protects its home. And make sure all leaders follow a Christ-like approach of humbleness, and leader servitude. It sounds very appealing – in an Horatio Alger sort of way. Work hard, be humble and good things will happen. We want to believe.
But it just doesn’t produce superior performance. There are no theories that have identified “great” leaders. Success has come from all kinds of personalities. And, despite our love for being “passionate” and “focused” on doing something really “great” there is no correlation between long-term success and the ability to understand your core and focus the organization upon it. Thousands of businesses have been focused on their core, yet failed.
What we need is a new theory of management. As the Assistant Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Alan Murray, wrote in “The End of Management,” industrial era management theories about optimization and increased production do not help companies deal with an information era competitiveness fraught with rapid change and keen demands for flexibility.
Increased flexibility and success can be assured. If companies make some critical changes
- Plan for the future, not from the past. Do more scenario planning and less “core” planning
- Obsess about competition – and listen less to customers
- Be disruptive. Don’t focus on optimization and continuous improvement
- Embrace White Space to develop new solutions linked to changing market needs
This does work. Every time.
update links on Thomas Thurston 5/2014:
http://startupreport.com/thomas-thurston-on-innovation-malpractice-and-the-dangers-of-theory-via-startupreport-com/
http://newsle.com/person/thomasthurston/2870934#reloaded
http://thomasthurston.com/
by Adam Hartung | Aug 31, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Quotes
Summary:
- The Wall Street Journal is calling for a dramatic shift in how business is managed
- Most corporations are designed for the industrial age, and thus not well suited for today’s competition
- Change is happening more quickly, and organizations must become more agile
- CEOs today are concerned about dealing with rapid, chronic change – and obsolescence
- Resource deployment, from financial to people, must be tied more closely to market needs and not defending historical strengths
A FANTASTIC article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The End of Management” by Alan Murray, If you have time, I encourage you to click the link and read the entire thing. Below are some insightful quotes from the article I hope you enjoy as much as I did:
- Corporations, whose leaders portray themselves as champions of the free
market, were in fact created to circumvent that market. They were an
answer to the challenge of organizing thousands of people in different
places and with different skills to perform large and complex tasks,
like building automobiles or providing nationwide telephone service.
- the managed corporation—an answer to the central problem of the industrial age.
- Corporations are bureaucracies and managers are bureaucrats. Their
fundamental tendency is toward self-perpetuation… They were designed and tasked, not with
reinforcing market forces, but with supplanting and even resisting the
market.
- it took radio 38 years and television 13 years to reach audiences of 50
million people, while it took the Internet only four years, the iPod
three years and Facebook two years to do the same.
- It’s no surprise that
fewer than 100 of the companies in the S&P 500 stock index were
around when that index started in 1957.
- When I asked members of The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council… to name the most influential business book they had read,
many cited Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovator’s Dilemma.” That book
documents how market-leading companies have missed game-changing
transformations in industry after industry
- They allocated capital to the innovations that promised the largest
returns. And in the process, they missed disruptive innovations that
opened up new customers and markets for lower-margin, blockbuster
products.
- the ability of human beings on different continents and with vastly
different skills and interests to work together and coordinate complex
tasks has taken quantum leaps. Complicated enterprises, like maintaining
Wikipedia or building a Linux operating system, now can be accomplished
with little or no corporate management structure at all.
- the trends here are big and undeniable. Change is rapidly accelerating.
Transaction costs are rapidly diminishing. And as a result, everything
we learned in the last century about managing large corporations is in
need of a serious rethink. We have both a need [for]… a new science of
management, that can deal with the breakneck realities of 21st century
change.
- The new model will have to be more like the marketplace, and less like
corporations of the past. It will need to be flexible, agile, able to
quickly adjust to market developments, and ruthless in reallocating
resources to new opportunities.
- big companies… failed, not…
because they didn’t see the coming innovations, but because they failed
to adequately invest in those innovations. To avoid this problem, the
people who control large pools of capital need to act more like venture
capitalists, and less like corporate finance departments… make lots of bets, not just a few big ones, and… be willing
to cut their losses.
- have to push power and decision-making down the organization as much as
possible, rather than leave it concentrated at the top. Traditional
bureaucratic structures will have to be replaced with something more
like ad-hoc teams of peers, who come together to tackle individual
projects, and then disband
- New mechanisms will have to be created for harnessing the “wisdom of
crowds.” Feedback loops will need to be built that allow products and
services to constantly evolve in response to new information. Change,
innovation, adaptability, all have to become orders of the day.
Well said. Traditional management best practices were designed for the industrial age. For bringing people together to efficiently build planes, trains and automobiles. This is now the information age. Organizations must be more agile, more flexible, and tightly aligned with market needs – while eschewing focus on “core” capabilities.
Companies must understand Lock-in, and how to manage it. Instead of planning for yesterday to continue, we must develop future scenarios and prepare for different likely outcomes. We have to understand competitors, and how quickly they can move to rob us of sales and profits. We have to be willing to disrupt our patterns of behavior, and our markets, in order to drive for higher value creation. And we must understand that constantly creating and implementing White Space teams that are focused on new opportunities is a key to long-term success.
With an endorsement for change from nothing less than the stodgy Wall Street Journal, perhaps more leaders and managers will begin moving forward, implementing The Phoenix Principle, so they can recapture a growth agenda and rebuild profitability.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 25, 2010 | Books, In the Rapids, Leadership, Lock-in
Summary:
- We are biased toward doing what we know how to do, rather than something new
- We like to think we can forever grow by keeping close to what we know – that’s a myth
- Growth only comes from entering growth markets – whether we know much about them or not
- To grow you have to keep yourself in growth markets, and it is dangerous to limit your prospects to projects/markets that are “core” or “adjacent to core”
Recently a popular business book has been Profit from the Core. This book proposes the theory that if you want to succeed in business you should do projects that are either in your “core,” or “adjacent to your core.” Don’t go off trying to do something new. The further you move from your “core” the less likely you will succeed. Talk about an innovation killer! CEOs that like this book are folks who don’t want much new from their employees.
I was greatly heartened by a well written blog article at Growth Science International (www.GrowthSci.com) “Profit from Your Core, or Not.. The Myth of Adjacencies.” Author Thomas Thurston does a masterful job of pointing out that the book authors fall into the same deadly trap as Jim Collins and Tom Peters. They use hindsight primarily as the tool to claim success. Their analysis looks backward – trying to explain only past events. In doing so they cleverly defined terms so their stories seemed to prove their points. But they are wholly unable to be predictive. And, if their theory isn’t predictive, then what good is it? If you can’t use their approach to give a 98% or 99% likelihood of success, then why bother? According to Mr. Thurston, when he tested the theory with some academic rigor he was unable to find a correlation between success and keeping all projects at, or adjacent to, core.
Same conclusion we came to when looking at the theories proposed by Jim Collins and Tom Peters. It sounds good to be focused on your core, but when we look hard at many companies it’s easy to find large numbers that simply do not succeed even though they put a lot of effort into understanding their core, and pouring resources into protecting that core with new core projects and adjacency projects. Markets don’t care about whatever you define as core or adjacent.
It feels good, feels right, to think that “core” or “adjacent to core” projects are the ones to do. But that feeling is really a bias. We perceive things we don’t know as more risky than thing we know. Whether that’s true or not. We perceive bottled water to be more pure than tap water, but all studies have shown that in most cities tap water is actually lower in free particles and bacteria than bottled – especially if the bottle has sat around a while.
What we perceive as risk is based upon our background and experience, not what the real, actual risk may be. Many people still think flying is riskier than driving, but every piece of transportation analysis has shown that commercial flying is about the safest of all transportation methods – certainly much safer than anything on the roadway. We also now know that computer flown aircraft are much safer than pilot flown aircraft – yet few people like the idea of a commercial drone which has no pilot as their transportation. Even though almost all commercial flight accidents turn out to be pilot error – and something a computer would most likely have overcome. We just perceive autos as less risky, because they are under our control, and we perceive pilots as less risky because we understand a pilot much better than we understand a computer.
We are biased to do what we’ve always done – to perpetuate our past. And our businesses are like that as well. So we LOVE to read a book that says “stick close to your known technology, known customers, known distribution system – stick close to what you know.” It reinforces our bias. It justifies us not doing what we perceive as being risky. Even though it is really, really, really lousy advice. It just feels so good – like sugary cereal for breakfast – that we justify it in our minds – like saying “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” as we consume food that’s probably less healthy than the box it came in!
There is no correlation between investing in your core, or close to core, projects and high rates of return. Mr. Thurston again points this out. High rates of return come from investing in projects in growth markets. Businesses in growth markets do better, even when poorly managed, than businesses in flat or declining markets. Where there are lots of customers wanting to buy a solution you simply do better than when there are lots of competitors fighting over dwindling customer revenues. Regardless of how well you don’t know the former or do know the latter. Market growth is a much better predictor of success than understanding your “core” and whatever you consider “adjacent.”
Virgin didn’t know anything about airlines before opening one – but international travel from London was set to boom and Virgin did well (as it has done in many new markets.) Apple didn’t know anything about retail music before launching the iPhone and iTunes, but digital music had started booming at Napster and Apple cleaned up. Nike was a shoe company that didn’t know anything about golf merchandise, but it entered the market for all things golf (first with just one club – the driver – followed by other things) by hooking up with Tiger Woods just as he helped promote the sport into dramatic growth.
Success comes from entering new markets where there is growth. Growth can overcome a world of bad management choices. When there are lots of customers with needs to fill, you can make a lot of mistakes and still succeed. To restrict yourself to “core” and “adjacent” invites failure, because your “core” and the “adjacent” markets that you know well simply may not grow. Leaving you in a tough spot seeking higher profits in the face of stiff competition — like Dell today in PCs. Or GM in autos. Sears in retailing. They may know their “core” but that isn’t giving them the growth they want, and need, to succeed in 2010.
