News Corp. executives (and shareholders) need to be worried. Really worried. While they are busy trying to Defend their newspaper approach, including the planned move to charge everyone a subscription fee to access the Wall Street Journal on-line, there is a competitor ready to eliminate them. Of course, if you've read the WSJ for years you may think this sounds ridiculous. This competitor is vying to do the same to the Financial Times, a newspaper much more popular in Europe than the USA, which already charges for on-line access. But this competitor is serious, and just might pull it off.
According to BusinessInsider.com, "Bloomberg Redesigns Web Site as it Tries to Kill Journal." Hiring an executive from Yahoo, Bloomberg News is "pulling the gloves off" and preparing to take on old-line competitors as it steers a course to being #1. And the odds are looking good for its success.
The market for business news has been shifting for years. Once this market was dominated by two delivery mechanisms. One was very expensive, costing thousands or hundreds of dollars per month, driving information to terminals sitting at desks of traders and brokers. The other was a daily reporting of business news through the traditional business newspapers mentioned above. Both businesses were very profitable.
But today, almost everyone can get almost everything the expensive terminals had simply by scanning the web. And if you can get news real-time, why wait until tomorrow? News Corp. bought Dow Jones and has been trying to Defend the terminal business, in the face of intense Bloomberg competition for traders desks and much lower cost competition for everyone else. In an effort to shore up the P&L at Wall Street Journal the company has announced it will reverse all industry trends and start charging for WSJ content on-line. They still haven't figured out how to effectively take advantage of Marketwatch.com as a viable delivery mechanism for WSJ content. An admission they don't know how to develop a robust advertising model on the web and mobile devices that will support the publication.
Don't forget, News Corp. was early to the on-line world with its acquisition of MySpace.com. But instead of letting the people who run MySpace.com do what they needed to do to become Facebook – or possibly to become the next Marketwatch.com – News Corp. leaders interceded. They helped "manage" MySpace and applied News Corp. Success Formula parameters to it. MySpace was not allowed to operate as a White Space project. Now MySpace is a narrow site mostly for musicians and artists – missing the big opportunities in social media, business/financial news or even traditional news dissemination. Had it been given permission to do whatever it needed to succeed, permission to create a new Success Formula, who knows what MySpace might have become?
Today's marketplace will not produce acceptable returns for the old Success Formula. But the value of good business news is growing, as all investors want to know what traders know as fast as they know it. And that is where Bloomberg.com is headed. It is squarely directed at building a new business that is advertiser supported which will deliver the right news to the right place fast enough to capture those who want business news.
Bloomberg is now running 2 separate businesses. They continue to allow the terminal business to work hard as possible at defending its turf. Simultaneously they have established a White Space project that is designed to eventually obsolete the old business. In the process they will cannibalize the terminal business. But they also will very likely drive less agile competitors Dow Jones and Financial Times out of business. In the process they could capture significant ad dollars while learning how to dominate the mobile device market as well as the traditional web.
When markets shift, nobody can win by trying to Defend the old. Customers move on, and they abandon old solutions. Returns decline. The winner has to use Disruptions to overcome old Lock-ins to do whatever is necessary to profitably grow! (like having a web site that looked like an old terminal screen with amber text on a black background) and establish White Space with permission to do what is necessary to succeed! Even recognizing this may create cannibalization – but in the process learning how to earn high rates of return while crushing competitors.
Kudos to the management at Bloomberg. They are going for the jugular in the business news marketplace, and doing so by moving where the market is headed – while other competitors are trying to Defend & Extend old ways of doing business. It may not take Bloomberg long to create serious damage to the old institutions in business and financial news.
Is news dying, or are newspapers dying? That's a critical question. Most of us know the demand for news is not dying – and if you needed reinforcement a recent McKinsey & Company study verified that the demand for news has increased (McKinsey Quarterly "A Glimmer of Hope for Newspapers"). And a lot of the increase comes from people under 35 who are escalating their news demands. Of course, most of this increase is coming from the web and mobile media.
Too often, however, we don't see our business growing. Instead, Lock-in to old definitions make us think our business is shrinking when it is actually doing the opposite! And that's the Re-invention Gap. Manufacturers of small printing presses said demand was declining in the 1970s, when in fact demand for copies was exploding. Only the explosion was from xerography instead of presses. So A.B. Dick and Multigraphics, small offset press manufacturers, went out of business when demand for the output of their product was exploding! The market shifted, but it kept growing, and they missed the shift.
Today we see this behavior in most news publishers. Those who print newspapers and magazines are talking about how horrible business is. Only the demand for news is growing more quickly than ever. It's just not demand for print, which arrives too late for many customers. And because print is too slow a distribution method for these customers, advertisers are abandoning print as well. But only if you're Locked-in to printing do you say the market is horrible. Because with demand for news growing, if you reposition yourself to serve the growing part of the market you should say business is great!
Tribune Corporation, owner of The Chicago Tribune newspaper is still in bankruptcy. And its future relies entirely on how well it will serve the needs of on-line news readers. According to Crain's Chicago Business, in "Former Sports Editor Bill Adee Steers Chicago Tribune's On-line Strategy" print advertising revenues fell by 9% versus last year in the most recent quarter. And according to a quoted investment banker, nobody would have much interest in the value of a print newspaper. That business is destined to keep declining.
But simultaneously the volume of on-line ads tripled! And that's what a business has to do to cross its Re-invention Gap. It has to move from the old business into the new business – from the declining elements of its business into the growth elements.
What most businesses do wrong is try to apply their old business model to the new business. The old Success Formula has Lock-ins to metrics, schedules, processes, frequent decisions, decision-makers, strategic plans, etc. which the leadership tries to apply to the new business. For example, most newspapers are used to selling ads for several thousand dollars, based upon the number of subscribers. These are pretty large price points. But on-line, ads are sold per page view or per click. Now we're talking pennies sometimes. And to make money, you have to get a lot of views. Likewise, newspapers work on a 24 hour cycle of news accumulation and publishing, whereas the internet is 24×7 with the opportunity to change headlines and what's reported continuously. If a newspaper tries to apply the old Success Formulas related to sales, pricing and editorial process they fail.
And that's why crossing the re-invention gap requires a big Disruption. You have to get the organization to understand that while you are managing the old business, it is destined to eventually go under. So you have to be prepared to Disrupt the Lock-ins, to discover a new way to do the business. And that can only happen if there is a White Space team dedicated to building a business the way the new marketplace will pay for it. Totally separated from the old business. And exactly the opposite of what Tribune is doing by placing the team in the middle of the old newsroom!
At Tribune, one of the big problems is not only the ad pricing model and news scheduling, but the fact that the leadership is still trying to drive content like they did at the newspaper. Over a decade ago Tribune took a direction of accumulating less news on its own, and as a result it republished lots of content. But now on the internet republishing (or content aggregation as it is called on-line) is far less valuable because readers can go to the source. There are thousands and thousands of aggregators – making competition intense and profits negligible. Why page view a Chicago Tribune web page that's feeding info from the New York Times or Marketwatch or MSNBC when you can go directly to the New York Times or Marketwatch or MSNBC and get it yourself – possibly with other interesting sidebars? Succeeding in the new market requires developing an entirely new Success Formula – which Tribune Company has not done. It's still trying to find that magical "leverage" which will allow it to preserve its "history" (its old Success Formula) while tiptoeing into the new marketplace.
I don't know any newspaper or magazine publisher that has really attacked its Lock-ins, really Disrupted, or set up a true White Space team to explore how to make money in the growing new news market. News Corp. had the chance when it bought MySpace.com, but failed as it destroyed the MySpace business by "helping" its leadership. This market requires understanding how to get the news and report it cheaply and very fast, to computer and mobile device users. That is necessary to obtain the traffic which would be valuable to advertisers. And simultaneously the new team must package ad sales so as to maximize revenues from page views. Most are far too reliant on single ad sales, and not effectively linking the right ads to the right pages to generate more click-throughs as well as views.
Re-invention Gaps emerge because we let Lock-in blind us to growth opportunities.We define the business around the Lock-ins (such as printing a newspaper) rather than defining it around what the market wants (news.) Then when revenues stumble, starting a growth stall, the energy goes into preserving the old Success Formula (and its Lock-ins) first with cost cuts, and later with efforts to "synergize" or "leverage" the old Success Formula into the new market. And this never works. The growing part of the market is entirely different, and requires developing an entirely new Success Formula. That's why even in growing markets businesses fail, unless they commit to Dis
rupting the Lock-in and using White Space to move back into the growth Rapids.
"Microsoft's Dismal Future" is the title of my most recent column on Forbes.com. In it I compare Microsoft with such formerly great, but now struggling, companies as Xerox and Kodak. Looking at all the Lock-in at Microsoft, Balmer's complete unwillingness to Disrupt traditional Lock-ins, and the total lack of White Space for new market projects – Microsoft is a very likely candidate to follow Silicon Graphics. Sun Microsystems, DEC and a host of other formerly great technology companies into the history books. And it could well happen in less than a decade. Don't forget, in 2000 Sun was worth $200billion – and now the company no longer exists!
If I gave you $1,000 and told you keeping it required you invest it all in Microsoft or Apple, which would you pick? For followers of this blog, there can be only one answer – it has to be Apple. While Microsoft has a great past, it has not been using White Space to exploit technology developments in new markets. All go-to-market projects have been around Defending & Extending the traditional PC market. With products like Vista, OS 7 and now Office 10. But reality is that all of us are using PCs a lot less these days. Increasingly we use smart mobile devices to get out work done – eschewing even the laptop – much less the desktop machine. Increasingly we are happy with PDF files and HTML text – not needing elaborate Excel Spreadsheets, or Word documents or flashy Powerpoint files.
Meanwhile Apple is a major participant in the new markets being developed! It's iPhone is a leader in smartphones, where its mere 5% market share has allowed the company to sell 2 billion downloaded applications in the first 18 months! And although digital music is becoming the norm as CDs disappear, iTunes maintains a very healthy 70% market share of digital music downloads. And Apple is moving forward into digital publishing with the iPad launch, as well as hundreds of new applications for low-cost but highly functional tablets (a market Microsoft pioneered but exited.)
Many people invest by looking in the rear view mirror. But Microsoft increasingly looks like a "has been" story. Looking out the windshield, it's hard to place Microsoft on the future horizon. Give the Forbes article a read and let me know what you think!
Amidst the brouhaha over health care legislation, Harvard Business Review has produced a report "Megatrends in Global Health Care." One interesting statistic is that medical tourism – that's when someone leaves the USA to have a procedure like surgery performed in a foreign country – has risen from 750,000 in 2007 (more than you would have guessed, I bet) to about 1.2million. Yep, people are going outside the USA for health care.
While everybody in the USA is asking "what do you want" for health care, there is a marketplace. To recognize this you have to overcome myopia and think bigger than the U.S. Anyone can have health procedures performed in Germany, France, Canada, Japan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, India – etc. Of course you have to pay for it. But in medical tourism instances, it is cheaper to have the care provided offshore, often with extensive after-event recovery assistance, rather than in the USA. Even if you have insurance (which may have declined to cover the procedure because it is so expensive domestically).
While everyone is arguing about healthcare, some violently, it will be the marketplace that will determine what health care we get and how much it will cost. People want good service at a good price, and they don't like "middle men" such as insurers or regulators, making the trade-offs for them. They want options, and they want to know likely expectations, and they want to know the actual cost as well as the therapy cost, medicine cost and impact on work, income and life. Then they want to make an informed decision.
The beauty of medical tourism is it provides a marketplace mechanism for those things to happen.America has great health care, but it is wildly expensive. Multiples of the cost in other countries. If you are uninsured, either you don't' get complete health care or you want someone to jump in and bail you out (like a government agency). If you are insured, quite simply your healthcare is subsidized, and it is dictated to you by the terms of the insurance company – not really much different than a government program just a "privatized" bureaucratic group making the decision. You aren't the payor, someone else is, so as much as you want to be the "customer" you really aren't. In America the golden rule of health care applies "he who pays the gold gets to make the rules" and that would be your payor (which is either your insurance company – with guidelines from your employer – or medicare with government guidelines).
But with medical tourism, you are the customer. Nobody between you and the doctor, facility or other provider. You get to hear options, and make decisions. Gee, what an interesting approach. This is now competition for the extremely expensive American health care industry. If you don't like your drugs, go buy them in Mexico or Canada – why let a bureaucrat scare you into paying 5x or 15x more? If you want a procedure, go get it Paris or Peking. If you need extended therapy, do it at a spa in Thailand. And all of this done at a price that is a fraction of doing it in the USA. Smart providers will soon have to start paying attention, and find ways to compete!
A lot of people want to affix blame for the cost of American health care. As long as there's no marketplace, then I guess blame fixing is what people like to do. But if we instead focus on the competition we can see how rapidly things will change. When a hospital is losing customers to Hyderabad, or a facility in Florence, how long will it keep tinkering with an approach that costs too much and is losing customers? Real change happens when people realize that they can fail if they don't change their old Success Formula.
The best thing about medical tourism is it creates a very real option, and very real competition. If you aren't thinking about it, you should. You would be surprised what you can have done, and at what quality, and the cost. While you don't want to run to Damascus to see your doctor for a sinus infection, when it's time for a knee replacement Nice might just be the place to go. Give it some thought, because your behavior will speak a lot louder than your words when it comes to creating real change in American health care provision and cost.
The second step of The Phoenix Principle is "Obsess about Competitors." This doesn't rile people up much. But when I tell them "I want you to dramatically cut the time you talk to and listen to customers – and invest that investigating competitors" then LOTS of people get riled up. When I wrote a Forbes column on the topic ("Listen to Competitors – Not Customers") I was inundated with comments – most of them not too kind. People were upset that I would attack the widely held notion that you can't spend enough time listening to customers.
There are lots of examples of companies led down the primrose path to disaster by listening to customers. One of my favorites is that IBM got out of the PC business by the latter half of the 1980s because their customers – data center managers – told them that they could see no need for PCs and the product was a waste of resources. IBM needed to renew its focus on data center (real computing!) needs and quit playing with that toy!
We have another great example emerging right now in mobile devices. RIM (Research in Motion) has focused on the "enterprise marketplace" by selling hard to corporations that they should have Blackberry servers and Blackberry corporate applications which can be supported well and have the "right kind" of security and features for a typical "enterprise" IT department. Because of this, RIM has really put all of its money into supporting "enterprise" customers, doing what they want. But meanwhile, Apple has been busy changing the game – by giving the market what it wants and targeting the destruction of Palm rather than doing what the "enterprise customers" have asked for.
RIM's focus on its "core customer" the "enterprise customer" has been intended to make sure the Blackberry Defends & Extends its leadership position. But that has not yielded many apps. Even Adroid has 6x the RIM apps (and a likely launch an attack on "enterprise customers" soon.) Meanwhile, by focusing on the marketplace, and discovering unmet and underserved needs in order to wipe out Palm, Apple has developed 34X the number of RIM apps.
As we can see, this difference in applications has let Apple blow right by Palm – and almost catch RIM. And of course, that will now be the next market Apple will attack. Just like the PC attacked the old data center, the iPhone (and iPad) and all its users will drive these products into every day business use. While RIM was "listening to its customer" it missed a major change in the marketplace. The requirement for multiple apps. While RIM was attempting to Defend & Extend its market position – and probably bragging about holding share while Palm was getting creamed – it was letting Apple create the market shift that is soon going to overtake RIM and Blackberry. Don't forget, you can obtain a Blackberry from almost any network provider – so what will happen when the iPhone and iPad become move beyond limited distribution to all network providers?
This customer-centric problem is most pronounced in "enterprise" solutions. Like IBM, which was the #1 "enterprise" vendor for corporate computing. The notion of selling to the "enterprise" connotes big sales, with big revenues to big companies – and it is assumed big profits will result. Yet, what really happens is that often supporting the "enterprise" marketplace ends up being a never ending effort to make small improvements to existing products in order to help the "core customer" do one more small thing – making their life easy. While the "enterprise" vendor is busy with this work, he ends up Defending & Extending his "base" product for his "base" customers – and the customers are trying to Defend & Extend their historical investment. But eventually these "enterprise" customers shift – usually very fast.
Meanwhile Apple is in the marketplace, paying all kinds of attention to the weaknesses of competitors and picking them off – one by one. First Palm, then RIM. We spend too much time listening to customers, letting them convince us to Defend & Extend our products and solutions. We need to spend a LOT MORE time focused on competition – figuring out how to ruin their day while developing fringe opportunities that change the marketplace and drive growth!
Nancy Munro of Knowledgeshift.com posted a great blog "Technology was Blago's Enemy Again." Although many people watch The Apprentice, I'm not one. Apparently the former governor of Illinois was a contestant, and when he was challenged to lead a project team his lack of technology skills got in the way of effectively doing the job. Although he's a smart lawyer and politician, his tool set had become outdated. A competitive team leader who was very good at texting and other state-of-the-art technologies was able to best Governor Blagojevich's team, and the ex-governor was "fired" by Donald Trump from the show.
On the surface, this is a funny story. But Nancy points out how it reflects the very real issues of using technology when competing. All businesses compete every day. Those that learn to use new technologies are able to get more done, faster and more effectively. Those who fall into a routine of doing things the same way, and don't advance their tool set, run the risk of being knocked out of the competition. Mr. Blagojevich's inability to use modern technology killed his chances of winning the competition.
Will you, or your business, go to any trade shows or conferences this year? Probably. But you'll limit attendance because you're still worried about financial performance. How will you select where you go? Probably by attending the ones most closely associated with your industry or business. But think about it, are those the ones that will be most valuable? You'll probably mostly hear what you already know, and reinforce your existing beliefs about the business. Is that really an effective spend?
Instead, shouldn't you use the funds to learn about what you don't know?Like how to be a world-class social marketer? This is an amazingly fast growing area where early adopters are gaining new sales. For example, Guy Kawasaki and the world's leaders in social marketing will be talking about how to get sales and profits from Twitter and Facebook at something called "The Smartbrief Social Media Success Summit." I'm not a shill for the conference (I'm not even speaking there), but this kind of event offers the very real opportunity of learning something you don't know – rather than reinforcing old Lock-ins and keeping you doing what you've always done.
Have you purchased a Kindle or iPad yet? If not, how do you know what they can or can't do? At SeekingAlpha.com "Thoughts on the iPad" offers one person's reflection on what the iPad does well, and doesn't, and where it might evolve – as well as how it compares to the Kindle. These devices are selling in the millions – so are you and your business thinking about how to use one to help sell more products or make more money? Yahoo and Google are both launching ad models for iPad (see Mediapost.com "Yahoo Readies Launch of Online Advertising Model"). Are you considering using this media to reach new customers? Have you considered how one of these products embedded in what you sell might offer you a competitive advantage? If you and your colleagues haven't tried one, experimented, how would you know?
Our businesses rarely get into trouble from something we know well. It's what we don't know, what we ignore, that gets us in trouble. Like Craigslist.com wiping out newspaper classified ads. The newspapers didn't even see it coming. On the other hand, if they had investigated and used Craigslist they could have prepared, and maybe even developed a competitive on-line product to grow new revenues!
It's incumbent upon us to constantly expand into new markets. We have to constantly keep White Space alive where we use resources to experiment in areas outside traditional permission. It's easy to keep throwing all our resources into what we know, but in the end, it's what we don't know that will knock us out of the game – like poor Blago.
Do you read more today, or less than you did 10 years ago? For most of us, the answer is more. Our ever present access to email and texting means we watch less TV, and pick up more from reading. Of course, we read a lot less paper than we used to – books are falling more out of favor every year – and the plight of newspapers and magazines is rocky. For traditional book publishers like Random House, Pearson, et.al. as well as periodical publishers like Tribune Corporation or News Corp. there is a lot of concern about survivability. But it's not because we're reading less. It's because the market has shifted, and people are reading differently.
What should a publisher focus upon? Words. Content. A recent Harvard Business School web discussion "HBS Cases: iPads, Kindles, and the Close of a chapter in Book Publishing" highlights that the role of a publisher is to find really good stuff that people want to read. The author, former CEO of Random House, points out that a publisher's job is to edit content into the format which makes it easiest to understand and digest. A good publisher aids us in our seeking knowledge, or enjoyment. But most publishers have completely lost sight of that goal, instead focusing on printing. Books, magazines and newspapers. Keep the presses busy, and the old supply chain filled.
In the business lifecycle we start with the Wellspring of ideas. When something catches hold, we enter the Rapids of growth. That's great, because growth is a fun place to be. But when markets start shifting then things go flat. We think slowness is our fault, so we work harder at what we've always done – but the cause is a market shift so the hard work makes little difference. We drift into the Swamp, where we are so overwhelmed with all the problems from no to negative growth that we forget what our original purpose was (we get so busy fighting alligators and killing mosquitoes that we forget the mission was to drain the swamp!) Eventually resources are depleted and we slide into the Whirlpool of failure.
Publishers are now in the Swamp. Cutting costs, focusing on "big deals" (like bidding wars to publish a book by a celebrity like Sarah Palin), and spending all kinds of time dealing with the supply chain. As the HBS article explains, while iPad and Kindle represent an opportunity for incremental growth – and new revenue – by feeding people content when they want it where they want it and how they want it – the publishers are in a pitched battle to slow electronic publishing. The publishers are trying to Defend & Extend their old process of printing, and distributing, paper. They want to defend their old Success Formula. And in doing so, they've completely lost sight of the opportunity digital publishing offers!
Newsroom cuts are the most costly on revenue. More than cutting sales or distribution, cutting content led to the greatest loss. Duh! Of course. Readers are there for content – not for ads or distribution! Talk about forgetting your purpose.
The bigger the cuts, the impact on revenues gets progressively worse! Remember what I said about creating a whirlpool? When you cut what people want, you hasten demise.
Newsroom cuts are most costly on profit. Not only does revenue decline, but of all cost cuts the content cutting not only takes away readers – but quickly advertisers as well. Advertisers depend on content to draw people to their ads. Otherwise all you have is an ad tabloid – remember?
My book publisher is Pearson. Eighteen months ago I proposed that we take Create Marketplace Disruption and turn it into 16 short stand-alone mini-books. People could then buy just part of the book, as it suits their needs. Sell these for $1 or $2 each strictly as electronic downloads. That idea flew about as far as the famed dodo. Financial Times Press sells books I was reminded. No interest in this other wacky idea I proposed.
But I'm confident that for most of you, the idea of nice short readings – like say a blog – is a lot more appealing than digesting a 225 page book. People don't want less words, they just want things differently. That's why I do public speaking and workshops – because many of us don't want all the detail of the book and appreciate receiving the content in another format.
So, do you know what direction your market is headed? Are you moving forward to meet emerging needs and preferences? Or are you trying to defend & extend the way you've historically done business? For most publishers, the current direction spells disaster – failure. Learn from their mistakes, Disrupt your approach and find some White Space to learn how you can make money and grow!
Recently SeekingAlpha.com ran the article "Time for Tivo to say Ta Ta." The author (a professor) took the point of view that Tivo had filled a need, but now there were ample new options – such as on-line downloads – making Tivo obsolete. As a result, the company should fold up its tent and let the employees move on.
I was struck, because the good professor did not seem to think it might be possible for Tivo to change its business model and move into the other growing opportunities while simultaneously maintaining the traditional Tivo set-top business until the market figures out what customers really want. That sort of predicting future markets is dangerous for 2 reasons:
the inherent assumption that Tivo can be in only one market is flawed. There is nothing stopping Tivo from participating in the marketplace robustly with mutliple solution offerings. It can even cannibalize its own "base" revenues if the market shifts into other solutions. Tivo could remain top of the market – regardless of what solution dominates
predicting future markets is a fools game. The good professor may guess some of these futurist positions right, but he's sure to get many wrong. Any business that bets its product development or investments on future predictions is destined to eventually get it wrong – and possibly destroy itself. Good leaders use scenarios to realize there are multiple possibilities, and then participate in several of them in order to be assured of growth.
Fast Company points out in "Avoiding Corporate Death Spirals in a Sea of Change" that all companies hoping to remain long-lived MUST learn to transition with shifting markets. The article parallels this blog in discussing failures at Blockbuster Video, Silicon Graphics, Digital Equipment – and more recently dramatic share declines in Palm. All are attributed to management Lock-in on early wins, then trying to Defend & Extend the early Success Formula too long. Market transitions killed them. The article goes on to point out that Cisco Systems, a company held up as an example of Phoenix Principle Management here, has succeeded and grown principally because it has learned how to adjust to market shifts.
No company needs to give up. But all companies that want to survive HAVE to learn to manage market transitions. There is no other choice. Shift happens.
Apple now has a market cap of $210B. Microsoft has a market cap of about $260B. To traditionalists, this must seem contradictory. Apple has fought its way into new markets, and has domination in none (except maybe the narrowly defined individual music download business). Microsoft has near monopolistic market presence in personal computer operating systems and office software. According to modern business theory from business schools, and the output of books such as Business Strategy by Michael Porter, the monopolist company has entry barriers protecting its return – and thus the ability to almost print unlimited profit. Yet this has not happened.
At SeekingAlpha.com "Apple versus Microsoft: The Value Gap is Closing" the case is made that the value difference is all due to growth. Apple's business for music devices and content is growing – quickly. Its business for mobile devices and mobile device applications is also growing very fast. Those offer substantial positive cash flow today, as well as dramatic cash flow growth in the future. So much so that many analysts wonder what Apple will do with all that money. And that doesn't even count the iPad sales which have exceeded expectations – before even available to ship. And businesses are starting to build applications for the iPad, as explained in the BusinessWeek article "Businesses want Apple's iPad, too."
On the other hand, the demand for PCs is sluggish – at best. People increasingly leave their laptop at home for extended time while the use their mobile device instead. But Microsoft is stuck in a loop of upgrade development and launch. But because of the market shift, these investments are yielding less and less return. Complexity cost is going up, and profits are going down, and growth is dropping precipitously. Products in music, mobile phones and advertising have all lost significant share to Apple, Google and others as attention has remained on the "core" business. So even though current cash flow is strong, value has gone absolutely nowhere for several years, and there's precious reason to think it will go up.
When you lose growth, even if you prop up profits with draconian cost cutting and inventory sales, you lose value. Just look at Sears/KMart. Investors were really excited when Mr. Lampert used his takeover of KMart to acquire Sears. Predictions flew that he would get Sears growing again, while simultaneously monetizing the huge real estate portfolio. But as detailed in Chicago Tribune "Sears and KMart Still Standing, but Market Share Dwindles," value has declined. Mr. Lampert has proven very good at whacking cost. But when it comes to growing revenue – something that will drive ongoing growth in cash flow for a decade or more, he's shown nothing. You can't cost cut your way to long term success.
General Motors and Segway have teamed up to do a new product launch. The new product is described at Freep.com in "GM, Partner to unveil 2-seater" and is called the EN-V. And there's almost no hope it will succeed. Too bad, because both companies desperately need a winner. But the process they used to develop and launch this product was all wrong – and it would be a miracle if the arrow hits a bulls-eye.
Segway is the long-running story of a company with what looks like a great idea, but it never takes off. The original Segway seemed really neat. But people struggled to figure out why they would buy one. There is walking, there are bicycles, there are motorcycles and there are cars. Segway never defined who was under-served, or unserved, and therefore had a real need to use their new product. Segway management did a great job of public relations, because we all saw them on TV, in the news, and learned the name. But the product was developed internally, not in response to a market need. As a result, sales never materialized and Segway slipped into the business history file as another case study.
General Motors has no new product development process to create products for the future. For decades GM has attempted to defend and extend its 1940's approach of designing updated products, and hoping people will keep buying. It's been many years since GM launched a new product that people said "wow, that's just what I needed – and I wasn't even aware I needed that."
Now the two companies have teamed up to launch a 2 passenger Segway. They have identified the use they think this fits, and they think they know a target. But the problem is that this is just another "idea" designed and built without significant market input. Instead of developing a scenario of the future with deep insight to what people will want, and then making that product, they have said "wouldn't this be neat – and can't we imagine who might buy?" Interesting lab work, but unless they are very, very lucky the odds are greatest that people will think it's cute, but won't buy. After all, with the plethora of current solutions across a huge price range from many competitors means nobody is living without transportation. Why should potential customers inherently think this is a good idea.
Phoenix companies don't design products from inside the company outward. Instead, they use market input to discover the unmet needs, and they fulfill them. Especially when it's clear that competitors aren't jumping in to fulfill the need. They intend to Disrupt the marketplace not by some splashy introduction and hoping people will switch, but rather by identifying the under-served customers and giving them a solution they didn't have. Then the company learns, adapts and keeps pushing toward an ideal product that meets ever more needs. From this initial small success the market grows.
Segway never understood this. They don't define unmet needs, nor competitor inabilities – and thus they have great ideas but they fail to Disrupt the marketplace and their innovations have gone nowhere. GM works hard to avoid innovations that might be market disruptions, instead offering sustaining innovations hoping to defend their old business model.
This new type of vehicle might have a chance of success. But the only hope is for both companies to ignore the PR. They should set up a White Space team, and give that team a year to really understand the unmet needs in the marketplace. Then go back to the original design and make it very explicitly meaningful to people who have unmet needs. Launch small, make money, learn and grow.
But given the approach this dynamic duo is taking, only luck will keep this from being another missed opportunity for both struggling companies.
