by Adam Hartung | Mar 7, 2011 | Books, Current Affairs, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
Why do some businesses (or products) seem to launch onto the scene with incredible success? According to a new book, “Enchantment” releasing March 8, 2011 (available on Amazon.com at about 50% off the list price), it is the ability to go beyond normal marketing, PR and other business practices in a way that enchants customers. Author Guy Kawasaki says that being likable, trustworthy and prepared allows you to overcome natural resistance to change and move people to accept, adopt – and even become supporters of your solution.
The book is tailor-made for entrepreneurs. Especially those in high-tech, who are looking for rapid adoption of new platforms. So when Guy sent me a copy and asked for my review I asked him for a 1-on-1 interview where I could focus on how the vast majority of people, who work away in large, less than enchanting, organizations, could gain value from reading his latest effort. I wanted him to answer “how am I supposed to be enchanting when dullness reigns in my environment?”
Here’s his finput from our meeting, and his reasons to buy and read Enchantment:
Guy’s first recommendation – “enchant your boss.” There’s a chapter in the book, but he focused on what to do if your boss is a real dullard. Firstly, don’t ever forget to make the boss’s priority your priority, because without that you won’t be effective. The more you can convince your boss the 2 of you are on the same wavelength, the more he’ll be likely to give you space. And space is what you want/need in order to start to identify the next perfomance curve. Then, if you have some space, you can start to demonstrate how new solutions could work. Use your aligned priorities to help you reframe your boss’s opinion about the future, and always ask for forgiveness if you’re found reaching a bit too far.
Secondly, enchant those who work for you. Give them a MAP. (M) is for Mastery of a new skill or technology. Give your employees permission and encouragement to master new areas that will help them grow – and put them in a position to teach you! (A) is for Autonomy. In other words, give them the space discussed above. (P) is for Purpose. Help people to see their work as having more value than just money. Add purpose to their results so they can feel great. With a MAP they can succeed, and you can too.
Thirdly, enchant your peers by working hard to be likable. Guy offers a chapter in which he deconstructs likability, and provides a series of tactics to make you more likable. This isn’t manipulation (although it may sound like it), but rather a guidebook of what to do to help your true self be more likable. With peers, the #1 objective is to be trustworthy! Show them that you can help expand the pie, so there is more success for everyone, rather than being the kind of person always lining up to get his piece first!
When you find yourself disappointed in your work, or employer, Guy recommends we take from his book the idea that you seek out a dream for what your work group, or employer, can be. Don’t accept that today is the best case, and instead promote the notion that tomorrow can always be better, more fun, more fulfilling. He believes that if you say you’re going to do something that seems impossible, and you undertake it with enchanting techniques, your behavior will become infectious. Behave like an enchanter and you will create other enchanters in the organization. (If this sounds a bit Pied Piper-ish I guess it does take some faith to follow Guy’s recommendations.)
I asked him how a Chief Enchantment Officer could help Microsoft (readers of this blog know I’ve long been a distractor of the strategy and CEO at Microsoft). Guy said he felt Micrsoft could become VERY enchanting if the company would:
- Focus on making Micrsooft more likable and trustworthy. Old behaviors were in the past. Going forward, if leadership applied itself Microsoft could implement the things in his book and drive up the company’s likability and trustworthiness amongst constituents – including customers, developers, suppliers and investors.
- Rethink the definition of a “product” to make offerings more enchanting. In Guy’s view, Apple would never say a product is good enough based upon its specifications or functionality. An iPad has to go beyond those things to offer something much more. Too many companies (not just, or even specifically, Microsoft he was clear to point out) launch “ugly” products – without realizing they are ugly! With a bit different direction, different thinking, about how to define a product they could be more enchanting, and more successful. (When I compare the iPhone or iPad to the xBox I start to clearly see the difference in product description to which Guy refers. Guy agreed with me that Kinect is a very enchanting product. Unfortunately it appears to me like Microsoft still doesn’t realize the value of this in its xBox efforts.)
- Train the organization on the importance of, value of, and ability to be enchanting. Most companies are clueless about the notion, as people work hard delivering solutions with too much of an “engineering mentality”. Apple has trained its organization so the people think about how to make products, services and solutions enchanting, and therefore non-enchanting things are unacceptable. Raise the bar for making sure solutions are likable, trustworthy and prepared for what the customer will want/need. Not merely functional. Build that into the behavioral lock-in and Guy believes any organization cannot miss success!
I told Guy that often I’m frequently pushed to believe that a company is “beyond the pale;” unable to do better, or to be better. Simply incapable fo ever being “enchanting.” Guy is convinced this is balderdash – if you want to change. He talked about Audi, which suffered horribly from problems with unintended acceleration a couple of decades ago. Audi changed itself, and now is doing quite well (according to Guy) while Toyota is suffering. It’s easy for an organization to slip into dis-enchanting behavior over time if it starts cost-cutting and obsessing about optimizing its past. But any company can become enchanting again. “Hey, look at how Apple slipped, then came back, and you can see how enchantment is possible for any company.”
I don’t know that Enchantment will solve all your business problems, but for $14 (and free shipping on Amazon.com) it’s full of ideas about how you can move a company to better performance. And surely make it a better, more compelling place to work!
Guy Kawasaki became famous as a Macintosh Evangelist for Apple back in the 1980s. His passion for creating technology products that help people’s lives, and work, improve, has been compelling for 2 decades. His blog is entitled “How to Change the World,” demonstrating how high Guy sets his sites. Guy also created and remains active in Alltop.com, a compendium of blog listings on important topics, where ThePhoenixPrinciple.com is part of the Innovation section.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 4, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
My high school physics teacher spent a week teaching students how to use a slide rule. I asked him, "why can't we just use calculators?" At the time a slide rule was about $2, and a calculator was $300. The minimum wage was $1.14/hour. He responded that slide rules had been around a long time, and you never knew if you'd have access to a calculator. To the day he retired he insisted on using, and teaching, slide rule use. Needless to say, by then plenty of folks were ready to see him go. Too bad for his students he stayed as long as he did, because that was a week they could have spent learning physics, and other important materials. Ignoring the new tool, and its advantages, was a wasteful decision that hurt him and his customers.
Yet, I am amazed at how few people are using today's new tools for business, and marketing. At a small business Board meeting this week the head of marketing presented his roll-out of the boldest campaign ever in the business's history. His promotion plan was centered around traditional PR, supplemented with radio and billboard ads. I asked for his social media campaign, and after he confirmed I was serious he said he had a manager working on that. I asked if he had a facebook page ready, the videos on YouTube, a linked-in program ready to run against targets and his twitter communications established, including hash tags? He said if those things were important somebody had to be working on them. Two weeks from roll-out and he wasn't giving them any personal consideration.
I then asked the roughly 20 attendees, all but one of which were over 40, some questions:
- How many of you use skype at least once/month? Answer – 5%
- How many of you have a facebook page and check it daily? A – 15%
- How many of you check twitter daily? A – 5% Tweet at least 5 times/week? A – none
- How many own and use a tablet? A – 10%
- How many of you have a smartphone on which you've downloaded at least 10 apps? A – 10%
- How many of you carry a laptop? A – 100%
- Who knows the #1 company for new hires in Chicago in 2010? Answer – 5% (GroupOn)
- Who has used a Groupon coupon? Answer – 30%
Slide rule users.
New tools are here, and adopters will be the winners. If you still think we're a nation of laptop users, you need to think again. Laptop usage declined 20% in the last 2 years, to 2006 levels, as people have adopted easier to use technology
Chart Source: Silicon Alley Insider of BusinessInsider.com
If you are trying to pump out ads the new medium is mobile – not television, radio, outdoor or even web sites. Have you tested the look and feel of your web site on popular mobile devices? Do you know if new users to your business are even able to access your information from a mobile device?
And, it's more likely a customer will hear about you, and obtain a review of your product or service, via Facebook than vai the web! A CNet.com article asks the leading question "Will Facebook Replace Company Web Sites?" Want to understand the importance of Facebook, check out these same month comparisons:
- Starbucks: Facebook likes – 21.1M, site visits – 1.8M
- Coca-Cola: Facebook likes – 20.5M, site visits – .3M
- Oreo: Facebook likes – 10.1M, site visits – .3M
Yes, these are consumer products. But if you don't think the first place a potential customer looks for information on your business is Facebook, whether it's financial services, business insurance, catering or blow-molded plastic housings you need to think again. The use of facebook is simply exploding.
According to Business Insider, by the end of December, 2010 Facebook apps were downloaded to iPhones at a rate exceeding 500,000/day as the total shot to nearly 60million! Meanwhile the Facebook app downloads to Android devices grew to over 20million! Blackberry Facebook users has reached 27million, bringing the total by end of 2010 to well over 100M – just on smartphones! In September, 2010 Facebook became the #1 most time spent on the internet, passing combined time on all Google and all Yahoo sites! With over 500million users, Facebook isn't just kids checking on their friends any longer. When somebody wants a first peak at your business, odds are great it will be done over a smartphone and likely via a Facebook referral!
Chart Source: Silicon Alley Insider at Business Insider
As fast as smartphone usage has grown, tablet usage is on the precipice of explosion. Tablet sales will be 6 times (or more) notebook sales in just a few years! The second most popular product will be, of course, continued sales of advanced smartphones as the two new platforms overtake the traditional laptop. So what's your budgeted spend on mobile devices, mobile apps and mobile marketing?
Chart Source: Silicon Alley Insider of Business Insider
And in the effort to attract new customers, if you think the route will be newspapers, radio, TV, billboards, or direct mail – think again. Digital local deal delivery is projected to grow at least 45%/year through 2015 creating a market of over $10billion! If you want somebody to know about your product or service, Groupon and its competitors is already taking the lead over older, traditional techniques. By the way, when was the last time you bothered to open that latest Vallasis direct mail package – or did you just throw it immediately in the recycling bin without even a look?
Chart Source: Silicon Alley Insider of Business Insider
So, what is your business doing to leverage these tools? Are your marketing, and technology, plans for 2011 and 2012 still mired in old approaches and technologies? If so, expect to be eclipsed by competitors who more quickly implement these new solutions.
Too often we become comfortable in our old way of doing things. We keep implementing the same way, like the teacher giving slide rule instructions. And that simply wastes resources, and leaves you uncompetitive. The time to use these new solutions was yesterday – and today – and tomorrow – and every day. If you don't have plans to adopt these new solutions, and use them to grow your business, what's your excuse? Is it that much fun using the old slide rule?
by Adam Hartung | Feb 25, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
Since Craig Dubow took over as Gannett's CEO in 2005, Gannettblog reports that employment at the company has dropped from 52,600 to 32, 600. So 20,000 employees, or nearly 1 in 3, have disappeared.
- 2006 – 49,675 down 6%
- 2007 – 46,100 down 7%
- 2008 – 41,500 down 10%
- 2009 – 35,000 down 16%
- 2010 – 32,600 down 7%
Doesn't this look like dismantling the company? It is undoubtedly true that people are reading fewer newspapers than they did in 2000. But that fact does not mean Gannett has to head toward the whirlpool of failure, slowly cutting itself into a less relevant organization. There are a plethora of opportunities today – from creating a vital on-line news organization such as Huffington Post to moving into on-line news dissemination like Marketwatch.com to digital publishing like Amazon and its Kindle, to wholesale news distribution like the Apple iPad to on-line merchandising and ad distribution like Groupon, to —- well, let's just say that there are a lot of opportunities today to grow. To it's credit, Gannett owns 51% of CareerBuilder.com (who's employees are all included in the above numbers). But that one investment has been, as shown, insufficient to keep Gannett a vital, growing organization. At this rate, when will Gannett have to stop printing those hotel newspapers?
Yet, the CEO was paid $4.7M in 2009, including a cash bonus of $1.45M for implementing cost cuts. And that's what's quite wrong with CEO compensation America. And the problem, compensating CEOs for shrinking the company, has an enormous impact on American economic (and jobs) growth.
It is NOT hard to cut jobs. In fact, it is probably the easiest thing any executive can do. CEOs can simply order across the board cuts, or they can hand out downsizing requirements by function or business line. It's the one thing any executive can do that is guaranteed to give an improvement to the bottom line. Any newly minted 20-something MBA can dissect a P&L and identify headcount reductions. Anyone can fire salespeople, engineers, accountants or admins and declare that a victory. There are lots of ways to cut headcount costs, and the immediate revenue impact is rarely obvious. So, why would we pay a bonus for such behavior?
You can imagine the presentation the CEO gives the Board of Directors. "Our industry is doing poorly in this economy. Revenues have declined. But I moved quickly, and slashed xx,xxx jobs in order to save the P&L. As a result we preserved earnings for the next 2 years. Because of revenue declines our stock has been punished, so I recommend we take 50% (or more) of the cash saved from the headcount reductions and buy our own company stock in order to prop up the price/earnings multiple. That way we can protect ourselves from raiders in the short term, and continue to report higher earnings per share next year (there will be fewer shares – so even if earnings wane we keep up EPS), despite the terrible industry conditions."
Oh, by the way, because the CEO's compensation is tied to profits and EPS, he is now entitled to a big, fat bonus for this behavior. And, as Brenda Barnes did at Sara Lee, this can happen for several years in a row, leading to the company's collapse. As the company becomes smaller and smaller, its overall value declines, even if the EPS remains protected, until some vulture – either another company, private equity firm or hedge fund- buys the thing. The investors lose as value goes nowhere, employees lose as bonuses, benefits, pay and jobs are slashed, and vendors lose as revenues decline and price concessions become merciless. The community, state and nation lose as jobs and taxes disappear in the revenue decline. The only winner? The CEO – and any other top executives who are compensated on profits and EPS.
When a company grows, compensating profits is not a bad thing. But when a company isn't growing, well, as seen at Gannett, the incentives create perverse behavior. CEOs take the easy, and personally rewarding route of cutting costs, escalating the downward spiral. Without growth, you got nothing. So why isn't there a simple binary switch; if the CEO didn't grow revenues, the CEO doesn't get any bonus? Regardless.
"What about industry conditions?" you might ask. Well, isn't it the CEO's job to be foresightful about industry conditions and move the company into growth industries, rather than staying too long in poorly performing industries? CEOs aren't supposed to manage a slow death. Aren't they are supposed to lead vibrant, vital, growing companies that increase returns for investors, employees and suppliers?
"What about divestitures? What if the CEO sold a business at a huge multiple making an enormous profit?" Good move! Making the most of value is a good thing! But, once the sale is complete, isn't the critical question "What are you going to do with that money now?" If the CEO can't demonstrate the ability to invest in additional, replacement revenues that have a higher growth rate then shouldn't that money all be given to investors so they can invest it in something that will grow (rather than in buying company stock, for example, which just gets us back to the smaller company but higher EPS discussion above)? CEOs aren't investment bankers, who earn a bonus based upon buying and selling assets at a profit. Investment bankers can earn a bonus on transactions, but that's not the CEOs role, is it? Isn't the CEO is chartered with building a growing, profitable company.
Look at the CEOs of the Dow Jones Industrial companies. How many of them are compensated only if their company grows? As growth in these companies has floundered the last decade, how many CEOs continued to receive multi-million dollar compensation payouts?
If we want to grow the economy, we have to grow the companies in the economy. And if we want to grow companies, we have to align compensation. Rewarding shrinkage seems to have an obvious problem.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 18, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
Business people keep piling onto the innovation and growth bandwagon. PWC just released the results of its 14th annual CEO survey entitled “Growth Reimagined.” Seems like most CEOs are as tired of cost cutting as everyone else, and would really like to start growing again. Therefore, they are looking for innovations to help them improve competitiveness and build new markets. Hooray!
But, haven’t we heard this before? Seems like the output of several such studies – from IBM, IDC and many others – have been saying that business leaders want more innovation and growth for the last several years! Hasn’t this been a consistent mantra all through the last decade? You could get the impression everyone is talking about innovation, and growth, but few seem to be doing much about it!
Rather than search out growth, most businesses are still trying to simply do what their business has done for decades – and marveling at the lack of improved results. David Brooks of the New York Times talks at length in his recent Op Ed piece on the Experience Economy about a controversial book from Tyler Cowen called “The Great Stagnation.” The argument goes that America was blessed with lots of fertile land and abundant water, giving the country a big advantage in the agrarian economy from the 1600s into the 1900s. During the Industrial economy of the 1900s America was again blessed with enormous natural resources (iron ore, minerals, gold, silver, oil, gas and water) as well as navigable rivers, the great lakes and natural low-cost transport routes. A rapidly growing and hard working set of laborers, aided by immigration, provided more fuel for America’s growth as an industrial powerhouse.
But now we’re in the information economy. Those natural resources aren’t the big advantage they once were. Foodstuffs require almost no people for production. And manufacturing is shifting to offshore locations where cheap labor and limited regulations allow for cheaper production. And it’s not clear America would benefit even if it tried maintaining these lower-skilled jobs. Today, value goes to those who know how to create, store, manipulate and use information. And success in this economy has a lot more to do with innovation, and the creation of entirely new products, industries and very different kinds of jobs.
Unfortunately, however, we keep hiring for the last economy. It starts with how Boards of Directors (and management teams) select – incorrectly, it appears – our business leaders. Still thinking like out-of-date industrialists, Scientific American offers us a podcast on how “Creativity Can Lesson a Leader’s Image.” Citing the same study, Knowledge @ Wharton offers us “A Bias Against ‘Quirky’ Why Creative People Can Lose Out on Creative Positions.” While 1,500 CEOs say that creativity is the single most important quality for success today – and studies bear out the greater success of creative, innovative leaders – the study found that when it came to hiring and promoting businesses consistently marked down the creative managers and bypassed them, selecting less creative types!
Our BIAS (Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies) cause the selection process to pick someone who is seen as less creative. Consider these comments:
- “would you rather have a calm hand on the tiller, or someone who constantly steers the boat?”
- “do you want slow, steady conservatism in control – or irrational exuberance?”
- “do we want consistent execution or big ideas?”
These are all phrases I’ve heard (as you might have as well) for selecting a candidate with a mediocre track record, and very limited creativity, over a candidate with much better results and a flair for creativity to get things done regardless of what the market throws at her. All imply that what’s important to leadership is not making mistakes. Of you just don’t screw up the future will take care of itself. And that’s so industrial economy – so “don’t let the plant blow up.”
That approach simply doesn’t work any more. The Christian Science Monitor reported in “Obama’s Innovation Push: Has U.S. Really Fallen Off the Cutting Edge” that America is already in economic trouble due to our lock-in to out-of-date notions about what creates business success. In the last 2 years America has fallen from first to fourth in the World Economic Forum ranking of global competitivenes. And while America still accounts for 40% of global R&D spending, we rank remarkably low (on all studies below 10th place) on things like public education, math and science skills, national literacy and even internet access! While we’ve poured billions into saving banks, and rebuilding roads (ostensibly hiring asphalt layers) we still have no national internet system, nor a free backbone for access by all budding entrepreneurs!
Ask the question, “If Steve Jobs (or his clone) showed up at our company asking for a job – would we give him one?” Don’t forget, the Apple Board fired Steve Jobs some 20 years ago to give his role to a less creative, but more “professional,” John Scully. Mr. Scully was subsequently fired by the Board for creatively investing too heavily in the innovative Newton – the first PDA – to be replaced by a leadership team willing to jettison this new product market and refocus all attention on the Macintosh. Both CEO change decisions turned out to be horrible for Apple, and it was only after Mr. Jobs returned to the company after nearly 20 years in other businesses that its fortunes reblossomed when the company replaced outdated industrial management philosophies with innovation. But, oh-so-close the company came to complete failure before re-igniting the innovation jets.
Examples of outdated management, with horrific results, abound. Brenda Barnes destroyed shareholder value for 6 years at Sara Lee chasing a centrallized focus and cost reductions – leaving the company with no future other than break-up and acquisition. GE’s fortunes have dropped dramatically as Mr. Immelt turned away from the rabid efforts at innovation and growth under Welch and toward more cautious investments and reliance on a set of core markets – including financial services. After once dominating the mobile phone industry the best Motorola’s leadership has been able to do lately is split the company in two, hoping as a divided business leadership can do better than it did as a single entity. Even a big winner like Home Depot has struggled to innovate and grow as it remained dedicated to its traditional business. Once a darling of industry, the supply chain focused Dell has lost its growth and value as a raft of new MBA leaders – mostly recruited from consultancy Bain & Company – have kept applying traditional industrial management with its cost curves and economy-of-scale illogic to a market racked by the introduction of new products such as smartphones and tablets.
Meanwhile, leaders that foster and implement innovation have shown how to be successful this last decade. Jeff Bezos has transformed retailing and publishing simultaneously by introducing a raft of innovations, including the Kindle. Google’s value soared as its founders and new CEO redefined the way people obtain news – and the ads supporting what people read. The entire “social media” marketplace is now taking viewers, and ad dollars, from traditional media bringing the limelight to CEOs at Facebook, Twitter and Linked-in. While newspaper companies like Tribune Corp., NYT, Dow Jones and Washington Post have faltered, pop publisher Arianna Huffington created $315M of value by hiring a group of bloggers to populate the on-line news tabloid Huffington Post. And Apple is close to becoming the world’s most valuable publicly traded company on the backs of new product innovations.
But, asking again, would your company hire the leaders of these companies? Would it hire the Vice-President’s, Directors and Managers? Or would you consider them too avant-garde? Even President Obama washed out his commitment to jobs growth when he selected Mr. Immelt to head his committee – demonstrating a complete lack of understanding what it takes to grow – to innovate – in today’s intensely competitive information economy. Where he should have begged, on hands and knees, for Eric Schmidt of Google to show us the way to information nirvana he picked, well, an old-line industrialist.
Until we start promoting innovators we won’t have any innovation. We must understand that America’s successful history doesn’t guarantee it’s successful future. Competing on bits, rather than brawn or natural resources, requires creativity to recognize opportunities, develop them and implement new solutions rapidly. It requires adaptability to deal with new technologies, new business models and new competitors. It requires an understanding of innovation and how to learn while doing. Amerca has these leaders. We just need to give them the positions and chance to succeed!
by Adam Hartung | Feb 15, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Nokia agreed to develop smartphones with Microsoft software
- But Microsoft’s product is without users, developers or apps
- Apple and Google Android dominate developers, app base and users
- Apple and Google Android have extensive distribution, and customer acceptance
- Microsoft brings Nokia very little
- Nokia hopes it can succeed simply by ramming Microsoft product through distribution. This will be no more successful than its efforts with Symbian
- Apple is the winner, because Nokia didn’t select Google Android
“For First Time Ever, Smartphones Outsell PCs in Q4 of 2010” headlined BGR.com. This is a big deal, as it creates something of an inflection point – possibly what some would call a “tipping point” – in the digital technology market. For over 2 years some of us, using IDC data such as reported in ReadWriteWeb, have been predicting that PCs are on the way to extinction – much like mainframes and mini-computers went. Smartphone sales last quarter jumped 87.2% year-over-year to about 101M units. Meanwhile PC sales, a market manufacturers hoped would recover as “enterprises” resumed buying post-recession, grew only 5.5% in the like period, to 92.1M units. No doubt the installed base of the latter product is multiples of the former, but we can see that increasingly people are ready to use the newer, alternative technology.
This week Mediapost.com reported “Tablet Sales to Hit 242M by 2015.” Both NPD Group and iSuppli are projecting a 10-fold increase wtihin 5 years in the volume of these new devices, which is sure to devastate PC sales. Between smartphones and tablets, as well as the rapid development of cloud-based apps and data storage solutions, it’s becoming quite clear that the life-span of PC technology has its limits. Soon we’ll be able to do more, cheaper, better and faster with these new products than we ever could on a PC.
This is really bad news for Microsoft. Apple and Google dominate both these mobile markets. As Microsoft has fought to defend its PC business by re-investing in Vista, then Windows 7 and Office 2010, the market has been shifting away from the PC platform entirely. It’s common now to hear about corporations considering iPads and other tablets for field workers. And it’s impossible to walk through an airport, or sit in a meeting these days without seeing people use their smartphones and tablets, purchased individually at retail, while leaving their PCs at the office. Most corporate Blackberry users now have either an Apple or Android smartphone or tablet as they eschew their RIM product for anything other than required corporate uses.
Nokia has largely missed the smartphone market, choosing, like Microsoft, to continue investing in defending its traditional business. Long the largest cell phone supplier, Nokia did not develop the application base or developer network for Symbian (it’s proprietary smartphone technology) as it kept pumping out older devices. Nokia is reminiscent of the Ed Zander led Motorola disaster, where the company kept pumping out Razr phones until demand collapsed, nearly killing the company.
So the Board replaced the Nokia CEO. As discussed in Forbes on 5 October, 2010 in “HP and Nokia’s Bad CEO Selections” Nokia put in place a Microsoft executive. Given that Microsoft had missed the smartphone market entirely, as well as the tablet market, moving the Microsoft Defend & Extend way of thinking into Nokia didn’t look like it would bring much help for the equally locked-in Nokia. Exchanging one defensive management approach for another doesn’t create an offense – or new products.
It wasn’t much of a surprise last week when the 5-month tenured CEO, Stephen Elop, announced he thought Nokia’s business was in horrible shape via an internal email as reported in the Wall Street Journal, “Nokia, Microsoft Talk Cellphones.” Rather quickly, a deal was struck in which Nokia would not only pick up the Microsoft mobile operating system, but would use their products to promote other extremely poorly performing Microsoft products. “Nokia to Adopt Microsoft Bing, Adcenter” was another headline at MediaPost.com. Bing and adCenter were very late to market, and even with adoption by early market leader Yahoo! have been unable to make much inroad into the search and on-line ad placement markets dominated by Google.
Mr Elop went with what he knew, selecting Microsoft. I guess he’s the new “chief decider” at Nokia. His decision caused a break out of optimism amongst long-suffering Microsoft investors and customers who’ve gotten very little from the giant PC near-monopolist the last decade. Mediapost told us “Study: Surge of Support for Windows Phone 7” as developers who long ignored the product entirely were starting to consider writing apps for the device. After all this time, new hope beats within the breast of those still stuck on Microsoft.
But if ever there was a case of too little, and way, way too late, this has to be it. Two companies long known for weak product innovation, and success driven by market domination and distribution control strategies, are partnering to take on the two most innovative companies in digital technology as they create entirely new markets with new technologies.
RIM, the smartphone market originator, has seen its fortunes disintegrate as Blackberry sales fell below iPhones – even with over 10,000 apps. Today Microsoft has virtually NO apps, and NO developer base as it just now enters this market, “Google Searches for Mobile App Experts” (Wall Street Journal) as its effort continues to expand its 100,000+ apps base as it chases the 350,000+ apps already existing for the iPhone. Where Microsoft and Nokia hope to build an app base, and a user base, Apple and Google already have both, which theyt are aggressively growing.
Exactly what going to happen to slow Apple and Google’s growth in order to allow Microsoft + Nokia to catch up? In what fairy tale will the early hare take a nap so the awakened tortoise will be allowed to somehow, miraculously get back into the race?
Being late to market is never good. Look at how Sony, and everyone else, were late to digitally downloaded music. iPad and iTunes not only took off but continue to hold well over 50% of the market almost a decade later. Over the same decade Apple has held onto 2/3 of the download video market, while Microsoft’s Zune has struggled to capture less than 1/4 of Apple’s share (about 18% according to WinRumors.com).
Apple (and Google) aren’t going to slow down the pace of innovation to give Microsoft and Nokia a chance to catch up. Today (15 Feb., 2010) ITProPortal.com breaks news “Apple iPhone 5 to have 4 Inch Screen,” an upgrade designed to bring yet more users to its mobile device platform – away from PCs and competitive smarphones. The same article discusses how Google Android manufacturers are bringing out 4.3 inch screens in their effort to keep growing.
So, amidst the “big announcement” of Microsoft and Nokia agreeing to work together on a new platform, where’s the product announcement? Where’s the app base? And exactly what is the strategy to be competitive in 2012 and 2015? Does anyone really think throwing money at this will create the products (hardware and software) fast enough to let either catch up with existing leaders? Does anyone think Microsoft products dependent upon Nokia’s distribution can save either’s mobile business – while Apple has just expanded to Verizon for distribution? And Google is already on almost all networks? And where is Microsoft or Nokia in the tablet business, which is closely associated with smartphone market for obvious issues of mobility and use of cloud-based computing architectures?
The good news here is for Apple fans. Nokia clearly should have chosen Android. This would give the laggard a chance of leveraging the base of technology at Google – including advances being made to the Chrome operating system and its advantages for the cloud. No matter what the price, it’s the only chance Nokia has. With this decision the most likely outcome is big investments by both Microsoft and Nokia to play catch-up, but limited success. Results will not likely cover investment rates, leading Nokia to a Motorola-like outcome. And Microsoft will remain a bit player in the fastest growing digital markets. Both have billions of dollars to throw away in this desperate effort. But the outcome is almost certain. It’s doubtful between the two of them they can buy enough developers, network agreements and users to succeed against the 2 growth leaders and the desperately defensive RIM.
Like I said last month in this blog “Buy Apple, Sell Microsoft.” It’s still the easiest money-making trade of 2011. Now thankfully reinforced by the former Microsoft exec running Nokia.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 9, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Weblogs
Summary:
- Start-ups that flourish give themselves permission to do whatever is necessary to succeed
- Most acquisitions kill that kind of permssion, forcing the acquired company to adopt the acquirers legacy
- AOL’s legacy business has been dying for several years
- AOL’s history of acquisitions has been horrible, because it doesn’t learn from the acquisitions.
- AOL’s acquisition, and announced integration, of Huffington Post will likely do nothing to turn around AOL, and probably leave HuffPo about as well off as AOL’s acquisition of Bebo
After the Super Bowl Sunday Night AOL announced it’s acquisition of The Huffington Post for $350M. Given that you can’t give away a newspaper company these days, the acquisition shows there is still value in “news” if you understand the right way to deliver it. HuffPo’s team of bloggers has shown that it’s possible to build a profitable news organization today – if you do it right. Something the folks at Tribune Corporation still don’t understand.
BusinessInsider.com headlined “AOL’s Huffington Post Acquisition Makes Sense for Both Sides.” For Arianna Huffington and her investors the big cash payout shows a clear win. They are receiving a pretty penny for their start-up. Beyond them, it’s less clear. AOL’s been losing subscribers, and site vistors for years. They’ve made a number of acquisitions to spark up interest including blogs Engadget, Joystiq, ad network Tacoda and social networking site Bebo. None of those have flourished – in fact the opposite has happened. AOL investors lost almost all the $850M spent on Bebo as Facebook crushed it. So far, the AOL track record has been horrible!
AOL clearly hopes HuffPo will bring it new visitors – but whether that works, and whether HuffPo continues growing, is now an open question. MediaPost.com reports “AOL Starts Mapping Plans for Huffington Post.” Unfortunately, it sounds much more as if AOL is trying to integrate HuffPo into its traditional organization – which will most likely do for HuffPo what integrating at News Corp did for MySpace – namely, layering it with “professional management,” additional systems, more overhead and rules for operating. Or, in other words, bury it in company legacy that strangles its abilitiy to innovate and shift with rapidly emerging market needs. The company that’s actually growing, winning in the marketplace, isn’t AOL. It’s HuffPo. If there’s any “integrating” needed it should be figuring out how to push AOL into HuffPo – not vice-versa.
As the New York Times headlined, this acquisition is “AOL’s Bet on Another Makeover.” And that’s what’s wrong. The acquisitions AOL made were pre-purchase successful because they were White Space endeavors that had close connection to the market. The founders gave their organization permission to do whatever it took to be successful, without artificial constraints based upon legacy. Their acquisitions have not used by AOL to create White Space with better market receptors – to teach AOL where growth lies. Rather, AOL has hoped they can use the acquisition to defend and extend their old success formula. AOL has hoped the acquisitions would allow them to slow the market shift, and preserve legacy operations.
As we’ve seen, that simply does not work. Markets shift for good reason, and the only way a business can thrive is to shift with them. At AOL the smart move would be to let Arianna run the show! A few months ago AOL purchased TechCrunch and ever since Michael Arrington, the founder, has been villifying AOL management for its bureaucracy and inability to adapt. What Mr. Armstrong, the relatively new CEO at AOL misses is that AOL’s business is dead. AOL needs to find an entirely new way of operating – and that’s what these acquisitions bring. AOL needs to get out of the way, let the acquisitions flourish, and learn something from them. AOL management needs to accept that the old AOL business model is rubbish, and what it must do is allow the acquisitions to operate in White Space, then learn from them! But that’s not been the history of AOL’s purchases, and doesn’t look like the case this time.
Mr. Armstrong could learn a lot from Sir Richard Branson. Virgin has made many acquisitions, and developed several new companies. He doesn’t try to integrate them, or drive them toward any particular business model From Virgin Airways to Virgin Money to Virgin Health Bank to Virgin Games (and all the other businesses) the requirement is that the business be tightly linked to market needs, operate in new ways and find out how to grow profitably. Virgin moves toward the new markets and businesses, it doesn’t expect the businesses to conform to the Virgin model.
I’d like to think AOL could learn from HuffPo and dramatically change. But from the announcements this week, it doesn’t look likely. AOL still looks like a management team desperately trying to save its old business, but without a clue how to do so. Too bad for AOL. Could be even worse for those who read HuffPo.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 3, 2011 | Defend & Extend, eBooks, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Summary:
- Company size is irrelevant to job creation
- New jobs are created by starting new businesses that create new demand
- Most leaders behave defensively, trying to preserve the old business
- But success comes from acting like a start-up and creating new opportunities
- Companies need to do more future-based planning that can change the competitive landscape and generate more growth, jobs and higher rates of return
A trio of economists just published "Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large vs. Young" at the National Bureau of Economic Research. For years businesspeople have said that the majority of jobs were created by small companies, therefore we should provide loans and other incentives for small business. At the same time, we all know that large companies employee millions of people, and therefore they have received benefits to keep their companies going even in tough times – like the recent bailouts of GM and Chrysler. But what these researchers discovered was that size was immaterial to job creation – and this ages-old debate is really irrelevant!
Digging deeper into the data, they discovered as reported in the New York Times, "To Create Jobs, Nurture Start-Ups." Regardless of size, most businesses over time get stuck defending their original success formula. What helped them initially grow becomes locked-in by behavioral norms, structural decision-making processes and a business model cost structure that may be tweaked, but rarely changed. Best practices serve to focus management on defending that business, even as market shifts lower the industry growth rate and profits. It doesn't take long before defensive tactics dominate, and as the leaders attempt to preserve historical practices there are no new jobs created. Usually quite the opposite happens as cost cutting dominates, leading to outsourcing and lay-offs reducing the workforce.
Look no further than most members of the Dow Jones Industrial Average to witness the lack of jobs created by older companies desperately trying to defend their historical business model. But what we've failed to realize is how the same management practices dominate small business as well! Most plumbing suppliers, window installers, insurance agencies, restaurants, car dealers, nurseries, tool rental shops, hair cutters and pet sitters spend all their time just trying to keep the business going. They look no further than what they did yesterday when making business decisions. Few think about growth, preferring instead to just keep the business the same – maybe by the owner/operator's father 3 decades ago! They don't create any new jobs, and are probably struggling to maintain existing employment as computers and other business aids reduce the need for labor – while competition keeps whacking away at historical margins.
So if you want to create jobs, throwing incentives at General Electric, General Motors or General Dynamics is not likely to get you very far. And asking the leaders of those companies what it takes to get them to create jobs is a wasted conversation. They don't know, and haven't really thought about the question. Leaders of almost all big organizations are just trying to make next quarter's profit projection any way they can – and that doesn't involve new hiring. After a lifetime of cutting costs and preservation behavior, how is Jeffrey Immelt of GE supposed to know anything about creating new businesses which leads to job creation?
Nor is offering loans or grants to the millions of existing small businesses who are just trying to keep the joint running going to make any difference. Their psychology is not about offering new products or services, and banks sure don't want to take the risk of investing in new experimental behaviors. They have little, if any, interest in figuring out how to grow when most of their attention is trying to preserve the storefront in the face of new competitors on-line, or from India, China or Vietnam!
To create jobs you have to focus on growth – not defense. And that takes an entirely different way of thinking. Instead of thinking about the past you have to be obsessive about the future, and how you can do things differently! Most of the time, business leaders don't think this way until their backs are up against the wall, looking at potential failure! For example, how Mr. Gerstner turned around IBM when he moved the company away from mainframe obsession and pointed the company toward services. Or when Steve Jobs redirected Apple away from its Mac obsession and pushed the company into new markets for music/entertainment and smartphones. Unfortunately, these stories are so rare that we tend to use them for a decade (or even 2 decades)!
For years Cisco said it would obsolete its own products, and by implementing that direction Cisco has grown year after year in the tech world, where flame-outs abound (just look at what happened to Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, AOL and rapidly Yahoo!) Look at how Netflix has pushed Blockbuster aside by expanding its business from snail-mail to downloads. Or how Amazon.com has found explosive growth by changing the way we read books, now selling more Kindle products than printed. Rather than thinking about how each could do more of what they always did, fearing cannibalization of the "core business," they are aiding destruction of their historical business by implementing the newest technology and solution before some start-up beats them to the punch!
As you enter 2011 and prepare for 2012, is your planning based upon doing more of what your business has always done? A start up has no last year, so its planning is based entirely on views of the future. Are you fixated on improving your operations? A start up has no operations, so it is fixated on competitors to figure out how it can meet market needs better, and use "fringe" solutions in new ways that competitors have not yet adopted. Are you hoping that market shifts slow, or stop, so revenue, market share and profit slides abate? A start up is looking for ways to disrupt the marketplace to it can grab high growth from existing solutions while generating new demand by meeting unmet needs. Are you trying to preserve resources in order to defend your business from competitors? A start up is looking for places to experiment with new solutions and figure out how to change the competitive landscape while growing revenues and profits.
If you want to thrive you have to grow. To grow, you have to think young! Be willing to plan for the future, like Apple did when it moved into new markets for music downloads. Be willing to find competitive holes and fill them with new technology, like Netflix. Don't fear market changes – create them like Cisco does with new solutions that obsolete previous generations. And keep testing new ways to expand the market, even as you see intense competition in historical markets being attacked by new competitors. That is the only way to create value, and generate new jobs!
by Adam Hartung | Feb 1, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- There is dramatic change in the television/media industry
- NBC Universal/Comcast is changing ownership, and leaders
- The company’s future success will have more to do with which battles the new President invests in than the history, or style of the past and future company President’s
- Trying to “fix” the old business will waste resources and harm future prospects
- Success will require developing a management approach that gives permission and resources to find a path to the future – a future that will be nothing like the past
NBC Universal is changing owners, from General Electric to Comcast. The former NBC President, Jeff Zucker, is being replaced by Steve Burke. Stylistically, it’s hard to imagine two fellas less alike. Mr. Burke, portraited in the New York Times “A Little Less Drama at NBC,” is a mild-mannered, quiet, self-effacing executive who almost attended divinity school. He avoids the limelight as much as he avoids being abrasive with colleagues. The outgoing Mr. Zucker is by all accounts brash,abrasive and quick to make decisions, as he was portraited in PaidContent.org “Was Jeff Zucker Really So Bad For NBC Universal?“
But it isn’t executive style that will determine whether Mr. Burke succeeds. Although NBCU just returned its highest profits since 2004, the television and media industries are in dramatic transition. Things aren’t like they used to be, and they will never be that way again. Growing revenues, and profits, at the combined NBCU/Comcast will require Mr. Burke quickly move both companies into a different kind of competitor focused on the changed market of 2015 – when media customers and suppliers will both be very different, with quite different demands.
Although Mr. Zucker is blasted for allowing NBC’s ratings to fall to last among the Big 3 networks (including CBS and ABC), it’s not at all clear why that wasn’t a smart move. What has grown NBC’s profits has been far removed from network programming. It was the acquisition of cable channels USA and Sci Fi (now Syfy) via Universal, and later Bravo, Oxygen and The Weather Channel that contributed greatly to NBC’s revenue and profit growth. These were also enhanced by building, from scratch, the #1 business-content television channel at CNBC, and the profitable, somewhat populist counter-channel to powerhouse conservative Fox News with MSNBC. Despite what the critics (who are largely interested in programs rather than profits) have said, it may have been an act of brilliance to avoid investing in the declining business that is prime time network programming.
What anyone thinks about the brouhaha over Jay Leno’s attempt at prime time, and Conan O’Brien’s stint leading The Today Show, is immaterial to revenue growth and profits. I’m a late boomer, so I remember when there were only 3 stations, and Johny Carson dominated the post-news late evening. But now I have college age sons that don’t even own televisions, have almost no idea who Jay Leno is (other than know of him as a car and motorcycle collector) and find all interview programs boring. “Network” TV is something they don’t quite understand – since their tolerance for watching entertainment on someone else’s pre-determined schedule is non-existent, and their patience for sitting through commercials of real-time programming is even lower. In other words, what happens in the “prime time” race, or with network celebrities, really doesn’t matter any more. And if NBCU can’t grow viewers it can’t grow ad revenues – so why should it invest in the prime time business? Just because it used to? Or started that way?
While lots of media “experts” are screaming for Mr. Burke to “fix” NBC, that business is already well into the hospice. Network share of entertainment interest is falling rapidly as boomers die, dozens of new offerings are micro-targeting across the channel spectrum, and we all turn to the internet for downloads, ignoring the TV for news or entertainment several additional hours each year. Meanwhile, people under the age of 30 aren’t even watching much television any more. They just pretend to watch while sitting with their parents as they text, check Facebook or watch a downloaded program on their iPhone.
“Network” programming is a business which is not going to grow again. Given how costs are increasing for traditional shows, and the over-explosion of inexpensive “reality” or “news” shows, and fragmentation and decline of advertising why would anyone ever expect this to be a profitable business? Being last in that 3 horse race is about as interesting as tracking share of market for printed phone directories. Probably the first to quit ist he big winner. So why should Mr. Burke spend much time, or money, fighting the last war? “Fixing” that outdated business model is fraught with high risk, and low return. Now that tthe artificial limits on news and entertainment programming have been removed (thanks to the internet) isn’t it time to let go of that historial artifact and focus on the future?
We know the future will be a mix of traditional TV (at least for a while, but don’t make any bets on it being too long), as well as targeted channels we now refer to as “cable” (even though that moniker is clearly losing meaning in a WiFi world.) Some of these will be free access, and some will be paid content. But all of that now must compete with downloads from Netfilx, Hulu (in which NBCU is a part owner) and YouTube (partially owned by Google.) People can create and post their own programs, and even do their own marketing. Instant availability, reviews and promotion will be couresy of Twitter and Facebook. This is a lot more complex than just ordering a new crime drama series, or situation comedy, and foisting it on a market with only a handful of channel options.
Viewership will range from 50″ panels, to 2″ hand-held screens – with a plethora of optional sizes in between. Program length will be infinitely variable from hours of non-stop viewing to constantly interrupted sound bites, no longer proscribed by 30 minute increments. Traditional programming, like local or national “news” will have little meaning, or value, in 2020 (or maybe 2015) when we will be receiving instant updates several times each day on our mobile device.
Mr. Zucker did a yeoman’s job of steering NBCU toward the future. He was smart enough to understand that only historians, locked-in media critics and old farts in Lay-Z-Boys care about what’s happening on The Tonight Show or the NBC News. His primary investments were oriented toward understanding the future, and getting NBCU’s toes into that rapidly churning water where future growth lies. But he’s leaving just as the stream is turning into a torrent. Even what he did could well be out of date within a few years – or months!
Now it is Mr. Burke’s turn. The very pleasant fellow has a daunting challenge. If he isn’t supposed to “double down” his bets in network TV, and traditional “cable,” what is he supposed to do? In a dramatically changing advertising world, where Google, Facebook and mobile device ads are now becoming the hot markets, what is the role for NBCU/Comcast? If we no longer need the physucal cable (say in 2020), won’t Comcast lose subscribers for cable access just like we’re seeing declines in subscribers for newspapers, DVD subscriptions, land-line telephones and land-line long distance? What is the role of a “programmer” like NBCU if viewers all have unlimited access to everything, anytime, anywhere, in any format? And what is the value of a content provider if self-published content streams onto the web by the terabyte daily? And is sorted by engines like Google and YouTube?
What Mr. Burke must do, regardless of style, is develop some scenarios about the future, and understand the much more complex playing field that is today’s media business. He has to find the holes in competition, and learn how to leverage what the “fringe” competitors are doing that drives all that usage, and viewership. And, most importantly, he has to keep experimenting – just as Mr. Zucker did. He has to create opportunities to test the newly developing markets, figure out who will buy, and what they will buy. He has to set up white space teams who have permission to be experimental, even if they attack the old businesses like “network” TV – even cannibalizing the historical viewr base as they transition toward future media markets. If he can create these teams, give them the right permission and resources, NBCU/Comcast could be the next great media company.
We’ll have to wait and see. Will the sirens of the past, looking backward, pull the company into gladiator battles with old foes trying to hold share in narrowing, declining markets? That path looks like a sure disaster. Despite being an early leader with satellite TV and MySpace that approach has not helped NewsCorp. But betting on the future is more a bet on the journey, and finding the right path, than betting on any particular destination. The future-based approach takes a lot of faith in company leadership, and the company management team. It will be interesting to see which way Mr. Burke goes.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 27, 2011 | Current Affairs, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Science, Web/Tech
Summary:
- The President has called for more innovation in America
- But American business management doesn’t know how to be innovative
- Business leaders focus on efficiency, not innovation
- America has no inherent advantage in innovation
- To increase innovation we need a change in incentives, to favor innovation over efficiency and traditional brick-and-mortar investments
- We need to highlight leaders that have demonstrated the ability to create jobs in the information economy, not the “old guard” just because they run big, but floundering, companies
It was good to hear the U.S. President call for more innovation in his State of the Union address this week. And it sounded like he wants most of that to come from business, rather than government. But I’m reminded the President is a lawyer and politician. As a businessman, well, let’s say he’s a bit naive. Most businesses don’t have a clue how to be innovative, as Forbes pointed out in November, 2009 in “Why the Pursuit of Innovation Usually Fails.”
Businesses by and large are not designed to be innovative. Modern management theory, going back to the days of Frederick Taylor, has been dominated by efficiency. For the last decade businesses have reacted to global competitive forces by seeking additional efficiency. Thus the offshoring movement for information technology and manufacturing eliminated millions of American jobs driving unemployment to double digits, and undermines new job creation keeping unemployment stubbornly high.
It is not surprising business leaders avoid innovation, when the august Wall Street Journal headlines on January 20 “In Race to Market, It Pays to Be Latecomer.” Citing a number of innovator failures, including automobiles, browsers and small computers, the journal concludes that it is smarter business to not innovate. Rather leaders should wait, let someone else innovate and then hope they can take the idea and make something of it down the road. Not a ringing pledge for how good management supports the innovation agenda!
The professors cited in the Journal article take a fairly common point of view. Because innovators fail, don’t be one. Lower your risk, come in later, hope you can catch the market at a future time. It’s easy to see in hindsight how innovators fail, so why take the risk? Keep your eyes on being efficient – and innovation is anything but efficient! Because most businesspeople don’t understand how to manage innovation, don’t try.
As discussed in my last blog, about Sara Lee, executives, managers and investors have come to believe that cost cutting, and striving for more efficiency, is the solution for most business problems. According to the Washington Post, “Immelt To Head New Advisory Board on Job Creation.” The President appointed the GE Chairman to this highly visible position, yet Mr. Immelt has spent most of the last decade shrinking GE, and pushing jobs offshore, rather than growing the company – especially domestically. Gone are several GE businesses created in the 1990s – including the recent spin out of NBC to Comcast. It’s ironic that the President would appoint someone who has overseen downsizings and offshoring to this position, instead of someone who has demonstrated the ability to create jobs over the last decade.
As one can easily imagine, efficiency is not the handmaiden of innovation. To the contrary, as we build organizations the desire for efficiency and “professional management” impedes innovation. According to Portfolio.com in “Can Google Be Entrepreneurial” even Google, a leading technology company with such exciting new products as Android and Chrome, has replaced its CEO Eric Schmidt with founder Larry Page in order to more effectively manage innovation. The contention is that the 55 year old professional manager Schmidt created innovation barriers. If a company as young and successful as Google struggles to innovate, one can only imagine the difficulties at traditional, aged American businesses!
While many will trumpet America’s leadership in all business categories, Forbes‘ Fred Allen is correct to challenge our thinking in “The Myth of American Superiority at Innovation.” For decades America’s “Myth of Efficiency” has pushed organizations to streamline, cutting anything that is not totally necessary to do what it historically did better, faster or cheaper. Innovation inside businesses was designed to improve existing processes, usually cutting cost and jobs, not create new markets with high growth that creates jobs and economic growth. Most executives would 10x rather see a plan to cut costs saving “hard dollars” in the supply chain, or sales and marketing, than something involving new product introduction into new markets where they have to deal with “unknowns.” Where our superiority in innovation originates, if at all, is unclear.
Lawyers are not historically known for their creativity. Hours spent studying precedent doesn’t often free the mind to “think outside the box.” Business folks have their own “precedent managers” – internal experts who set themselves up intentionally to block experimentation and innovation in the name of lowering risk, being conservative and carefully managing the core business. To innovate most organizations will be forced to “Fire the Status Quo Police” as I called for last September here in Forbes. But that isn’t easy.
America can be very innovative. Just look at the leadership America exerts in all things “social media” – from Facebook to Groupon! And look at how adroitly Apple has turned around by moving beyond its roots in personal computing to success in music (iPod and iTunes), mobile telephony and data (iPhone) and mobile computing (iPad). Netflix has used a couple of rounds of innovation to unseat old leader Blockbuster! But Apple and Netflix are still the rarities – innovators amongst the hoards of myopic organizations still focused on optimization. Look no further than the problems Microsoft – a tech company – has had balancing its desire to maintain PC domination while ineffectively attempting to market innovation.
What America needs is less bully pulpit, and more action if you really want innovation Mr. President:
- Increase tax credits for R&D
- Increase tax deductions and credits for new product launches by expanding the definition of what constitutes R&D in the tax code
- Implement penalties on offshore outsourcing to discourage the efficiency focus and the chronic push to low-cost global resources
- Lower capital gains taxes to encourage wealth creation through new business creation
- Manage the deficit by implementing VAT (value added taxes) which add cost to supply chain transactions, thus lowering the value of “efficiency” moves
- Make it much easier for foreign graduate students in America to receive their green cards so we can keep them here and quit exporting some of the brightest innovators we develop to foreign countries
- Create more tax incentives for investing in high tech – from nanotech to biotech to infotech – and quit wasting money trying to favor investments in manufacturing. Provide accelerated or double deductions for buying lab equipment, and stretch out deductions for brick-and-mortar spending. Better yet, quit spending so much on road construction and simply give credits to people who buy lab equipment and other innovation tools.
- Propose regulations on executive compensation so leaders aren’t encouraged to undertake short-term cost cutting measures merely to prop up short-term profits at the expense of long-term viability
- Quit putting “old guard” leaders who have seen their companies do poorly in highly placed positions. Reach out to those who really understand the information economy to fill such positions – like Eric Schmidt from Google, or John Chambers at Cisco Systems.
- Reform the FDA so new bio-engineered solutions do not follow regulations based on 50 year old pharma technology and instead streamline go-to-market processes for new innovations
- Quit spending so much money on border fences, DEA crack-downs on marijuana users and giant defense projects. Put the money into grants for universities and entrepreneurs to create and implement innovation.
Mr. President,, don’t expect traditional business to do what it has not done for over a decade. If you want innovation, take actions that will create innovation. American business can do it, but it will take more than asking for it. it will take a change in incentives and management.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 25, 2011 | Current Affairs, Food and Drink, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
Summary:
- It sounds good to refocus a business on its core
- It sounds good to centralize for cost reductions and belt tightening as part of refocusing
- It sounds good to sell “non-essential” businesses to raise cash
- It sounds good to have a company buy back shares
- But these efforts serve to destroy the company, killing it softly as it sounds good, but guts the business of revenues and innovation
- Sara Lee’s CEO destroyed the company softly by following such a strategy
The vultures are swirling around Sara Lee. “Sara Lee Said to Get Bid from Bain, Apollo Group Exceeding $18.70 a Share” was the Bloomberg headline. JBS and Blackstone Group are reportedly considering making an offer, according to the Wall Street Journal. This has, of course, driven up the share price from its steady decline of 67% between 2006 and 2009.. But unless you’re a short-term trader, even this acquisition offer is barely going to get you back to break even for your 5 year old investment.
Source: Marketwatch.com
Five years ago Brenda Barnes took leadership at Sara Lee to much fanfare, as she broke the long-problematic glass ceiling for women executives. But her plan for Sara Lee hasn’t worked out so well. Although her compensation has been in the millions, for investors, employees and suppliers this has been a very rough 5 years.
Ms. Barnes took over Sara Lee saying it was a “hodgepodge” of inefficient brands and businesses. Her goal was to streamline Sara Lee, refocus the company and regenerate its core. That certainly sounded good.
Her first steps were to consolidate operations into a central headquarters, including all R&D for the far-flung businesses. She started cutting costs, and heads, as she reduced the number of marketers and centralized purchasing. Going after “synergies,” consolidations were forced on all functions, and the re-launched R&D was staffed at a fraction of earlier product development efforts. The intent, accomplished, was to launch fewer products, and focus on cost reductions. To many listeners, this sounded so soothing. After all, who wouldn’t think there was “fat” to be cut? Who ever believes cost-cutting reaches an end? Why not try to “milk” more out of the old products rather than undertake costly new product launches?
Simultaneously, Ms. Barnes began selling businesses. Gone was the European meats and apparel units, soon followed by the direct sales business sale to Tupperware, and the Body Care business sale to Unilever. Branded apparel was spun out as a seperate company, and the bakery business was sold to Group Bimbo [transaction not yet closed.] Revenues declined from $13.2B in June, 2008 to $10.8B in June 2010 – and after the bakery sale would fall to $8.7B – a revenue drop of 1/3 in just a few years. But this was to refocus, and generate billions of cash for share buybacks. To many that sounded good as well.
All of this streamlining, cost cutting, consolidating and refocusing did raise cash. But, for investors, quarterly dividends were cut from 19.75 cents/share in April, 2006 to 10 cents/share in August, 2006. Only recently have dividends been raised to 11.5 cents/share, but this is still a reduction of over 40% from where dividends were prior to implementing the new refocusing strategy.
After years of implementation, Sara Lee investors in 2010 were holding stock worth less, and had lower dividends, than before this new plan was put into effect.
It all sounded so good, like the lyrics of a lullaby. Refocus. Go back to the business core. Get out of non-essential businesses. Consolidate operations with belt-tightening. Centralize functions to get more done with fewer resources. Sell businesses to raise cash. And invest that cash in share buybacks that would raise the company value. (The alchemy of this last statement still mystifies me. At the end, you’ve sold all the businesses to raise money to buy the last shares – and nobody is left with anything. It’s like selling parts of the house to pay the maintenance – eventually there’s nowhere left to live. How anybody thinks this is good for any constituency of the company is hard to fathom.)
What has been accomplished under the Barnes leadership?
- The equity value cratered, only to be uplifted by a private equity takeover effort that may allow investors to regain their original investment
- Cash dividends have been gutted
- Sara Lee is now a much smaller company, with no new products and no growth plan
- Operating cash flow has declined
- Cash has been dispersed in meaningless stock buybacks that have accomplished nothing
- Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost
- Suppliers have been squeezed out, or if still selling to Sara Lee had their margins squeezed
- Downers Grove, IL ,where the headquarters is located, can link declines in commercial and residential real estate to the downfall of Sara Lee
While it may sound like a comforting song, business leadership that turns to cutting the business throws it into a growth stall from which there is almost no hope of recovery. Even though short-term there may be bragging about the effort to refocus, cut costs and raise cash, these actions simply kill the business – softly and slowly perhaps, but kill it nonetheless.
Sales and profit problems are the result of remaining stuck in old market approaches long after the market has shifted to superior solutions. The only way to “fix” the business is to get closer to the market and launch new products, technologies, processes or solutions that are aligned with emerging market trends. You can’t cost-cut, refocus or re-align a business to success. You have to grow it.
