by Adam Hartung | Jan 28, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
In a recent presentation I told the audience that they had quit printing newspapers in Detroit during the week. The audience said they weren't surprised, and didn't much care. The other day I asked a room full of college students when the last time was they looked at a newspaper (not read, just looked) – and not a single person could remember the last time. In Houston I asked two groups for the headline of the day that morning – not a single person had looked at the newspaper, and none in the group subscribed to a newspaper. Even my wife, who used to demand a Wednesday newspaper so she could receive the grocery ads, asked me why we bother to subscribe any more because she now gets the ads in the mail. This wholly unscientific representation was pretty clear. People simply don't care much about newspapers any more.
So, if you had $100 bucks to invest, and you had the following options, would you invest it in
- A professional baseball team (like the Boston Red Sox or Chicago Cubs)?
- A manhattan skyscraper?
- A newspaper?
That is exactly the question which is facing the New York Times Company (see chart here), and their decision is to invest in a newspaper. In fact, they are selling their interest in the Boston Red Sox and 19 floors in their Manhattan headquarters so they can prop up the newspaper business which saw ad revenue declines of greater than 16% – and classified ad declines of a whopping 29% (read article here). (Classified ads are for cars, lawn mowers, and jobs – you know, the things you now go to find on Craigslist.com, ebay.com, vehix.com and Monster.com and aren't likely to ever spend money on with a newspaper.)
The value of New York Times Company has dropped 90% in the last 5 years – from $50 to $5. The decline in advertising is not a new phenomenon, nor is it related to the financial crisis. People simply quit reading newspapers several years ago, and that trend has continued. Simultaneously, competition for ads grew tremendously – such as the classified ads described above. Corporate advertisers discovered they could reach a lot more readers a lot cheaper if they put ads on the internet using services from Google and Yahoo! There was no surprise in the demise of the newspaper business.
At NYT, the smart thing to do would be to sell, or maybe close, the newspaper and maximize the value of investments in About.com and other web projects (which today are only 12% of revenue) as well as Boston Sports (owner of the Red Sox) and hang on to that Manhattan property until real estate turns around in 5 years (more or less). Why sell the most valuable things you own, and put the money into a product that has seen double-digit demand and revenue declines for several years?
Of course, Tribune Company isn't showing any greater business intelligence. Management borrowed far, far more than the newspaper is worth 2 years ago through an employee stock ownership plan (can you understand "good-bye pension"?). So last week they sold the Chicago Cubs. For $900million. Tribune bought the Cubs, including Wrigley Field, 28 years ago for $20million. That's a 14.5% annualized rate of return for 28 consecutive years. Not even Peter Lynch, the famed mutual fund manager, can claim that kind of record!
Through adroit management and good marketing, they modernized the Wrigley Field assets and the Cubs team – and without ever winning the World Series drove the value straight up. As fast as people quit reading the Chicago Tribune newspaper they went to Cubs games. Who cares if the team doesn't win, there's always next year. And unlike newspapers, there aren't going to be any more professional baseball teams in Chicago (there are already two for those who don't know - Chicago's White Sox won the World Series in 2005). And they aren't building any additional arenas in downtown Chicago to compete with Wrigley Field. Here's a business with monopoly-like characteristics and unlimited value creation potential. But management sold it in order to pay off the debt they took on to take the newspaper private.
Defending the original business gets Locked-in at companies. Long after its value has declined, uneconomic decisions are made to try keeping it alive. Smart competitors don't sell good assets to invest in bad businesses. They follow the capitalistic system and direct investments where their value can grow. The New York Times may be a good newspaper – but who cares if people would rather get their news from TV and the internet – and they don't read newspapers "for fun?" When people don't read, and advertisers can get better return from media vehicles that don't have the printing and distribution costs of newspapers, what difference does it make if the outdated product is "good?" If you think the New York Times Company is cheap at $5.00 a share, you'll think it's really cheap in bankruptcy court. Just ask the employee shareholders at Tribune Company.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Web/Tech
Last week was quite a contrast in tech results. Google announced it had hired 99 new employees in the fourth quarter, but was planning to lay off 100. Not good news, but a veritable growth binge compared to Microsoft - that announced it was laying off 5,000 from its Windows business. To put it bluntly, people aren't buying PCs and that's the focus of all Microsoft sales. As the PC business stagnates – not hard to predict given the shift to newer products like netbooks, Blackberry's and iPhones - revenues at Microsoft have stagnated as well.
So now the pundits are predicting that Microsoft's weakness indicates an acquisition of Yahoo! is in the offing (read article here). The story goes that with things weak, Microsoft will buy Yahoo! to defend its survivability. Not dissimilar to the logic behind Pfizer's acquisition of Wyeth.
But does this really make sense? Microsoft is fully Locked-in to a completely outdated Success Formula. Mr. Ballmer has shown no ability to do anything beyond execute the old monopolistic model of controlling the desktop. Only a massive Disruption by founder Bill Gates kept Microsoft from falling victim to Netscape in the 1990s. But there hasn't been any White Space at Microsoft, and year after year Microsoft is falling further behind in the technology marketplace. Now the growth is gone in their technology. It's just a "cash cow" that is producing less cash every year. Microsoft is a boring company with boring management that has no idea how to compete against Google. They would strip out whatever market intelligence Yahoo! has left in an effort to turn the company into Microsoft. There would be nothing left of value, and a lot of cash burned up in the process.
Why shouldn't Yahoo! buy Microsoft? Google is the leader in search and on-line ad sales. The closest competitor is Yahoo!, which is so far behind it needs massive cash and engineering resources to develop a competitive attack. Yahoo! has a new CEO with the smarts and brass to Disrupt things and create a new Success Formula. Yahoo! could take advantage of the cash flow from Microsoft to develop new products, possibly products we've not thought of yet, that could create some viable competition for Google. We don't need another Microsoft, but we do need another Google! Why shouldn't Yahoo! take over the engineers and technical knowledge at Microsoft, as well as distribution, and use that to develop new solutions for web applications from possibly search to who knows what! Maybe something that moves beyond the iPhone and Blackberry!
What's the odds of this happening? Not good. That would defy conventional wisdom that the company with all the cash should win. But we all know that as investors we don't value cash in the bank, we value growth. So the company with growth opportunities, and the management to invest in new solutions, should be the one that "milks" the "cash cow." The growing company should be cutting the investment in old solutions that are near end-of-life (like Windows 7), and putting the money into growth programs that can generate much higher rates of return. By all logic of finance, and investing, Yahoo! should buy Microsoft. It's Ms. Bartz we need running a high tech company, shaking things up as the underdog ready to use White Space to develop new solutions that can generate growth. Like she did when beating Calma and DEC. Not the CEO best known for his on-stage monkey imitation and no idea how to generate growth because he's so committed to Defending & Extending the old cash business — completely missing every new technology innovation in the last decade.
Yahoo! has a chance of being a viable competitor. Yahoo! has a chance of competing against Google and pushing both companies to new solutions making the PC an obsolete icon of the past. But if Microsoft buys Yahoo!, it will do nobody any good.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Microsoft announced today it intends to lay off 5,000 workers (read article here). This action, included in its announcement that Microsoft is going to miss its earnings estimate, spooked the market and is blamed for a one-day market dip (read here). The company's equity value, meanwhile, dropped to an 11-year low – out of its 33 year life (see chart here). Of course, the blame was placed on the weak economy.
But we all know that Microsoft has been struggling. The Vista launch was a disaster. A joke. Techies resoundingly ignored the product – as did their employers. Because Vista was so weak, Microsoft is looking to launch yet another operating system – just 2 years after Vista was launched. Incredible, given that Vista was more than 2 years late being launched! Additionally, in an effort to increase interest in Windows 7, the new product, Microsoft has dramatically increased the availability of beta versions for review (read here).
Microsoft was once the only game in town. But over the last few years, Linux has made inroads. Maybe not too much on the desktop or laptop, but definitely in the server world. The hard core users of network machines have been finding the cappbilities of Linux superior to Windows, and the cost attractive. Additionally, netbooks, PDAs and mobile phones are gaining share on laptops every day. Customers are finding new solutions that utilize network applications from companies such as Google are increasingly attractive. By laying off 5,000, Microsoft is not addressing its future needs – to remain highly competitive in operating systems and applications against new competitors. It is retrenching. This doesn't make Microsoft stronger. Rather, it makes Microsoft an even weaker target for those who have the company in their sites.
Why should anyone be excited about a company that is willing to cut 7.5% of its workforce while it is losing market share? Sure, the company is still dominant in many segments. But once the same could be said for Digital Equipment (DEC), Wang, Lanier, Compaq, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, Cray and AT&T. All fell victims to market shifts making them irrelevant. Not overnight – but over time irrelevant, nonetheless.
It's hard to imagine, today, a world without Microsoft domination. After all, this was a company sued by the government for monopolistic practices. Yet, we know that even market domination does not protect a company from market shifts. Microsoft's layoffs demonstrate a company planning from the past – it's former dominance – rather than planning for the future. Many industry leaders are already seeing a technology future far less dependent upon Microsoft. Shifting software solutions as well as changing uses of platforms (largely the declining importance of desktop and laptop Wintel machines) is making Microsoft less important.
Trying to Defend & Extend its past glory is not serving Microsoft well. Once, any changes in its operating system was front page news. Now, a new release struggles to get attention. Microsoft is at great risk – and its layoffs will weaken the company at a time when it cannot afford to be weakened. When Microsoft most needs to be obsessing about competitor's emerging strengths, and using Disruptions to open White Space where it can put employees to work on new solutions, Microsoft is cutting back and making itself more vulnerable to competitors now surrounding on all fronts. This should be a big concern for not only those being laid off, but those remaining as employees and those investors who have already seen a huge decline in company value.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 16, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Sprint's prepaid mobile unit, Boost Mobile, announced today a new pricing plan. Customers can get nationwide unlimited calling, text and web access – with no roaming charges. The company President said "This plan is designed to be disruptive." (read article here)
That's a poor choice of words. All this new plan does is lower price. And the predominant reaction is that this may spur a deepening price war. There's nothing new being offered. Just a lower price. Offering more at a lower price isn't disruptive. It might challenge competitors to match that price, and hurt profits, but it isn't disruptive. It doesn't offer a new technology curve that can provide better service at lower pricing long term, it's just another step along a price discount curve.
This change might be very good for consumers. But it's not as good as a really Disruptive action. For example, cell phones were disruptive because they offered a service never before available – mobile telephoning – and offered an entirely new cost curve. In the beginning they were more expensive, so limited only to those who really needed the service. But as time went along and volume increased it became possible for wireless telephony to eclipse old fashioned land-line service. In many emerging countries wireless is the phone service – just as it is for many younger people who have no land line service in their homes relying entirely on mobile phones.
If the CEO at Sprint Mobile wants to be Disruptive he has to come up with a new solution that creates the opportunity for entirely new users who are under- or even unserved. Perhaps telephony that is free because it's linked to a simple radio. Or perhaps a telephone that can translate languages for international use. Or perhaps a phone that can scan documents and send as emails in popular applications like MSWord. Or maybe phones that offer free netmeeting services with document transport and manipulation operating simultaneously with voice service. Or these might just be new features down the road for existing phones – and not even disruptive themselves.
Disruptive innovations are not just price discounts or changes in pricing structures. They bring in new customers and offer the opportunity for dramatically lower pricing because of a different technology or solution format. And they require White Space to develop new customers that can effectively use the new technology and prove its value.
Therefore, we can expect competitors to quickly match the new pricing offered at Boost Mobile. And profits to be curbed.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership
It was only 2003 when Ed Zander joined Motorola as its new CEO. In the midst of lost market share and declining revenue, analysts were calling for massive layoffs. But, Mr. Zander layed off no one. Instead, he eliminated the executive dining room, focused all executives on customers (even staff positions) and emphasized new product releases. It wasn't long before Motorola spit out the RAZR, a product tied up in product release, and a revitalized Motorola started growing again.
The easiest thing Mr. Zander could have done was increase the already extensive layoffs. Analysts and investors were all calling for more reductions. Instead, he Disrupted long-held lock-ins at Motorola that kept products from making it to market. And Mr. Zander was rapidly named "CEO of the Year." Yes, the RAZR predated him, and he was not a new product genius. But he did unleash new products on the marketplace that created new growth and pushed Motorola back into the forefront of wireless competitors. And his push for White Space created joint product development projects with Apple, and new design centers from Brazil to Bangalore.
Unfortunately, Mr. Zander did not stick to his Diruption and White Space programs. When an outsider bought up company stock and attacked Motorola for continuing its investment in new products, Mr. Zander was cowed. He retrenched. And quickly – very quickly – Motorola found itself without exciting new product introductions. The RAZR was not replaced with additional new products. And innovations remained stuck in R&D and product development instead of making it to market. As the old joint project with Apple allowed the iPhone to hit the market, Mr. Zander found results down and himself on the market as well.
Now, Motorola is cutting heads again. Despite decades of leadership in product development in markets from two-way land mobile radios (like police radios) to television DVR boxes to mobile infrastructure towers to mobile handlhelds you would now think there are no longer any new ideas coming out of Schaumburg, IL. The replacement leadership is taking the easy road. After laying off some 3,000 employees recently Motorola has announced it intends to lay off 4,000 more (read article here). You would think there are no new product ideas at Motorola, as company leadership does what's easy — cutting costs with layoffs. Introducing new products, especially now that Apple has lost its iconic leader Steve Jobs, might produce better results. But since analysts expect layoffs, why not simply do what's easy?
Similarly, Google has announced it is laying off 100 workers (read article here). Google is the fastest growing large company in America; and possibly on the globe. Google has continued hiring new workers, expanding into cell phones and other new markets as competitors have made highly qualified employees readily available. But The Wall Street Journal has been calling for Google to stop hiring and launching new products, pointing out the economy is in a recession. Like Google is un-American for trying to continue growing when other companies are stalled. How dare they!
So now Google is laying off some of its recruiters. On the surface, it would be easy to say this is immaterial. 100 is only .5% of the 20,000+ Google employees. But why is Google doing this? Does it simply feel it must? Does it feeled compelled to lay off workers just because it can? Or because other large companies are doing so? Is this "hey, as the new kid on the block maybe we're missing something and need to play follow-the-leader"? It makes little sense why Google would want to jeapardize its future when it has an incredible opportunity to continue muscle-building its organization with some of the best and brightest folks available – only because old employers (like Motorola) aren't smart enough to take advantage of the talent.
Growth is necessary for all profit-making companies. Without growth, the business stalls and really bad things happen. When competitors start to retrench, it opens opportunities for successful companies to push forward with new growth projects. As long as the population grows, demand for products and services grows as well. Even in recessions, successful businesses grow. Layoffs are never a good thing for any company. Layoffs indicate you can't grow, and if you can't grow you simply aren't worth much. Why should you have a P/E (price/earnings multiple) of 45, or 30, or 20, or 15, or even 8 if you can't grow?
It's incredily easy to lay people off. In America, there are precious few laws preventing it. And almost no longer is there any social stigma. If you have a bad quarter, or even just a bad product launch, you can lay-off some people claiming its for the good of the business. Leaders regularly hide their bad decisions behind layoffs claiming "market conditions" are to blame for weak results. But what investors, employees, vendors and customers want from leaders isn't layoffs. They want new products, new services, new markets, new innovations that spur increased demand from added value. They want growth. Growth may not be easy, but it's necessary.
Instead of laying off 100 workers, why isn't Google deploying them into new business opportunities? Are there simply no new growth areas that could use the talent of these people Google hired out of the thousands of applicants that sought these jobs? And the same is true at Motorola. The new mobile devices CEO was hired from Qualcomm at millions of dollars expense – why isn't he putting all these engineers and product development experts to work? Why isn't he launching new products that increase the capabilities of wireless services so consumers do more calling, texting, emailing and application sharing? The easiest thing he can do is fire 3,000, 4,000 or 7,000 employees. Anyone can do that. But is it going to help Motorola grow? If not, why isn't he doing what will take the company to better competitiveness and an improved market position versus competitors? Is he simply doing what's easy, instead of what's necessary?
by Adam Hartung | Jan 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
Do you remember when Jim Cramer of Mad Money fame told his viewers to buy Sears Holdings because "his good friend" Ed Lampert, hedge fund manager, was going to make them all rich? That was in back in 2005 and 2006. For many months analysts, investors, vendors and customers watched what was happening at Sears, wondering what Mr. Lampert was going to do. In the end, he followed a very traditional turn-around strategy, slashing employment, benefits, pay and inventory – and Sears became a much smaller business. But the value of having friends hosting TV shows was clear. Sears went from $30 to nearly $200/share on the strength of Cramer's chronic recommendation. As it became clear Sears was getting smaller with no benefit to investors, and no strategy to grow, the value crashed back to $30/share in 2008 (see chart here).
Lately, some shareholders are bidding Sears value up again. Largely entirely due to additional cost cuts, store closings and inventory sell-downs, Sears profits exceeded expectations (read article here). At the same time, senior leaders admit Sears has "a long way to go catching up to competitors that have been more consistent in merchandising and driving traffic to their stores." Creating profits by financial engineering and asset sales has not made Sears a more competitive retailer, and not likely to grow. Investors will be well served to ignore Jim Cramer, and recognize the fundamental decline Sears has undergone – and is continuing.
This same week, Walgreen (chart here) announced it was cutting 1,000 management jobs (read article here). As I've previously blogged, Walgreen has to figure out how to grow revenues in its existing stores – not just open new stores. The old Success Formula has run out of gas, and Walgreen needs a new one. But we don't see any plans for how it intends to open White Space and find that new Success Formula. Instead, only cost cuts have emerged, intended to improve profits if not revenue growth. Not a good sign.
And Best Buy (chart here)is finding that even as its #1 competitor, Circuit City, slowly goes bankrupt it can't grow revenues or profits (read article here.) Many were hopeful that the failure of Circuit City would create an opportunity for Best Buy. But faster than Circuit City can shut stores, new competitors are filling the gap. Not only are general merchandisers, like Wal-Mart, trying to sell similar products – but independents (like Abt and Grant's in Chicago) are fighting to bring in customers with product selection and better pricing. Last month, a basic refrigerator at Grant's was half the price of a basic unit at Best Buy, and the selection of high-end products was more than twice as large at Grant's and 4 times larger at Abt.
Retailing has been hit with significant challenges from market shifts the last few months. Critically, low cost and easily available credit that financed not only customer purchases but lots of inventory is now gone. Cost and supply chain efficiency will not sustain a retailer any longer. Nor will simply opening lots of new stores, financed by low cost mortgage debt. But none of these 3 leaders have Disrupted their old Success Formulas. Instead, each keeps trying to fiddle with minor changes, hoping their size and past legacy will somehow drive new revenue and profit growth. Rather than Disrupt, all 3 keep trying to Defend & Extend the old Success Formulas with cost cutting measures.
When big market shifts happen rarely are the old winners able to maintain their leadership position. Why not? Because they react by trying to do more of the same. These Defend & Extend actions – usually cost cutting and efforts at efficiency and execution – only serve to push the business further into the Swamp, and closer to the Whirlpool. In Sears case, the company is rapidly becoming irrelevant as a retailer. Honestly, what retail analyst closely monitors sales and profits at Sears any longer? Sears is closer to the Whirlpool than most would like to admit. Walgreen and Best Buy aren't nearly as close to irrelevancy, but we can see that the are stuck in the Swamp. Lacking Disruptions and White Space to develop a new Success Formula, we can only expect mediocre (or worse) performance out of them.
So who is the frequent winner from market shifts? New competitors more closely aligned with new market conditions. We don't yet know who the biggest winners will be. Perhaps it will be on-line players. Perhaps it will be an emerging retailer that today has only a handful of stores (like Abt or Grant's). Some kind of hybrid customer distribution? Some new sort of merchandiser? New competitors will do some things very differently than the old leaders, and in so doing offer better value that more closely aligns new market needs. Look not at large, traditional names. Instead, look on the fringe at competitors you may not know well, but that are continuing to grow even as times are tough.
As we move into 2009, we must keep our eyes closely on changing market conditions. As old leaders stumble, we can expect recovery only if we see Disruptions and White Space. And this becomes a wonderful opportunity for new competitors, perhaps not well known today, to emerge with new Success Formulas poised for growth. If so, a new wave of Creative Destruction will change retailing – just as Woolworth's (now gone in both the U.K. as well as the U.S.) once did a long time ago.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 6, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
The Marketing Executives Network Group (site here) has just released its second annual top marketing trends study (read press release and overview here, and study results here). Kudos to MENG for keeping up the effort – and especially so given the surprising results.
Many people think marketers lead their customers. Often, employees think marketers are the people charged with being ahead of customers, scanning the horizon for market shifts that can affect future sales. The perception is that marketers are looking for ways to Disrupt markets, introducing new technologies, products and services to generate competitive advantage. But the results of this survey show that isn't exactly what's going on – at least today. Statistically, according to responses, it appears that most marketers are firmly Locked-in to Sustaining past company sales. The results indicate that the 650 people responding to this survey are more deeply rooted in the past than in the changes now happening which are affecting results at many businesses to their core.
- The #1 business book was considered Good To Great by Jim Collins, and #2 was The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. No doubt, both of these books have been big sellers. But, the first was published in 2001, and the second in 2000 – neither are exactly "latest thinking" about business, marketing or innovation. Worse, both have been extensively reviewed in academia – and despite their popularity have been proven to be without merit as guidebooks for success. While their logic is appealing, when backtested and when applied, both led to worse results, rather than better, than average. Rosenzweig even has taken the time to publish The Halo Effect which is dedicated to disproving the validity of Mr. Collins (and other's) tales as benefactors of increased sales or profits. A book not even on the list.
-
As gurus, the marketers like Seth Grodin, Warren Buffet and Malcolm Gladwell in the first 3 spots, with Tom Friedman in fifth. Again, interesting array. While Seth has an MBA, he was never a successful marketer – until he started selling short books with catchy titles and simple answers for complex problems. Malcolm Gladwell and Tom Friedman neither have any business training or business experience at all – both having been writers and editors by academic training and career (The New Yorker and The New York Times, respectively). I asked Malcolm what led him to write "The Tipping Point" and he said "you get paid a lot more to write a catchy business book than to do serious writing." And Warren Buffet is famous for his total disdain for marketing. As he said in an interview once "if you have to spend on marketing your product doesn't sell itself – so what good is it? Marketing dollars can be spent better elsewhere."
-
By far the #1 target market is considered Baby Boomers. Interesting, given that all studies show that as Boomers are nearing and entering retirement their spending (in dollars, and as percent of income) is declining precipituously. Neither Gen X or Gen Y received more than 2/3 the interest of Boomers – even though both are driving more consumption individually than the long-focused-upon but aging Boomers. Given that by 2015 there will be more non-European ancestry Americans than European, hispanics were only 76% as interesting as Boomers, and Asians were only 1/3 as interesting. With President-elect Obama taking the most recent election while losing a majority of the Boomer vote – yet winning the younger and the non-white vote, it is interesting where these marketers showed a preference to focus.
-
Aligned with other responses, these marketers felt that Marketing Basics were the #1 issue for marketers, more than twice as important as innovation or "green"and more than 3 times as important as using technology. Further, the leading disliked buzzwords included Web 2.0, Social Networking, Social Media, Blogs and Viral marketing. Yet, the President-elect pulled off an incredible upset primarily by jumping past the old marketing basics and using the latter techniques to reach a new audience, build an amazing brand and create intense loyalty surpassing much better known and initially better funded competitors. At the same time, in 2008 MTV stopped running music videos entirely because they could not compete with YouTube.com, and blogs have shown the ability to spread messages at a fraction of the speed used by traditional advertising or public relations
There is no doubt business saw a lot of change happen in 2008. And we all expect considerable additional change in 2009. But it would appear that the marketers in this study are customers of their own product – potentially to a fault. Old brands (Collins, Buffett, Boomers) still captivate their attention, while newer, upcoming trends and messages are considered far less interesting. As market shifts are happening, they seem more interested in defending past marketing approaches than moving to the front edge of what's working in a rapidly changing, digitized, globally competitive marketplace.
There's no doubt that a lot of marketing is about sustaining an existing business. In most companies, Defending & Extending old products, old brands and old distribution systems get the lion's share of attention. Unfortunately, this behavior can set up many companies to be "knocked off" by emerging competitors who don't operate by the old rules, or in the same way. Google paid absolutely no attention to the gentlemanly behavior of the media as it systematically pulled advertisers to the internet – leaving newspapers and magazine publishers to decline, merge, declare bankruptcy and completely fail. It's these Disruptive competitors, using new techniques, that today are putting many of our oldest businesses at risk.
At times of great change, great opportunity emerges. Someone has to lead the charge for identifying these opportunities and moving forward. Success cannot happen by trying to Defend old Success Formulas after market change makes their rates of return sub-optimal. For many of us, we want to turn to marketers. And my guess is that marketers ARE the best people to discern these opportunities, and take the lead. It's important that now, more than ever, we encourage them to lead customers, rather than follow old markets. Now, when investing in legacy brands, products and technologies is suffering rapidly declining returns, is when we most need our marketers to take to the forefront of exploration and chart a course toward new markets and opportunities.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership
The New York Times Company is in a heap of trouble (see chart here). Long the #1 daily newspaper in the USA, advertising revenues fell 21% versus a year ago in November – a feat similar to its revenue decline in December, 2007. NYT is in a growth stall – and shows no signs of making a turnaround. The decline in ad revenue and subscriptions is horrific. The company has recently slashed its dividend 74%, and is taking out a $225million loan against the value of its headquarters location raising cash to keep its newspaper operations going. The company is running television ads in most major markets – like Chicago and LA – to seek out new subscribers. And now the newspaper is placing ads on its page 1 – an act that is a big deal to people in the newspaper business. (Read about New York Times front page ads here.)
So by taking these actions, is the New York Times Company preparing itself for change? After all, the problem with newspapers is that increasingly people want their news via the internet – not a paper. So even though the management at "the Times" is distressed over the actions they have taken, investors should be asking if these actions are likely to turn around the company. Value fell 67% in 2008 – and is down practically 90% for the last 5 years.
Long term successful companies Disrupt their Lock-ins – those behaviors, decision-making practices and policies that keep the company doing what it always did. As businesses grow, developing their Success Formulas, they figure out ways to Lock-in that Success Formula so it repeats. While the market is growing, and the Success Formula is meeting customer needs, these Lock-ins help the business focus on execution and grow with the market. Lock-ins are great, helping people do more, better, faster.
That is, until markets shift. When external markets shift – because of new technology, new services, new competitors or other factors – the Success Formula loses its advantage. The solution to market shifts isn't to continue optimizing the Success Formula. Returns are declining because the Success Formula is becoming obsolete. The solution is to migrate the business to a new Success Formula which supports market needs and regain growth. And that migration happens after the old Success Formula is Disrupted – through attacks on the Lock-ins – demonstrating to everyone that the company is serious about advancing to meet new market needs.
Unfortunately, far too many companies claim they are Disrupting – and preparing for the future – when in fact they are merely disturbing the Success Formula. Layoffs, financial adjustments, asset sales and outsourcing may be painful, but they don't attack the old Lock-ins nor alter the Success Formula. People are often dramatically disturbed by the changes, but the Success Formula is unaffected. When this happens, the business keeps deteriorating despite the actions.
And that's what's happening at the New York Times Company. Leadership has not taken the actions necessary to demonstrate to customers, employees, vendors or investors that they have to change. They have not Disrupted. To be a world leading news organization now requires deep expertise and success on the internet – yet NYT is in no way a major player on the web. And they have shown no signs of investing there in a major turnaround effort. NYT has not Disrupted its operations to set the stage for new White Space where a powerful new Success Formula can be developed (similar to the major programs like MySpace.com at News Corp., for example). To the contrary, the actions taken by the New York Times Company are directed at trying to preserve an outdated past. Advertising on page 1 is almost unimportant to the vast majority of readers – and completely unimportant to internet news mavens. It's not even newsworthy.
Like Tribune Corporation (owner of The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times as well as other papers), New York Times Company is focused on the wrong things. And as a result, is just as likely to end up in bankruptcy. Even Tribune management invested in Careers.com, Cars.com and Food Network along the way – each of which show demonstrably more promise for growth than any of the newspaper companies. But because management won't Disrupt – won't attack old Lock-ins – these companies keep hoping for a return to the days when newspapers were central to life. And that isn't going to happen. The world has moved onward. So, like Tribune, New York Times will eventually run out of resources and find itself in bankruptcy as well.
Unwillingness to Disrupt is a key indicator of a company likely to fail. Over time, all markets change. New competitors create new products that serve customers differently. Old Success Formulas see their returns evaporate as customers move to the new market solutions. And these companies end up, like Polaroid, being companies with a great past – but no future.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2008 | Current Affairs, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
The prognosticators are busy forecasting a tough 2009. Coming after the big slowdown in 2008, it would be tempting to do like Microsoft (see chart here) and cut costs in an effort to improve short term profits (read article here). Microsoft hasn't developed new products generating excitement or growth for a few years. It's botched effort to take on Google by purchasing Yahoo! was a disaster, leaving the company with no growth projects of note. Meanwhile, Vista had a lackluster launch, and is now being forced on new computer purchasers who regularly say they would prefer to run the older Windows XP. And every month Linux eats into Microsoft's market share. So for the first time ever, Microsoft appears to be planning to layoff employees - of as many as 10%. For a tech company dependent upon growth, this is not a good sign.
A better response can be seen at Domino's (see chart here). Since inception, Domino's has been synonymous with home delivered pizza. Although a leader in its segment, the company has not fared well for years, causing it's equity valuation to fall precipitously. Price wars in pizza are constant, and new product varieties are consistently being brought to market by endless competitors. In the last quarter, sales in open stores fell 6% versus a year ago, and net income fell almost 10%. It would be easy for Domino's leadership to redouble its effort to Defend & Extend its pizza business, and let some franchisees fail as it shrunk the open store base and cut costs.
Instead, Domino's is going into 2009 with an attack on Subway's Sandwich shops (read about launch here). In 2008 Domino's leadership recognized that following the pizza market into price warring would not improve sales or profitability. So it Disrupted and explored new opportunities to grow. After various tests, the company identified an opportunity in sandwiches, and a target competitor in Subway's. Using White Space to test and refine the approach, the company developed its initial Success Formula modifications to move beyond pizza – which has long been part of the company name and identity – and enter this market, reaching new customers at new times of day with new products. Confronting a difficult market, instead of "digging in" to an unprofitable war Domino's used scenario planning, competitor focus, Disruptions and White Space to identify a growth opportunity — even in a tough economy.
There are no rules requiring businesses keep doing what they always did. Those who prosper realize that when growth slows it's smartest to find new markets in which to compete. For every market suffering from price wars and over-competition there is a market with opportunity. Maintaining long-term success requires moving into new markets, launching entirely new products and acquiring new customers. Those companies exhibiting these Phoenix Principle behaviors will do a lot better in 2009 than those who focus on layoffs and cost cutting.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 29, 2008 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
2008 was quite a year. Many businesses came out far worse than they dreamed possible when the year started. The Wilshire 5000 (one of the broadest measures of U.S. equity values) declined 40% – losing some $7trillion dollars of value. More than 1.2million jobs disappeared in the USA. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are at record levels. Although we'd like to think this has been a very recent phenomenon, bankruptcies and business failures took a dramatic turn upward in 2000 (to what were then record levels) and remained at rates far above any historical norms for the decade. Not only small, but very large companies (those with assets greater than $1B) have been failing at rates exceeding 10x the failures of almost all decades in the 1900s. 2008 was more the climax of a trend than really something totally new.
So, what should you do about it? One option would be to cut costs and try to "survive the downturn." Unfortunately, that approach is very likely to doom the business. Firstly, the recovered economy won't look like the previous economy. Macro shifts in competitiveness and required capabilities to succeed have been happening since the 1990s, so the recovery will not benefit those who did well (and certainly not those who were mediocre performers) in previous times. Second, more innovative competitors who are better aligned with current markets will steal sales, customers and share while you retrench. Innovation doesn't stop during weak economies, and retrenching companies fall further behind while in survival mode to those who embrace the shifts and alter their Success Formulas. Just look at previous recessionary cost cutters like Xerox, DEC and Montgomery Wards.
With companies like Circuit City, Bed Bath & Beyond, The Bombay Company and Sharper Image failing while WalMart sales increased 3% in November, it might be tempting to say that now is the time simply to grow by doing more of what you've previously done. Or by focusing on ways to cut costs. But that would ignore the underlying trends that caused these companies to fail – and WalMart to stagnate with wickedly weak performance the entire last decade. While the credit crisis pushed the failures over the brink, their troubles were tied to broader themes in consumer demand and retail expectations. These companies were doing poorly long before the credit crisis emerged. And customers didn't flock to WalMart. 3% growth isn't what would be called spectacular. When WalMart looks good only because it isn't failing, it tells us that the future opportunity isn't to be like WalMart (which is the retail leader in low cost operations) – but instead to lead customers in new trends. Customers don't want all retailers to be like WalMart (which happened to be in the right place when this once in a lifetime crisis happened). They want innovation which will attract them.
Darwin himself said, "It is not the strongest that survive, nor the smartest…It is the most adaptable."
Increased use of digitization opened the floodgates to greater globalization. The search for "low cost" went global seeking the cheapest labor and lowest currency values. But it has also opened doors for more innovation. Companies in the U.S., Europe, India and China all have the opportunity to bring forward innovation in new products and new services to delivery value. The search for lower cost does not create growth, merrely lower cost. Innovation leads to real growth. Those companies which will emerge much stronger will be those who identify opportunities for real growth in these changed markets – by looking internally and externally for innovation.
If you find it hard to get excited about Delta, which is now the largest airline since merging with Northwest, don't feel bad. Just because higher fuel prices pushed some airlines over the brink, and left others (like United) badly crippled doesn't mean Delta is going to be a leader. Lower fuel prices short term, combined with decreased capacity due to failures, may increase short-term airline profits, but does not mean customers are any happier flying now than before. To the contrary, now that customers have to pay for their own soft drinks and sandwiches (at incredibly expensive prices, by the way), pay extra fees for checking bags, have to take connecting flights more often with longer travel times and greater risks of delays, and deal with unhappy airline employees who are working for less pay, benefits and pension means customer satisfaction is at an all-time low. It's not likely that Delta will lead people back onto flights. Instead, customers are looking for a supplier that will use innovation to provide a better experience and value — possibly Virgin America?
If we all go into 2009 with plans only to cut costs and "wait it out" then 2009 will not be a good year. What are we waiting out? How can we expect things to "get better"? But if we use 2009 to identify innovation which can better meet customer needs, we have every reason to be optimistic. Now, more than ever, it is time to Disrupt our Lock-ins to old behaviors. We don't need "more of the same, but cheaper". We need to be aware of the limits in our existing Success Formulas by Disrupting. And we need to explore White Space where innovations can be tested. White Space will create new Success Formulas which will create growth – and that could make 2009 into a great year for those companies focused on the future and willing to adapt to this latest market shift.
