by Adam Hartung | Jul 13, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Is Bob Lutz the right guy to run GM Marketing?" is the question headlined on Advertising Age. I'm sure you know I think the answer is a resounding "NO."
I'll never forget a few months when Mr. Lutz, being interviewed for a national magazine, said the Tesla sports car and the company that developed it was a joke. He said it wasn't a real car, nor was Tesla a real car company. He said the leadership at Tesla didn't know what it meant to be a professional auto company, and to be professional auto executives. He was condescending and rude as to the future of Tesla.
Let's see, Tesla has made a 100% electric car, sold 100% of its output, has investors that aren't the federal government, has never been bankrupt and has never asked for a bailout to stay in business. Meanwhile, the former vice-chairman of GM was a stanch critic of the electric car, saying it would never meet the driving needs of the American public, and fully supported GM killing its electric car program. While he was a leader at GM, the company couldn't even keep 100% of its capacity in operation, much less sell 100% of the output, the company begged the federal government for money to keep it in operation when private investors would no longer invest, and then wiped out the equity holders entirely – and over 80% of the value of bondholders, by leading the company into bankruptcy.
Mr. Lutz was an executive at GM. But that doesn't make him a good executive. In fact, given the performance of GM since 1975 (nearly 35 years) it might be more of a disqualifier than a qualifier. Why would anyone want to hire an executive who stayed in one industry for over 40 years, during which the companies he worked for lost share, saw their margins decline, led in no new technology categories, was perennially late introducing new products, saw their costs spiral out of control, had the lowest job satisfaction in the industry by its employees, had some of the lower quality scores among consumers in the industry and and eventually had to declare bankruptcy?
America loves to glorify, make heroes even, of business executives. Usually of large companies. But few of these executives actually made a significant positive impact on their companies, employees, investors or suppliers. Executives rise because they are very good at supporting the Success Formula, not because they produce significantly better results. As long as the manager turned director turned V.P. keeps reinforcing the Success Formula, in fact many mistakes can be overlooked. Especially if the executive's style is similar to the top brass at the company (same school, same degrees, same geographic origin, same religion, same politics, same views.) What gets an executive promoted at GM (and most large companies) is simply not results. It is consistent reinforcement of a Success Formula, burnishing and amplifying it, even in the face of deterioriating results. Like Mr. Lutz.
There is no popular election of executives. In this case, perhaps there should be. Given how disgusted most people are with GM, I doubt many people would vote to keep the original management in place. And I doubt fewer still would vote to place a 77 year old executive who was part of the long term industry decline and recent failure in a top position. And even fewer would say that a 77 year old is prepared to take on marketing leadership in a world where traditional advertising has declining value, and the best companies are creatively using all kinds of internet marketing programs. Not just because of his age – but because he's never developed the remotest skill to do the work. Many 30 year olds could explain in deep detail how to get viral campaigns working – while all Mr. Lutz could say is he's seen a YouTube! video and read a blog or two. And he gets to manage the 4th largest ad budget in the USA? Isn't that how GM got into this mess – having people in top jobs who were out of step with current market realities?
Businesses exist to put resources to effective use. We measure that effectiveness with cash flow and profits. We ask that the leaders who borrow money from investors (equity and debt) return that principle with a positive rate of return. And we ask that the executives honor their commitments to the employees and vendors. In the case of GM, the executives eliminated the investments made by investors, reneged on the employee commitments and left vendors holding the bag on long-term contracts the company will no longer honor. Even old customers can no longer hold the company accountable for its defective products. By all measures, these leaders failed. And yet someone thinks it's a good idea to keep the same people running this company?
GM needs new leadership. Leadership willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to develop a new Success Formula. Asking Mr. Lutz to be the head of marketing is not a Disruption. It is an action specifically intended to remain Locked-in to the old Success Formula and maintain the re-invention gap between GM and the marketplace. With this kind of decision making, GM will find itself back in bankruptcy court a lot faster than any of the experts even think.
Don't miss the new ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Jul 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Google is growing, and GM is trying to get out of bankruptcy. On the surface there are lots of obvious differences. Different markets, different customers, different products, different size of company, different age. But none of these get to the heart of what's different about the two companies. None of these really describe why one is doing well while the other is doing poorly.
GM followed, one could even say helped create, the "best practices" of the industrial era. GM focused on one industry, and sought to dominate that market. GM eschewed other businesses, selling off profitable businesses in IT services and aircraft electronics. Even selling off the parts business for its own automobiles. GM focused on what it knew how to do, and didn't do anything else.
GM also figured out its own magic formula to succeed, and then embedded that formula into its operating processes so the same decisions were replicated again and again. GM Locked-in on that Success Formula, doing everything possible to Defend & Extend it. GM built tight processes for everything from procurement to manufacturing operations to new product development to pricing and distribution. GM didn't focus on doing new things, it focused on trying to make its early money making processes better. As time went by GM remained committed to reinforcing its processes, believing every year that the tide would turn and instead of losing share to competitors it would again gain share. GM believed in doing what it had always done, only better, faster and cheaper. Even into bankruptcy, GM believed that if it followed its early Success Formula it would recapture earlier rates of return.
Google is an information era company, defining the new "best practices". It's early success was in search engine development, which the company turned into a massive on-line advertising placement business that superceded the first major player (Yahoo!). But after making huge progress in that area, Google did not remain focused alone on doing "search" better year after year. Since that success Google has also launched an operating system for mobile phones (Android), which got it into another high-growth market. It has entered the paid search marketplace. And now, "Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS" is the CNN headline.
"Google to unveil operating system to rival Microsoft" is the Marketwatch headline. This is not dissimilar from GM buying into the airline business. For people outside the industry, it seems somewhat related. But to those inside the industry this seems like a dramatic move. For participants, these are entirely different technologies and entirely different markets. Not only that, but Microsoft's Windows has dominated (over 90% market share) the desktop and laptop computer markets for years. To an industrial era strategist the Windows entry barriers would be considered insurmountable, making it not worthwhile to pursue any products in this market.
Google is unlike GM in that
- it has looked into the future and recognizes that Windows has many obstacles to operating effictively in a widely connected world. Future scenarios show that alternative products can make a significant difference in the user experience, and even though a company currently dominates the opportunity exists to Disrupt the marketplace;
- Google remains focused on competitors, not just customers. Instead of talking to customers, who would ask for better search and ad placement improvements, Google has observed alternative, competitive operating system products, like Unix and Linux, making headway in both servers and the new netbooks. While still small share, these products are proving adept at helping people do what they want with small computers and these customers are not switching to Windows;
- Google is not afraid to Disrupt its operations to consider doing something new. It is not focused on doing one thing, and doing it right. Instead open to bringing to market new technologies rapidly when they can Disrupt a market; and
- Google uses extensive White Space to test new solutions and learn what is needed in the product, distribution, pricing and promotion. Google gives new teams the permission and resources to investigate how to succeed – rather than following a predetermined path toward an internally set goal (like GM did with its failed electric car project).
Nobody today wants to be like GM. Struggling to turn around after falling into bankruptcy. To be like Google you need to quit following old ideas about focusing on your core and entry barriers – instead develop scenarios about the future, study competitors for early market insights, Disrupt your practices so you can do new things and test lots of ideas in White Space to find out what the market really wants so you can continue growing.
Don't forget to download the new, free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"
by Adam Hartung | Jul 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Tribune Company Profitability Continues to Deteriorate" is the Crain's headline. Even though Tribune filed for bankruptcy several months ago, its sales, profits and cash flow have continued deteriorating. The company is selling assets, like the Chicago Cubs, in order to raise cash. But its media businesses, anchored by The Chicago Tribune, are a sinking ship which management has no idea how to plug. While the judge can wipe out debt, he cannot get rid of the internet and competitors that are reshaping the business in which Tribune participates. Bankruptcy doesn't "protect" the business, it merely delays what increasingly appears to be inevitable failure.
"GM Clears Key Hurdles to Bankruptcy Exit" is the BusinessWeek headline. In record time a judge has decided to let GM shift all its assets and employees into a "new" GM, leaving all the bondholders, employee contracts and lawsuits in the "old" GM. This will wipe out all the debt, obligations and lawsuits GM has complained about so vociferously. But it won't wipe out lower cost competitors like Kia, Hyuandai or Tata Motors. And it won't wipe out competitors with newer technology and faster product development cycles like Toyota or Honda. GM will still have to compete – but it has no real plan for overcoming competitive weaknesses in almost all aspects of the business.
It was 30 years ago when I first head the term "strategic bankruptcy." The idea was that a business could hide behind bankruptcy protection to fix some minor problem, and a clever management could thereby "save" a distressed business. But this is a wholly misapplied way to think about bankruptcy. In reality, bankruptcy is just another financial machination intended to allow Locked-in existing management to Defend & Extend a poorly performing Success Formula. Bankruptcy addresses a symptom of the weak business – debts and obligations – but does not address what's really wrong - a business model out of step with a shifted marketplace.
The people running GM are the same people that got it into so much trouble. The decision-making processes, product development processes, marketing approaches are all still Locked-in and the same. GM hasn't been Disrupted any more than Tribune company has. Quite to the contrary, instead of being Disrupted bankruptcy preserves most of the Locked-in status quo and breathes new life into it by eliminating the symptoms of a very diseased Success Formula. Meanwhile, White Space is obliterated as the reorganized company kills everything that smacks of doing anything new in a cost-cutting mania intended to further preserve the old Success Formula.
Everyone in the bankruptcy process talks about "lowering cost" as the way to save the business. When in fact the bankrupt business is so out of step with the market that lowering costs has only a minor impact on competititveness. Just look at the perennial bankruptcy filers – United Airlines, American Airlines and their brethren. Bankruptcy has never allowed them to be more competitive with much more profitable competitors like Southwest. Even after 2 or 3 trips through the overhaul process.
Bankruptcy does not bode well for any organization. It's a step on the road to either having your assets acquired by someone who's better market aligned, or failure. Those who think Tribune will emerge a strong media competitor are ignoring the lack of investment in internet development now happening – while Huffington Post et.al. are growing every week. Those who think the "new" GM will be a strong auto company are ignoring the market shifts that threw GM to the brink of failure over the last year. Both companies are still Defending & Extending the past in a greatly shifted world – and nobody can succeed following that formula.
Don't forget to download the ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes" for a primer on how to keep your business out of bankruptcy court during these market shifts.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 30, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
With all due respect to the great guitar playing songwriter Jerry Reed, today Starbucks and Dell continue to look like copies that were once hot – but now couldn't warm a nose in a blizzard.
"Starbucks continues food push with overhauled menu items" is the Advertising Age headline. Starbucks closed hundreds of stores last year, saw sales in stores open a year fall 8%, and profits dropped 77%. But they aren't bringing anything new to their business. They are revamping the food to make it more healthy. There's nothing wrong with introducing healthier food, but how does Chairman Schultze think this will turn around Starbucks? The company's "return to basics" program has made it overly sensitive to retail coffee prices, while robbing the company of its highly desired cache. An enhanced instant coffee did nothing for revenues. And now this overhauled menu doesn't really offer anything new to excite customers. It's still a ton of calories – even if they are healthy calories – offered at a high price.
Starbucks has given rejuvenated life to McDonald's. Nobody expected the McCafe to be a huge success. But Starbucks has played right into McDonald's sites by shutting down most of its "non coffee" operations and repositioning itself not as a destination but as a fast food outlet. McDonald's reminds me of the hunter who spends all day tramping the forest in search of a deer, only to get back to his pick-up and have a big buck walk within 20 yards of his vehicle. When he least expected to get his kill, it walked up on him. And that's what Starbucks has done. It's made McCafe much more viable than it appeared likely, simply because Starbucks chose to move into direct competition with McDonald's rather than continue on the new business programs it created earlier in the decade.
Starbucks has gifted McDonald's by choosing to fight them head-on right at McDonald's strengths – operational consistency and low price. And now Starbucks is showing complete foolishness by entering into traditional advertising – an area where McDonald's is a powerhouse (the inventor of Ronald McDonald is an expert at ad content and spending). Even worse, Starbucks, which eschewed advertising for years, has decided to promote its new food menu by placing ads in (drumroll please) newspapers! At a time when readership is dropping like a stone, and during summer months when seasonal readership is lowest, Starbucks is choosing to promote with the least effective ad medium available today. Even billboards would be a better choice! We have to ask, wouldn't the previous, much savvier, leadership have launched a wickedly intensive web marketing program to lure customers back into the stores? Some viral videos, lots of social media chat – that sort of thing which appeals to their target buyer? Why would anyone choose to fight a giant – like McD's – on their court, using their rules, against their resource strength? That's not savvy competition, it's suicide.
Simultaneously the once high-flying Dell has been in the doldrums for several years. Decades ago Dell built a Success Formula that ignored product developed, placing its energy into supply chain advantages. Competitors have matched those operational advances, and now Dell gives consumers little reason to make you prefer their product. Not to mention forays into service cost reductions like offshore customer support that absolutely turned off customers and sent them back into retail stores.
Now "Dell is working on a pocket web gadget" according to the Wall Street Journal headline. Not a phone, not a netbook, not a laptop the new device is an assemblage of acquired technology into a handheld internet device. How it will be used, and why, is completely unclear. That it will give you internet access seems to be the big selling point – but when you can accomplish that with your iPhone or Pre, or netbook should you choose a larger format, why would anyone want this device?
Dell seems to forget that it has to compete if it wants to succeed. It's products have to offer customers something new, something better. That's what made the iPHone so successful – it gave users a lot more than a traditional phone. And the same is true for Pre. And these devices now have dozens and dozens of applications available – everything from playing video games to ordering pizza at the closest delivery joint to reading MRI screens (if you happen to be a neurologist). Yet, this new Dell device has no new apps, and it's unclear it is in any way superior to your phone or netbook. Dell keeps trying to think it has distribution superiority, and thus can sell anything by forcing it upon customers. Even products that have no clear application. Dell is Locked-in to its old Success Formula, all about operational excellence, but that model has no advantage now that people with new technology – superior technology – can match their operational excellence.
When companies remain Locked-in too long they become obsolete. And it can happen surprisingly fast. Every reader of this blog can remember when Starbucks seemed invincible. And when Dell was the information technology darling. But both companies remain stuck trying to Defend & Extend their Success Formulas after the market has shifted – and their results are most likely going to end up similar to GM.
Don't forget to download my new ebook "The Fall of GM" and send it (or the link) along to your friends and social network pals. http://tinyurl.com/nap8w8
by Adam Hartung | Jun 26, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership
"Retailers cut back on variety, once the spice of marketing" is the Wall Street Journal.com headline. It seems one of the unintended consequences of this recession will be forced consumer goods innovation!
For years consumer goods companies, and the retailers which push their products, have played a consistent, largely boring, and not too profitable Defend & Extend game. When I was young there was one jar of Kraft Miracle whip on the store shelf. It was one quart. This container was so ubiquitous that it coined the term "mayonnaise jar" – everybody knew what you meant with that term. Now you can find multiple varieties of Miracle Whip (fat free, low fat, etc.), in multiple sizes. This product proliferation passed for innovation for many people. Unfortunately, it has not grown the sales of Miracle Whip faster than growth in the general population.
Do you remember when you'd go to Pizza Hut and they offered "Hawaiian Pizza?" Pizza Hut would concoct some pretty unusual toppings, mixed up in various arrangements, then give them catchy labels. Unfortunately, what passed internally as an exciting new product introduction was recognized by customers as much ado about nothing, and those varieties quietly and quickly left the menu. Like the Miracle Whip example, it expanded the number of choices, but it did not increase the demand for pizza, nor revenues, nor profits.
Expanding varieties is too often seen by marketers as innovation. I remember when Oreos came out with 100 calorie packs, and the CEO said that was an innovation. But did it drive additional Oreo sales? Unfortunately for Nabisco, no. It was plenty easy to count out the number of cookies you want and put in a baggie. Or buy fewer cookies altogether in these new, smaller packages.
These sorts of tricks are the stock-in-trade of Defend & Extend management. Clog up the distribution system with dozens (sometimes hundreds) of varieties of your product. Try to take over lots of shelf space by paying "stocking fees" to the retailer to put all those varieties (package sizes, flavor options, etc.) on his shelf – in effect bribing him to stock the product. But then when a truly new product comes along, something really innovative by a smaller, newer company, the D&E manager uses the stocking fees as a way to make it hard for the new product to even reach the market because the small company can't afford to pay millions of dollars to bump the big guy defending his retail turf. The large number of offerings defends the product's position in retail, while simultaneously extending the product's life to keep sales from declining. But, year after year the cost of creating, launching and placing these new varieties of largely the "same old thing" keeps driving down the net margin. The D&E manager is trying to keep up revenues, but at the expense of profits.
Simultaneously, this kind of behavior keeps the business from launching really new products. The previous CEO at Kraft said in 2006 that the best investment his company could make was advertising Velveeta. His point of view was that protecting Velveeta sales was worth more than launching new products – and at that time the last new product launched by Kraft was 6 years old! Internally, the decision-support system was so geared toward defending the existing business that it made all marginal investments supporting existing brands look highly profitable – while killing the rate of return on new products by discounting potential sales and inflating costs!
This D&E behavior isn't good for any business. Consumer goods or otherwise. And it's interesting to read that now retailers are starting to push back. They are cutting the number of product variations to cut the inventory carrying costs. As I mentioned, if you now have 6 different stock keeping units (SKUs) for Miracle Whip in various sizes, flavors and shapes but no additional sales you more than likely have doubled, tripled or even more the inventory – and simultaneously reduced "turns" – thus making the margin per foot of shelf space, and the inventory ROI, poorer. Even with those "shelf fee" bribes the consumer goods manufacturer paid.
For consumers this is a great thing! Because it frees up shelf space for new products. It frees up buyers to look harder at truly new products, and new suppliers. The retailer has the chance of revitalizing his stores by putting more excitement on the shelves, and giving the consumer something new. This action is a Disruption for the individual retailer – pushing them to compete on products and services, not just having the same old products (in too many varieties) exactly the same as competitors.
This action, happening at WalMart, Walgreens, RiteAid, Kroger and Target according to the article, is an industry Disruption. It impacts the manufacturers like Kraft and P&G by forcing them to bring more truly new products to the market if they want to maintain shelf facings and revenues. It alters the selling proposition for all suppliers, making the "distribution fees" less of an issue and turning those retail buyers back into true merchandisers – rather than just people who review manufacturer supplied planograms before feeding numbers into the automated ordering system. And it changes what the manufacturer's salespeople have to do.
The companies that will do well are those that now implement White Space to take advantage of this Disruption. As you can imagine, it's a huge boon for the smaller, more entrepreneurial companies that may well have long been blocked from the big retailer's stores. It allows them to get creative about pitching their products in an effort to help the retailer compete on product – not just price. And for any existing supplier, they will have to use White Space to get more new products out faster. And get their salesforce to change behavior toward selling new products rather than just defending the old products and facings.
Markets work in amazing ways. Almost never do things happen as one would predict. It's these unintended consequences of markets that makes them so powerful. Not that they are "efficient" so much as they allow for Disruptions and big behavior changes. And that gives the entrepreneurial folks, and the innovators, their opportunities to succeed. For those in consumer goods, right now is a great time to talk to Target, Kohl's, Safeway, et.al. about how they can really change the competition by refocusing on your innovative new products again!
by Adam Hartung | Jun 24, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Leadership, Openness
"Reborn Chrysler gets a European makeover" is the headline at the Detroit Free Press. Now that Fiat is in charge, can we expect Chrysler to turn around?
There is no doubt Chrysler has been severely Challenged. But that alone did not Disrupt Chrysler – you can be challenged a lot and still not Disrupt Lock-ins. On the other hand, the new CEO appears to have stepped in and made significant changes in the organization structure, as well as the product line-up at Chrysler. We also know that bankruptcy changed the union rules as well as employee compensation and retirement programs. These are Disruptions. That's good news. Disruptions precede real change. No matter the outcome, the level of Disruption ensures the future Chrysler will be different from the old Chrysler. Step one in the right direction.
But, the Fiat leadership under Sergio Marcchione appears to be rapidly installing the Fiat Success Formula at Chrysler. The organization, product, branding and manufacturing decisions appear to be aligned with what Fiat has been doing in Europe. So this makes our analysis a lot trickier. Companies that effectively turn around align with market needs. They meet customer requirements in new, better ways. For Chrysler to now succeed requires that the American market needs are closely enough aligned with what Fiat has been doing to make Chrysler a success.
If this gives you doubts, you're well served. It's not like Fiat has been a household name in America for a long time. Nor have I perceived Fiat was gaining substantial share over its competitors in Europe. Nor do I have awareness of Fiat being noticably successful in emerging auto markets like China, India or Eastern Europe. They aren't doing as badly as Chrysler, but are they winning?
The new management is rolling in like Macarthur's team taking over Japan. They clearly have already made many decisions, and are now focused on execution. What worries me is
- what if the product lineup isn't really what Americans want?
- what if dealers don't make enough margin on the new lineup?
- what if the cost/quality tradeoffs don't fit American needs?
- what if competitors match their product capabilities?
- what if competitors have lower cost?
- what if competitors have measurably better quality?
- what if competitors bring out new innovations, like electric, hybrid or diesel, change the market significantly from what Fiat has to offer?
- what if customers simply have doubts about Fiat quality?
- what if customers like the Charger, Challenger and 300 more than they like the new Fiat products?
I don't have to be right or wrong on many of these questions and it portends problems for the new Chrysler/Fiat. And that's the problem with having such a tight plan when you start a turn-around. What if you get something wrong? How will you know? What will tell you early you need to change your plan fast, and possibly dramatically? Nowhere in the article, nor elsewhere, have I read about White Space projects being created that would produce an entirely new Success Formula. Only how Chrysler is being converted to the Fiat Success Formula.
I want the best for the new owners, employees and vendors of Fiat. I'm really happy to see the level of Disruption. But until we see White Space, more discussion of market testing and experimentation, as well as greater discussion of competitiors, I'd reserve judgement on the company's future.
If you read about White Space at Chrysler/Fiat please let me know. This is a story worth watching closely. Americans have a lot riding on the outcome – good or bad. So if you read about Disruptions or White Space share them with me or here on the blog for everyone.
PS – Don't forget to download my new ebook "The Fall of GM" for additional insight on managing Success Formulas in the auto industry.
PPS – There have been a lot of great comments related to recent blogs. I appreciate the personal notes, but don't hesitate to blog directly on the site. Also, keep up the comments. I don't feel compelled to re-comment on them all. Suffice it to say that the quality is excellent, and comments make the blog all that much more powerful. So please keep up the responses.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Web/Tech
For years business leaders have sought advice which would allow their organizations to become "evergreen." Evergreen businesses constantly renew themselves, remaining healthy and growing constantly without even appearing to turn dormant. Of course, as I often discuss, most companies never achieve this status. Today investors, employees and vendors of Apple should be very pleased. Apple is showing the signs of becoming evergreen.
For the last few years Apple has done quite well. Resurgent from a near collapse as an also-ran producer of niche computers, Apple became much more as it succeeded with the iPod, iTunes and iPhone. But many analysts, business news pundits and investors wanted all the credit to go to CEO Steve Jobs. It's popular to use the "CEO as hero" thinking, and say Steve Jobs singlehandedly saved Apple. But, as talented as Steve Jobs is, we all know that there are a lot of very talented people at Apple and it was Mr. Jobs willingness to Disrupt the old Success Formula and implement White Space which let that talent come out that really turned around Apple. The question remained, however, whether Disruptions and White Space were embedded, or only happening as long as Mr. Jobs ran the show. And largely due to this question, the stock price tumbled and people grew anxious when he took medical leave (chart here).
This weekend we learned that yes, Mr. Jobs has been very sick. The Wall Street Journal today reported "Jobs had liver transplant". With this confirmation, we know that the company has been run by the COO Tim Cook and not a "shadow" Mr. Jobs. Simultaneously, first report on the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal is "Apple Claims 1M iPhone Sales" last weekend in the launch of its new 3G S mobile phone and operating system. This is a huge number by the measure of any company, exceeded analysts expectations by 33-50%, and equals the last weekend launch of a new model – despite the currently horrible economy. This performance indicates that Apple is building a company that can survive Mr. Jobs.
On the other side of the coin, "Walgreen's profit drops as costs hit income" is the Crain's Chicago Business report. Walgreen's is struggling because it's old Success Formula, which relied very heavily on opening several new stores a week, no longer produces the old rates of return. Changes in financing, coupled with saturation, means that Walgreen's has to change its Success Formula to make money a different way, and that has been tough for them to find. The retail market shifted. Although Walgreen's opened White Space projects the last few years, there have been no Disruptions and thus none of the new ideas "stuck." Growth has slowed, profits have fallen and Walgreen's has gone into a Growth Stall. Now all projects are geared at inventory reduction and cost cutting, as described at Marketwatch.com in "Higher Costs Hurt Walgreen's Profits."
Now the company is saying it wants to take out $1B in costs in 2011. No statement about how to regain growth, just a cost reduction — one of the first, and most critical, signs of Defend & Extend Management doing the wrong things when the company hits the Flats. And now management is saying that costs will be higher in 2009/2010 in order to allow it to cut costs in 2011. If you're asking yourself "say what?" you aren't alone. This is pure financial machination. Raise costs today, declare a lower profit, in order to try padding the opportunity to declare a ferocious improvement in future year(s). This has nothing to do with growth, and never helps a company. To the contrary, it's the second most critical sign of D&E Management doing the wrong thing at the most critical time in the company's history. When in the Flats, instead of Disrupting and using White Space to regain growth these actions push the company into the Swamp of low growth and horrible profit performance.
We now can predict performance at Walgreen's pretty accurately. They will do more of the same, trying to do it better, faster and cheaper. They will have little or no revenue growth. They may sell stores and use that to justify a flat to down revenue line. The use of accounting tricks will help management to "engineer" short-term profit reporting. But the business has slid into a Growth Stall from which it has only a 7% chance of ever again growing consistently at a mere 2%. This is exactly the kind of behavior that got GM into bankruptcy – see "The Fall of GM."
The right stuff seems to be happening at Apple. But keep your eyes open, a new iPhone is primarily Extend behavior – not requiring a Disruption or necessarily even White Space. We need to see Apple exhibit more Disruptions and White Space to make us true believers. On the other hand, it's definitely time to throw in the towel on Walgreen's. Management is resorting to financial machinations to engineer profits, and that's always a bad sign. When management attention is on accounting rather than Disruptions and White Space to grow the future is sure to be grim.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
As I've given presentations around the country the last year I'm frequently asked about the role of leadership in Phoenix Principle companies. All people can bring Phoenix Principle behaviors to their work teams and functional groups. Yet there is no doubt that organizations do much better when the leaders are also committed to Phoenix Principle behaviors.
Unfortunately, all too often, top leaders are more interested in Defend & Extend Management. BusinessWeek's recent article "How to Succeed at Proctor & Gamble" talks about replacing CEO icons such as Charles Schwab, Michael Dell and Jack Welch. Unfortunately, only one of these was a real Phoenix Principle leader – and the others ended up coming back to their organizations when the replacements tried too much D&E behavior – leaving their shareholders with far too low returns and only dreams of rising investment value. Even more unfortunate is the fact that too many management gurus simply love to wax eloquently about leaders of big companies – regardless of their performance. Such as Warren Bennis's description of A.G. Lafley at P&G as "Rushmorian." Those at the top are given praise just because they got to the top. Yet, we've all known leaders who were far from being praise-worthy. Even the mundane can be loved by business reviewers that rely on them for money, access, ad dollars and influence.
There's a simple rule for identifying good leadership. Grow revenues and profits while achieving above average rates of return and positioning the organizations for ongoing double digit growth upon departure. It's not the size of the organization that determines the quality of a leader, it's the results. We too often forget this.
Back to departing P&G CEO, Mr. Lafley. Preparing to retire, he's taken the high ground of claiming to be "Mr. Innovation" for P&G. Experts on innovation classify them into Variations, Derivatives, Platforms or Fundamental. Using this classification scheme (from Praveen Gupta Managing Editor of the International Journal of Innovation Science and author of Business Innovation) we can see that Mr. Lafley was good at driving Variations and Derivatives at P&G. But under his leadership what did P&G do to launch new platforms or fundamental new technologies? While variations and derivatives drive new sales – "flavor of the month" marketing as it's sometimes called – they don't produce high profits because they are easily copied by competitors and offer relatively little new market growth. They don't position a company for long-term growth because all variations and derivatives eventually run their course. They may help retain customers for a while, but they rarely attract new ones. Eventually, market shifts leave them weaker and unable to maintain results due to spending too much time and resource Defending & Extending what worked in the past. Mr. Lafley has done little to Disrupt P&G's decades-old Success Formula or introduce White Space that would make P&G a role model for the new post-Industrial era.
Too often, bigness stands for goodness among those choosing business leaders. For example, GM is replacing departed CEO Rick Wagoner with Ed Whitacre according to the Detroit Free Press in "Former AT&T chief to lead GM." Mr. Whitacre's claim to fame is that as a lifetime AT&T employee, when the company was forced to spin out the regional Bell phone companies he led Southwestern Bell through acquisitions until it recreated AT&T – as a much less innovative company. Mr. Whitacre is a model of the custodial CEO determined to Defend & Extend the old business – in his case spending 20+ years recreating the AT&T judge Green took apart. Where a judge unleashed the telecommunications revolution, Mr. Whitacre simply put back together a company that is no longer a leader in any growth markets. Market leaders today are Apple and Google and those who are delivering value at the confluence of communication regardless of technology.
Today, few under age 30 even want a land-line – and most have no real concept of "long distance". Can the man who put back together the pieces of AT&T, the leader in land-line telephones and old-fashioned "long distance service" be the kind of leader to push GM into the information economy? Does he understand how to create new business models? Or is he the kind of person dedicated to preserving business models created in the 1920s, 30s and 40s? Can the man who let all the innovation of Ma Bell dissipate into new players while recreating an out-of-date business be expected to remake GM into a company that can compete with Kia and Tata Motors?
Any kind of person can become the leader of a company. Businesses are not democracies. The people at the top get there through a combination of factors. There is no litmus test to be a CEO – not even consistent production of good results. But in far too many many cases the historical road to the top has been by being the champion of D&E Management; by caretaking the old Success Formula, never letting anyone attack it. They have avoided Disruptions, ignored new competitors, and risen because they were more interested in "protecting the core" than producing above-average results (often protecting a seriously rotting core). Much to the chagrin of shareholders in many cases.
Now that the world has shifted, we need people leading companies that can modify old Success Formulas to changing market circumstances. Leaders who are able to develop and promote future scenarios that can guide the company to prosperity, not merely extend past practices. Leaders who obsess about competitors to identify market shifts and new opportunities for growth. Leaders who are not afraid to attack old Lock-ins, Disrupting the status quo so the business can evolve. Leaders who cherish White Space and keep multiple market tests operating so the company can move toward what works for meeting emerging client needs. Leaders like Lee Iacocca, Jack Welch, Steve Jobs and John Chambers. They can improve corporate longevity by shifting their organizations with the marketplace, maintaining revenue and profit growth supporting job growth and increased vendor sales.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 8, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle
Unless you have a lot of time to research stocks, you probably invest in a fund. Funds can be either an index, or actively managed. People like index funds because you aren't relying on a manager to have a better idea. Index funds can only own those stocks on the index. Like the S&P index fund – it can only own stocks in the S&P 500. Nothing else. Interestingly, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is considered an index fund – even though I don't know what it indexes. And that is important if you are an investor who benchmarks performance against the Dow. It's even more important if you invest in the Dow (or Diamonds – the EFT for the Dow Industrials).
GM is now off the Dow ("What does GM bankruptcy mean for Index Funds?"). Because it went bankrupt, the editors at Dow Jones removed it. But it wasn't long ago that the editors removed Sears and Kodak. But not because these companies filed bankruptcy. Rather, the Dow Jones editors felt these companies no longer represented American business. So the Dow is a list of 30 companies. But what companies is up to the whim of these Dow editors. Sounds like an active management (judgement) group (fund) to me.
Go back to the original DJIA and you get American Cotton Oil, American Sugar, Distilling & Cattle Feed, Leclede Gas Light, Tennesse Coal Iron and Railroad and U.S. Leather. Household names – right? As the years went buy a lot of companies came and went off the list. Bethlehem Steel, Honeywell, International Paper, Johns-Manville, Nash Motor, International Harvester, Owens-Illinois, Union Carbide — get the drift? These may have been successful at some time, but the didn't exactly withstand "the test of time" all that well. Even some of the recent appointments have to be questioned – like Home Depot and Kraft which have had horrible performance since joining the elite 30. You also have to wonder about the viability of some aging participants, like 3M, Alcoa and DuPont. So the DJIA may be someone's guess about some basket of companies that they think in some way represents the American economy – but it's definitely subject to a lot of personal bias.
Like any basket of stocks, when the DJIA is lagging market shifts, it is not a good place to invest. And the editors are greatly prone to lagging. Like their holdings in agriculture and basic commodities years ago, through holding big industrial companies in the 1990s and 2000s. And the over-weighting of financial companies at the turn of the century when they were merely using financial machinations to hide considerable end-of-value-life problems. When the DJIA is holding companies that are part of the previous economy, you don't want to be there.
The Dow should not be a lagging indicator. Rather, given its iconic position, it should hold the "best" companies in America. Not extremely poorly performing mega-bricks – like GM. GM should have been dropped several years ago. And you should be concerned about the recent appointment of Kraft. And even Travelers.
Those companies that will do well are going to be good at information, and making money on information. So who's likely to fall off (besides Kraft)? DuPont, which has downsized for 2 decades is a likely candidate. Caterpillar is laying off almost everyone, and cutting its business in China, as it struggles to compete with an outdated industrial Success Formula. Bank of America has shown it is disconnected from understanding how to compete globally as it has asked for billions in government bail-out money. And the hodge-podge of industrial businesses, none of which are on the front end of new technologies, at United Technologies makes it a candidate — if people ever recognize that the company would quickly disintegrate without massive U.S. government defense spending. Even 3M is questionable as it has slowed allowing its old innovation processes to keep the company current in the information age.
Adding Cisco was a good move. Cisco is representative of the information economy – as are Verizon, AT&T (which was SBC and before renameing, GE, HP, Intel, IBM, Microsoft, Merck and Pfizer (if they transition to biologics from old-fashioned pharmaceutical manufacturing ways – otherwise replace them with Abbott). But all those other oldies – like Walt Disney (sorry, but the web has forever changed the marketplace for entertainment and Walt's folks aren't keeping up with the times), Boeing (are big airplanes the wave of the future in a webinar age?), Coke (they've kinda covered the world and run out of new ideas), P&G (anybody excited about Swiffer variation 87?), and Wal-Mart – which couldn't recognize doing anything new under any circumstances.
As an investor, you want companies that can grow and create a profit. And that's increasingly not the DJIA – even as it slowly adds a Microsoft, Intel and Cisco. You want to include companies in leadership positions like Google and Apple. Their ability to move forward in new markets by Disrupting their Lock-ins and using White Space to launch new projects in new markets gives them longevity. As an investor you don't want the "dogs" – so why would you want to own DuPont, et.al.?
Investors may have been stung by overvaluations in technology companies during the 1990s. But that was the past. What matters now is future growth ("Technology on the comeback trail"). And that can be found by investing in the future – not what was once great but instead what will be great. Invest for the future, not from the past. And that can be found outside the DJIA. Unless the Dow editors suddenly change the portfolio to match the shift to an information economy.
(For additional ideas about recomposing the DJIA, see my blog of 3/12/09 "Dated Dow")
by Adam Hartung | Jun 2, 2009 | Current Affairs, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Openness
How appropriate. "GM strikes deal to sell Hummer" headlines a Marketwatch.com article. A day after declaring bankruptcy, Hummer with all its branding and product drawings is going to China. It seems everything about GM is iconic – including its movement of an operating auto businesses to China.
Is this bad for America, or good? I'd rather say it's inevitable. In a global economy, industrial production will move to the lowest cost location. And with a low valued currency, a very lowly paid workforce, and access to very inexpensive capital that puts China at the top of the list. Unless you want to bring back Chairman Mao and wall-in China, the population density and government programs make it inevitable that the country will be a leader in manufacturing.
But that doesn't equate to high value.
America is the world's largest agricultural nation. But has that made America wealthy? Not since the 1800s has it been true that land ownership for agricultural uses made Americans – and the nation – wealthy. As the value of agriculture declined – largely due to dramatic increases in production – America's wealth shifted to industrial production. It was by being the largest and most productive industrial nation that America prospered during the Industrial economy.
But now, industrial production has razor thin margins. Much like agriculture. Over-invest in capacity, and you can end up with under-utilized (or closed) plants and not much margin from other businesses to cover the cost. Not since the 1990s has America operated anywhere near "full capacity" on its manufacturing base. The "good" years of the last decade were unable to produce industrial jobs, or wealth for industrial companies (i.e. – GM's bankruptcy.)
In the great battle for economic leadership, the next wave is about information. How to obtain, use and manipulate information is where value is now created. Steel traders can make more than steel producers today. If you want to improve your profitability, and your longevity, you have to change your thinking from "how do I make and sell more stuff" to "what do I know they don't know, and how do I turn that into value?"
For somebody selling autos, it's becoming a lot more important to understand customer wants and preferences than to be good at making cars. Toyota and Honda can identify opportunities first, and put products into the market faster than anyone else. They can maximize their product development and short-run capability to reach targets fast, and gain advantages over competitors. Don't forget, Honda made money not just on small, high mileage cars but on a full-size pick-up called the Ridgeline (and Toyota on the Tundra). These companies are better at using scenarios to recognize early market shifts, and clearer about competitor moves so they can position products to fulfill unique customers needs. Even if it means launching products not traditional to their "core" – like Honda's Ridgeline, it's manufacturing robotics, and its new jet airplanes.
In the industrial era, people sought scale advantages and tried to build entry barriers against competitors. In the information economy flexibility is equally (or more) important than size. Recognizing customer needs and competitor actions early is more important than catering to old, devoted customer groups. Willingness to Disrupt, and do what you must do to change the market by using White Space test projects keeps you ahead of the competition – rather than trying to Defend & Extend your "core."
For the industry, having Hummer production in China could turn out to be a good thing. It will lower product cost. If the distribution in the USA can gain control of the market, by recognizing customer needs and directing the production, the distributors can grab all the value away from the Chinese manufacturer. If, on the other hand, the dealers try to act like old fashioned dealers who merely keep stock and negotiate price — then they won't create value and margins will stink. There are ways to make money in the information economy, even for traditional players, but it requires changing your Success Formula from industrial-era behaviors to the needs of an information-based economy. You can follow GM – or you can try to be like Cisco.
