by Adam Hartung | May 24, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Lifecycle, Television
One of the hardest things for leaders to do is recognize market shifts. The tendency to remain focused on Defending & Extending what was always does is so great that market shifts which demand change are overlooked in the urge to improve what was always done – even as results fade.
An obvious example is Playboy enterprises. "Playboy denies report of $300M price tag" was a Chicago Crain's headline, as rumors that the company (now publicly valued at only $90M) was being shopped for a new owner. Playboy was founded as a "lifestyle" media company intended to meet the emerging needs of "sophisticated" adult males in the 1960s. To the surprise of many publishers and government leaders, Playboy became a huge success. Its magazines outsold expectations. The company grew by opening clubs in major cities where businessmen entertained. Even resorts were founded as vacation destinations. As the company expanded it moved its headquarters from Chicago, where government officials disliked the hometown anomaly, to LA. And the company acquired a 727 as the corporate jet. As revenues and profits expanded, the company went public. As recently as 2000 the company was worth nearly $1.2billion (chart here).
But, the market changed. Women entered the workforce as one primary contributor to the clubs becoming passe, leading to their close. Likewise, the resorts closed as competitors – clubs catering to young men and couples, such as Club Med – did a better job of meeting their needs. The magazine became less and less viable as market shifts led to a split between pornography magazines for those who wanted photos and serious mens journals ranging from Stereophile and Autoweek to GQ. Market shifts ranging from America's attitudes about how to treat women, to what was needed in a serious current events or hobbyist journal, left the company's products less and less interesting. As the founder aged, the company lost track of its primary target and failed to identify a new target market. And the new CEO, the founder's daughter, was unable to develop future scenarios identifying a viable direction – or products – to keep the company growing.
At this point, Playboy has no clear market, has suffered from decades of declining revenue and profits, and investors have no reason to expect an improved return on investment. Why anyone should want to buy the company, especially as we observe that all print journalism is shrinking dramatically, is unclear. Playboy is at the vanguard again – but this time of demonstrating the end of print media and the losses capable from ignoring market shifts. Had Playboy long ago dropped the salatious pictures and moved itself toward a growing readership – providing insights to men's lifestyle issues in sports, fashion, electronics, autos or any number of topics – it had a chance of maintaining its success. But now the brand represents a complete out-of-synch with market needs and is more likely a negative than a positive; of no value. Playboy leadership should take the money and run, distributing what it can to investors, from whatever fool is willing to throw away its money on an acquisition.
Meanwhile, a recent Wall Street Journal Blog was titled "Skype Gets the Oprah Treatment". The WSJ blooger seemed perplexed that Oprah Winfrey's show would choose to run an entire episode by interviewing people on Skype. His implication was strongly that the episode was some sort of technology endorsement in disguise.
But, to the contrary, we can see where Ms. Winfrey and her producers are much smarter than her media CEO counterpart at Playboy. This episode gave viewers a firsthand experience with new technology which is available and usable by her target audience. People were able to recognize how the technology works, and why you would use it to communicate with others – possibly in remote locations.
Although Ms. Winfrey is "50ish" her company is keeping her product very current. Her audience is learning how to use new technology that will help them be better connected to family or business associates. And save money doing so, compared to traditional telephonic tools. Ms. Winfrey and her leadership team could continue to do what they always did, but this kind of new show helps them keep Harpo Enterprises and one of its products – The Oprah Show – in the forefront of competitivesness. That's why Harpo can lay claim to reaching even more people in Asia and Europe than in the USA! Thus Harpo keeps viewer numbers high, and advertisers willing to foot the bill.
Harpo Productions and Ms. Winfrey are demonstrating their willingness to shift with the marketplace. They are trying new things, and are willing to branch out with changes to stay connected to markets as they shift. Doing so is a requirement in lifestyle products, like media. She benefits her customers by willingly shifting with the market, and those lucky enough to work for Harpo or supply the company, will benefit by its willingness to remain connected to changing markets – by staying on the forefront.
Many CEOs and their leadership teams would do well to understand the failure of remaining Locked-in, like Playboy did. And to recognize the value of remaining abreast of market shifts and keeping products current with changing market requirements, like Harpo Productions and is famous CEO. Sometimes being criticized for being too avant garde is a good thing, because it shows you aren't afraid to change in the pursuit of keeping current with market shifts.
by Adam Hartung | May 21, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Openness
"Target heads toward the Crossroads" is the Marketwatch headline today. Like almost all large retailers, Target has had a tough year. Profits dropped, and Target hit a growth stall. If not careful, the company could fall away into noncompetitiveness, like KMart did. At the same time, some think Target is the only strong competitor to WalMart. Just to rough up the problem, outside investors led by raider Bill Ackman are trying to pressure Target to "restructure" and spin off its real estate into a publicly traded trust. Management isn't helped by a Wall Street Journal report "Proxy firm backs critics in Target vote" recommending shareholders vote to put Mr. Ackman on the Board. At this time, in the Flats, is when management teams are most vulnerable – and more often than not make decisions that doom the company.
It's at this time, when growth has stalled and vultures are swirling around, that management is most likely to turn to Defend & Extend Management. They look backward, and try to implement old practices hoping it will ward off attacks. They stop Disrupting, instead forcing high levels of conformance among employees. They jump into short-term cost cutting actions, which kill off new growth ideas, and shut down White Space projects to conserve cash. Instead of heading toward new markets, they emulate traditional competitors and focus on short-term actions. Unfortunately, these actions throw the company into the Swamp, hurting their ability to compete long term and making them victims of competitors. Look at Motorola, which swung from an intense high into the throws of near-failure when the executive team turned toward D&E management after Carl Icahn attacked the company. Instead of going after market growth, the D&E practices plunged the company into a cash drain leading to cataclysmic drop in sales and market share.
The worst thing Target could do is try to be Wal-Mart. Nobody can beat WalMart at being WalMart. And WalMart has its own troubles, including saturation of its stores as well as declining customer interest in its low-cost format. Recent resurgence, linked to the worst economy in 70 years, does not reflect a change in what customers want from retailers long-term. Rather, it's a short-term blip for a Locked-in Success Formula that has seen declining returns on investment for over a decade. If Target were to try emulating WalMart, in format or approach, it would be disastrous.
Nor is doing what Target always did the right thing to do. The market has shifted. What worked in 2005 cannot be assured of working in 2010. Trying to refind its "core" and do more of the same practices would again be a Defend & Extend approach which will hurt results. Amplifying those D&E practices by taking radical actions, such as spinning out its real estate in a short-term financial machination, would only reduce the variables Target can use to regain growth. Following the recommendations of raider Ackman and his Pershing Square firm will attempt to short-term spike profitability, but at the grave risk of killing the company long-term.
What Target needs to do now, more than ever, is study the market. The retail industry is under a major shift as on-line participants increase capability and share, per-store numbers struggle to maintain, and as underlying real estate values tumble. Customer expectations, from baby boomers to GenY are different than they were in 2001, and all retailers need to adapt to these changes. The retailers that do, with new approaches – perhaps mixed approaches that combine on-line with traditional, and/or combine mega-stores with specialty, etc. – will be the ones that capture share as pent-up consumer demand re-emerges in the future. What scenario of the future looks most likely to attract and retain customers in 2015?
Simultaneously, Target needs to study competitors, to define its positioning that produces best results. The good news is that the biggest competitor (WalMart) is so locked in that it's easy to predict. Target can study WalMart, Kohl's, Gordman's, J.C.Penney and others to identify what actions it can take that will avoid head-to-head battering and instead provide rapid growth. Especially by focusing on on-line competitors, including Netshops.com, much can be learned about how the market is shifting and where Target should go to maximize growth.
Above all, Target needs to take this opportunity to Disrupt old behaviors and convince employees, and shareholders, that Target will pull out all stops to become the leading retailer by 2020. WalMart is so Locked-in that it can easily decline (and if you doubt that, just look at other market leaders and how they did coming out of downturns – like GM and Sears). The right retailer, making the right decisions, can become the next leader. But not by just doing more of the same. It will take a concerted effort to open the doors for trying and doing new things.
And right now Target needs to be throwing up test stores and new concepts – White Space projects – where it can learn what will work for the next great retailing Success Formula. No amount of planning is worth as much as experimentation. The newest ideas in retailing need to be reviewed and tested to see what can work now. Maybe the time has finally arrived for home grocery shopping, for example. Who knows? What we do know is that the company that uses this market transition period to build a new Success Formula aligned with changing customer expectations will be positioned to be the new market leader.
Conventional wisdom would say that Target should cut costs, emulate WalMart, get really cheap with prices, tighten its supply chain, spin out all "non core" assets and focus on returning to practices that made a profit in 2004, 05, 06 and 07. But our studies for The Phoenix Principle showed that those practices almost always doom the competitor. Instead, at this critical lifecycle point, it's more important than ever to focus on GROWTH and return to the Rapids – otherwise you end up in the Swamp, moving along toward the Whirlpool, like Woolworths, S.S. Kresge, TG&Y, Sears, KMart and Sharper Image.
by Adam Hartung | May 19, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lock-in
Have you ever heard of a company paying an employee to die? Hard to figure out how that's "pay for performance." Yet, many companies have executive compensation agreements with "golden coffin" provisions which agree to pay the executive's estate substantial sums in the event that executive dies. I first heard about this with the company AM International, which I profiled in my book Create Marketplace Disruption. AM International's Chairman/CEO Merle Banta had a provision in his contract which continued his pay, and guaranteed his bonus, even if he died! This was somewhat remarkable, because during the years he led AM it went bankrupt twice (the last time ending the company), and he laid off thousands of employees. It was hard for the people at AM to understand why this provision existed, since they not only lost their jobs but also their pension fund when Mr. Banta put it all into a company ESOP that went under with the company,
This still goes on today. Probably a lot more than many of us guess. Today's headline "Golden Coffin proposal narrowly defeated at XTO" covers how some shareholders tried to kill the "pay to die" provision for company executives. The Chairman received $1.63M in salary, and $30M in bonus last year – and the Golden Coffin provisions for him are worth more than $90M!!! But I ask you, do you think XTO Energy did well because of the decisions made by Chairman Bob Simpson – or because oil prices spiked to record levels having nothing to do with the management team at all?
When you get paid to hammer nails, or insert rivets, or spot weld, or wash dishes piece pay can make sense. The harder and smarter you work, the more you get done and you can make more money. This is pure pay for performance.
But does this make sense for executives, or even most managers, in a modern corporation? According to its bio, XTO energy owns oil and gas reserves (some proven, some not) under the ground. No matter what management does, the value of those reserves goes up or down with the value of oil and gas. Why should an executive be rewarded if oil jumps to $150/barrel? Sure, his company can be very profitable, but did he have anything to do with it? A 5 year chart of XTO demonstrates that the value of the company is mostly tied to the value of its commodity asset (oil), and not much else.
And the same can be said for most companies. The current value is tied to many factors, including decisions made years before, as well as shifting markets. Companies are quick to point this out when "other factors" conspire to do the value poorly, and they pay executive bonuses anyway. But when the value goes up, there's a willingness to pass along a big chunk of that value to the executives as if they caused it. In reality, about the only thing an executive can do to affect value in the short term (meaning less than 2 or 3 years) is cut R&D, cut product development, cut marketing, cut sales expenditures, outsource functionality to low cost centers, sell assets and lay off employees. Most actions which pad the short-term bottom line but each of which can fatally doom the organization's future. Compensation that's tied to short-term results reinforces doing more of the same, Defending & Extending the company's past, and ignoring needs to invest in shifting the company along with dynamic markets.
Good management keeps its eyes on markets so the company keep can keep positioning itself for growth as markets change. Good management obsesses about competitors so it isn't caught off guard by current or emerging players that drive down returns. Good management disrupts the organization so it is able to shift with markets, rather than getting stuck in behaviors and decision making processes that become outdated and unable to create value. And good management maintains White Space where new products, services, operating practices, metrics and behaviors are tested in order to keep the company evergreen. But how do you tie compensation to these behaviors?
I recently had coffee with someone who worked at AM International when it was declining. He still remembers, painfully, how executive compensation was not linked to what the company needed to do to survive. He told me how later, after AM, he was working for a large manufacturer in central Michigan and he could not believe how every Director, V.P. and other management personnel tied every decision to maximizing their bonus. Eventually, he grew tired of the self-centered behavior and he's now an entrepreneur.
If we are to believe in pay for performance, management bonuses should lag by 1 to 5 years. Bonuses should be based on results – and the results of management decisions actually come to fruition over time. They aren't like pounding nails. This sounds absurd, but we all know that the real impact of executive decisions are seen years after the decision. If CEO incentive compensation for 2009 were tied to performance in 2012 or 2013 do you think the behavior and decisions of executives would change? Would they be more likely to focus on making decision that are for the business's long term health than trying to maximize short-term pay?
Those who've won the CEO lottery have done much better than those who have not. It's very hard to say we "pay for performance" when huge bonuses are paid to the departing chairman of GM, or the CEO who quit launching new products at Motorola to maximize Razr sales. Clearly, they were not paid for performance. And it's unimaginable how paying someone to die makes any sense. When compensation on the downside is guaranteed, and on the upside is maximized by short-term actions or market events not even tied to management decisions, the whole discussion of pay for performance becomes fairly absurd.
I was always struck that the founders of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream came up with a formula that paid everyone based upon rank – and there was a set ratio between ranks. As a result, the CEO's pay could not go up unless the pay of a worker on the line went up. The inherent fairness was extremely hard to argue with. And it meant everyone did better, or worse, as markets shifted and they either shifted with them – or not. It would seem like the time has long come when we should reconsider exactly what we base pay upon. And when measuring performance is as complex, or time lagged, as management we need to rethink the entire concept. Maybe we should go back to compensating people for doing the right things, with most pay in salary, and tying people together for the long-term company interest.
by Adam Hartung | May 18, 2009 | Books, Culture, Economy, Investing, Lifecycle, Phoenix
Twelve years in the making.
As professional business consultant with almost 30 years experience, Adam Hartung is all too familiar with a common malady among today’s businesses. Regardless of how much the leaders and organizations are struggling to grow revenues and profits they cannot seem to break out of below-expectation performance. Even when hiring top advisors, consultants and employees, results do not respond as expected. They seem stuck, and unable to make changes which will lead to superb performance.
Why? This question which sparked a more than 12 year analysis to determine the root of—and the solution to—the problem. Geoffrey Moore encouraged Adam to put his findings into a book, which he now endorses on the cover. The principles now covered in Create Marketplace Disruption have been affirmed as “fresh and much needed” by Tom Peters, and “a revolutionary message” by Malcolm Gladwell. Bill Gates’ co-author, Collins Hemingway, considers Create Marketplace Disruption a must read, as he details in the Foreword.
Business leadership has not yet made the transition from management in the industrial economy to management in the information economy. While much has been written about an information economy it has yet to fundamentally affect how leaders manage their organizations. True, computer technology has unleashed new business models and methods of competition. Yet most leaders are still using management techniques which were taught in the 1970s and developed for the industrial economy.
To a large degree, the current disconnect is to be expected. The Russian economist Kondratiev demonstrated that economies move on a particularly long wave of approximately 75 years. He postulated that this was due to major changes in technology which took a very long time to reach adoption, massive use, decline and eventual replacement by another important new technology. Initially, the technology is used merely to improve existing processes and speed existing competitive models as we have seen with computer technology. Eventually, the full impact of the new technology creates new methods of competition which obviates the old, ushering in new rates of productivity and new methods of growth. We are at this fulcrum today.
For decades companies have prospered through “Defend and Extend” (D&E) Management—establishing a Success Formula, then improving and protecting it against competitors. In the Industrial Economy this worked well because size, economies of scale, and entry barriers were important. But today, due primarily to the emergence of information transparency, Success Formulas are being duplicated practically overnight—robbing companies of their competitive advantage. Practicing D&E Management in this environment is a prescription for failure, and yet that is what almost every company, large and small, is doing. And how most leaders are trying to get ahead.
In the three year period ending in 2003, bankruptcies of public companies increased 855% over the three year period ending just five years prior, and for companies with assets over a billion dollars the increase was an astounding 1,750%. To reverse this trend, companies must turn conventional wisdom on its head. Instead of looking to their Success Formulas as the solution to their problems, companies must learn to see their Success Formulas as the source of their problems. Companies must embrace the Phoenix Principle and become both willing and able to reinvent their Success Formulas… over and over again.
In recent years, Adam Hartung met with hundreds of senior executives. Almost every business leader sang the same sad refrain: every quarter of every year is a brutal struggle to make their numbers. Most admit that they don’t really know what to do to make things any better—nothing they have tried has made a sustainable difference. Historical tactics, including mergers and acquisitions, extensive cost-cutting, streamlining processes, outsourcing, and various quality programs have made little or no impact on competitiveness.
Well-meaning but increasingly outdated advice from business gurus such as Jim Collins and Larry Bossidy to focus on execution and optimize the core business are only making matters worse. Create Marketplace Disruption uses The Phoenix Principle to rebut the “optimize and execute” message while providing simple but powerful models that explain why so many companies are struggling to such an extent. The author illustrates with many convincing examples and case studies how the inevitable consequence of D&E Management has been lock-in to outdated Success Formulas leading to worsening performance. This has resulted in a vicious cycle of cost-cutting and profit erosion, eventually leading to failure.
D&E Management causes managers to behave as if their organizations are exempt from market and competitive shifts which can make their Success Formula obsolete. Many managers cling to the myth of business perpetuity as a rationalization for their mature companies to use continuous improvement as a way to create, then maintain, above average returns—even when the evidence overwhelmingly indicates otherwise. The hard truth is that the techniques Michael Porter published for competing in the 1980s no longer generate sustainable competitive advantage. Entry barriers are now exit barriers, supplier and customer leverage are short-lived, and focus on product innovation and cost reduction is far less likely to create success than implementing alternative business models.
Business leaders must embrace a new model for managing based on The Phoenix
Principle. This entails rethinking the traditional approach to organizational lifecycle management in several ways, including making profits in the growth stage, planning on very short periods of competitive advantage, and exiting businesses much quicker than before. The Phoenix Principle emphasizes leaders’ responsibility for disrupting existing Success Formulas in order to experiment with new and innovative profit opportunities. While agreeing with author Clayton Christensen on many points, the author confronts Clayton’s claim that established companies cannot compete against, nor implement, disruptive technologies. Instead, the author demonstrates a process whereby any organization can most definitely enhance innovation, growth and change, including installing a culture of continuous renewal through new processes and changes in the employee mix.
Create Marketplace Disruption provides readers with hope that even the most locked-in organizations can renew themselves. Through a four-phase approach backed up with solid examples, business managers will learn how to reinvent locked-in Success Formulas at the individual, work team, business function, operating unit and company levels. This book provides the vernacular and practical “how to” information to undertake the “Re-Imagining” recommended by Tom Peters. Additionally, the author introduces readers to breakthrough thinking, which is the ability to challenge and change assumptions at the individual level. Readers are given powerful tools for transforming Locked-in behaviors, and developing new solutions for today’s dynamic business competition in the Information Economy.
This book will help beleaguered business managers understand why their organizations are struggling, why their actions not only aren’t helping but are contributing to the problem, and how leaders and individuals can Disrupt and reinvent their Locked-in Success Formulas to generate significant breakthroughs in performance.
by Adam Hartung | May 18, 2009 | Books, Lifecycle, Phoenix, Trends
What Thought Leaders are saying about Create Marketplace Disruption
“Companies that cannot change die. Companies that respond eventually survive but see their profits squeezed, their growth flattened. Long-term winners create their own disruptions and thrive on change. Hartung shows how to become one of the winning companies: how to attack competitors’ lock-ins, make their success formulas obsolete, and create the space needed to invent formulas for success.”
Harvard Business School Bulletin, March, 2009
“How do you participate in market disruptions which threaten your current leadership status? In this book Adam Hartung shows the kind of thinking needed to deal with the creative destruction that underlies global capitalism today.” Geoffrey Moore, author Dealing with Darwin” and “Crossing the Chasm,”
Managing Director TCG-Advisors venture capital, September, 2008
“Create Marketplace Disruptions is as thought-provoking as it is entertaining. Adam Hartung offers business managers and leaders new insights to long-term success that apply across markets and industries.”
Steve Burke, President Comcast, August, 2008
“This is a disruptive book. In times of ever accelerating, deep change survival through “ever better management” is an illusion. This is the book for the entrepreneur in us. Unite the entrepreneurial soul with corporate resourcefulness. Adam’s framework should be tried.”
Jost Stollman, Shadow Minister Economy and Technology Federal Republic of Germany, July, 2008
“The Fortune 1000 is a very fluid list. They become successful doing something right, but then keep doing that (because it’s what they know) even when marketplace conditions change. Companies need to reinvent themselves, become flexible, and do something completely different.”
Nick Morgan, CEO Public Words, February, 2009
“In what is possibly one of most stimulating books ever written on business management, Adam Hartung explores various ways for a corporation to achieve adaptive success: such as stop the ‘Defend & Extend’ old habits, generate controlled disruptions of the corporate personality, and create autonomous ‘White Space’ to continuously create revised success formulas.”
Jean-Louis Vullierme, global venture capitalist, January, 2009
“Talking innovation is easier than practicing innovation. Adam offers an excellent approach for corporations to identify how to innovate to gain competitive advantage. A must read. ”
Praveen Gupta, President, Accelper Consulting, author Business Innovation in the 21st Century, The Six Sigma Performance Handbook and Six Sigma Business Scorecard, September, 2008
“Adam Hartung gives a workable guide to overcome business inertia. Create disruption in your own business to keep ahead of the competition. Hartung looks at the reasons why businesses have difficulty changing, and provides help in overcoming those issues. Create Marketplace Disruption is an easy to read, helpful book and recommended.”
Sacramento Book Review, November, 2008
“Adam Hartung has forever changed the paradigm of what constitutes the leadership of change and innovation. He provides answers to why so many good organizations fail. He shows how leaders trained to focus on core competencies and customers may be sowing the seeds for their organization’s destruction in a time of accelerating change.”
Paul Davis, President Scanlon Leadership Network, October, 2008
“Adam Hartung offers courageous leaders a new language system and framework for generating long term profitable growth. Rich with compelling metaphors, stories, and illustrations, Create Marketplace Disruptions explains why even aggressive efforts to reinvent fail. Hartung provides leaders with practical tools for keeping companies ahead of declining results and obsolescence. Every leader needs to understand Hartung’s framework and heed his advice.”
Judi Rosen, Managing Director, CSC Index and President, The Concours Group, August, 2008
“Create Marketplace Disruption provides a model for competing more effectively in our constantly changing markets. Leapfrogging tired concepts which have largely focused on doing more of what you’ve always done, Adam Hartung focuses us on doing what it takes to do better. This is the book that all executives who want to leave a positive legacy must read!”
Ron Kirschner, Chairman Heartland Angels venture capital, December, 2008
“Adam Hartung blends stunning lessons learned from the fallen giants of business with set-you-back-in-your-seat insights that make this a must read for all business leaders of large and small companies alike. Hartung provides an intelligent blueprint for achieving what every business craves — competitive advantage and renewable growth. Smart, sophisticated treatment of a topic that no business executive worth his /her stock options can ignore — how to grow and differentiate your business”
John Popoli, President Lake Forest Graduate School of Management, January, 2009
“Create Marketplace Disruption is an engaging, enlightening, frightening, and occasionally upsetting book. Its contents will repay careful thought and periodic revisiting. It’s a book to keep in mind, and close at hand, whenever an organization faces the need to develop an effective plan for the future.”
Dr. Michael Vitale, Asia-Pacific Centre for Science and Wealth Creation, October, 2008
“The insights provided by Adam Hartung makes this book a must-read for all entrepreneurs. This is a blueprint for generating more wealth and getting to investor returns faster.”
William A Johnson, Founder and CEO CAER Group, March, 2009
“Creating Marketplace Disruptions is an outstanding approach for creating and maintaining growth and profitability in an increasingly dynamic and uncertain global economy. More importantly, the book moves beyond concepts with a well crafted set of tools and techniques for implementing change that are relevant regardless of industry or company size”
Sumeet Goel, Managing Director, HighPoint Associates, July, 2008
“Adam Hartung presents a fresh perspective and compelling case that demands business leaders pursue new markets – thirst to disrupt the status quo. Every business should apply Mr. Hartung’s principles – only hiring those individuals prepared to question the corporate culture, and vigorously willing to pursue White Space.”
Ken Daubenspeck, Chairman and CEO KDA global management recruiters, October, 2008
by Adam Hartung | May 18, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Web/Tech
"Newspapers face pressure in selling online advertising" is today's headline about newspapers. Seems even when the papers realize they must sell more online ads they can't do it. Instead of selling what people want, the way they want it, the newspapers are trying to sell online ads the way they sold paper ads – with poor results.
We all know that newspaper ad spending is down some 20-30%. But even in this soft economy internet ad spending is up 13% versus a year ago. Except for newspaper sites. At Gannett, NYT and McClatchy internet ad sales are down versus a year ago!
People don't treat internet news like they do a newspaper. The whole process of looking for news, retrieving it, reading it, and going to the next thing is nothing like a newspaper. Yet, daily newspapers keep trying to think of internet publishing like it's as simple as putting a paper on the web! What works much better, we know, are sites focused on specific issues – like Marketwatch.com for financial info, or FoodNetwork.com. Also, nobody wants to hunt for an on-line classified ad at a newspaper site – not when it's easier to go to cars.com or vehix.com to look for cars, or monster.com to look for jobs. Web searching means that you aren't looking to browse across whatever a newspaper editor wants to feed you. Instead you want to look into a topic, often bouncing across sites for relevant or newer information. But a look at ChicagoTribune.com or USAToday.com quickly shows these sites are still trying to be a newspaper.
Likewise, online advertisers have far different expectations than print advertisers. Newspapers simply said "we have xxxx subscribers" and expected buyers to pay. But on the web advertisers know they can pay for placement against specific topics, and they can expect a specific number of page views for their money. As the article says "if newspapers want to get their online revenue growing again, once the economy recovers, they have to tie ad rates more closely to results, charge less for ads and provide web content that readers can't get at every news aggregation site."
When markets shift, it's not enough to try applying your old Success Formula to the new market. That kind of Defend & Extend practice won't work. You're trying to put a square (or at least oblong) peg into a round hole. Shifted markets require new solutions that meet the new needs. You have to study those needs, and project what customers will pay for. And you have to give them product that's superior to competitors in some key way. Old customers aren't trying to buy from you. Loyalty doesn't go far in a well greased internet enabled world. You have to substantiate the reason customers need to remain loyal. You have to offer them solutions that meet their emerging needs, not the old ones.
Years ago IBM almost went bust trying to be a mainframe company when people found hardware prices plummeting and off-the-shelf software good enough for their needs. IBM had to develop new scenarios, which showed customers needed services to implement technology. Then IBM had to demonstrate they could deliver those services competitively. Only by Disrupting their old Success Formula, tied to very large hardware sales, and implementing White Space where they developed an entirely new Success Formula were they able to migrate forward and save the company from failure.
Unfortunately, most newspaper companies haven't figured this out yet. They don't realize that bloggers and other on-line content generators are frequently scooping their news bureaus, getting to news fans faster and with more insight. They don't realize that on-line delivery is not about a centralized aggregation of news, but rather the freshness and insight. And they haven't figured out that advertisers take advantage of enhanced metrics to demand better results from their spending. The New York Times, Gannett and other big newspaper companies better study the IBM turnaround before it's too late.
by Adam Hartung | May 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Gannett to shut down print version of Tucson newspaper" is the latest headline. Yet another newspaper either cutting staff, cutting content, cutting print days, or stopping printing altogether. That this would happen isn't really surprising. Even Warren Buffett recently said he didn't see any way newspapers could make money. (Yet, according to Marketwatch Berkshire Hathaway still owns shares in Gannett – primarily a newspaper company.)
What's surprising is that Gannett isn't doing anything to change the company. A quick visit to www.Gannett.com and you'll learn that the company has almost no on-line business. They company's profile says that it's online business consists of a 50% ownership in CareerBuilder.com and Shoplocal. That's it. No financial news site, no social networking site, no food site, no sites dedicated to the TV stations owned by Gannett, or the newspapers owned by Gannett. A visit to the page dedicated to the Gannett online network is actually a page where you can ask for a salesperson to call you for placing an ad on USAToday.com.
Everyone today has to deal with market shifts. Everyone. The newspapers are in a position where their very survival depends upon making a shift. This isn't new. It's been clear for several months – and for those in the media actually well known for a few years. So why hasn't Gannett done anything to reposition its business? Over the last year equity value has declined 85% – some $6Billion of lost value. Since June, 2007 the equity value has dropped from $60/share to $4/share (a loss of some $10Billion in value) [see chart here].
Leadership should not be allowed to behave like the lonely deer, caught on a rural road in the evening. The proverbial animal caught staring into the headlights of the car speeding directly at it – and sudden death. Leadership's job is to react to market changes in order to keep the business viable. Gannett has succumbed to Lock-in – unwilling to take actions necessary to keep its customers (advertisers and readers) engaged. Unwilling to help employees mobilize toward a new future, and help vendors identify growth opportunities. By simply doing more of what the company has always done, leadership is dooming the investors to lose their money, and their employees their jobs and pensions.
Everybody knows that the future for newspapers is bleak. All of us will face these sorts of market shifts in our careers. Doing nothing is not an option. Leadership must engage the workforce in open dialogue about what the future holds, taking great pains to discuss competitors and how they are changing the market. And leadership is responsible to Disrupt the Lock-ins, attacking them, so that new ideas can be brought forward and new investments can be made in White Space where the company can grow and migrate to a new Success Formula.
If somebody steals $100 that's a crime. But if you lose $10Billion in market value that's not. When market shifts are as obvious as those in newspapers, and management doesn't take action to reposition the company and engage employees in transition, not taking action seems criminal. No wonder shareholders file class action lawsuits.
by Adam Hartung | May 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
"Chrysler delivers the bad news to 789 dealers" was yesterday's headline. Today the headline read "GM notifies dealers of shutdowns" as the company sent 1,100 dealers the notice they would no longer be allowed to stay in business. Thousands are losing jobs. Chrysler is bankrupt, and GM looks destined to file shortly. But wait a minute, GM was the market share leader for the last 50 years!! These big companies, in manufacturing, were supposed to be able to protect their business and become "cash cows." They weren't supposed to get beaten up, see their cash sucked away and end up with nothing!
About 30 years ago a fairly small management consultancy that was started as a group to advise a bank's clients hit upon an idea that skyrcketed its popularity. The fledgling firm was The Boston Consulting Group, and its idea was the Growth/Share matrix. It created many millions of dollars in fees over the years, and is now a staple in textbooks on strategic planning. Unfortunately, like a lot of business ideas from that era, we're learning from companies like GM and Chrysler that it doesn't work so well.
The idea was simple. Growth markets are easier to compete in because people throw money at the companies – either via sales or investment. So it's easier to make money in growing businesses. Market share was considered a metric for market power. If you have high share, you supposedly could pretty much dictate prices. High share meant you were the biggest, which supposedly meant you had the biggest assets (plant, etc.) and thus you had the lowest cost. So, low growth and low share meant your business was a dog. High growth and low share was a question mark – maybe you'd make money if you eventually get high share. High growth and high share was a star. And low growth but high share is a cash cow because you could dominate a business using your market clout to print money – or in the venacular of the matix – milk the money from this cow into which you put very little feed.
In the 1970s/80s, looking at the industrial era, this wasn't a bad chart. Especially in asset intensive businesses that had what were then called "scale advantages." In the industrial world, having big plants with lots of volume was interpreted as the way to being a low-cost company. Of course, this assumed most cost was tied up in plant and equipment – rather than inventory, people, computers, advertising, PR, viral marketing, etc. The first part of the matrix has held up pretty well; the last part hasn't. We now know that it's easier to make money in growth. But it doesn't turn out that share really gives you all that much power nor does it have a big determination in profitability.
We know that having share is no defense of profits. The assumption about entry barriers keeping competitors at bay, and thus creating a "defensive moat" around profits, is simply not true. Today, companies build "scale" facilities overnight. They obtain operating knowledge by hiring competitor employees, or simply obtaining the "best practices" from the internet. Distribution systems are copied with third party vendors and web sites. Even advertising scale can be obtained with aggressive web marketing at low cost. And so many facilities are "scale" in size that overcapacity abounds – meaning the competitor with no capacity (using outsourced manufacturing) can be the "low cost" competitor (like Dell.).
Thus, all markets are overrun with competitors that drive down profits any time growth slows. As GM learned, even with more than 50% share (which they once had) they could not stop competitors from differentiating and effectively competing. Not even Chrysler, with the backing of Mercedes, could maintain its share and profits against far less well healed competitors. When growth slows, the cash disappears into the competitive battles of the remaining players. Unfortunately, even new players enter the market just when you'd think everyone would run for the hills (look at Tata Motors launching itself these days wtih the Nano). Competitors never run out of new ideas for trying to compete – even when there's no growth – so they keep hammering away at the declining returns of once dominant players until they can no longer survive.
Competition exists in all businesses except monopolies, and threatens returns of even those with highest share. Today it might be easy to say that Google cannot be challenged. That is short-sighted. People said that about Microsoft 20 years ago – and today between Apple, Linux and Google Microsoft's revenue growth is plummeting and the company is unable to produce historical results. People once said Sears could not be challenged in retailing. Kodak in amateur photography. And GM in cars. Competitors don't quit when growth slows – until they go bankrupt – and even then they don't quit (again, look at Chrysler). High share is no protection against competition.
And thus, there is no "easy cash in the cow" to be milked. It all gets spent fighting to stay alive. Trying to protect share by cutting price, paying for distribution, advertising. And if you don't spend it, you simply vanish. Really fast. Like Lehman Brothers. Or Bennigans.
The only way to make money, long term, is to keep growing. To keep growing you have to move into new markets, new technologies, new services – in other words you have to keep moving with the marketplace. And that produces success more than anything else. It's all about growth. Forget about trying to have the "cash cow" – it's like the unicorn – it never existed and it never will.
by Adam Hartung | May 8, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Food and Drink, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness, Television, Web/Tech, Weblogs
Where the people go, advertisers will follow. Why pay for an ad at the end of a never traveled dead-end street? The purpose of advertising is to reach people with your message. And now "Forrester: Interactive Marketing to grow 11% to $25.6 Billion in 2009" reports MediaPost.com. When print advertising is dropping (direct mail down 40%, newspaper down 35% and magazines down 28%), the on-line market is growing and expected to reach over $50billion by 2014. Search ads is the biggest, with over half the market, but social media is expected to grow the fastest at over 34%/year.
Such a market shift indicates that those who buy ads need to be very savvy about what works. Like I said, you don't want to be the fool who jumps into billboards, only to get placed on the one at the end of a dead-end road. Success means Disrupting your assumptions about advertising, and learning what work by entering White Space with tests and measurements.
In "Mobile Marketing Won't Work Here" Bret Berhoft explains why GenY simply won't tolerate intrusive ads – especially on their mobile devices. Social media are different conduits, with different users and different behaviors. Where older folks (and our parents) were content to be interrupted by ads – such as on TV – the avid users of new media aren't. And they've been known to create counter-movements attacking advertisers that don't adhere to their on-line behavior requirements.
What won't work is trying to do what Sears has done. Instead of learning how people use social media, and how you can connect with them to meet their needs, "Sears to Launch Social Networking Sites" we learn. Where everybody is using Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Linked-in, etc., Sears decided to open two new sites called MySears.com and MyKmart.com. They hope people will go to these sites, register, and tell stories about their experiences in both retail chains. Then Sears intends to flow through good comments to Sears.com and KMart.com sites.
The horribly Locked-in Sears management keeps trying to Defend & Extend its outdated model. As people have left Sears and KMart in droves for competitors, they aren't looking for a site to "connect" with other people who are Sears centric. People use social networks to learn, grow, exchange ideas, keep up with trends. They don't register for a site because their parents used to shop there.
Sears has missed the basics of Disrupting its old Success Formula, so it keeps trying to apply it in ways that don't work. It keeps doing what it always did, only trying to do it in new places. These sites aren't White Space projects trying to participate in the social networks that are growing (like everything from illness questions to home how-tos). Rather, they are still trying to take the position that Sears is at the center of the world, and people want to be part of Sears.
Exactly how advertisers will capture the attention of participants still isn't clear. Some ideas have gone "viral" producing mega-returns for minimal investments. Other ideas have flopped despite big spending. The market is shifting, and variables keep changing (Marketers Search for Social Media Metric.) But for those who Disrupt their old Lock-ins, those who attack their assumptions, they can use White Space to learn what does work.
"Pizza Hut 'Twintern' to Guide Twitter Presence" is a great example of creating White Space to study social media advertising by participating. The new position will interact with Twitter users, and be a leader in how to interact with Facebook and other sites – even the notorious YouTube! where user content can include the very bizarre. By participating where the customers are, these leaders can develop insights to how you can consistently advertise effectively. Already Sony and Dell have demonstrated they can achieve high recall (Word of Mouth goes Far Beyond Social Media) beyond Social Media with their on-line efforts. These participants, who Disrupt their assumptions and bring in others to work in White Space will be the winners because they aren't trying to Defend & Extend the old Success Formula. They are trying to create a new one to which they can migrate the old business.
by Adam Hartung | May 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Good public policy and good management don't always align. And the banking crisis is a good example. We now hear "Banks must raise $75billion" if they are to be prepared for ongoing write-downs in a struggling economy. This is after all the billions already loaned to keep them afloat the last year.
But the bankers are claiming they will have no problem raising this money as reported in "The rush to raise Capital." "AIG narrows loss" tells how one of the primary contributors to the banking crisis now thinks it will survive. And as a result of this news, "Bank shares largely higher" is another headline reporting how financial stocks surged today post-announcements.
So regulators are feeling better. They won't have to pony up as much money as they might have. And politicians feel better, hoping that the bank crisis is over. And a lot of businesses feel better, hearing that the banks which they've long worked with, and are important to their operations, won't be going under. Generally, this is all considered good news. Especially for those worried about how a soft economy was teetering on the brink of getting even worse.
But the problem is we've just extended the life of some pretty seriously ill patients that will probably continue their bad practices. The bail out probably saved America, and the world, from an economic calamity that would have pushed millions more into unemployment and exacerbated falling asset values. A global "Great Depression II" would have plunged millions of working poor into horrible circumstances, and dramatically damaged the ability of many blue and white collar workers in developed countries to maintain their homes. It would have been a calamity.
But this all happened because of bad practices on the part of most of these financial institutions. They pushed their Success Formulas beyond their capabilities, causing failure. Only because of the bailout were these organizations, and their unhealthy Success Formulas saved. And that sows the seeds of the next problem. In evolution, when your Success Formula fails due to an environomental shift you are wiped out. To be replaced by a stronger, more adaptable and better suited competitor. Thus, evolution allows those who are best suited to thrive while weeding out the less well suited. But, the bailout just kept a set of very weak competitors alive – disallowing a change to stronger and better competitors.
These bailed out banks will continue forward mostly as they behaved in the past. And thus we can expect them to continue to do poorly at servicing "main street" while trying to create risk pass through products that largely create fees rather than economic growth. These banks that led the economic plunge are now repositioned to be ongoing leaders. Which almost assures a continuing weak economy. Newly "saved" from failure, they will Defend & Extend their old Success Formula in the name of "conservative management" when in fact they will perpetuate the behavior that put money into the wrong places and kept money from where it would be most productive.
Free market economists have long discussed how markets have no "brakes". They move to excess before violently reacting. Like a swing that goes all one direction until violently turning the opposite direction. Leaving those at the top and bottom with very upset stomachs and dramatic vertigo. The only way to avert the excessive tops is market intervention – which is what the government bail-out was. It intervened in a process that would have wiped out most of the largest U.S. banks. But, in the wake of that intervention we're left with, well, those same U.S. banks. And mostly the same leaders.
What's needed now are Disruptions inside these banks which will force a change in their Success Formula. This includes leadership changes, like the ousting of Bank of America's Chairman/CEO. But it takes more than changing one man, and more than one bank. It takes Disruption across the industry which will force it to change. Force it to open White Space in which it redefines the Success Formula to meet the needs of a shifted market – which almost pushed them over the edge – before those same shifts do crush the banks and the economy.
And that is now going to be up to the regulators. The poor Secretary of Treasury is already eyeball deep in complaints about his policies and practices. I'm sure he'd love to stand back and avoid more controversy. But, unless the regulatory apparatus now pushes those leading these banks to behave differently, to Disrupt and implement White Space to redefine their value for a changed marketplace, we can expect a protracted period of bickering and very weak returns for these banks. We can expect them to walk a line of ups and downs, but with returns that overall are neutral to declining. And that they will stand in the way of newer competitors who have a better approach to global banking from taking the lead.
So, if you didn't like government intervention to save the banks – you're really going to hate the government intervention intended to change how they operate. If you are glad the government intervened, then you'll find yourself arguing about why the regulators are just doing what they must do in order to get the banks, and the economy, operating the way it needs to in a shifted, information age.
