by Adam Hartung | Sep 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
How many cars do you own? Odds are, it's at least 1 more than you need. There are more licensed vehicles in the USA than there are licensed drivers – so it's clear America is loaded with cars. Now it looks like a permanent shift is developing, to less auto ownership, and it will change competition significantly.
In places as far ranging as Detroit/Ann Arbor, Chicago and San Francisco increasingly people are opting for a new approach to transportation. Take the bus and train – yes. Take a cab – sometimes. And for a lot of folks they are joining car-sharing companies. According to Freep.com, "Service Lets Users Borrow a Car Whenevery they want." Pay a flat annual fee, as low as $30 to $150, then you rent a car in your neighborhood for as little as $8.00/hour. Right. No monthly insurance fee, no gas charge, no parking bills. You rent cars when you need them, and only as long as you need them.
To those of us, mostly older, this may seem heretical. How can you give up your car? It's long been a status symbol. What you drive is supposed to say something about who you are. But this is getting turned upside down. People, lots of people, are renting by the hour and they want something very cheap and easy to park. Cars have a place, but not in your personal parking spot at an enormous cost.
Implications are powerful. Firstly, recognize that the USA is increasingly an urban country. Every election we are reminded that while most the people live in cities, the electoral map is by state. Thus, a President can be elected while losing the popular vote! Just like the tendency across the globe, as agriculture makes less and less importance to the economy people gravitate to major urban centers. Likewise, as manufacturing jobs move offshore from America, people shift to office work which is more centralized in urban areas than the former "factory towns." These demographic trends have been developing for over 30 years, and show every sign of accelerating – not decreasing.
Thus, watching what the "early movers" are doing in urban areas is really important. We have to develop our scenarios about the future, and we can see that what happens in cities is becoming even more important than it was just a couple of decades ago. And in cities, people are opting not to buy cars. Nor even rent them for a day or two. Nor are they relying on ever more costly taxis. They are going for hourly rentals they can preschedule.
GM, Chrysler and Ford are getting very little of this business because the renters, 80%, prefer small hybrids. Hertz and other big rental car companies were being shut out, because their model was the daily rental — largely from an airport location for a traveling business person or vacationer.
In a real way, this shows all the signs of a classic Clayton Chrstensen "Disruptive Innovation." An unserved, or underserved, customer who cannot obtain personal transportation is able to get it. An unconventional solution, perhaps, but it's working. What does that tell us? As the business grows expect the leaders to develop better and better solutions, leading to more and more people accessing the solution. This is how we get to a very large market shift – not from the people currently served suddenly changing, but rather from the underserved market creating a new solution which gets improved and refined until it meets the needs of the majority of customers – who shift much later – but cut the legs out from under old Success Formulas. Meaning we could get back to families having one car (circa 1948) and when a second is needed they rent by the hour – even in the suburbs!! With insurance costs often topping $100/month for a second car, plus the cost to license and maintain it, it's less clear that multi-car ownership is as beneficial as it once was. If a viable new solution comes along – well it just might work!
This, of course, is not a good thing for auto companies dependent on a demand rebound to fix their recent woes. Their "good case" scenarios have people returning to adding to their personal fleets, while also returning to new car acquisition every 2 or 3 years. If instead buyers go the direction of less ownership and less frequent purchases it will be impossible for these companies to repay the government loans.
Markets shift. Often quickly and violently. Far too oten, we ignore these shifts. Because they look so different, so odd, that we believe it must be a short term phenomenon. We expect that things will soon get "back to normal." We have future scenarios – they are extensions of the past. But in the post-millenial global economy people are starting to do a lot of things differently. They aren't trying to return to old patterns. They are developing new ones. And if you want to compete, it's becoming crystal clear you have to change your assumptions about the future, your scenarios of the future and your approach to markets. Before you get left so far behind you fail.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 16, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
Is Google a company who's growth and innovation worry you? Not me. Which is why I was disturbed by a recent blog at Harvard Business School Publishing's web site "Google Grows Up." In this article Scott Anthony, a consultant and writer for HBS, says that he thinks Google has been immature about its innovation management, and he thinks the company needs to change it's approach to innovation. Unfortunately, his comments replay the core of outdated management approaches which lead companies into lower returns.
No doubt Google's revenues are highly skewed toward on-line ad placement. But with the market growing at more than 2x/year, and Google maintaining (or growing) share it's not surprising that such high revenues would dwarf other projects. Google created, and has remained, in the Rapids of growth by leading the market. From its Disruptive innovation, offering advertising through products like Google AdWords to people who previously couldn't afford it or manage it, allowed Google to lead a market shift for advertising. And ever since Google has implemented sustaining innovations to maintain its leadership position. That's great management. No reason to worry about a lot of revenue in ad placement today, with the market growing. Not as long as Google keeps breeding lots of new, big ideas to help grow in the future.
But Mr. Anthony flogs Google for its "unrestrained" approach to innovation. He recommends the company push hard to implement a process for innovation management – and he uses Proctor & Gamble as his role model – in order to curtail so many innovations and funnel resources to "the right" innovations. Even though he's obviously flogging his consulting, and pushing that all "good management" requires some significant stage gate management of innovation – he couldn't be more wrong.
Firstly, P&G is far from a role model for innovation. As recently discussed in this blog, the company recently said one of its major innovations was cutting prices on Tide while introducing less a less-good formulation. As commenters said loudly, this is not innovation. It's merely price cutting – taking another step on the demand/supply curve of price vs. performance. It doesn't change the shape of the curve – it doesn't help people get a far superior return – nor does it bring in new customers who's needs were not previously met.
In a Wall Street Journal article "P&G Plots Course To Turn Lackluster Tide," the CEO freely admits the company has had insufficient organic growth. Additionally, his big future opportunities are to "reposition Tide," to cut the price of Cheer by another 13% and to use Defend & Extend practices to try pushing the P&G Success Formula into other countries. Like people in China, India and elsewhere are in need of 1.5 gallon containers of laundry detergent sold through enormous stores which have big parking lots for all those cars to lug stuff home. None of these ideas have helped P&G grow, nor helped the company achieve above-average returns, nor demonstrate the company is going to be a leader for the next 10 years in new products, new distribution systems or new business models for the developed or developing world.
This urge to "grow up" is a huge downfall of business thinking. It smacks of arrogance and superiority by those who say it – like they somehow are "in the know" while everyone else is incapable of making smart resource allocation decisions. In "Create Marketplace Disruption" I provide a long discussion about how introducing "professional management' causes companies to enter growth stalls. The very act of saying "gee, we could be more efficient about how we manage innovation" immediately applies braking power well beyond what was imagined. If Mr. Anthony were worried about Google managers leaving to start new companies in the past (like Twitter) he should be apoplectic at the rate they'll now leave – when it's harder to get management attention and funding for new potentially disruptive innovations.
Google is doing a great job of innovating. Largely because it doesn't try to manage innovation. It maintains robust pipelines of both disruptive, and sustaining, innovations. Google allows everybody in the company to work at innovation – providing wide permission to try new things and ample resources to test ideas. Then Google lets the market determine what goes forward. It lets the innovators use supply chain partners, customers, emerging customers, lost customers and anybody who can provide market input guide where the innovation processes go. As a result, the company has developed several new products — such as new network applications that replace over-sized desktop apps, and a new, slimmer mobile operating system that expands the capabilities of mobile devices —- and we can well imagine that it may be coming close to additional revenue breakthroughs.
Unfortunately, Mr. Anthony would like readers, and his clients, to believe they are better at managing innovation than the marketplace. However, all research points in the opposite direction. When managers start guessing at the future their Lock-ins to historical processes, products and market views consistently causes them to guess wrong. They over-invest in things that don't work out well, and investing for really good ideas dries up. All resource allocation approaches use things like technology risk, market risk, cost risk and revenue risk to downplay breakthrough ideas. Management cannot help but "extend the past" and in doing so over-invest in what's known, rather than let ideas get to market so real customers can say what is valuable.
Google is doing great. In a recession that has put several companies out of business (Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems are two neighbors) and challenged the returns of several stalwarts (Microsoft and Dell just 2 examples) Google has grown and seen its value rise dramatically. To think that hierarchy and managers can apply better decision-making about innovation is – well – absurd. It's always best to get the idea surfaced, push for permission to do things that might appear crazy at first, and get them to market as fast as possible so the real decision-makers can react, and give input, to innovation.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
The Real Blindness Behind The Collapse
Adam Hartung,
09.14.09, 05:00 PM EDT
The exact same failing brought down Wall Street, Detroit and Main Street's real estate speculators.
"Too big to fail" is a new phrase in the American lexicon, born in the economic crisis that gave us a bankrupt Lehman Brothers and the shotgun marriage of Merrill Lynch with Bank of America.
Nobody really knows what it means, except that somehow in the banking
world, central bankers can decide that some institutions–like AIG, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and BofA–are so big they simply have to be kept alive.
This is the first paragraph in my latest column for Forbes. There is much EVERY business leader can learn from the collapse of Lehman. Learn about risk, and about how to succeed in a shifting marketplace. Please give the Forbes article a read – and put on a comment! Everybody enjoys reading what others think!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Stealing language from FDR, September 11, 2001 is a day that will go down in infamy. Dramatic shifts happened in the world resulting from the horrific attacks on American civilians in New York, Pennsylvania and D.C. . But can we say that most organizations have reacted effectively to those shifts?
Few industries were more affected by the attacks than the airline industry. Shut down for a week, revenues plummeted immediately and were hard to win back from a frightened public. But if ever there was an industry of needing to push the "reset button" on how things worked it was airlines. All the major players (except Southwest) had struggled with profitability, many declaring bankruptcy. Some never emerged (like PanAm, Eastern, Braniff). Mergers had been rampant as companies tried to expand into greater profits – unsuccessfully. Customer satisfaction had been on a straight southeasterly direction, lower and lower, ever since deregulation. Here was a collection of businesses for which nothing was going right, and in dire need of changing their business model.
The shut down and economic downturn provided a tremendous opportunity for the airlines to change their Success Formula. The government allowed unprecedented communication between companies, and unions were ready to make changes, to get the air traffic system working again. A sense of cooperation emerged for finding better solutions, including security. Market shifts which had been happening for a decade were primed for new solutions – perhaps implementing operational methods proven successful at Southwest.
Unfortunately, everybody chose instead to extend Lock-ins to old practices and bring their airline company back on-line with minimal change. Instead of using this opportunity to Disrupt their practices, taking advantage of a dramatic challenge to their business, and use White Space to try new approaches – to a competitor every single airline re-instituted business as usual. To disastrous results. Quickly profits went down further, customer satisfaction dropped further and in short order all the major players (except Southwest) were filing bankruptcies and hoping some sort of merger would somehow change the declining results.
The airlines' problems were not created by the events of 9/11/01. But on that day long-developing market shifts become wildly apparent. The airlines, and other industries like banking, had the opportunity to recognize these market shifts, admit their impact on future results (not good), and begin Disrupting old practices in order to experiment with new solutions that better fit changing market needs. None did. It wasn't long before America was mired in another long and expensive military conflict, and an extended deep recession. For most businesses, things went from bad to worse.
Leaders need to recognize when external events pose the opportunity to Disrupt things as they've been – Disrupt the status quo – and start doing things differently. These prime opportunities don't happen often. Reacting with reassurances, and efforts to get back to the status quo as quickly as possible prove disastrous. This is an emotional reaction, seeking a past sense of stability, but it creates additional complacency worsening the impact of market shifts already jeopardizing the future. Instead, one of the most critical actions leaders can take is to leverage these market challenges into a call for Disruptions and use White Space to implement new solutions which meet market needs.
If only the airlines had done that perhaps they could operate on-time, let customers check luggage without a charge, provide quality meals on long flights and internet access on all flights, and provide a reliable service that customers enjoy. If they had sought to find a better solution, rather than Defending & Extending what they had always done, airline customers would be in a far better shape. And that's a lesson all leaders need to learn from the events of 9/11 – use challenges to move forward, not try reclaiming some antiquated past.
To read how GM ended up bankrupt by refusing to recognize opportunities for changing to meet shifting market needs download the free ebook "The Fall of GM."
by Adam Hartung | Sep 8, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
When they can't figure out how to grow a business, leaders often turn to acquisitions. This despite the fact that every analysis ever done of public companies buying other public companies has shown that such acquisitions are bad for the buyer. Yet, after no new products at Kraft for a decade, and no growth, "Kraft shares fall on Cadbury bid, Higher offer awaited" is the Marketwatch.com headline.
Some analysts praise this kind of acquisition. And that's when we can realize why they are analysts, in love with investment banking and deals, and not running companies. "Kraft is demonstrating its operational and financial strength" is one such claim. Hogwash. After years of cost cutting and no innovation, the Kraft executives are worried they'll get no bonuses if they don't grow the top line. So they want to take a cash hoard from all those layoffs and spend it, overpaying for someone else's business which has been stripped of cost by another CEO. After the acquisition the pressure will be on to cut costs even further, in order to pay for the acquisition, leading to more layoffs. It's no surprise that 2 years after an acquisition they all have less revenue than projected. Instead of 2 + 1 = 3 (the expected revenue) we get 2 + 1 = 2.5 as revenues are lost in the transition. But the buyer will claim revenues are up 25% (.5 = 25% of the original 2 – rather than a 12.5% decrease from what the combined revenues should be.)
With rare exceptions, acquisitions generate no growth. Except in the pocketbooks of investment bankers and their lawyers through deal fees, the golden parachutes given to select top executives of the acquired company, and in bonuses of the acquirer who took advantage of poorly crafted incentive compensation plans. These are actions taken to Defend & Extend an existing Success Formula. The executives want to do "more of the same" hoping additional cost cutting (synergies – remember that word?) will give them profits from these overpriced revenues. There is no innovation, just a hope that somehow they will work harder, faster or better and find some way to lower costs not already found. Kraft investors are smart to vote "no" on this acquisition attempt. It won't do anybody any good.
Simultaneously we read in MediaPost.com, "Del Monte To Hike Marketing Spend 40%." If this were to launch new products and expand the Del Monte business into new opportunities this would be a great investment. Instead we read the money is being spent "to drive sales of Del Monte's core brands and higher-margin businesses." In other words, while advertising is off market-wide Del Monte leadership is attempting to buy additional business – not dissimilarly to the goals at Kraft. By dramatically upping the spend on coupons, shelf displays and advertising Del Monte will increase sales of long-sold products that have shown slower growth the last few years. Del Monte may well drive up short-term revenues, but these will not be sustainable when they cut the marketing spend in a year or two. Nor when new products attract customers away from the over-marketed old products. Lacking new products and new solutions such increased spending does not improve Del Monte's competitiveness.
You'd think after the last 10 years business leaders would have learned that investors are less and less enamored with financial shell games. Buying revenues does not improve the business's long term health. A cash hoard, created by cutting costs to the bone, is not well spent purchasing ads to promote existing products – or in buying another business that is already large and mature. Instead, companies that generate above-average rates of return do so by developing and launching new products and services.
You don't see Google or Apple or RIM making a huge acquisition do you? Or dramatically increasing the marketing budget on old products? Compare those companies to Kraft and you see in stark contrast what generates long-term growth, higher investor returns, jobs and a strong supplier base. Disruptions and White Space lead these companies to new innovations that are generating growth. And that's why even the recession hasn't shut them down.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 3, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
I never cease to be startled by the optimism of businesspeople. Why would anybody buy a newspaper company these days? Yet, Crain's reports "Sun Times Sale Appears Near." It's believed the buyers are a group of independent investors, no media experience, led by Mesirow Financial Group.
Ever heard the term "smart money?" This is definitely not "smart money." Just like Cerberus was none to clever to spend billions buying Chrysler a couple of years ago. Shortly before it went bankrupt. Too often, those with lots of money to invest become full of hubris. They believe their experience allows them to "fix" any business. This almost always involves cost cutting – such as letting go any sort of R&D, product development, advertising, marketing and often sales. Assets are sold to raise cash and incur one-time write-offs (with tax deductions) and get rid of depreciation charges. These financiers believe they can "fix" any business if they are "tough" enough to cut enough costs, and get the remaining employees "focused" on specific segments with specific products.
Only we're finding out that just doesn't work. This sort of "company flipping" was prevalent in the early 2000s. But it added no value, and it wasn't long before market investors quit playing. The value of these cost-stripped businesses, with no growth potential, dropped like a stone. Without growth, the business just keeps on shrinking.
Tribune Corporation, parent of newspaper Chicago Tribune, has already filed bankruptcy. But it is expected to wipe out bondholders (lots of it the employee pension plan), and come out of bankruptcy. To a market which in which fewer and fewer people read newspapers, and fewer and fewer advertisers are buying ads. There is too much competition today for too few subscribers, and too few advertisers, in newspapers. Sun Times Media has no major on-line presence, nor television stations. So how will these investors make a return on their acquisition investment?
They won't.
It's hard to give up in business. It's hard to believe that there just isn't demand for buggy whips any more. It's hard to believe that the last remaining buggy whip manufacturers are so competitive, unwilling to give up, that they don't make much profit. We are romanced into believing that "if you really want to be a blacksmith, there's a way to make money at it." We want to believe that somehow if we work hard enough, if we're smart enough, we can "fix" any business. But when the market has shifted, and demand drops, the smart leaders know to say "no." They take their investing to where customers and demand are growing so they can make a much better rate of return.
Invest in the Rapids. Not the Swamp. Companies in the Swamp almost always end up in the Whirlpool. It's hard to think Sun Times Media isn't already there – what with their negative cash flow and very small cash hoard. Unless you know exactly how you're going to add growth to a troubled business, it's best to simply walk away.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 2, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Openness
"Huffington Says Her Site Is Close To Making Money" is the video headline at Marketwatch.com. For years this blog has chastised traditional news publishers for trying to Defend & Extend their traditional business, when the market has shifted on-line —- both for readers and advertisers. Of course, the newspaper companies counter this argument by saying that they can't make any money on-line. They have to defend their traditional business – even from web competitors.
When shifts happen it's best to get started experimenting and migrating early. You may hate the political bent of HuffingtonPost.com, but that it's near making money shows that the model can work. Just differently than a newspaper or magazine. Unfortunately, most traditional media have been too busy trying to fend off the web to learn anything. For example, Tribune Corporation has long owned equity stakes in CareerBuilder.com and Cars.com as well as FoodChannel.com. But the company refused to learn from these ventures and migrate toward a different Success Formula.
Now it's too late for these traditional companies. You may think that if HuffingtonPost.com is still not quite profitable there's still time to compete. But reality is that Ms. Huffington's organization has been experimenting and learning and creating this Success Formula for 4 years. That kind of learning you can't pick up overnight. You have to participate in the marketplace, then make what you learn (good and bad) available for everyone to see. Then you have to discuss what you've learned openly so the organization can become knowledgable about what works and migrate toward a new Success Formula in which they have confidence. And that's why most companies react to market switches way too late. They think they can jump in at the last minute. But by then the HuffingtonPost.coms and Marketwatch.coms and MediaPost.coms have already learned how to succeed at this business, developed a subscriber base and created a viable ad sales program.
Take for example "Clunkers Program Boosts Ford, But Not GM, Chrysler" as headlined on Marketwatch.com. Now that the results are in from the government stimulated "clunkers" program, we know that the market has shifted away from GM and Chrysler. Year-over-year, Hyundai sales were up 47%, Honda up 9%, Toyota up 6.4%. Ford scored big with sales up 17%. But GM sales were down over 20%, and Chrysler sales fell 15%. We can see from this data that people were ready to buy cars, given a boost. While the overall market was up, we can see that it has shifted to a new batch of competitors. GM and Chrysler simply weren't prepared to compete – and it's doubtful they ever will be. They've missed the market shift, and now they don't have the R&D, products, distribution, marketing, etc. to remain competitive with companies that are seeing volumes and revenues rise.
Of course, every company has the opportunity to shift with markets – or be crushed by changes. The latest economic reports show that too many American businesses, like GM and Chrysler, are waiting to be crushed. "US productivity rises at fastest pace in nearly 6 years, while labor costs plunge in spring" is the ChicagoTribune.com headline. This is bad news for those thinking an economic upturn will save them.
When an economy grows productivity improvements are good. Imagine you sell 100 items. You have 100 employees. Productivity is 1. A growing economy allows you to sell 105, your employment remains the same, and productivity jumped 5%. Lots of winners – between the employees (more pay or bonus), the customers (possibly lower prices down the road based on rising volume), for investors (more profits) and for suppliers (more volume and less pressure on prices.) Let's say the economy slackens – like 2009. Volume drops to 90. But through cost saving measures employment drops to 86. Productivity just went up almost 5%! But nobody won. And that's what's happening today. Labor rates keep dropping because there's more labor supply than product demand – and if businesses keep cutting costs we'll improve our productivity right up while the economy keeps going down.
Business leaders need to be more like Huffington Post, and less like GM. To improve profits they need to recognize that markets have shifted, and move quickly to develop new Success Formulas which get them growing. Trying to Defend & Extend the old business, like newspaper publishers, simply drives you toward bankruptcy. Instead, it's time to Disrupt the status quo and create some White Space projects to learn what the market wants. It's time to experiment and get the whole company involved in applying the collective brainpower to develop new a new Success Formula which gets you growing, making more money, and improving productivity for real!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 1, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, General, In the Swamp, Innovation
Innovation comes in many forms, and some are a lot more valuable than others. The most valuable bring in users formerly un-served or under-served thus expanding the market and offering new growth – like mobile phones did. The least valuable are variations of something that exists, which do little more than give variety to existing customers.
"Pizza Hut Intros Stuffed Crust Pan Pizza" from Mediapost.com is without a doubt the latter. The company takes a product introduced in 1980, then adds an enhancement developed in 1995, and in 2009 launches a product that is merely the combination of the two. At first blush you say "why not?" But this launch costs money – quite a bit of money. There's the cost in product formulation, the cost in training tens of thousands of store workers to make it, cost in new menus, cost for in-store marketing materials, and cost for media advertising of the new product. The same costs (only much higher now) as incurred to launch the totally new innovation pan pizza 30 years ago.
Only this won't generate new revenue. These kind of variation innovations largely provide an alternative for existing customers. Restaurants are famous for selling 70% of their product to repeat customers that return week after week. These people often look for new, sometimes strange, variations. Remember Hawaiian pizza with pineapple, or Bar-B-Que pizza with roasted pork and BBQ sauce? These are the kinds of things that don't bring in new customers, they aren't finding an under-served market and bringing those people to the restaurant. They merely offer variations, which might catch the interest of returning customers, but few others. They are very expensive defensive product launches meant to keep the loyal customer from considering the competition. But because these incur cost, with little new revenue, they are negative to the bottom line.
Part of the fallacy comes from the old logic of "ask customers what they want." Unfortunately, customers can only think of cheaper, faster and usually fractionally better. Their ideas about innovation are almost exclusively variations on existing themes. They already are your customer, thus not thinking hard about alternatives. To find new products that can really grow your market, use lost customers to lead you to the new ideas. And scan other industries and markets to see what's happening on the fringe of competition – things that can serve newly developing market needs.
Companies that make high rates of return do not merely try to maintain revenues and cater to existing customers. They use breakthroughs to tap into new markets and new customer segments. Think about the "personal pan pizza" a product innovation Pizza Hut pioneered 35 years ago. That made it possible for customers to buy a pizza for lunch – it was small enough, cheap enough, and could be served fast enough that it expanded the market for lunch pizza buyers in non-urban locations where "a slice" wasn't available. There are new needs emerging in the restaurant business today – but putting cheese in the crust of your old pan pizza isn't the kind of thing that's going to bring new customers into the restaurant any time soon.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Openness
Did you know that last night the Japanese turned over their government? For 54 years one party has ruled Japan – a very pro-business, conservative party. Then last night the voters threw out the old guys and in a landslide replaced 3/4 of their elected government officials. The new politicians are considerably left of center by U.S. standards, a dramatic shift. "Calls for Fast Action after Historic Vote" is the Yahoo! News headline.
You may be so tired of American politics that your interest in a Japanese election may be – let's say muted? But this is really a very big deal. Japan is the second largest global economy. A change from the conservative, pro-business leadership to a more free-spending and liberal government is sure to have an impact on businesses everywhere – including the USA. Remember we are Japan's #1 trading partner, they buy (and hold) a substantial portion of U.S. Treasury securities, and Japanese industrialists are often credited with having killed the U.S. steel and auto industries. This is a market shift well worth paying attention to.
Ever since the great Japanese stock market melt-down in the early 1990s the U.S. has been pushing Japan to reflate the economy. But the conservative government was opposed. Thus, deflation kept Japanese from buying many goods. But it now appears that several new stimulus programs will begin in Japan, which would raise the prices of Japanese imports (look out U.S. consumers) while increasing demand for offshore goods.
Historically Japan bought loved U.S. goods, but shunned products from China, Taiwan and Korea – a leftover from their significant invasions and horrible treatment of people in those countries in the early 1900s until the end of WWII (Japanese Emporer Hirohito was about as popular in those countries as Hitler is in the USA.) But new liberalism is likely to lead to more apologies from Japan, and a thawing of relations. Which could lead to more trade with China and Korea – which would only exacerbate the U.S. economic problems. We could see prices go up on imports, but no significant increase in exports!
Think we have a growth problem? Since peaking earlier in this century at 126M people, the Japanese population has actually been shrinking. Most demographic experts believe the population will fall to below 100M by mid-century (that's just 40 years folks!) Activities to stimulate the economy, creating more domestic demand and more domestic production could pull money away from buying U.S. Treasury bonds to fund domestic programs, making the interest rates on Treasuries go up, further dampening the U.S. economy due to debt costs (we running a bit of a deficit – in case you missed the news lately.) Higher Treasury cost means higher corporate debt cost means harder to raise money – and dampers profits. Meanwhile, inflation gets worse as we struggle to refund our debt load.
Japan has no domestic petroleum. If you think our energy supply/demand is out of balance you ain't seen nothin' till you look at Japan. They have to buy almost all their energy. Reflate the economy, increase domestic demand for housing and cars (including dropping all road tolls – which can be $60 or $100 on a Japanese roadway) and you get increased energy demand, driving up prices, and putting more dampening on the U.S. economy as we pay more for oil, gas and electricity imports.
If you don't sell in Japan today, why not? The new government promises to reduce the power of heavy handed bureaucrats (like at MITI) who have blocked expansion for decades. For the first time in our lifetimes, we can anticipate a Japanese economy that will accept significantly more imports. Stimulus money, strong currency and pent-up demand all indicate a much more desirable place to make and sell things than, say, America?
Market shifts happen at lots of levels. And when they happen at the level of an economy, (read more about this in Create Marketplace Disruption) everything higher – like industries, companies, functional resources and work teams – have to shift with it. If you don't, you become like the manufacturers being wiped out by today's global industrial shift. The Japanese economy is on the precipice of a really big shift. Intentionally. If you don't prepare, you could see really bad things happen to your business. On the other hand, if you watch closely, learn from the shift, and take action this just might be one of the biggest opportunities ever to grow your business. So you'd better update your scenarios about the future, rethink Asian competition, Disrupt your patterns to consider new ideas and open some White Space to deal with this. Because it could make a huge difference in just a year or two.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness, Quotes
Brilliant. A word we rarely use in the USA, the British will hear of a good idea and respond "brilliant." When I saw "Motel 6 Offers Free Rooms to 3 Rock Bands" in USAToday I simply thought "brilliant."
Do you remember the old Motel 6 ads? "We'll keep the Light on For You" was how Tom Bodett, a National Public Service radio announcer from Alaska enticed people. Using a very rural, almost corny approach to undersell the rooms, this tied to 1950ish thoughts about visiting distant relatives. It wasn't a bad ad. And it probably worked really well (I still remember the ads) for years after release in 1986. But that tone doesn't have much appeal to the younger generation. 29 years after being launched, the under 35 crowd doesn't remember this ad – nor did they grow up in a rural America – nor do they know the origins of looking for reliable, clean motels on a cross-country trip during the early days of interstate highways. And they simply don't care. That ad program ran its course, to be polite. Motel 6 might be a good product, but it was slipping away into the oblivion of brands you forget – like Howard Johnson's. Or Ovaltine.
Hand it to management of Motel 6 and parent Accor, they Disrupted the old approach by offering free rooms to rock bands. If you've read my previous posts on the music business you know that musicians end up covering their own cost for travel – and as the USAToday article points out, many band members spend most nights sleeping in the van or on the floor of someone's house. It's definitely not free booze and hooliganism in a 5-star property. So these band members are quite pleased to have someone offer them free rooms – clean, tidy and comfortable.
Now those band members can reach out to their followers via Twitter and Facebook with positive comments and thanks for these rooms. A medium where you can't buy ads, but where reputations can be created and expanded. Not only promoting Motel 6, but promoting to an audience the company wasn't even reaching before. And catching one of the most highly prized, and valued, demographics in the ad business – age 24 to 34. Who knows how long these young folks might remain customers, after they discover the wonders of clean, affordable lodging.
Anybody can do what Motel 6 just did to help re-invigorate your business. It would have been very easy for sleepy Motel 6 brand to have remained where it was, doing what it always did. And continue losing mind-share, as well as profitability. But this move, at an amazingly low cost (literally, advertising in exchange for product, is an incredible deal – and a lot cheaper than those old radio ads), will revive the brand among a new group of customers – and a group that is not well served by the hotel industry. It's hard to find anything in this move that doesn't come off like a big win for everybody!
