The leadership of Microsoft's entertainment division are leaving, as reported at TechFlash.com "Bach, Allard leaving Microsoft in Big Shift for Consumer Businesses." Whether by their own choice or by request, the issue is simply that Microsoft has not driven the XBox to a dominant position versus the Sony Playstation or the Ninendo Wii. It is competitive, but not a big winner. The entertainment division has only recently moved beyond break-even, after years of losing billions of dollars. In the high-growth gaming business, Microsoft has simply not performed, despite its vast resources. And mobile devices developed in this division have lost over half their market share in under 2 years to Apple and Google.
Some of the weakness may have been that the leaders were long-term Microsoft veterans, comfortable to Mr. Ballmer and other leaders, rather than executives committed to their markets. Messrs. Bach and Allard were not they type of leaders to challenge the Microsoft Success Formula, instead willing to accept mediocre results rather than violate Microsoft Lock-ins that would have jeopardized their careers. Microsoft was willing to lose money, and not be a big winner, as long as the division leadership didn't challenge Lock-ins or the company focus on desktop computing products.
I'm not optimistic now that the division is reporting directly to CEO Steve Ballmer. He had an enormous role in the company decision to commit vast resources to Defending the old Success Formula by massing hundreds of billions of dollars behind development and rollout of Office 2007, now office 2010, Vista and now System 7. Yet, these projects have done nothing to grow Microsoft; instead only helping the company hold onto old customers. Worse, Mr. Ballmer himself recently informed the world in his CEO Summit (as reported in Computerworld "Microsoft's Ballmer admits 'Window's Vista was just not executed well") that he's not a good leader of product development – costing the company thousands of man-years in wasted development when admittedly mismanaging Vista!
Now, largely due to the ongoing Defend & Extend management practices of Mr. Ballmer, Microsoft and Apple's valuations are in a dead heat. Growth at Microsoft is poor, while Apple with its multiple new products is growing much faster – causing Apple's value to catch up to what has historically been the world's largest software company.
As I commented on the recent interview for bnet.com (available as a podcast) Microsoft's Defend & Extend management practices are deeply rooted in the industrial economy. But they are insufficient for success in today's rapidly shifting marketplace. I discussed this in more depth for my keynote address at the Western Michigan Innovation & Energy Summit last week, and a second article was published in the local newspaper on Saturday "Customer is Always Right? Columnist says not for Innovative Businesses." Specifically, Microsoft's total commitment to maintaining old operating system and Office customers has created an inability to re-focus resources on high growth markets like gaming and mobile devices.
Although Microsoft has solutions – including tablet technology – it's management is Locked-in to Defending what it always did and not committing to new growth markets. Anyone who thinks Microsoft will be the major player in cloud computing, just because it has demonstrated some new products, must look closely at how poorly the company has developed these other growth markets. Technology and products are not enough when management is Locked in to protecting past markets. Microsoft is far behind Google, and has practically no catch of being a major player with so much resource dedicated to Office 2010 and System 7.
Thus investors as well as customers and employees are not doing so well at Microsoft. In the rapidly shifting technology and gaming markets, this inability to commit to new markets is deadly. For Microsoft, replacing the heads of the entertainment division is most likely analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on ocean liner Titanic. The pending outcome is rapidly becoming inevitable. Time to look for lifeboats!
Do you lament "the way things used to be?" I remember my parents using that phrase. Now I often hear my peers. And it really worries me. Success requires constant growth, and when I hear business leaders talking about "the way things used to be" I fear they are unwilling to advance with market shifts.
For 5 years newspaper publishers have been lamenting the good old days, when advertisers had little choice but to pay high rates for display or classified ads. Newspaper publishers complain that on-line ads are too inexpensive, and thus unable to cover the costs of "legitimate" journalism. While they've watched revenues decline, almost none have done anything to effectively develop robust on-line businesses that can offer quality journalism for the future. Instead, most are cutting costs, reducing output and using bankruptcy protection to stay alive (such as Tribune Corporation.) Even as more and more readers shift toward the digital environment.
While most of the "major" newspapers (including Tribune owned LA Times) have been trying to preserve their print business (Defend & Extend it) HuffingtonPost.com has gone out and built a following. There's little doubt that with the last 3 years trajectory,HuffingtonPost will soon be the largest site. And reports are that HuffingtonPost.com is profitable.
In 2006 the CFO at LATimes told me he couldn't divert more resources to his web department. He felt it would be jeopardize to the print business. "After all," he said "you don't think that the future of news will be bloggers do you?" Clearly, he was unprepared for the kind of model Arianna Huffington was building – and the kind of readership HuffingtonPost.com could create.
On Tuesday I presented the keynote address at the Innovation and Energy Summit in Grand Rapids, MI – and as reported in West Michigan Business "Energy & Innovation Summit Speakers Urge Business Leaders to Seek New Businesses, Not Protect Old Ones." Defend & Extend management always "feels" right. It seems like the smart thing to try and preserve the old Success Formula, usually by cutting costs and increasing focus on primary revenue sources. But in reality, this further blinds the organization to market shifts and makes it more vulnerable to disaster. While NewsCorp and others are busy trying to think like newspapers, emerging news market competitors are developing entirely different models that attract customers – and make a profit.
That's why it is so important to use future scenarios to drive planning (not old products and customers) while passionately studying competitors. Talking to advertisers gave these publishers no insight as to how to compete, however had they spent more time watching HuffingtonPost.com, and other on-line sites, they might well have used Disruptions to change their investment models – pushing more resources to the web business. And had they set up dedicated White Space teams not constrained by old Lock-ins to traditional revenue models and goals of "avoiding advertiser cannibalization" they might very well have evolved to a more effective Success Formula necessary for competing on the internet into 2020.
"What business are you in?" is one of the most common business questions asked. People usually want a simple answer, like "I make widgets" or "I provide widget services." A simple answer allows people to easily cubbyhole the business, and remember what it does. And many think it provides for a well run business – through a simple focus – sort of like the Kentucky Fried Chicken ad "We only do chicken, and we do chicken right." Because the business's Identity is easy to understand employees can focus on Defending that Identity.
But in reality when your Identity is tightly tied to a product or service bad things happen when demand for that item wanes — or demand turns flat while supply is ample (or possibly growing). Competitors start trading punishing blows back and forth, and profits wane as competition intensifies. Business leaders start acting like gladiators trapped in a coliseum pit, undertaking ever more dangerous actions to survive amidst punishing competitiveness. Many don't survive. As results are increasingly threatened, the business's Identity is under attack, and the tendency to Defend that Identity is extremely strong. Such defense usually grows, even as results continue deteriorating.
There is an alternative. Instead of trying to always be what you always were, you can do something different. Think about Hewlett Packard. HP started as an instrumentation company, making electronic tools, such as oscilliscopes, for engineers. But as the market shifted, HP's leaders have moved the company into new business – allowing the company to keep growing.
By entering new businesses, some organically and some via acquisition, HP has been able to continue growing sales and profits. By letting each of these businesses do whatever they need to do to succeed, by giving them permission to do what the market demands and providing these new businesses with resources, HP has been able to compete in old businesses, while developing new businesses toward which the Success Formula can migrate. Thus, HP has become a company with a less simple Identity – but it also has been able to continue years of profitable growth.
Too often, opening these White Space projects for growth causes the traditional business to feel threatened. Those in the old Success Formula will often say that the company is "abandoning its past" and "walking away from a very profitable business." Like the old story of Homer, this is a "siren's song" – very dangerously pulling you toward the rocks which can sink your ship – because each month profitabiilty is becoming more and more threatened. While it might have been a profitable business in the past, as growth slows profitability is less and less likely in the future. As sales growth slows it is important the business do its best to develop a new Success Formula so it can maintain growth.
"Has Apple Forgotten the Mac?" is a recent PCWorld article. The authors point out that as Apple's revenues have transitioned toward new businesses, such as music and now mobile computing/telephony, the Mac business receives less attention and resources. Those who support the Mac business question if Apple should spend more resources on what has recently returned to profitability.
This is the kind of internal threat that can be very risky. While the Mac is a great product, with a loyal following, and regained profitability – we can see that in the future there will be less and less need for such desktop and laptop products. Apple is migrating toward the new mobile future – and as a result it must reduce the resources on the Mac business. Each year, more resource needs to be allocated toward the new, faster growing businesses, and less invested in the slower growing traditional computing products.
Apple's Identity was once all Mac. And that nearly bankrupted the company – as it almost ran out of cash back at the century's turn. Only by overcoming its Identity as a single product company, and rapidly moving into White Space with new products in new markets, was Apple able to regain its profitable growth path.
HP and Apple both show us that an Identity, created early in the lifecycle, is very powerful. But inevitably markets shift, and the results possible from a simple, easy to understand identity will decline.Only by overcoming that original Identity via entering new markets – and using White Space to evolve the Success Formula, can a business hope to have long-term revenue and profit growth.
"CraigsList is for hookers." That's what the General Manager at the Los Angeles Times told me in 2005. In a meeting to discuss the newspaper's future profitability I pointed out that 1/3 of his newspaper's revenues came from Classified ads, and I had asked him if he was concerned about CraigsList.com. As you can tell, he was not.
At the same time, I asked him if he was concerned about on-line ads and the Google placement engine undermining his display ad business. He assured me that the internet was all for bloggers and no reputable news reader would pay much attention to on-line news. So no, he wasn't worried about internet competition to the newspaper sucking away this advertiser base. He just needed to keep old customers focused on the value of newspaper ads. In less than 6 months GM removed 70% of its newspaper ads – shifting all the money to on-line advertising – leading the auto pack on-line. And movie companies moved nearly 75% of their newspaper ad budget to on-line, while more than half of real-estate ads went on-line. Those happen to be the top 3 sources of display ad revenue for newspapers.
Today Tribune Corporation is in bankruptcy, and classified ads have dropped to a trickle for all major newspapers. Meanwhile, things are going pretty well at CraigsList and Google:
As can be seen, revenues per employee are phenomenal at CraigsList, and extremely good at Google. Much better than at the Tribune Company newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune – despite them shedding a high percentage of employees over the last 7 years!
According to Gavin O'Malley, at OnlineMediaDaily of MediaPost.com in "CraigsList Revenues Soar: But Problems Loom" revenues at CraigsList may exceed $4M/employee/year! Margins he asserts are in the range of 75-80%! And revenues, while still small at about $125M, are growing at 25%/year (for what everyone thinks of as "free.") Albeit, this is a small business. But what if Tribune Company had paid attention back 5 years ago and invested hard in creating the world's best CraigsList – rather than ignoring it? What would the possible revenues be today? And margins? And impact on Tribune Company growth in revenues and profits?
Most companies do only a surface analysis of competition. They are so busy listening to, and reacting to, big customers it's all they can do to keep operations going and make the marginal changes to keep big customers happy. As a result, maybe they look at 2 or 3 of their most similar competitors (like other newspapers in the local market for our example.) And that will be cursory, examining total revenues, perhaps margins (if public and data is available) and a quick glimpse at impact on existing customers and any new products recently launched. But overall, very little attention is paid to competition.
And practically none is paid to "fringe" competitors. Those with different business models. Polaroid ignored digital camera manufacturers (despite licensing them technology) until Polaroid went bankrupt. Digital Equipment(DEC) ignored AutoCad – calling their CAD/CAM products "toys." Wang and Lanier said no big company would use a PC, rather than an integrated centralized system, for corporate word processing so they discounted Apple and Microsoft. Motorola largely ignored Apple in mobile phones, even after doing a joint venture with them to create and launch the RoKR. Failure lists are strewn with companies that simply ignored "fringe" competitors – saying they didn't understand the industry, the customers and how "the business works."
Large or small size is not important when studying competition, it's the ability to change how customers buy that is important. As we've seen in the case of companies like Google, Apple, eBay and Amazon we can see that fringe competitors can grow extremely fast. They can alter the competitive landscape quicker than almost any traditional corporate planning group will give them credit. Just ask the folks at Sears or Home Depot about he impact of Amazon and other on-line retailers (do you think either of those traditional retailers have anywhere near $1M revenue/employee like Amazon?) Or ask Merrill Lynch about the impact of Schwab, eTrade and ScotTrade.
The second step in The Phoenix Principle is to obsess about competition. When you're "the big gun" in the industry it can be incredibly easy to ignore fringe competitors. But do so at your risk. When profits are something like $2M to $3M per employee (as in the case of CraigsList) there is a lot of resource to invest in growth. And strong indications that the business is able to very profitably grow! Ignoring "fringe" competition – especially because you are focused on existing large customers who are Locked-In to your Success Formula – leaves you remarkably vulnerable to rapid market shifts and a really fast demise.
Many of us remember the first Apple vs. Microsoft battle. Apple pioneered much of the personal computer business, and led the innovation curve for years with its implementation of the mouse and on-screen graphics. But eventually Microsoft successfully copied the innovations with Windows, and went on to drive Apple to the brink of bankruptcy at the turn of the millenium. At that time, it was inconceivable that Apple would ever challenge Microsoft for sales domination.
But the impact of a decade of Defend & Extend Management has left Microsoft with little to no growth. Its growth in operating systems now looks like it has been a single quarter event, with the OS7 launch which has done little to drive new PC sales. Meanwhile, office automation products actually saw a net decline in revenue year-over-year last quarter. Signs of a growth stall are imminent for Microsoft – and we all know that fewer than 8% of companies ever consistently grow at a mere 2% once revenues stall for 2 consecutive quarters.
It's not often we see a big company stall, and then falter. But I've been predicting this for months through this blog. Microsoft has been working at Defending its "base" but it has done too little trying to enter new markets and find growth. As people shift to mobile devices – from the smartphone to ereaders – Microsoft simply is seeing its "base" in the PC market threatened. How many PCs will be purchased in 2015? Versus how many smartphones or iPads (there will be 12million iPads sold in 2010 alone).
This inability to maintain growth translates into serious value deterioration for investors.
We now can see that Apple is entering new markets, and gaining revenue at 20-40% per year by moving beyond Defending the Mac. Because Microsoft has not done something similar, preferring Defend & Extend Management applied to old markets rather than applying The Phoenix Principle and getting into new markets aggressively, not only is its revenue superiority threatened, but Microsoft most likely will have a lower market capitalization than Apple within a few months
If it seems like I'm beating this horse — well it's not often we see the kind of changes happen to competitors in such short time as we're seeing happen to Microsoft and Apple. It takes more than a little courage to predict the demise of a behemoth (see "Microsoft's Dismal Future" at Forbes.com) that has had near-monopolistic power in a market the way Microsoft has.
More importantly, more companies are behaving like Microsoft in 2008-2010 than acting like Apple. And that is a shame. Until management teams reverse their thinking, how can we expect America to successfully return to high industrial growth rates and job creation?
There is little about Microsoft to excite investors. I'd go so far to say that there's little more exciting about Microsoft than there is at General Motors, or AIG. These companies are huge, and were once great, but unending defense of their outdated Success Formulas is leaving them extremely vulnerable to decline and failure.
In the end, you have to ask yourself – do you want to be Microsoft in 3 years, or Apple? Do you want to be working hard to maintain revenues and valuation – or growing and driving higher value? I think most of us know which is better. It's time we start
using scenario planning to develop future plans
obsess about competitors so we learn better ways to compete
implement Disruptions to move our businesses into growth markets and
use White Space teams to help us update into new Success Formulas.
Companies that follow these 4 steps of The Phoenix Principle can expect to have a great 2011. They can perform like Apple, Google, Cisco Systems, Virgin, Nike, Johnson & Johnson. For everyone else, we can expect growth stalls and, well, …..
Apple's most recent earnings surprised almost everyone, to the topside. At SeekingAlpha.com "Apple Soars: Is this a Great Country or What" the author points out that all analysts are now calling for Apple's equity value to continue increasing. Most expect prices to achieve $330 – $350/share. Right now Apple is worth about $235B. At $330/share it is worth $300B. Microsoft is worth $273B. That means within the next few months the expectation among investors is that Apple's value will eclipse Microsoft's.
Why? Because Apple has much faster growing revenue sources than Microsoft. Despite a plethora of products, Microsoft still depends for sales and profits on PC operating system and office automation products. And that market simply isn't growing. Even Microsoft optimists are depending upon a "PC replacement cycle" to drive more sales rather than any real growth in demand.
While Microsoft has spent the last decade Defending & Extending (D&E Management) its PC business, its value has been flat. Meanwhile, Apple has developed other revenue sources:
In 2000 Apple relied on Mac sales. But now, it has 2 businesses that are as large as the computer business. While defending the Mac business has maintained its sales, using White Space to launch other businesses has more than tripled Apple's revenue. Today the iPod/iTunes business is as large as the Mac business, and the iPhone business is as large as well. Both are growing. And with estimates that already a million iPads have been sold – with some estimates of reaching 6 million units in 2010 – who knows how big the publishing business could become for Apple.
As SeekingAlpha.com points out in "Everybody Loves Apple but Who's Left to Buy It" there are ample reasons to forecast substantial revenue and profit growth for Apple – causing it to lure many more investors to own the stock. Not only hardware sales are going up, but in both the music and smartphone business Apple has the envious draw of pulling follow-on download sales – songs, videos, and apps. Thus, each device pulls a series of ongoing revenue bites.
Readers should also note how fast this has happened. What has happened to your business in the last decade? In the last 3 years? As we can see, Apple created a $20B/year business since 2007 just in the iPhone. Another $16B/year business in iPod/iTunes during the last decade. That's over $36B/year of revenue from new sources, all organic (no acquisitions) in under 10 years. And that's the power of White Space. Instead of planning how to defend an understood and predictable market (like Microsoft) Apple studied new market needs, then launched a product and gave the team Permission to do what it took to succeed – unencumbered by the history of the Mac, or Apple or any of the Lock-ins that were part of the old Success Formula. This White Space teams then spawned revenue streams that are envied by everyone.
My recent Forbes column (Microsoft's Dismal Future) portended this week's earnings announcement and the changing fortunes of these two companies. Lacking White Space, Microsoft is an uninteresting company with limited growth forecasts and negligible value growth. By using White Space Apple is growing much faster, and will soon have a higher value than "the world's largest software company."
Effective use of scenario planning, competitor analysis, disruptions and White Space can launch growth in any company. You don't need a "hot economy" to generate growth. And Apple has been demonstrating this quarter after quarter for nearly a decade – with several more good quarters coming.
News Corp. executives (and shareholders) need to be worried. Really worried. While they are busy trying to Defend their newspaper approach, including the planned move to charge everyone a subscription fee to access the Wall Street Journal on-line, there is a competitor ready to eliminate them. Of course, if you've read the WSJ for years you may think this sounds ridiculous. This competitor is vying to do the same to the Financial Times, a newspaper much more popular in Europe than the USA, which already charges for on-line access. But this competitor is serious, and just might pull it off.
According to BusinessInsider.com, "Bloomberg Redesigns Web Site as it Tries to Kill Journal." Hiring an executive from Yahoo, Bloomberg News is "pulling the gloves off" and preparing to take on old-line competitors as it steers a course to being #1. And the odds are looking good for its success.
The market for business news has been shifting for years. Once this market was dominated by two delivery mechanisms. One was very expensive, costing thousands or hundreds of dollars per month, driving information to terminals sitting at desks of traders and brokers. The other was a daily reporting of business news through the traditional business newspapers mentioned above. Both businesses were very profitable.
But today, almost everyone can get almost everything the expensive terminals had simply by scanning the web. And if you can get news real-time, why wait until tomorrow? News Corp. bought Dow Jones and has been trying to Defend the terminal business, in the face of intense Bloomberg competition for traders desks and much lower cost competition for everyone else. In an effort to shore up the P&L at Wall Street Journal the company has announced it will reverse all industry trends and start charging for WSJ content on-line. They still haven't figured out how to effectively take advantage of Marketwatch.com as a viable delivery mechanism for WSJ content. An admission they don't know how to develop a robust advertising model on the web and mobile devices that will support the publication.
Don't forget, News Corp. was early to the on-line world with its acquisition of MySpace.com. But instead of letting the people who run MySpace.com do what they needed to do to become Facebook – or possibly to become the next Marketwatch.com – News Corp. leaders interceded. They helped "manage" MySpace and applied News Corp. Success Formula parameters to it. MySpace was not allowed to operate as a White Space project. Now MySpace is a narrow site mostly for musicians and artists – missing the big opportunities in social media, business/financial news or even traditional news dissemination. Had it been given permission to do whatever it needed to succeed, permission to create a new Success Formula, who knows what MySpace might have become?
Today's marketplace will not produce acceptable returns for the old Success Formula. But the value of good business news is growing, as all investors want to know what traders know as fast as they know it. And that is where Bloomberg.com is headed. It is squarely directed at building a new business that is advertiser supported which will deliver the right news to the right place fast enough to capture those who want business news.
Bloomberg is now running 2 separate businesses. They continue to allow the terminal business to work hard as possible at defending its turf. Simultaneously they have established a White Space project that is designed to eventually obsolete the old business. In the process they will cannibalize the terminal business. But they also will very likely drive less agile competitors Dow Jones and Financial Times out of business. In the process they could capture significant ad dollars while learning how to dominate the mobile device market as well as the traditional web.
When markets shift, nobody can win by trying to Defend the old. Customers move on, and they abandon old solutions. Returns decline. The winner has to use Disruptions to overcome old Lock-ins to do whatever is necessary to profitably grow! (like having a web site that looked like an old terminal screen with amber text on a black background) and establish White Space with permission to do what is necessary to succeed! Even recognizing this may create cannibalization – but in the process learning how to earn high rates of return while crushing competitors.
Kudos to the management at Bloomberg. They are going for the jugular in the business news marketplace, and doing so by moving where the market is headed – while other competitors are trying to Defend & Extend old ways of doing business. It may not take Bloomberg long to create serious damage to the old institutions in business and financial news.
Is news dying, or are newspapers dying? That's a critical question. Most of us know the demand for news is not dying – and if you needed reinforcement a recent McKinsey & Company study verified that the demand for news has increased (McKinsey Quarterly "A Glimmer of Hope for Newspapers"). And a lot of the increase comes from people under 35 who are escalating their news demands. Of course, most of this increase is coming from the web and mobile media.
Too often, however, we don't see our business growing. Instead, Lock-in to old definitions make us think our business is shrinking when it is actually doing the opposite! And that's the Re-invention Gap. Manufacturers of small printing presses said demand was declining in the 1970s, when in fact demand for copies was exploding. Only the explosion was from xerography instead of presses. So A.B. Dick and Multigraphics, small offset press manufacturers, went out of business when demand for the output of their product was exploding! The market shifted, but it kept growing, and they missed the shift.
Today we see this behavior in most news publishers. Those who print newspapers and magazines are talking about how horrible business is. Only the demand for news is growing more quickly than ever. It's just not demand for print, which arrives too late for many customers. And because print is too slow a distribution method for these customers, advertisers are abandoning print as well. But only if you're Locked-in to printing do you say the market is horrible. Because with demand for news growing, if you reposition yourself to serve the growing part of the market you should say business is great!
Tribune Corporation, owner of The Chicago Tribune newspaper is still in bankruptcy. And its future relies entirely on how well it will serve the needs of on-line news readers. According to Crain's Chicago Business, in "Former Sports Editor Bill Adee Steers Chicago Tribune's On-line Strategy" print advertising revenues fell by 9% versus last year in the most recent quarter. And according to a quoted investment banker, nobody would have much interest in the value of a print newspaper. That business is destined to keep declining.
But simultaneously the volume of on-line ads tripled! And that's what a business has to do to cross its Re-invention Gap. It has to move from the old business into the new business – from the declining elements of its business into the growth elements.
What most businesses do wrong is try to apply their old business model to the new business. The old Success Formula has Lock-ins to metrics, schedules, processes, frequent decisions, decision-makers, strategic plans, etc. which the leadership tries to apply to the new business. For example, most newspapers are used to selling ads for several thousand dollars, based upon the number of subscribers. These are pretty large price points. But on-line, ads are sold per page view or per click. Now we're talking pennies sometimes. And to make money, you have to get a lot of views. Likewise, newspapers work on a 24 hour cycle of news accumulation and publishing, whereas the internet is 24×7 with the opportunity to change headlines and what's reported continuously. If a newspaper tries to apply the old Success Formulas related to sales, pricing and editorial process they fail.
And that's why crossing the re-invention gap requires a big Disruption. You have to get the organization to understand that while you are managing the old business, it is destined to eventually go under. So you have to be prepared to Disrupt the Lock-ins, to discover a new way to do the business. And that can only happen if there is a White Space team dedicated to building a business the way the new marketplace will pay for it. Totally separated from the old business. And exactly the opposite of what Tribune is doing by placing the team in the middle of the old newsroom!
At Tribune, one of the big problems is not only the ad pricing model and news scheduling, but the fact that the leadership is still trying to drive content like they did at the newspaper. Over a decade ago Tribune took a direction of accumulating less news on its own, and as a result it republished lots of content. But now on the internet republishing (or content aggregation as it is called on-line) is far less valuable because readers can go to the source. There are thousands and thousands of aggregators – making competition intense and profits negligible. Why page view a Chicago Tribune web page that's feeding info from the New York Times or Marketwatch or MSNBC when you can go directly to the New York Times or Marketwatch or MSNBC and get it yourself – possibly with other interesting sidebars? Succeeding in the new market requires developing an entirely new Success Formula – which Tribune Company has not done. It's still trying to find that magical "leverage" which will allow it to preserve its "history" (its old Success Formula) while tiptoeing into the new marketplace.
I don't know any newspaper or magazine publisher that has really attacked its Lock-ins, really Disrupted, or set up a true White Space team to explore how to make money in the growing new news market. News Corp. had the chance when it bought MySpace.com, but failed as it destroyed the MySpace business by "helping" its leadership. This market requires understanding how to get the news and report it cheaply and very fast, to computer and mobile device users. That is necessary to obtain the traffic which would be valuable to advertisers. And simultaneously the new team must package ad sales so as to maximize revenues from page views. Most are far too reliant on single ad sales, and not effectively linking the right ads to the right pages to generate more click-throughs as well as views.
Re-invention Gaps emerge because we let Lock-in blind us to growth opportunities.We define the business around the Lock-ins (such as printing a newspaper) rather than defining it around what the market wants (news.) Then when revenues stumble, starting a growth stall, the energy goes into preserving the old Success Formula (and its Lock-ins) first with cost cuts, and later with efforts to "synergize" or "leverage" the old Success Formula into the new market. And this never works. The growing part of the market is entirely different, and requires developing an entirely new Success Formula. That's why even in growing markets businesses fail, unless they commit to Dis
rupting the Lock-in and using White Space to move back into the growth Rapids.
Amidst the brouhaha over health care legislation, Harvard Business Review has produced a report "Megatrends in Global Health Care." One interesting statistic is that medical tourism – that's when someone leaves the USA to have a procedure like surgery performed in a foreign country – has risen from 750,000 in 2007 (more than you would have guessed, I bet) to about 1.2million. Yep, people are going outside the USA for health care.
While everybody in the USA is asking "what do you want" for health care, there is a marketplace. To recognize this you have to overcome myopia and think bigger than the U.S. Anyone can have health procedures performed in Germany, France, Canada, Japan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, India – etc. Of course you have to pay for it. But in medical tourism instances, it is cheaper to have the care provided offshore, often with extensive after-event recovery assistance, rather than in the USA. Even if you have insurance (which may have declined to cover the procedure because it is so expensive domestically).
While everyone is arguing about healthcare, some violently, it will be the marketplace that will determine what health care we get and how much it will cost. People want good service at a good price, and they don't like "middle men" such as insurers or regulators, making the trade-offs for them. They want options, and they want to know likely expectations, and they want to know the actual cost as well as the therapy cost, medicine cost and impact on work, income and life. Then they want to make an informed decision.
The beauty of medical tourism is it provides a marketplace mechanism for those things to happen.America has great health care, but it is wildly expensive. Multiples of the cost in other countries. If you are uninsured, either you don't' get complete health care or you want someone to jump in and bail you out (like a government agency). If you are insured, quite simply your healthcare is subsidized, and it is dictated to you by the terms of the insurance company – not really much different than a government program just a "privatized" bureaucratic group making the decision. You aren't the payor, someone else is, so as much as you want to be the "customer" you really aren't. In America the golden rule of health care applies "he who pays the gold gets to make the rules" and that would be your payor (which is either your insurance company – with guidelines from your employer – or medicare with government guidelines).
But with medical tourism, you are the customer. Nobody between you and the doctor, facility or other provider. You get to hear options, and make decisions. Gee, what an interesting approach. This is now competition for the extremely expensive American health care industry. If you don't like your drugs, go buy them in Mexico or Canada – why let a bureaucrat scare you into paying 5x or 15x more? If you want a procedure, go get it Paris or Peking. If you need extended therapy, do it at a spa in Thailand. And all of this done at a price that is a fraction of doing it in the USA. Smart providers will soon have to start paying attention, and find ways to compete!
A lot of people want to affix blame for the cost of American health care. As long as there's no marketplace, then I guess blame fixing is what people like to do. But if we instead focus on the competition we can see how rapidly things will change. When a hospital is losing customers to Hyderabad, or a facility in Florence, how long will it keep tinkering with an approach that costs too much and is losing customers? Real change happens when people realize that they can fail if they don't change their old Success Formula.
The best thing about medical tourism is it creates a very real option, and very real competition. If you aren't thinking about it, you should. You would be surprised what you can have done, and at what quality, and the cost. While you don't want to run to Damascus to see your doctor for a sinus infection, when it's time for a knee replacement Nice might just be the place to go. Give it some thought, because your behavior will speak a lot louder than your words when it comes to creating real change in American health care provision and cost.
The second step of The Phoenix Principle is "Obsess about Competitors." This doesn't rile people up much. But when I tell them "I want you to dramatically cut the time you talk to and listen to customers – and invest that investigating competitors" then LOTS of people get riled up. When I wrote a Forbes column on the topic ("Listen to Competitors – Not Customers") I was inundated with comments – most of them not too kind. People were upset that I would attack the widely held notion that you can't spend enough time listening to customers.
There are lots of examples of companies led down the primrose path to disaster by listening to customers. One of my favorites is that IBM got out of the PC business by the latter half of the 1980s because their customers – data center managers – told them that they could see no need for PCs and the product was a waste of resources. IBM needed to renew its focus on data center (real computing!) needs and quit playing with that toy!
We have another great example emerging right now in mobile devices. RIM (Research in Motion) has focused on the "enterprise marketplace" by selling hard to corporations that they should have Blackberry servers and Blackberry corporate applications which can be supported well and have the "right kind" of security and features for a typical "enterprise" IT department. Because of this, RIM has really put all of its money into supporting "enterprise" customers, doing what they want. But meanwhile, Apple has been busy changing the game – by giving the market what it wants and targeting the destruction of Palm rather than doing what the "enterprise customers" have asked for.
RIM's focus on its "core customer" the "enterprise customer" has been intended to make sure the Blackberry Defends & Extends its leadership position. But that has not yielded many apps. Even Adroid has 6x the RIM apps (and a likely launch an attack on "enterprise customers" soon.) Meanwhile, by focusing on the marketplace, and discovering unmet and underserved needs in order to wipe out Palm, Apple has developed 34X the number of RIM apps.
As we can see, this difference in applications has let Apple blow right by Palm – and almost catch RIM. And of course, that will now be the next market Apple will attack. Just like the PC attacked the old data center, the iPhone (and iPad) and all its users will drive these products into every day business use. While RIM was "listening to its customer" it missed a major change in the marketplace. The requirement for multiple apps. While RIM was attempting to Defend & Extend its market position – and probably bragging about holding share while Palm was getting creamed – it was letting Apple create the market shift that is soon going to overtake RIM and Blackberry. Don't forget, you can obtain a Blackberry from almost any network provider – so what will happen when the iPhone and iPad become move beyond limited distribution to all network providers?
This customer-centric problem is most pronounced in "enterprise" solutions. Like IBM, which was the #1 "enterprise" vendor for corporate computing. The notion of selling to the "enterprise" connotes big sales, with big revenues to big companies – and it is assumed big profits will result. Yet, what really happens is that often supporting the "enterprise" marketplace ends up being a never ending effort to make small improvements to existing products in order to help the "core customer" do one more small thing – making their life easy. While the "enterprise" vendor is busy with this work, he ends up Defending & Extending his "base" product for his "base" customers – and the customers are trying to Defend & Extend their historical investment. But eventually these "enterprise" customers shift – usually very fast.
Meanwhile Apple is in the marketplace, paying all kinds of attention to the weaknesses of competitors and picking them off – one by one. First Palm, then RIM. We spend too much time listening to customers, letting them convince us to Defend & Extend our products and solutions. We need to spend a LOT MORE time focused on competition – figuring out how to ruin their day while developing fringe opportunities that change the marketplace and drive growth!
