by Adam Hartung | Sep 4, 2010 | Books, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Religion
Summary:
- When we don’t know what works, we create myths to describe what might work
- Much of business theory is little more than myth
- “Good to Great” has been a best seller, but it is not helpful for good management
- To grow business today requires abandoning management myths and aligning with changing market needs
Good to Great by Jim Collins has been a phenomenal business best seller. Almost 10 years old, it has sold millions of copies. It continues to be featured on end caps in book stores. That it has sold so well, and continues selling, is a testament to a much better book by the legendary newsperson Bill Moyers with Joseph Campbell, “The Power of Myth.” (Original PBS 2001 TV show available on DVD, or get the new release this month.)
When we don’t understand something we develop theories as to how it might work. These theories are based upon what we know, our assumptions, and our biases. They could be right, or they might not. Only testing determines the answer. However, sometimes the theory is so powerfully connected to our beliefs that we don’t want to test it – don’t feel the need to test it. And if the theory hangs around long enough, people forget it wasn’t tested. What easily happens is that “logical” theories (based upon assumptions and beliefs) that don’t explain reality become myth. And the myth becomes very comforting. Over time, the myth becomes part of the assumption set – unchallenged, and actually used as a basis for building new theories.
For example, the founder of modern medicine – Galen – didn’t understand the circulatory system. So he thought blood was oxygenated by invisible pores. As time passed it became impossible to challenge, or even test, this theory. Eventually, blood letting was developed as a medical practice because people thought the blood stored in the affected area had gone bad. It was several hundred years before Harvey, through careful testing, proved there were no invisible pores – and instead blood circulated throughout the body. Millions had perished from blood letting because of a myth. Bad theory allowed to go unchallenged and untested. It just sounded so good, so acceptable, that people followed it. Dangerous practice.
Thomas Thurston now gives us great insight to the popular myth developed by Jim Collins in Good to Great. Published by Growth Science International (http//growthsci.com) “Good to Great: Good, But Not Great” Mr. Thurston puts Mr. Collins thesis to the test. Is it a usable framework for predicting performance, and do followers actually achieve superior performance? In other words, does the advice in Good to Great work?
Mr. Thurston’s conclusions, quoted below, are quite clear, and mirror those of academics and lay people who have studied the storied Mr. Collins’ work:
- Even with the copious guidelines set forth by Collins, sorting CEOs into each category proved a highly subjective process. The classification scheme was ambiguous
- Level 5 leadership was difficult to categorize with reliability and consistency
- Our sample [100 well known firms] did not reveal any statistically significant difference in the performance of firms led by Level 5 and Not-Level 5 leaders. Performance in each category was approximately the same.
- Level 5 leadership classifications were, in practice, highly subjective and not predictive of superior firm performance.
- In other words, our results concluded that one can not predict whether a firm will perform good, great or bad based on its having a Level 5 Leader.
We like myth. It helps us explain what we previously could not explain. Like early Greek gods helped people explain the complex world around them. But, when we build our behaviors on myth it becomes extremely dangerous. We depend upon things that don’t work, and it can have serious repercussions. Mr. Collins glorified Circuit City and Fannie Mae in his book – yet now one is gone and the other in disrepute. Meanwhile his list of “great” companies have been proven to perform no better than average since his publication.
In Good to Great Mr. Collins offers a theory for business success that is very appealing. Be focused on your strengths. Get everybody on the bus to doing the same thing. Make sure you know your core, and protect it like a hedgehog protects its home. And make sure all leaders follow a Christ-like approach of humbleness, and leader servitude. It sounds very appealing – in an Horatio Alger sort of way. Work hard, be humble and good things will happen. We want to believe.
But it just doesn’t produce superior performance. There are no theories that have identified “great” leaders. Success has come from all kinds of personalities. And, despite our love for being “passionate” and “focused” on doing something really “great” there is no correlation between long-term success and the ability to understand your core and focus the organization upon it. Thousands of businesses have been focused on their core, yet failed.
What we need is a new theory of management. As the Assistant Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Alan Murray, wrote in “The End of Management,” industrial era management theories about optimization and increased production do not help companies deal with an information era competitiveness fraught with rapid change and keen demands for flexibility.
Increased flexibility and success can be assured. If companies make some critical changes
- Plan for the future, not from the past. Do more scenario planning and less “core” planning
- Obsess about competition – and listen less to customers
- Be disruptive. Don’t focus on optimization and continuous improvement
- Embrace White Space to develop new solutions linked to changing market needs
This does work. Every time.
update links on Thomas Thurston 5/2014:
http://startupreport.com/thomas-thurston-on-innovation-malpractice-and-the-dangers-of-theory-via-startupreport-com/
http://newsle.com/person/thomasthurston/2870934#reloaded
http://thomasthurston.com/
by Adam Hartung | Sep 2, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Market shifts create losers, and winners
- Demand doesn’t decline, it just changes form – and usually grows!
- We want more entertainment and communcation – but not the old fashioned way
- Losers keep trying to sell what they have, and know
- Winners supply solutions aligned with market needs regardless of old competencies
How would you react if your customers said your product really wasn’t something they needed? Would you work hard to convince them they are wrong? Maybe try to add some features hoping it would regain their attention? Or would you start looking for what they really do need/want?
Pew Research Center, at PewSocialTrends.org headlines “The Fading Glory of the Television and Telephone” describing how quickly people are walking away from what were very recently considered absolute necessities. As a “boomer” and member of the “TV generation” I was surprised to read that only 42% of Americans now think a television is a necessity! This has been a rapid, dramatic decline from 52% last year and 64% in 2006! 1 in 5 Americans have changed their point of view about television as a necessity in just 4 years! And TV as a necessity is in an accelerating decline! I can remember when my generation went from 1 TV in the house to 1 in every room! This trend does not bode well for broadcast television networks, affiliates, advertisers, traditional production companies, television newscasters, manufacturers of TV sets and TV equipment – or many other businesses linked to TV as we know it.
Simultaneously, demand for a land line telephone has declined. Again, my generation remembers the days with one phone in the house – in some areas on a shared “party” line where multiple families shared a single phone line. The phone was in a central area so it could be shared. In the 1970s we saw things change as telephones were added to every room! Now, according to Pew, folks who consider a land-line phone a necessity has declined to only 62%, a 10% decline from just last year (68 to 62) and barely 3 in 5 Americans! Wow!
Of course, for every decline there’s a winner. 47% see the cell phone as a necessity – that’s 5 percentage points greater than the TV score, indicating mobile phones are seen as more of a necessity than television by the general population. And 34% see high speed internet as a necessity – only 9 percentage points fewer than the TV number – and more than half who see the need for a land-line phone.
Demand for entertainment and communication have not declined! If you are in television or land lines you might think so. Rather, that demand is accelerating. But it is just shifting to a different solution. Instead of the old technology, and supplier industry, people are changing to something new. First with video cassetttes, then digital video recorders (DVRs), then the plethora of available cable channels and on-demand TV, and now with on-line entertainment from YouTube to Hulu people have been changing the way they consume entertainment. Demand has gone up, but not from traditional consumption of TV, especially as viewing has switched from the TV to the computer monitor – or the hand held device.
Clearly, access to the internet (facebook, twitter, et.al.), texting and anytime/anywhere calling has increased both our access and use of one-way (such as reading web pages) and two way communication. Communication is continuing to grow, but it will be in a different way. No longer do we need a “dial tone” to communicate – and in most instances people are finding a preference to asynchronous rather than real-time communication.
These are the kind of industry transitions that threaten so many businesses. What Clayton Christensen calls “The Innovator’s Dilemma” as new solutions increase demand while making old solutions obsolete. The tendency is for the supplier of traditional solutions to say “my market is in decline.” But really, the market is growing! Just like Kodak said the demand for film was declining, when demand for photography – now in digital format – was (and is) escalating! When market shifts happen, incumbents have to resist the temptation to try “keeping” the “old customers” by undertaking Defend & Extend efforts – like adding features and functionality, while cutting price. This inevitably leads to disaster! Instead, they have to understand the shift is only going to accelerate, and develop an approach to entering the new market.
As this research comes out, Apple launched a series of new products to augment its set-top box and iPod/iTouch product lines. (San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate.com “Steve JobsUnveils Upgraded Apple TV, New iPods“) by doing so Apple recognizes that people still want entertainment – but they are a whole lot less likely to accept sitting in front of a communal television, serially deploying programming at them. They want their entertainment to be on-demand, and personalized. Why should we all watch the same thing? And why watch what some programmer at CBS, HBO or TMC wants to deliver?
Apple is bringing out products that align with the direction the market is now heading. Ping is designed to help people share program information and identify the entertainment you would like to receive. iTunes is upgrading to bring you in bite-size chunks exactly the entertainment you want, as you want it, aurally or visually. These are products which will grow because they are aligned with what the market says it wants — even more entertainment. Those who are hidebound to the old supply mechanism will simply find themselves fighting for declining revenue as demand shifts – and grows – in the new solutions
by Adam Hartung | Aug 31, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Quotes
Summary:
- The Wall Street Journal is calling for a dramatic shift in how business is managed
- Most corporations are designed for the industrial age, and thus not well suited for today’s competition
- Change is happening more quickly, and organizations must become more agile
- CEOs today are concerned about dealing with rapid, chronic change – and obsolescence
- Resource deployment, from financial to people, must be tied more closely to market needs and not defending historical strengths
A FANTASTIC article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The End of Management” by Alan Murray, If you have time, I encourage you to click the link and read the entire thing. Below are some insightful quotes from the article I hope you enjoy as much as I did:
- Corporations, whose leaders portray themselves as champions of the free
market, were in fact created to circumvent that market. They were an
answer to the challenge of organizing thousands of people in different
places and with different skills to perform large and complex tasks,
like building automobiles or providing nationwide telephone service.
- the managed corporation—an answer to the central problem of the industrial age.
- Corporations are bureaucracies and managers are bureaucrats. Their
fundamental tendency is toward self-perpetuation… They were designed and tasked, not with
reinforcing market forces, but with supplanting and even resisting the
market.
- it took radio 38 years and television 13 years to reach audiences of 50
million people, while it took the Internet only four years, the iPod
three years and Facebook two years to do the same.
- It’s no surprise that
fewer than 100 of the companies in the S&P 500 stock index were
around when that index started in 1957.
- When I asked members of The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council… to name the most influential business book they had read,
many cited Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovator’s Dilemma.” That book
documents how market-leading companies have missed game-changing
transformations in industry after industry
- They allocated capital to the innovations that promised the largest
returns. And in the process, they missed disruptive innovations that
opened up new customers and markets for lower-margin, blockbuster
products.
- the ability of human beings on different continents and with vastly
different skills and interests to work together and coordinate complex
tasks has taken quantum leaps. Complicated enterprises, like maintaining
Wikipedia or building a Linux operating system, now can be accomplished
with little or no corporate management structure at all.
- the trends here are big and undeniable. Change is rapidly accelerating.
Transaction costs are rapidly diminishing. And as a result, everything
we learned in the last century about managing large corporations is in
need of a serious rethink. We have both a need [for]… a new science of
management, that can deal with the breakneck realities of 21st century
change.
- The new model will have to be more like the marketplace, and less like
corporations of the past. It will need to be flexible, agile, able to
quickly adjust to market developments, and ruthless in reallocating
resources to new opportunities.
- big companies… failed, not…
because they didn’t see the coming innovations, but because they failed
to adequately invest in those innovations. To avoid this problem, the
people who control large pools of capital need to act more like venture
capitalists, and less like corporate finance departments… make lots of bets, not just a few big ones, and… be willing
to cut their losses.
- have to push power and decision-making down the organization as much as
possible, rather than leave it concentrated at the top. Traditional
bureaucratic structures will have to be replaced with something more
like ad-hoc teams of peers, who come together to tackle individual
projects, and then disband
- New mechanisms will have to be created for harnessing the “wisdom of
crowds.” Feedback loops will need to be built that allow products and
services to constantly evolve in response to new information. Change,
innovation, adaptability, all have to become orders of the day.
Well said. Traditional management best practices were designed for the industrial age. For bringing people together to efficiently build planes, trains and automobiles. This is now the information age. Organizations must be more agile, more flexible, and tightly aligned with market needs – while eschewing focus on “core” capabilities.
Companies must understand Lock-in, and how to manage it. Instead of planning for yesterday to continue, we must develop future scenarios and prepare for different likely outcomes. We have to understand competitors, and how quickly they can move to rob us of sales and profits. We have to be willing to disrupt our patterns of behavior, and our markets, in order to drive for higher value creation. And we must understand that constantly creating and implementing White Space teams that are focused on new opportunities is a key to long-term success.
With an endorsement for change from nothing less than the stodgy Wall Street Journal, perhaps more leaders and managers will begin moving forward, implementing The Phoenix Principle, so they can recapture a growth agenda and rebuild profitability.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 30, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- We like to think we can compete effectively by waiting on others to show us the market direction
- You cannot make high rates of return with a “fast follower” strategy
- Companies that constantly take innovations to market grow longer, and make higher rates of return
- White Space allows you to learn, grow and be smart about when to get out while costs are low
“I want to be a fast follower. Let somebody else carry the cost of learning what the market wants and what solutions work. I plan to come in fast behind the leader and make more money by avoiding the investment.” Have you ever heard someone talk this way? It sounds so appealing. Only problem is – it very rarely works! Fast followers might gain share sometimes, but universally they have terrible margins. Their sales come at an enormous investment cost.
Those who enter new markets early actually gain a lot, for little cost. Take for example Amazon.com’s early entry into electronic publishing with Kindle. Entering early gave Amazon a huge advantage. Amazon may have appeared to be floundering, potentially “wasting” resources, but it was learning how the technology of e-Ink worked, how costs could be driven down and what users demanded in a solution. Every quarter Amazon was learning how to find new uses for the Kindle, making it more viable, finding new customers, encouraging repeat purchases and growing. Now Mediapost.com headlines “Review: New Kindle Kicks (Even Apple’s) B*tt.”
Now there are a raft of “fast followers” trying to catch the Kindle in the eReader market. But the Kindle is far lighter, easier to use, with greater functionality and available at one of the market’s lowest prices. While the cost of entry was low, Amazon learned immensely. That knowledge is not repeatable by companies trying to now play “catch up” without spending multiples of what Amazon spent. Amazon is so far in front of other eReaders that it’s competition is the vastly more sophisticated (and expensive) mobile devices from Apple (iPhone and iPad). By entering early, Amazon has lower cost, and considerably more/better market knowledge, than later entrants.
We see this very clearly in Microsoft’s smart phone approach. Microsoft got far behind in smart phones, losing over 2/3 its market share, as it focused on Windows 7 and Office 2010 the last 3 years while Resarch in Motion (RIM) Apple and Google pioneered the market. Now the 3 leaders have millions of units in the market, low price point establishment, and between them somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 mobile apps available.
As reported in Mediapost.com “Microsoft Gets Serious with Windows 7 Phone” entering now is VERY expensive for Microsoft. Microsoft spent almost $1billion on Kin, which it dropped after only a few months because the product was seriously unable to compete. So now Microsoft is expecting to spend $500million on launch costs for a Windows 7 mobile operating system. But it faces a daunting challenge, what with 350,000 or so iPhone apps in existence, and Google giving Android away for free (as well as sporting some 100,000 apps itself).
The cost of entry, ignoring Microsoft’s technology development cost, to get the mindshare of developers for app development (so Windows 7 mobile doesn’t slip into the Palm or Blackberry problem of too few apps to be interesting) as well as minds of potential buyers will more likely cost well over $1B – just for communications!! Microsoft now has to take share away from the market leaders – a very expensive proposition! Like XBox marketing, these exorbitant marketing costs could well go on for several years. XBox has had only 1 quarter near break-even, all others showing massive losses. The same is almost guaranteed for the Windows 7 phone. And it’s entering so late that it may never, even with all that money being spent, catch the two leaders! Who are the new users that will come along, and what is Microsoft uniquely offering? It’s expensive to buy mind and market share.
Clearly Apple and Android entered the smart phone market at vastly lower cost, and have developed what are already profitable businesses. Microsoft will lose money, possibly for years, and may still fail – largely because it focused on its core products and chose to undertake a “fast follower” strategy in the high growth smart phone business.
We like to believe things that reinforce our behaviors. We like to think that tortoises can outrun hares. But that only happens when hares make foolish decisions. Rarely in business are the early entrants foolish. Most learn – a lot – at low cost. They figure out where the early customers are with unmet needs, and how to fulfill those needs. They learn how to identify ways to grow the business, manage costs and earn a profit. And they learn at a much lower cost than late followers. They capture mind and market share, and work hard to grow the business with new customers keeping them profitable and maintaining share.
We want to think that innovators bear a high risk. But it’s simply not true. Innovators take advantage of market learning to create revenues and profits at lower cost. Companies that keep White Space projects flourishing, entering new markets generating growth, earn higher rates of return longer than any other strategy. Just look at Cisco, Nike, Virgin, J&J and GE (until very recently). The smart money gets into the game early, developing a winning approach — or getting out before the costs get too high!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 24, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Innovation, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Summary:
- It seems like the best way to find old success is to do more of what used to make you successful
- But lack of success is from market shifts, meaning you need to do more things
- Investing in what you know gets more expensive every year, with little (if any) improvement in returns
- To regain success it’s actually better to get out into new markets where you can compete with lower investment rates, generating more profitable sales
- Apple increased its sales of Macs not by focusing on Macs – but instead by becoming a winner in entirely different markets creating a feedback loop to the old, original “core”
MediaPost.com, in its article “Enterprise Sector Takes a Shine to Apple” has some remarkable statistics about Apple sales. At a time when most PC manufacturers, such as Dell and HP, are struggling to maintain even decent growth (even after the launch of upgraded Windows 7 and Office 2010) Apple is dramatically increasing its volume of Macs – and gaining market share. In last year’s second quarter:
- Mac sales jumped almost 50% in the business sector
- Mac sales jumped a whopping 200% in the government sector
- Mac sales rose over 31% in the home sector
- In Europe, Mac unit sales doubled their market share – and more than tripled their share in dollars
Yes, Macs are a small part of the market. Around 3.5% in the U.S. But, if you’re an Apple employee, supplier or investor that doesn’t matter, does it? In fact, it comes off sounding like a PC fan pooh-poohing a really astounding sales improvement. Nobody is saying the Mac will soon replace PCs (that’s more likely to happen via mobile devices where Apple has iPhone and iPad). But when you can dramatically increase your sales, especially as a $50B company, it’s a big deal.
The lesson for managers here is more unconventional. For years we’ve been told the way to grow your sales and profits is to “stick to your knitting.” To “protect your core.” The idea has been promoted that you should jettison anything that is a diversion to what you want to do best, and completely focus on what you select, and then try to out-compete all others with that product. If things don’t improve, then you need to get even more focused on your core, and invest more deeply. And hope the Mojo returns.
But that’s exactly the opposite of what Apple did. When almost bankrupt in 2001 Apple jettisoned multiple Mac products. It invested in music and entertainment products (iPod. iTouch and iTunes) to grab large sales with lower investment rates. It then rolled that success into developing the mobile computing/phone business with the iPhone and all those apps (some 250 thousand now and growing!). And it built on that success with a mobile tablet called the iPad. The Mac is now growing as a result of Apple’s success in all these other products creating a favorable feedback loop to the original “core”.
Apple spends less than 1/8th the money on R&D as Microsoft. And an even lesser amount on marketing, PR and sales. Yet, by entering new markets it gets far more “bang for its buck.” By entering new markets Apple is able to develop and launch new products, that sell in greater volumes and at higher profits, than had it stuck to being a “Mac company.” In fact, back when it only had 45 days of cash on hand, if it had stayed a “Mac company” Apple would have failed.
What we now see is that constantly re-investing in what you know drives down marginal rates of return. It keeps getting harder and harder, at ever greater cost, to drive new development and new sales with upgrades to old products. Look at the sales and profit problems at Sun Microsystems (world leader in Unix servers) and Silicon Graphics (world leader in graphics computers) and now Dell. What we’d like to think works at driving revenue and profits really raises new product costs and creates an easy target for new competitors who attack you as you sit there, all Locked-in to doing more of the same.
Contrarily, when you develop new products for new markets you grow revenues at lower cost, and thus higher profits. And you create a feedback loop that helps you get more sales without massive investments in your historical “core.” Think about Nike. It hasn’t been a “shoe company” for a very long time – but its shoes are greatly benefited by all the success Nike has in golf clubs and all those other products with a swoosh on them.
When confronted with a decision between “investing in the core” – or “protecting the mother ship” – or investing in new markets and solutions —- be very careful. Your “gut” may lead you to “in a blink” decide the obvious answer is to invest in what you know. But we are learning every quarter that this is a road to problems. You get more and more focused, and less and less prepared for the market shift that sent you into that “core focus” in the first place. Pretty soon you’re so far removed from the market you can’t survive – like Sun and SGI. It’s really a whole lot smarter to get out into new markets with White Space teams that can generate revenues with a lot less cost by being a smart, early competitor.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 23, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Market shifts can lead to new solutions that are free
- Free products often cause historical competitors to fail
- Microsoft is at great risk as the market for business applications is shifting to free solutions from Google
More than a decade ago Microsoft made the decision to bundle, at no extra charge, an encyclopedia with its software. Almost nobody had heard of Encarta, and it had never been a serious competitor to Encyclopedia Britannica. But when it came on a CD for free it stopped a lot of people from buying a new set of books for the family. It only took months for Encarta to become the #1 encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica found itself in bankruptcy. While quality is always an issue, it's very tough to compete with "free." Now Wikipedia, another free product, dominates the encyclopedia market.
For decades people paid for access to news – via newspapers and magazines. Advertisers and subscriptions paid for news. But when newswriters started offering news on the internet for free, and when readers could access news articles on the web without subscriptions, publishers found out how hard it is to compete with "free." Several magazines and newspapers have failed, and several publishers have entered bankruptcy – such as Tribune Corporation.
Now Crain's New York Business headlines "Google's Free Appls Click with Entrepreneurs." Companies are learning they can accomplish the tasks of word processing, spreadsheets, website creation and enterprise email for free via Google apps. And this is not good news for Microsoft.
Microsoft has 2 product lines that make up almost all its sales and profits. Operating systems for PCs (Windows 7) and office automation software for businesses (Office 2010). That there is now a viable offering which is free has to be very, very troubling. How long can Microsoft compete when the competitive product is, quite literally, free? If you adopt cloud computing applications, you no longer need a PC with an operating system. You can use a much simpler device. And you can use Google apps for business applications at no charge.
Microsoft is a huge company, with an incredible history. But how is it going to compete with free? And as computing becomes more and more networked, and Microsoft loses share in mobile devices from smartphones to tablets, what will be the sustaining revenue at Microsoft?
Investors in Microsoft have a lot to fear. As do its employees and suppliers. As do supply chain partners like Dell. When markets shift – especially when led by a shift to free solutions – the impact on traditional competitors can be extreme. Even the very best – such as Encyclopedia Britannica – can be destroyed. Sun Microsystems led the server business in 2000, with a +$200B market cap. Sun is now gone. Market shifts can happen fast, and when products are free shifts often happen even faster.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 19, 2010 | Current Affairs, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- By 2015 or 2020 cash, checks, debit and credit cards could disappear
- Smartphones are positioned to eliminate old financial transaction tools, as well as land line phone service and PCs
- All businesses will have to make changes to deal with new forms of payment processing, and early adopters will likely gain an advantage with customes
- There will likely be some big winners and big losers from this transition
Can you imagine a world with no cash? It could happen soon, and how will it affect your business?
Bloomberg.com headlined “AT&T, Verizon to Target Visa, Mastercard with Smartphones.” The business idea is to replace your Visa and Mastercard with a smartphone app that acts as your debit and/or credit card. Doing this makes it faster and easier for smartphone users to place transactions – online or in person – without even bothering with a card or any other physical artifact.
This is a big deal, because according to Mediapost.com “Smartphones Nearly 20% of All Phones Sold.” So smartphones are starting to be everywhere, and at current rates will replace old mobile phones in just a couple of years. They are increasingly replacing traditional land-line service as headlined in DailyMarkets.com, “Cell Phone Only Use Hits New High of 24.5% in U.S.” People are abandoning the historical land-line telephone.
The traditional “phone company” and its services are rapidly disappearing. After all the effort Southwestern Bell put in to recreating the old “ma bell” of AT&T, it now looks like that entire business is in decline and likely to become about as common as CB or portable AM radios. What is the future of AT&T and Verizon if they front-end Discover as the payment processor? Will these companies transition to become something very different than their past, and if so what will that be? Or will they be an early proponent for change but let the business value go to others – as they did in mobile phones, ISDN and other internet connectivity as well as cable entertainment?
Mediapost.com also reports “PayPal Making Micropayments a Reality.” Which gives us the last piece of the puzzle to just about guarantee old payment methods are likely to be gone by 2020 (possibly earlier – 2015?). People are giving up old land-line telecom for mobile, and mobile is rapidly becoming all smartphones. Smartphones are getting apps allowing them to conduct financial transactions without the need of a credit card, debit card or (going ultra low-tech) check (no printer needed – lol – which has to be a concern for companies like Zebra that make the printers). In fact, you can even make all kinds of payments, even really small ones under $1 – not just big ones – using your cell phone by opening a Paypal account. What you can easily see is a future where you don’t need a wallet at all. Everything you’ll need for financial transactions will be on your smartphone. (How much you want to bet somebody will figure out how to put your driver’s license on the smartphone too?)
Ultra convenient, don’t you think? You won’t need a credit card, or any other card. You won’t need a PC to do your on-line banking. You won’t need cash for small purchases – you can even do garage sale transactions or buy gum using your smartphone. And there’s sure to be an app that will consolidate all your payments and set up to automatically do transactions (like your mortgage or car lease) without you even having to do anything. And all from your smartphone. No more wallet, no more PC, no more coins or bills in your pocket.
So, what happens to cash registers, and the folks that make them? No registers in restaurants or hotels? What happens to desk clerks in hotels – will they be necessary? What about cashiers in retail stores – any need? Will banks have any need for a local branch? Why would ATMs exist? Quite literally a raft of companies would be affected that deal in the handling of transactions – from Visa and Mastercard to IBM and Diebold. Even those little printers in cabs could disappear as your phone now pays the cabbie directly what the meter requires. You could even pay modern parking meters with your smartphone!! What happens to companies that make mens and women’s wallets? Will purses and clutches disappear from style? How much easier will it be for the IRS to track the income of people that have historically been in cash jobs?
Do your scenarios of 2015 include this kind of change in payments? Should it? What will be the impact on your bank? On your credit card supplier? Will your customers want to change how they pay? How will you need to change your order-to-cash process? Are you ready to be an early adopter, thus aiding revenue generation? Or will you let others steal sales by moving quickly to these modern payment systems?
There’s precious little that’s more important in business than collecting the money. A new set of technologies are sure to be changing how that happens. Will you leverage this to your advantage, or will your competitors?
by Adam Hartung | Aug 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Dell has remained focused on its core market, and as a result growth has stalled for 5 years.
- Cisco has aggressively developed entirely new markets, and it has grown 60% the last 5 years.
- To keep growing, and maintain your business value, you must CONSTANTLY keep developing new markets
Dell helped create the PC revolution. It’s simplification of the PC business into a limited set of technologies, no R&D, then putting its energy into lowering costs by focusing on supply chain made PCs very, very cheap. it was an idea never before attempted, and this Success Formula allowed Dell to become a household name around the world.
Unfortunately, the demand for PCs has flattened. And competitors have learned how to match (maybe beat?) Dell’s “core capabilities.” When markets shift, a company has to develop new markets, or risk hitting a growth stall.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
And that’s happened to Dell. Revenues have not continued to grow, Dell has remained focused on its “core markets” and “core capabilities” but without growth in those “core” areas the company has been severely hampered. Revenues are still 72% in “core” but there’s little reason to own the stock because company revenues are at best flat (despite volatility) the last 5 years. Dell is going nowhere – except following the problems at Microsoft. Since it’s now so late to mobile phones, any sort of tablet, or other markets with growth its unlikely Dell will be able to profitably develop any new businesses to replace the deteriorating PC market. Dell is stuck in the Swamp, so busy fighting alligators and mosquitoes that it’s no longer growing. It’s stuck in a low-no growth “core” market.
To remain a healthy business you have to constantly enter new markets.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
You may want to think of Cisco as a router, or router and switch company. That was certainly the company’s early Success Formula. But unlike Dell, Cisco has invested heavily in other businesses. Now Cisco revenue is 60% bigger than it was five years ago, while its percent of revenue in routers and switches has actually declined! By aggressively moving into new markets for “advanced technology” and services Cisco has improved its overall revenue, and kept the company very healthy. It has growth precisely because it moved away from its “core” to develop new markets, new products, new solutions and new revenues. Cisco keeps maneuvering itself back into the Rapids of growth before the current slows, and thus it avoids the growth stall eating up Dell’s value.
It is so easy to be lured into focusing on your “core”. Especially if you listen to your existing big customers. But markets shift, and you inevitably must move into new markets. And market shifts don’t care what your market share or your industry view. It’s up to all leaders to stay ahead of shifts by constantly developing scenarios for new markets, studying competitors for new insights, disrupting the old Success Formula Lock-ins and setting up White Space teams to develop new revenues and keep the business growing!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 12, 2010 | Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Openness
Summary:
- Your view of today will be determined by your future success
- Conventional wisdom – often called “best practices” – will lead businesses to cut costs in today’s economy, leading to a vicious cycle of reductions and value destruction. “Best Practice” application does not improve results
- Winning companies don’t focus on past behavior, but instead seek out new markets where they can grow – Apple, Google, Virgin, etc.
To paraphrase Charles Dickens (A Tale of Two Cities) are these “the best of times” or “the worst of times?” Few new jobs are being created in the USA, its hard to obtain credit if you’re a borrower, but there’s very little return to saving, the stock market has been sideways for a decade, asset values (in particular real estate) have plummeted while health care costs are skyrocketing. Look in the rear view mirror at the last decade and you could say it is the worst of times.
But the answer doesn’t lie in the rear view mirror – the answer lies in the future. If you succeed in the next 2 years at achieving your goals, you’ll look back and say this was the best of times.
In “Do You Have the Postrecession Blues” at Harvard Business Review blogs the author tells of two shoe salespeople that show up in a remote African village. The first sends back the message “No one here wears shoes, will return shortly.” The second sends the message “No one here wears shoes, send inventory!”
The history of business education has been to teach managers, usually by studying historical case experiences, the “best practices” employed by previous managers. But BPlans.com tells us in an article headlined “The Bad News About Best Practices” that this is a lousy way to make decisions. “..most of the time, they won’t work for you or me. They worked for somebody, some time, in some situation, in the past.”
The New York Times deals with fallacious best practices recommendations in “From Good to Great… to Below Average.” Best selling Freakonomics author Steven Levitt points out that most business authors try to push somebody else’s Success Formula as the road to success. However, the most popular of these are really very inapplicable. Those held up as “the best practice” have most often ended up with quite poor results. So why should someone else follow them? Nine of eleven of Collins’ “great” companies did worse than average!
Best practices has led businesses to cut heads, slash costs, sell assets and in general weaken their businesses the last few years. Most leaders would prefer to believe that they have somehow improved the business by eliminating workers, the skills they bring and the function they perform. But the result is less marketing, sales, R&D, etc. How this ever became “best practice” is now a very good question. What company can you think about that “saved its way to success?” The cost cutters I think about – Sears, Scott Paper, Fannie Mae Candies, etc. – ended up a lot worse for their efforts.
These can be the best of times. Just ask the people at Apple Cisco Systems, Virgin and Google. These businesses are growing as if there’s no recession. Instead of “focusing on their core” business with defend & extend efforts to cut costs, they are entering new markets. They are going to where growth is. Amidst all the cost-cutting, best practice applying grief these are examples of success.
So will you continue to operate as if these are the worst of times, are are you willing to make these the best of times? You can grow if you use scenarios and competitor analysis to find new markets, embrace disruptions to attack Lock-ins that block innovation, and implement White Space teams that learn how to develop new markets for revenue and profit growth.
Postscript – entire Dickens’ quote: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of
wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it
was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the
season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of
despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were
all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in
short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its
noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for
evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Post-postcript – I am trying a new format for the blog. Please provide your feedback. I’m dropping the bold enhancements, and replacing their intent with an introductory summary. Let me know if you like this better. And thanks to reader Jon Wolf for his specific recommendations for improvement.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 11, 2010 | Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Television, Web/Tech
“Playboy’s Circulation drops 34%” is the Chicago Tribune headline. Is anyone surprised? If ever there was a brand, and business, that was out of step with current markets it has to be Playboy. That the business still exists is a wonder. But let’s spend a few minutes to see why Playboy has fallen on hard times, and what the alternative might have been – and could still be.
The Playboy Success Formula is really clear. Since founded by Hugh Hefner, the company has focused on titillating the male libido with a magazine that focused on pictures of naked women, videos of same (physical videos, on-line videos and television), radio talk shows about sex, and alternative lifestyle issues such as recreational drug use. At one time this was unique, and in a male dominated 1960s it was even tolerated. Although never mainstream, the business was very profitable early in its lifecycle. Thus the founder kept doing more of the same, building a small empire and eventually taking the company public.
But the market shifted. Larry Flint and others ushered in a new era of pornography altering the market for prurient, sexually oriented material. Women in the workforce – and I’d like to think a heavy dose of decency – made public toleration of such material unacceptable. You couldn’t read a Playboy at work, or on the airplane, and you wouldn’t have a business lunch at their clubs. Other magazines sprung up to deal with men’s interests in automobiles, clothing, music, sports, etc. in a more acceptable – and for most people more significant and intelligent – manner. Other lifestyle publications were developed that discussed illicit drug use and non-traditional ways of life more directly, explicitly and with greater advocacy. The advent of cable TV and then the internet increasingly made access to the key features of Playboy’s product readily available, very inexpensive (often free) and targeted at niche audiences.
Yet, despite these many market changes, Playboy’s founder and his daughter, the company CEOs for 40+ years, steadfastly stuck to their old Success Formula. They kept thinking that people wanted those “bunny eared” products. They talked a lot about the heritage of Playboy, how it broke ground in so many markets, and opened the door for lots of new competitors. But they kept doing what the company always did – including foisting upon us the ever aging founder as a “role model” for male menopause and the anti-family aged entrepreneur. Playboy today is what it always was – and there simply aren’t a whole lot of people with much interest in those products any more. Nobody mismanaged the brand, the market just walked away from it. Sort of like the demand for Geritol.
Playboy focused on its core. And now its on the edge of bankruptcy. The company keeps outsourcing more and more of the work, as the staff has dropped to nearly nothing, cutting costs everywhere possible. Sales continue to decline, and the brand looks like it will soon join Polaroid and Woolworths on the heap of once famous but floundered companies. Playboy’s fatal mistake wasn’t that it was started as a prurient men’s magazine – but rather that for 40 years its leadership kept Defending & Extending that original Success Formula despite rather dramatic market shifts. Now, today, Playboy is a sour lemon that not many a marketer would want to be stuck promoting.
But – it didn’t have to be that way. Just imagine if you’d been given control of Playboy 30 years ago. What could you have done?
As soon as Hustler hit the newsstands, and the first women’s right protests developed – including the early push for the Equal Rights Amendment – it was clear that the future of the magazine was in jeopardy. Instead of doing “more of the same” could you have considered something else?
The growth of women in the workforce meant a lot of new opportunities. Why not jump onto that bandwagon? If you’re really at the forefront of “lifestyle” issues, as the leadership claimed, then you would have identified that women in the workforce meant something new was brewing – a group of consumers that would have more cash, and more influence. And not only would that be an appealing market, but so would the men who would be adjusting to new lifestyle issues as homes became dominated by 2-worker leadership.
Playboy was well positioned to be Victoria’s Secret. At a time before anybody else was really thinking about a significant market for attractive and comfortable lingerie Playboy certainly had the leading edge. Or, even more likely, the water carrying publication for Dr. Ruth-style discussions about sexuality. There was an emerging market for information targeted at increasingly affluent women about automobiles, stereos, apartments, resume writing, job hunting and even at-work etiquette — all topics that had been the dominant discussion areas for Playboy’s historically male readership. Had the leadership at Playboy opened its eyes, and scanned the horizon for growth markets being developed as a result of the trends which were negatively impacting it, these leaders would have been able to create a bevy of scenarios that were filled with opportunities for growth.
It’s hard to imagine today Playboy being anything else. But all that stopped stopped Playboy’s evolution was a commitment to its “core” – to its old Success Formula. That the CEO for over 20 years was a well educated woman is testament to the power of “core” philosophy versus a willingness to look at market opportunities. By keeping Playboy’s Success Formula tightly aligned with her father’s founding ideas she quite literally led the company into smaller and smaller sales with less and less profit. The big loser was, of course, investors. Playboy is worth very little today as Mr. Hefner hints at making a bid to take the company private once again.
Singer was once a sewing machine company. But when Japanese products surpassed Singer’s product capabilities and achieved a cost advantage in the 1970s, Singer leadership converted Singer into a defense contractor. And Singer went on to multiply its value before being acquired by General Dynamics.
IBM was an office machine company famous for mechanical typewriters and adding machines. The founder said he would never enter computers. Fortunately for employees and shareholders the founder’s son took the company into computers and the company flourished as competitive typewriter companies such as Smith Corona – stuck on the core business – disappeared.
There’s a time for lemons – in your tea or on a salad. But when markets shift, lemons just turn sour. If you want to succeed long-term you have to shift with markets. And that might well mean making significant change. Adding water and sugar to the lemons is a good start – as lemonade is less about lemons than what you’ve added to it. After you open that lemonade stand, see where the market leads you.
No matter where you start, every day offers the opportunity to head toward new, emerging markets. No matter what your historical “core” you can literally become any business you want to become. Coke was founded by a pharmacist who wanted to boost counter sales in his store – and it was worth a lot more than the pills he was constructing. Those who develop scenarios about the future prepare for market shifts, understand the competitive changes and use them to identify the opportunities for a new future. Then they use White Space teams to move the business into a new Success Formula. Anybody can do it. You could even have remade Playboy. So what’s the plan for the future of your business? More of the same …. or …..
