by Adam Hartung | Feb 1, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- There is dramatic change in the television/media industry
- NBC Universal/Comcast is changing ownership, and leaders
- The company’s future success will have more to do with which battles the new President invests in than the history, or style of the past and future company President’s
- Trying to “fix” the old business will waste resources and harm future prospects
- Success will require developing a management approach that gives permission and resources to find a path to the future – a future that will be nothing like the past
NBC Universal is changing owners, from General Electric to Comcast. The former NBC President, Jeff Zucker, is being replaced by Steve Burke. Stylistically, it’s hard to imagine two fellas less alike. Mr. Burke, portraited in the New York Times “A Little Less Drama at NBC,” is a mild-mannered, quiet, self-effacing executive who almost attended divinity school. He avoids the limelight as much as he avoids being abrasive with colleagues. The outgoing Mr. Zucker is by all accounts brash,abrasive and quick to make decisions, as he was portraited in PaidContent.org “Was Jeff Zucker Really So Bad For NBC Universal?“
But it isn’t executive style that will determine whether Mr. Burke succeeds. Although NBCU just returned its highest profits since 2004, the television and media industries are in dramatic transition. Things aren’t like they used to be, and they will never be that way again. Growing revenues, and profits, at the combined NBCU/Comcast will require Mr. Burke quickly move both companies into a different kind of competitor focused on the changed market of 2015 – when media customers and suppliers will both be very different, with quite different demands.
Although Mr. Zucker is blasted for allowing NBC’s ratings to fall to last among the Big 3 networks (including CBS and ABC), it’s not at all clear why that wasn’t a smart move. What has grown NBC’s profits has been far removed from network programming. It was the acquisition of cable channels USA and Sci Fi (now Syfy) via Universal, and later Bravo, Oxygen and The Weather Channel that contributed greatly to NBC’s revenue and profit growth. These were also enhanced by building, from scratch, the #1 business-content television channel at CNBC, and the profitable, somewhat populist counter-channel to powerhouse conservative Fox News with MSNBC. Despite what the critics (who are largely interested in programs rather than profits) have said, it may have been an act of brilliance to avoid investing in the declining business that is prime time network programming.
What anyone thinks about the brouhaha over Jay Leno’s attempt at prime time, and Conan O’Brien’s stint leading The Today Show, is immaterial to revenue growth and profits. I’m a late boomer, so I remember when there were only 3 stations, and Johny Carson dominated the post-news late evening. But now I have college age sons that don’t even own televisions, have almost no idea who Jay Leno is (other than know of him as a car and motorcycle collector) and find all interview programs boring. “Network” TV is something they don’t quite understand – since their tolerance for watching entertainment on someone else’s pre-determined schedule is non-existent, and their patience for sitting through commercials of real-time programming is even lower. In other words, what happens in the “prime time” race, or with network celebrities, really doesn’t matter any more. And if NBCU can’t grow viewers it can’t grow ad revenues – so why should it invest in the prime time business? Just because it used to? Or started that way?
While lots of media “experts” are screaming for Mr. Burke to “fix” NBC, that business is already well into the hospice. Network share of entertainment interest is falling rapidly as boomers die, dozens of new offerings are micro-targeting across the channel spectrum, and we all turn to the internet for downloads, ignoring the TV for news or entertainment several additional hours each year. Meanwhile, people under the age of 30 aren’t even watching much television any more. They just pretend to watch while sitting with their parents as they text, check Facebook or watch a downloaded program on their iPhone.
“Network” programming is a business which is not going to grow again. Given how costs are increasing for traditional shows, and the over-explosion of inexpensive “reality” or “news” shows, and fragmentation and decline of advertising why would anyone ever expect this to be a profitable business? Being last in that 3 horse race is about as interesting as tracking share of market for printed phone directories. Probably the first to quit ist he big winner. So why should Mr. Burke spend much time, or money, fighting the last war? “Fixing” that outdated business model is fraught with high risk, and low return. Now that tthe artificial limits on news and entertainment programming have been removed (thanks to the internet) isn’t it time to let go of that historial artifact and focus on the future?
We know the future will be a mix of traditional TV (at least for a while, but don’t make any bets on it being too long), as well as targeted channels we now refer to as “cable” (even though that moniker is clearly losing meaning in a WiFi world.) Some of these will be free access, and some will be paid content. But all of that now must compete with downloads from Netfilx, Hulu (in which NBCU is a part owner) and YouTube (partially owned by Google.) People can create and post their own programs, and even do their own marketing. Instant availability, reviews and promotion will be couresy of Twitter and Facebook. This is a lot more complex than just ordering a new crime drama series, or situation comedy, and foisting it on a market with only a handful of channel options.
Viewership will range from 50″ panels, to 2″ hand-held screens – with a plethora of optional sizes in between. Program length will be infinitely variable from hours of non-stop viewing to constantly interrupted sound bites, no longer proscribed by 30 minute increments. Traditional programming, like local or national “news” will have little meaning, or value, in 2020 (or maybe 2015) when we will be receiving instant updates several times each day on our mobile device.
Mr. Zucker did a yeoman’s job of steering NBCU toward the future. He was smart enough to understand that only historians, locked-in media critics and old farts in Lay-Z-Boys care about what’s happening on The Tonight Show or the NBC News. His primary investments were oriented toward understanding the future, and getting NBCU’s toes into that rapidly churning water where future growth lies. But he’s leaving just as the stream is turning into a torrent. Even what he did could well be out of date within a few years – or months!
Now it is Mr. Burke’s turn. The very pleasant fellow has a daunting challenge. If he isn’t supposed to “double down” his bets in network TV, and traditional “cable,” what is he supposed to do? In a dramatically changing advertising world, where Google, Facebook and mobile device ads are now becoming the hot markets, what is the role for NBCU/Comcast? If we no longer need the physucal cable (say in 2020), won’t Comcast lose subscribers for cable access just like we’re seeing declines in subscribers for newspapers, DVD subscriptions, land-line telephones and land-line long distance? What is the role of a “programmer” like NBCU if viewers all have unlimited access to everything, anytime, anywhere, in any format? And what is the value of a content provider if self-published content streams onto the web by the terabyte daily? And is sorted by engines like Google and YouTube?
What Mr. Burke must do, regardless of style, is develop some scenarios about the future, and understand the much more complex playing field that is today’s media business. He has to find the holes in competition, and learn how to leverage what the “fringe” competitors are doing that drives all that usage, and viewership. And, most importantly, he has to keep experimenting – just as Mr. Zucker did. He has to create opportunities to test the newly developing markets, figure out who will buy, and what they will buy. He has to set up white space teams who have permission to be experimental, even if they attack the old businesses like “network” TV – even cannibalizing the historical viewr base as they transition toward future media markets. If he can create these teams, give them the right permission and resources, NBCU/Comcast could be the next great media company.
We’ll have to wait and see. Will the sirens of the past, looking backward, pull the company into gladiator battles with old foes trying to hold share in narrowing, declining markets? That path looks like a sure disaster. Despite being an early leader with satellite TV and MySpace that approach has not helped NewsCorp. But betting on the future is more a bet on the journey, and finding the right path, than betting on any particular destination. The future-based approach takes a lot of faith in company leadership, and the company management team. It will be interesting to see which way Mr. Burke goes.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 27, 2011 | Current Affairs, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Science, Web/Tech
Summary:
- The President has called for more innovation in America
- But American business management doesn’t know how to be innovative
- Business leaders focus on efficiency, not innovation
- America has no inherent advantage in innovation
- To increase innovation we need a change in incentives, to favor innovation over efficiency and traditional brick-and-mortar investments
- We need to highlight leaders that have demonstrated the ability to create jobs in the information economy, not the “old guard” just because they run big, but floundering, companies
It was good to hear the U.S. President call for more innovation in his State of the Union address this week. And it sounded like he wants most of that to come from business, rather than government. But I’m reminded the President is a lawyer and politician. As a businessman, well, let’s say he’s a bit naive. Most businesses don’t have a clue how to be innovative, as Forbes pointed out in November, 2009 in “Why the Pursuit of Innovation Usually Fails.”
Businesses by and large are not designed to be innovative. Modern management theory, going back to the days of Frederick Taylor, has been dominated by efficiency. For the last decade businesses have reacted to global competitive forces by seeking additional efficiency. Thus the offshoring movement for information technology and manufacturing eliminated millions of American jobs driving unemployment to double digits, and undermines new job creation keeping unemployment stubbornly high.
It is not surprising business leaders avoid innovation, when the august Wall Street Journal headlines on January 20 “In Race to Market, It Pays to Be Latecomer.” Citing a number of innovator failures, including automobiles, browsers and small computers, the journal concludes that it is smarter business to not innovate. Rather leaders should wait, let someone else innovate and then hope they can take the idea and make something of it down the road. Not a ringing pledge for how good management supports the innovation agenda!
The professors cited in the Journal article take a fairly common point of view. Because innovators fail, don’t be one. Lower your risk, come in later, hope you can catch the market at a future time. It’s easy to see in hindsight how innovators fail, so why take the risk? Keep your eyes on being efficient – and innovation is anything but efficient! Because most businesspeople don’t understand how to manage innovation, don’t try.
As discussed in my last blog, about Sara Lee, executives, managers and investors have come to believe that cost cutting, and striving for more efficiency, is the solution for most business problems. According to the Washington Post, “Immelt To Head New Advisory Board on Job Creation.” The President appointed the GE Chairman to this highly visible position, yet Mr. Immelt has spent most of the last decade shrinking GE, and pushing jobs offshore, rather than growing the company – especially domestically. Gone are several GE businesses created in the 1990s – including the recent spin out of NBC to Comcast. It’s ironic that the President would appoint someone who has overseen downsizings and offshoring to this position, instead of someone who has demonstrated the ability to create jobs over the last decade.
As one can easily imagine, efficiency is not the handmaiden of innovation. To the contrary, as we build organizations the desire for efficiency and “professional management” impedes innovation. According to Portfolio.com in “Can Google Be Entrepreneurial” even Google, a leading technology company with such exciting new products as Android and Chrome, has replaced its CEO Eric Schmidt with founder Larry Page in order to more effectively manage innovation. The contention is that the 55 year old professional manager Schmidt created innovation barriers. If a company as young and successful as Google struggles to innovate, one can only imagine the difficulties at traditional, aged American businesses!
While many will trumpet America’s leadership in all business categories, Forbes‘ Fred Allen is correct to challenge our thinking in “The Myth of American Superiority at Innovation.” For decades America’s “Myth of Efficiency” has pushed organizations to streamline, cutting anything that is not totally necessary to do what it historically did better, faster or cheaper. Innovation inside businesses was designed to improve existing processes, usually cutting cost and jobs, not create new markets with high growth that creates jobs and economic growth. Most executives would 10x rather see a plan to cut costs saving “hard dollars” in the supply chain, or sales and marketing, than something involving new product introduction into new markets where they have to deal with “unknowns.” Where our superiority in innovation originates, if at all, is unclear.
Lawyers are not historically known for their creativity. Hours spent studying precedent doesn’t often free the mind to “think outside the box.” Business folks have their own “precedent managers” – internal experts who set themselves up intentionally to block experimentation and innovation in the name of lowering risk, being conservative and carefully managing the core business. To innovate most organizations will be forced to “Fire the Status Quo Police” as I called for last September here in Forbes. But that isn’t easy.
America can be very innovative. Just look at the leadership America exerts in all things “social media” – from Facebook to Groupon! And look at how adroitly Apple has turned around by moving beyond its roots in personal computing to success in music (iPod and iTunes), mobile telephony and data (iPhone) and mobile computing (iPad). Netflix has used a couple of rounds of innovation to unseat old leader Blockbuster! But Apple and Netflix are still the rarities – innovators amongst the hoards of myopic organizations still focused on optimization. Look no further than the problems Microsoft – a tech company – has had balancing its desire to maintain PC domination while ineffectively attempting to market innovation.
What America needs is less bully pulpit, and more action if you really want innovation Mr. President:
- Increase tax credits for R&D
- Increase tax deductions and credits for new product launches by expanding the definition of what constitutes R&D in the tax code
- Implement penalties on offshore outsourcing to discourage the efficiency focus and the chronic push to low-cost global resources
- Lower capital gains taxes to encourage wealth creation through new business creation
- Manage the deficit by implementing VAT (value added taxes) which add cost to supply chain transactions, thus lowering the value of “efficiency” moves
- Make it much easier for foreign graduate students in America to receive their green cards so we can keep them here and quit exporting some of the brightest innovators we develop to foreign countries
- Create more tax incentives for investing in high tech – from nanotech to biotech to infotech – and quit wasting money trying to favor investments in manufacturing. Provide accelerated or double deductions for buying lab equipment, and stretch out deductions for brick-and-mortar spending. Better yet, quit spending so much on road construction and simply give credits to people who buy lab equipment and other innovation tools.
- Propose regulations on executive compensation so leaders aren’t encouraged to undertake short-term cost cutting measures merely to prop up short-term profits at the expense of long-term viability
- Quit putting “old guard” leaders who have seen their companies do poorly in highly placed positions. Reach out to those who really understand the information economy to fill such positions – like Eric Schmidt from Google, or John Chambers at Cisco Systems.
- Reform the FDA so new bio-engineered solutions do not follow regulations based on 50 year old pharma technology and instead streamline go-to-market processes for new innovations
- Quit spending so much money on border fences, DEA crack-downs on marijuana users and giant defense projects. Put the money into grants for universities and entrepreneurs to create and implement innovation.
Mr. President,, don’t expect traditional business to do what it has not done for over a decade. If you want innovation, take actions that will create innovation. American business can do it, but it will take more than asking for it. it will take a change in incentives and management.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 19, 2011 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, Games, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Music, Openness, Web/Tech
The Wall Street Journal headlined Monday, “Apple Chief to Take Leave.” Forbes.com Leadership editor Fred Allen quickly asked what most folks were asking “Where does Steve Jobs Leave Apple Now?” as he led multiple bloggers covering the speculation about how long Mr. Jobs would be absent from Apple, or if he would ever return, in “What They Are Saying About Steve Jobs.” The stock took a dip as people all over raised the question covered by Steve Caulfield in Forbes’ “Timing of Steve Jobs Return Worries Investors, Fans.”
If you want to make money investing, this is what’s called a “buying opportunity.” As Forbes’ Eric Savitz reported “Apple is More Than Just Steve Jobs.” Just look at the most recent results, as reported in Ad Age “Apple Posts ‘Record Quarter’ on Strong iPhone, Mac, iPad Sales:”
- Quarterly revenue is up 70% vs. last year to $26.7B (Apple is a $100B company!)
- Quarterly earnings rose 77% vs last year to $6B
- 15 million iPads were sold in 2010, with 7.3 million sold in the last quarter
- Apple has $50B cash on hand to do new product development, acquisitions or pay dividends
ZDNet demonstrated Apple’s market resiliency headlining “Apple’s iPad Represents 90% of All Tablets Shipped.” While it is true that Droid tablets are now out, and we know some buyers will move to non-Apple tablets, ZDNet predicts the market will grow more than 250% in 2011 to over 44 million units, giving Apple a lot of room to grow even with competitors bringing out new products.
Apple is a tremendously successful company because it has a very strong sense of where technology is headed and how to apply it to meet user needs. Apple is creating market shifts, while many other companies are reacting. By deeply understanding its competitors, being willing to disrupt historical markets and using White Space to expand applications Apple will keep growing for quite a while. With, or without Steve Jobs.
On the other hand, there’s the stuck-in-the-past management team at Microsoft. Tied to all those aging, outdated products and distribution plans built on PC technology that is nearing end of life. But in the midst of the management malaise out of Seattle Kinect suddenly showed up as a bright spot! SFGate reported that “Microsoft’s Xbox Kinect beond hackers, hobbyists.” Seems engineers around the globe had started using Kinect in creative ways that were way beyond anything envisioned by Microsoft! Put into a White Space team, it was possible to start imagining Kinect could be powerful enough to resurrect innovation, and success, at the aging monopolist!
But, unfortunately, Microsoft seems far too stuck in its old ways to take advantage of this disruptive opportunity. Joel West at SeekingAlpha.com tells us “Microsoft vs. Open Kinect: How to Miss a Significant Opportunity.” Microsoft is dedicated to its plan for Kinect to help the company make money in games – and has no idea how to create a White Space team to exploit the opportunity as a platform for myriad uses (like Apple did with its app development approach for the iPhone.)
In the end, ZDNet joined my chorus looking to oust Ballmer (possibly a case study in how to be the most misguided CEO in corporate America) by asking “Ballmer’s 11th Year as Microsoft’s CEO – Is it Time for Him to Go?” Given Ballmer’s massive shareholding, and thus control of the Board, it’s doubtful he will go anywhere, or change his management approach, or understand how to leverage a breakthrough innovation. So as the Cloud keeps decreasing demand for traditional PCs and servers, Brett Owens at SeekingAlpha concludes in “A Look at Valuations of Google, Apple, Microsoft and Intel” that Microsoft has nowhere to go but down! Given the amazingly uninspiring ad program Microsoft is now launching (as described in MediaPost “Microsoft Intros New Corporate Tagline, Strategy“) we can see management has no idea how to find, or sell, innovation.
We often hear advice to buy shares of a company. Rarely recommendations to sell. But Apple is the best positioned company to maintain growth for several more years, while Microsoft has almost no hope of moving beyond its Lock-in to old products and markets which are declining. Simplest trade of 2011 is to sell Microsoft and buy Apple. Just read the headlines, and don’t get suckered into thinking Apple is nothing more than Steve Jobs. He’s great, but Apple can remain great in his absence.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 13, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Before there was Facebook, the social media juggernaut which is changing how we communicate – and might change the face of media – there was MySpace. MySpace was targeted at the same audience, had robust capability, and was to market long before Facebook. It generated enormous interest, received a lot of early press, created huge valuation when investors jumped in, and was undoubtedly not only an early internet success – but a seminal web site for the movement we now call social media. On top of that, MySpace was purchased by News Corporation, a powerhouse media company, and was given professional managers to help guide its future as well as all the resources it ever wanted to support its growth. By almost all ways we look at modern start-ups, MySpace was the early winner and should have gone on to great glory.
But things didn’t turn out that way. Facebook was hatched by some college undergrads, and started to grow. Meanwhile MySpace stagnated as Facebook exploded to 600 million active users. During early 2010, according to The Telegraph in “Facebook Dominance Forces Rival Networks to Go Niche,” MySpace gave up on its social media leadership dreams and narrowed its focus to the niche of being a “social entertainment destination.” As the number of users fell, MySpace was forced to cut costs, laying off half its staff this week according to MediaPost.com “MySpace Confirms Massive Layoffs.” After losing a reported $350million last year, it appears that MySpace may disappear – “MySpace Versus Facebook – There Can Be Only One” reported at Gigaom.com. The early winner now appears a loser, most likely to be unplugged, and a very expensive investment with no payoff for NewsCorp investors.
What went wrong? A lot of foks will be relaying the tactics of things done and not done at MySpace. As well as tactics done and not done at Facebook. But underlying all those tactics was a very simple management mistake News Corp. made. News Corp tried to guide MySpace, to add planning, and to use “professional management” to determine the business’s future. That was fatally flawed when competing with Facebook which was managed in White Space, lettting the marketplace decide where the business should go.
If the movie about Facebook’s founding has any veracity, we can accept that none of the founders ever imagined the number of people and applications that Facebook would quickly attract. From parties to social games to product reviews and user networks – the uses that have brought 600 million users onto Facebook are far, far beyond anything the founders envisioned. According to the movie, the first effort to sell ads to anyone were completely unsuccessful, as uses behond college kids sharing items on each other were not on the table. It appeared like a business bust at the beginning.
But, the brilliance of Mark Zuckerberg was his willingness to allow Facebook to go wherever the market wanted it. Farmville and other social games – why not? Different ways to find potential friends – go for it. The founders kept pushing the technology to do anything users wanted. If you have an idea for networking on something, Facebook pushed its tech folks to make it happen. And they kept listening. And looking within the comments for what would be the next application – the next promotion – the next revision that would lead to more uses, more users and more growth.
And that’s the nature of White Space management. No rules. Not really any plans. No forecasting markets. Or foretelling uses. No trying to be smarter than the users to determine what they shouldn’t do. Not prejudging ideas so as to limit capability and focus the business toward a projected conclusion. To the contrary, it was about adding, adding, adding and doing whatever would allow the marketplace to flourish. Permission to do whatever it takes to keep growing. And resource it as best you can – without prejudice as to what might work well, or even best. Keep after all of it. What doesn’t work stop resourcing, what does work do more.
Contrarily, at NewsCorp the leaders of MySpace had a plan. NewsCorp isn’t run by college kids lacking business sense. Leaders create Powerpoint decks describing where the business will head, where they will invest, how they will earn a positive ROI, projections of what will work – and why – and then plans to make it happen. They developed the plan, and then worked the plan. Plan and execute. The professional managers at News Corp looked into the future, decided what to do, and did it. They didn’t leave direction up to market feedback and crafty techies – they ran MySpace like a professional business.
And how’d that work out for them?
Unfortunately, MySpace demonstrates a big fallacy of modern management. The belief that smart MBAs, with industry knowledge, will perform better. That “good management” means you predict, you forecast, you plan, and then you go execute the plan. Instead of reacting to market shifts, fast, allowing mistakes to happen while learning what works, professional managers should be able to predict and perform without making mistakes. That once the bright folks who create the strategy set a direction, its all about executing the plan. That execution will lead to success. If you stumble, you need to focus harder on execution.
When managing innovation, including operating in high growth markets, nothing works better than White Space. Giving dedicated people permission to do whatever it takes, and resources, then holding their feet to the fire to demonstrate performance. Letting dedicated people learn from their successes, and failures, and move fast to keep the business in the fast moving water. There is no manager, leader or management team that can predict, plan and execute as well as a team that has its ears close to the market, and the flexibility to react quickly, willing to make mistakes (and learn from them even faster) without bias for a predetermined plan.
The penchant for planning has hurt a lot of businesses. Rarely does a failed business lack a plan. Big failures – like Circuit City, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM – are full of extremely bright, well educated (Harvard, Stanford, University of Chicago, Wharton) MBAs who are prepared to study, analyze, predict, plan and execute. But it turns out their crystal ball is no better than – well – college undergraduates.
When it comes to applying innovation, use White Space teams. Drop all the business plan preparation, endless crunching of historical numbers, multi-tabbed Excel spreadsheets and powerpoint matrices. Instead, dedicate some people to the project, push them into the market, make them beg for resources because they are sure they know where to put them (without ROI calculations) and tell them to get it done – or you’ll fire them. You’ll be amazed how fast they (and your company) will learn – and grow.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 10, 2011 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Communication is now global, instantaneous and free
- As a result people, and businesses, now adopt innovation more quickly than ever
- Competitors adapt much quicker, and react much stronger than ever in history
- Profits are squeezed by competitors rapidly adopting innovations
- But many business leaders avoid disruptions, leading to slower growth and declining returns
- To maintain, and grow, revenues and profits you must be willing to implement disruptions in order to stay ahead of fast moving competitors
- Amidst fast shifting markets, greatest value (P/E multiple and market cap) is given to those companies that create disruptions (like Facebook, Groupon, Twitter)
All business leaders know the pace of competitive change has increased.
It took decades for everyone to obtain an old-fashioned land line telephone. Decades for everyone to buy a TV. And likewise, decades for color TV adoption. Microwave ovens took more than a decade. Thirty years ago the words “long distance” implied a very big cost, even if it was a call from just a single interchange away (not even an area code away – just a different set of “prefix” numbers.) People actually wrote letters, and waited days for responses! Social change, and technology adoption, took a lot longer – and was considered expensive.
Now we assume communications at no cost with colleagues, peers, even competitors not only across town state, or nation, but across the globe! Communication – whether email, or texting, or old fashioned voice calls – has become free and immediate. (Consider Skype if you want free phone calls [including video no less] and use a PC at your local library or school building if you don’t own one.) Factoring inflation, it is possible to provide every member of a family of 5 with instant phone, email and text communication real-time, wirelessly, 24×7, globally for less than my parents paid for a single land-line, local-exchange only (no long distance) phone 50 years ago! And these mobile devices can send pictures!
As a result, competitors know more about each other a whole lot faster, and take action much more quickly, than ever in history. Facebook, for example, is now connecting hundreds of millions of people with billions of communications every day. According to statistics published on Facebook.com, every 20 minutes the Facebook website produces:
- 1,000,000 shared links
- 1,323,000 tagged photos
- 1,484,000 event invitations
- 1,587,000 Wall posts
- 1,851,000 Status updates
- 1,972,000 Friend requests accepted
- 2,716,000 photos uploaded
- 4,632,000 messages
- 10,208,000 comments
Multiply those numbers by 3 to get hourly. By 72 to get daily. Big numbers! Alexander Graham Bell had to invent the hardware and string thousands of miles of cable to help people communicate with his disruption. His early “software” were thousands of “operators” connecting calls through central switchboards. Mark Zuckerberg and friends only had to create a web site using existing infrastructure and existing tools to create theirs. Rapidly adopting, and using, existing innovations allowed Facebook’s founders to create a disruptive innovation of their own! Disruption has allowed Facebook to thrive!
Facebook has disrupted the way we communicate, learn, buy and sell. “Word of mouth” referrals are now possible from friends – and total strangers. Product benefits and problems are known instantaneously. Networks of people arguably have more influence that TV networks! Many employees are likely to make more facebook communications in a day than have conversations with co-workers! Facebook (or twitter) is rapidly becoming the new “water cooler.” Only it is global and has inputs from anyone. Yet only a fraction of businesses have any plans for using Facebook – internally or to be more competitive!
Far too many business leaders are unwilling to accept, adopt, invest in or implement disruptions.
InnovateOnPurpose.com highlights why in “Why Innovation Makes Executives Uncomfortable:”
- Innovation is part art, and not all science. Many execs would like to think they can run a business like engineering a bridge. They ignore the fact that businesses implement in society, and innovation is where we use the social sciences to help us gain insight into the future. Success requires more than just extending the past – because market shifts happen. If you can’t move beyond engineering principles you can’t lead or manage effectively in a fast-changing world where the rules are not fixed.
- Innovation requires qualitative insights not just quantitative statistics. Somewhere in the last 50 years the finance pros, and a lot of expensive strategy consultants, led business leaders to believe that if they simply did enough number crunching they could eliminate all risk and plan a guaranteed great future. Despite hundreds of math PhDs, that approach did not work out so well for derivative investors – and killed Lehman Brothers (and would have killed AIG insurance had the government not bailed it out.) Math is a great science, and numbers are cool, but they are insufficient for success when the premises keep changing.
- Innovation requires hunches, not facts. Well, let’s say more than a hunch. Innovation requires we do more scenario planning about the future, rather than just pouring over historical numbers and expecting projections to come true. We don’t need crystal balls to recognize there will be change, and to develop scenario plans that help us prepare for change. Innovation helps us succeed in a dynamic world, and implementation requires a willingness to understand that change is inevitable, and opportunistic.
- Innovation requires risks, not certainties. Unfortunately, there are NO certainties in business. Even the status quo plan is filled with risk. It’s not that innovation is risky, but rather that planning systems (ERP systems, CRM systems, all systems) are heavily biased toward doing more of the same – not something new! Markets can shift incredibly fast, and make any success formula obsolete. But most executives would rather fail doing the same thing faster, working harder, doing what used to work, than implement changes targeted at future market needs. Leaders perceive following the old strategy is less risky, when in reality it’s loaded with risk too! Too many businesses have failed at the hands of low-risk, certainty seeking leadership unable to shift with changing markets (GM, Chrysler, Circuit City, Fannie Mae, Brach’s, Sun Microsystems, Quest, the old AT&T, Lucent, AOL, Silicon Graphics, Yahoo, to name a few.)
Markets are shifting all around us. Faster than imaginable just 2 decades ago. Leaders, strategists and planners that enter 2011 hoping they can win by doing more, better, faster, cheaper will have a very tough time. That is the world of execution, and modern communication makes execution incredibly easy to copy, incredibly fast. Even Wal-Mart, ostensibly one of the best execution-oriented companies of all time, has struggled to grow revenue and profit for a decade. Today, companies that thrive embrace disruption. They are willing to disrupt within their organizations to create new ideas, and they are willing to take disruptive opportunities to market. Compare Apple to Dell, or Netflix to Blockbuster.
Recent investments have valued Facebook at $50B, Groupon at $6B and Twitter at almost $4B. Apple is now the second most valuable company (measured by market capitalization). Why? Because they are disrupting the way we do things. To thrive (perhaps survive by 2015) requires moving beyond the status quo, overcoming the perceived risk of innovation (and change) and taking the actions necessary to provide customers what they want in the future! Any company can thrive if it embraces the disruptions around it, and uses them to create a few disruptions of its own.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 27, 2010 | General, In the Rapids, Leadership, Web/Tech
"Too Add Value Through IT, Pick Up the Ball" headlines my latest article published by IDG group. For years IT leaders thought their job was to "keep the joint running." Today, that's insufficient. Nobody can avoid being part of the growth agenda if they are to be a successful leader or manager.
To drive success, and keep their jobs, IT leaders now have to move beyond simply being defensive. Keeping the systems running, and cutting operating costs, is not enough to be a great CIO. Too many have ended up outsourcing almost everything in order to lower costs, only to discover that IT becomes far too rigid and unable to support market needs when so many services are outsourced to third parties.
Today's CIO has to spend more time figuring out how to flexibly, adaptively, bring new solutions to both insiders and customers. It's important CIOs not just track historical (and accounting) data, but behave like the offensive team, identifying and tracking considerably more market-based data. And creating various future scenarios to help the company spot trends and opportunities. On top of this, IT must demonstrate how using emerging solutions – from Salesforce.com to Groupon, Foursquare and Facebook (examples) – can reach more customers, faster – driving higher revenues.
Read how important it is for IT to become part of the growth engine at one of the locations where this article has been published:
@ CIO Magazine – @ PC World – @ Network World – @ IT World Canada – @ CIO Australia – @ ComputerWorld Norway
Additionally, read my latest article on effective strategic planning – for IT or any part of the organization – published by the Strategic Planning Society of the UK "Disrupting the Marketplace". This article describes how to add maximum value, growing revenue, cash flow and profits, by identifying and implementing opportunities to disrupt the marketplace. And allowing those disruptions to invade your own organization for more dynamism.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 17, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Many people think it is OK for large companies to grow slowly
- Many people admire caretaker CEOs
- In dynamic markets, low-growth companies fail
- It is harder to generate $1B of new revenue, than grow a $100B company by $10B
- Large companies have vastly more resources, but they squander them badly
- We allow large company CEOs too much room for mediocrity and failure
- Good CEOs never lose a growth agenda, and everyone wins!
“I may just be your little rent collector Mr. Potter, but that George Bailey is making quite a bit happen in that new development of his. If he keeps going it may just be time for this smart young man to go asking George Bailey for a job.” From “It’s a Wonderful Life“ an employee of the biggest employer in mythical Beford Falls talks about the growth of a smaller competitor.
My last post gathered a lot of reads, and a lot of feedback. Most of it centered on how GE should not be compared to Facebook, largely because of size differences, and therefore how it was ridiculous to compare Jeff Immelt with Mark Zuckerberg. Many readers felt that I overstated the good qualities of Mr. Zuckerberg, while not giving Mr. Immelt enough credit for his skills managing “lower growth businesses” in a “tough economy.” Many viewed Mr. Immelt’s task as incomparably more difficult than that of managing a high growth, smaller tech company from nothing to several billion revenue in a few years. One frequent claim was that it is enough to maintain revenue in a giant company, growth was less important.
Why do so many people give the CEOs of big companies a break? Given that they make huge salaries and bonuses, have fantastic perquesites (private jets, etc.), phenominal benefits and pensions, and receive remarkable payouts whether they succeed or fail I would think we’d have very high standards for these leaders – and be incensed when their performance is sub-par.
Facebook started with almost no resources (as did Twitter and Groupon). Most leaders of start-ups fail. It is remarkably difficult to marshal resources – both enough of them and productively – to grow a company at double digit rates, produce higher revenue, generate cash flow (or loans) and keep employees happy. Growing to a billion dollars revenue from nothing is inexplicably harder than adding $10B to a $100B company. Compared to Facebook, GE has massive resources. Mr. Immelt entered the millenium with huge cash flow, huge revenues, and an army of very smart employees. Mr. Zuckerberg had to come out of the blocks from a standing start and create ALL his company’s momentum, while comparatively Mr. Immelt took on his job riding a bullet out of a gun! GE had huge momentum, a low cost of capital, and enough resources to do anything it wanted.
Yet somehow we should think that we don’t have as high expectations from Mr. Immelt as we do Mr. Zuckerberg? That would seem, at the least, distorted.
In business school I read the story of how American steel manufacturers were eclipsed by the Japanese. Ending WWII America had almost all the steel capacity. Manufacturers raked in the profits. Japanese and German companies that were destroyed had to rebuild, which they progressively did with more efficient assets. By the 1960s American companies were no longer competitive. Were we to believe that having their industrial capacity destroyed somehow was a good thing for the foreign competitors? That if you want to improve your competitiveness (say in autos) you should drop a nuclear bomb on the facilities (some may like that idea – but not many who live in Detroit I dare say.) In reality the American leaders simply refused to invest in new technologies and growth markets, allowing competitors to end-run them. The American leaders were busy acting as caretakers, and bragging about their success, instead of paying attention to market shifts and keeping their companies successful!
Big companies, like GE, are highly advantaged. They not only have brand, and market position, but cash, assets, employees and vendors in position to help them be even more successful! A smart CEO uses those resources to take the company into growth markets where it can grow revenues, and profits, faster than the marketplace. For example Steve Jobs at Apple, and Eric Schmidt at Google have found new markets, revenues and cash flow beyond their original “core” markets. That’s what Mr. Welch did as predecessor to Mr. Immelt. He didn’t so much take advantage of a growth economy as help create it! Unfortunately, far too many large company CEOs squander their resources on low rate of return projects, trying to defend their existing business rather than push forward.
Most big companies over-invest in known markets, or technologies, that have low growth rates, rather than invest in growth markets, or technologies they don’t know as well. Think about how Motorola invented the smart phone technology, but kept investing in traditional cellular phones. Or Sears, the inventor of “at home shopping” with catalogues closed that division to chase real-estate based retail, allowing Amazon to take industry leadership and market growth. Circuit City ended up investing in its approach to retail until it went bankrupt in 2010 – even though it was a darling of “Good to Great.” Or Microsoft, which launched a tablet and a smart phone, under leader Ballmer re-focused on its “core” operating system and office automation markets letting Apple grab the growth markets with R&D investments 1/8th of Microsoft’s. These management decisions are not something we should accept as “natural.” Leaders of big companies have the ability to maintain, even accelerate, growth. Or not.
Why give leaders in big companies a break just because their historical markets have slower growth? Singer’s leadership realized women weren’t going to sew at home much longer, and converted the company into a defense contractor to maintain growth. Netflix converted from a physical product company (DVDs) into a streaming download company in order to remain vital and grow while Blockbuster filed bankruptcy. Apple transformed from a PC company into a multi-media company to create explosive growth generating enough cash to buy Dell outright – although who wants a distributor of yesterday’s technology (remember Circuit City.) Any company can move forward to be anything it wants to be. Excusing low growth due to industry, or economic, weakness merely gives the incumbent a pass. Good CEOs don’t sit in a foxhole waiting to see if they survive, blaming a tough battleground, they develop strategies to change the battle and win, taking on new ground while the competition is making excuses.
GM was the world’s largest auto company when it went broke. So how did size benefit GM? In the 1980s Roger Smith moved GM into aerospace by acquiring Hughes electronics, and IT services by purchasing EDS – two remarkable growth businesses. He “greenfielded” a new approach to auto manufucturing by opening the wildly successful Saturn division. For his foresight, he was widely chastised. But “caretaker” leadership sold off Hughes and EDS, then forced Saturn to “conform” to GM practices gutting the upstart division of its value. Where one leader recognized the need to advance the company, followers drove GM to bankruptcy by selling out of growth businesses to re-invest in “core” but highly unprofitable traditional auto manufacturing and sales. Meanwhile, as the giant failed, much smaller Kia, Tesla and Tata are reshaping the auto industry in ways most likely to make sure GM’s comeback is short-lived.
CEOs of big companies are paid a lot of money. A LOT of money. Much more than Mr. Zuckerberg at Facebook, or the leaders of Groupon and Netflix (for example). So shouldn’t we expect more from them? (Marketwatch.com “Top CEO Bonuses of 2010“) They control vast piles of cash and other resources, shouldn’t we expect them to be aggressively investing those resources in order to keep their companies growing, rather than blaming tax strategies for their unwillingness to invest? (Wall Street Journal “Obama Pushes CEOs on Job Creation“) It’s precisely because they are so large that we should have high expectations of big companies investing in growth – because they can afford to, and need to!
At the end of the day, everyone wins when CEOs push for growth. Investors obtain higher valuation (Apple is worth more than Microsoft, and almost more than 10x larger Exxon!,) employees receive more pay (see Google’s recent 10% across the board pay raise,) employees have more advancement opportunities as well as personal growth, suppliers have the opportunity to earn profits and bring forward new innovation – creating more jobs and their own growth – rather than constantly cutting price. Answering the Economist in “Why Do Firms Exist?” it is to deliver to people what they want. When companies do that, they grow. When they start looking inward, and try being caretakers of historical assets, products and markets then their value declines.
Can Mr. Zuckerberg run GE? Probably. I’d sure rather have him at the helm of GM, Chrysler, Kraft, Sara Lee, Motorola, AT&T or any of a host of other large companies that are going nowhere the caretaker CEOs currently making excuses for their lousy performance. Think what the world would be like if the aggressive leaders in those smaller companies were in such positions? Why, it might just be like having all of American business run the way Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and John Chambers have led their big companies. I struggle to see how that would be a bad thing.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 15, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Leadership, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Business leaders are honored for creating profitable growth
- Those who create the greatest growth disrupt the status quo and change the way things are done – such as Zuckerberg and Jobs
- Too many CEOs act as caretakers, overlooking growth
- Caretakers watch value decline
- Under Welch, GE dramatically grew and he was Time’s Person of the Year
- Under Immelt, GE has contracted
- Too many CEOs are like Immelt. They need to either change, or be replaced
It’s that time of year when magazines like to honor folks for major accomplishments. This year, Time’s Person of the Year is Mark Zuckerberg, honored for leading Facebook and its dramatic change in social behavior amongst so many people. Marketwatch.com selected Steve Jobs as its CEO of the Decade – an honor several journals gave him last year!
There is of course a bias in these selections. Most journals highly favor CEOs that drive up their stock price! For example, Ed Zander was CEO of the year in 2004 for his “turnaround” at Motorola – and within 2 years he was fired and Motorola was facing possible bankruptcy. Obviously his “quick fix” (getting the RAZR out the door with a big marketing push) didn’t pan out so well over time. We’ll have to see if Alan Mulallly deserves to be CEO of the Year at Marketwatch, since it appears his selection has more to do with not letting Ford go bankrupt – like competitors GM and Chrysler – and thus reaping the benefits of customers who wanted to buy domestic but feared any other selection. Whether Ford’s “turnaround” will be a winner, or another Zander/Motorola, we’ll know better in a couple of years.
One fellow who isn’t on anybody’s list is Jeff Immelt at General Electric. His predecessor was. Given that
- GE is the oldest company on the DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average)
- GE is one of the most widely held of all corporations
- GE is one of the largest American corporations in revenues and employees
- GE is in a plethora of businesses, globally
- Mr. Immelt is paid several million dollars per year to lead GE
It is worthwhile to think about why he’s not on this list – whether he should be – and if not, whether he should keep his job!
Since Immelt took the helm at GE, the value has actually declined. He’s not likely to win any awards given that sort of performance. Amidst the financial crisis, he had to make a very sweet deal with Berkshire Hathaway to invest cash (via preferred shares) in order to keep GE out of bankruptcy court – a deal that has enriched Mr. Buffett’s company at the expense of GE. GE has exited several businesses, such as its current effort to unload NBC via a deal with Comcast, but it has not created (or bought) a single exciting, noteworthy growth business! GE has become a smaller, lower growth company that narrowly diverted bankruptcy. That isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for honors!
Yes, GE has developed a nice positive cash flow, which will allow it to repurchase the preferred shares from Berkshire (Marketwatch “GE to Buy Back Buffett’s Preferreds Next Year.”) But what is Mr. Immelt doing to create future shareholder value? His plan to make a few acquisitions, pay some higher dividends (suspended when the company faltered) and repurchase equity offers shareholders very little as a way to generate high rates of return! Why would anyone want to own GE? Nobody expects the company to be a growth leader in 2012, or 2015. With its current businesses, and strategy, there is no reason to expect GE to produce double digit earnings growth – or double its equity within any reasonable investing horizon.
There’s more to being a CEO than being a “caretaker.” Mr. Immelt’s predecessor, Jack Welch, created enormous value for shareholders. Mr. Welch was willing to disurpt the GE status quo. In fact, he intentionally worked at it! He made sure business leaders were constantly challenged to find new markets, create new products, expand into new businesses, leverage new technologies and generate growth! Mr. Welch was willing to take GE into growth markets, give leaders permission to create new Success Formulas, and invest in whatever it took to profitably grow revenues. During the Welch era, competitors quaked at the thought of GE entering their markets because things were always shaken up – and GE changed the game in order to create higher rates of return. During the Welch era investors received amongst the highest rate of return on any common stock! GE value multiplied many-fold, making pensioners (invested in the stock) and employees quite wealthy – even as employment expanded dramatically. That’s why Mr. Welch was Time’s Person of the Year in 2000 — and for many the CEO of the previous decade.
Mr. Immelt, on the other hand, has done nothing to benefit any of his constituencies. Like far too many CEOs, he took a much less aggressive stance toward growth. He has been unwilling to challenge and disrupt existing leaders, or promote aggressive market disruptions through the GE business units. He has not invested in White Space projects that could continue the massive expansion started during the Welch era. To the contrary, he has moved much more slowly, and focused more on selling businesses than growing them. He has resorted to trying to protect GE – rather than keep it moving forward. As a result, the company has retrenched and actually become less interesting, less valuable and less clearly able to produce returns or create new jobs!
Mr. Immelt certainly has his apologists, and seems to securely have the support of his Board of Directors. But we should question this. It actually has an impact on the American economy (and that of several other countries) when the CEO of a company as large as GE loses the ability to create growth. The malaise of the American economy can be directly tied to CEOs who are operating just like Mr. Immelt: doing almost nothing to create new markets, new sources of revenue, new jobs. Many business journalists like to say the government doesn’t create revenue, or jobs. So who will create them when corporate leaders are as feckless as Mr. Immelt? Especially when they control such vast resources!
Congratulations to Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Jobs (and Mr. Hastings of Netflix who was named Fortune magazine’s CEO of the Year.) They have created substantial new revenues, profits, cash flow and return for investors. Their company’s employees, suppliers, customers and investors have all benefitted from their leadership. By disrupting the way their company’s operated they pushed into new markets, and demonstrated how in any economy it is possible to create success. Caretakers they are not, so like Mr. Welch each deserves its recent accolades.
And for all those CEOs out there who are behaving as caretakers – for all who are resting on past company laurels – for all who have watched their company value decline – for those who think it’s OK to not grow – for those who blame the economy, or government, or competitors, or customers or their industry for their inability to grow —- well, you either need to learn from these recently honored CEOs and dramatically change direction, or you should be fired.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 8, 2010 | Food and Drink, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- We too often think of competition as “head to head”
- Smart competitors avoid direct competition, instead using alternative methods in order to lower cost while appealing directly to market needs
- Proctor & Gamble has long dominated advertising for many consumer goods, but the impact, value and payoff of traditional advertising has declined markedly as people have switched to the web
- New competitors can utilize internet and social media tools to achieve better brand positioning and targeted marketing at far lower cost than old mass media products
- Colgate is in a great position to blow past P&G by investing quickly and taking the lead in internet marketing for its products
- Eschew calls for investing in old methods of competition, and instead find new ways to compete that allow you to end-run traditional leaders
According to a recent Advertising Age article (“To Catch Up Colgate May Ratchet Up Its Ad Spending“) Colgate has done a surprisingly good job of holding onto market share, despite underspending almost all its competitors in advertising. This is no mean feat in consumer products, where advertising dominates the cost structure. But the AdAge folks are predicting that to avoid further declines, and grow, Colgate will have to dramatically up its ad spending. That would be old-fashioned, backward-thinking, short-sighted and a lousy use of resources!
Colgate competes with lots of companies, but across categories its primary competitor is Proctor & Gamble. In toothpaste, P&G’s Crest outspends Colgate by over $25M – or about 35%. In dishsoap Colgate spent nothing on Palmolive in 2010, compared to P&G’s spend of $30M on Dawn. In deodorant/body soap Colgate spent about $9M on Softsoap, Irish Spring and Speedstick while P&G spent 9 times more (over $82M) on Old Spice and Secret. (Side note, Unilever spent $148M on Dove and a whopping $267M when adding in Axe and Degree!) In pet food, Unilever spends $35M dollars more (almost 4x) on Iams than Colgate spent on Hills Science Diet. Altogether, in these categories, P&G spent almost $158M more than Colgate (2.5x more)! As a big believer in traditional advertising, AdAge therefore predicts that Colgate should dramatically increase its annual ad budget – and maintain these higher levels for 5 years in order to overcome its historical “underspending.”
But that would be like deciding to trade punches with Goliath!
Why would Colgate want to do more of what P&G does the most? While advisors try to pit competitors directly against each other, head-to-head “gladiator style” combat leaves the combatants bloody – some dead. That’s a dumb way to compete. Colgate has long spent in other areas, such as supporting dog rescue operations and with product specialists gaining endorsements while eschewing more general advertising. Now, if Colgate wants to take action to grow share, it should pick up a sling (to continue the (Biblical metaphor) in its ongoing battle. And the good news is that Colgate has an entire selection of new, alternative weapons to use today.
Across all its product categories, Colgate can utilize a plethora of new social media marketing tools. At costs far lower than traditional mass advertising, Colgate can build promotional web programs that appeal directly to targeted consumers. Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare, Groupon, YouTube, Google and many other tool providers allow Colgate to spend far, far less than traditional advertising to provide specific brand promotions, product information, purchase incentives (such as coupons) and product variations targeted at various niches.
With these tools Colgate can not only reach directly into buyer laptops and mobile devices, but offer specific information and incentives. Traditional advertising, whether print (newspaper and magazine), radio, television or coupons is a low percentage tool. Seeking response rates (or even recall rates) of just 1 to 5 percent is normal – meaning 90% percent of your spending is, quite literally, just “overhead” cost. But with modern on-line tools it is very common to have response rates of 50% – or even higher! (Depending upon how targeted and accurate, of course!)
Colgate is in a great position!
It has spent much less than competitors, and maintained good brand position. It’s biggest competitors are locked-in to spending vast sums on traditional tools that have low impact and are in declining media. Colgate could now decide to commit itself to using the new, modern tools which are lower cost, and have decidedly more targeted results. In this way, Colgate can get out of the “colliseum” where the gladiators are warring, and throw rocks at them from the stands. Play its own game – to win – while letting those in the pit whack away at each other becoming weaker and weaker trying to use the old, heavy and unsophisticated tools.
Now is a wonderful time to be the “underdog” competitor. “Media” and advertising are in transition. How people obtain information on products and services is moving from traditional advertsing and PR (public relations) focused through mass media to networks with common interests in social media. Instead of delays in obtaining information, based upon publisher programming dates, customers are seeking immediate, and current information, exactly when they need it – on their mobile devices. Those competitors who rapidly adopt these new tools are well positioned to be the new Davids in the battle with old Goliaths. And that includes YOU.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 7, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Today’s guest blog is provided by Mike Meikle, hope you enjoy:
Summary
- Oracle is at the top of the heap in the Traditional Software market.
- Traditional Software market is deflating with $7 billion less profit than 2009
- Software as a Service, a component of Cloud Computing, has a forecasted 26% annual growth rate over the next five years.
- Oracle Cloud Computing strategy is muddled with bi-polar corporate marketing and platform dependency.
- Customers feel trapped with Oracle and are looking for alternatives.
- Oracle is trapped in a classic Defend and Extend situation.
- Oracle seems to be following Microsoft in using 1990’s corporate strategy in 2011.
Throughout the 1990’s Microsoft held the dominant position in software. Firmly ensconced in Corporate and Consumer arenas, Microsoft generated enormous profits. With an overflowing war chest, MSFT aggressively quashed or bought out the competition – which eventually attracted the attention of the United States Justice Department.
After a little less than 10 years, Microsoft now fights to stay relevant as multiple challengers have exposed gaping holes in its armor. The tech giant’s senior leadership appears rudderless as product lines fail to get off the mark (Windows Phone 7) or flounder (Vista).
With this in mind let us turn toward Oracle. Long viewed as the top Database Management System (DBMS) for the corporate world, its database software underpins much of the global information economy. It has a large war chest stuffed with the profits created by costly traditional software licensing deals with locked-in customers. It has used that cash to acquire new lines of business (PeopleSoft, Sun) and competitors (ATG, MySQL).
However there are some dark clouds on the horizon. The advent of Cloud Computing is a threat to its current licensing model. How will Oracle adapt to corporations implementing virtual servers and databases in the Cloud? Traditional software licensing is down $7 billion industry-wide from 2009. Meanwhile “software as a service” (SaaS) is seeing explosive growth, with a forecasted 26% annual growth rate over the next five years as a natural component of Cloud Computing.
Oracle has made some efforts to delve into the Cloud Computing fray with the Oracle Exalogic Elastic Cloud, or “Cloud-In-a-Box”, leveraging their SUN and ATG acquisitions. However this arrives several years behind the Amazon, Google, and Microsoft triumvirate of Cloud Computing products. Oracle’s Cloud offering will also have to overcome Oracle’s own negative statements about Cloud Computing. CEO Larry Ellison called Cloud Computing “complete gibberish” in late 2008.
Oracle also has problems with its customers. Chafing under the steep licensing costs and sub-standard support, nearly half are looking to shift to lower cost alternatives as they become available. Many have felt trapped by lack of suitable replacements. MySQL was one such competitor, but with Oracle purchasing SUN and getting MySQL in the bargain, that option disappeared. So customers have continued to (reluctantly) fork over licensing and maintenance fees to Oracle, creating the bulk of the organization’s profit stream.
Sound familiar?
Also, the champions of Oracle software offerings, developers, are dissatisfied with the company. The founders of MySQL and the creator of Java, now key software offerings of Oracle, have jumped ship as a result of disagreements with Oracle’s corporate direction.
Now Oracle finds itself in is a classic Defend & Extend situation. Nearly all their profits rely on historical licensing and maintenance for traditional software, a market that is rapidly shrinking. Current customers are unhappy with cost and service; hungry for alternatives and ready to embrace new solutions. But Oracle has arrived late and timidly to the Cloud Computing maketplace, attempting to leverage recently acquired assets where key personnel have left (and taking who knows how much vital market and product knowledge.) Not only will Oracle have to struggle to differentiate itself from other Cloud offerings going forward, it will have to incorporate their newly acquired assets (including technologies) into a cohesive offering while trying to ramp up top notch service.
Oracle will have to break out of the “consistency trap” if it is to drive profits toward new growth. New services that provide value to the customer will have to be developed and aggressively marketed. To grow future revenue and profits Oracle cannot rely on shoehorning customers into poorly fitting licensing and support models based on the fading market of yesteryear.
Or Oracle could choose to not change its old Success Formula. For advice on that approach Oracle’s Mr. Ellison talk to Microsoft’s Mr. Ballmer to see how well his 1990’s corporate strategy is working as Microsoft stumbles into 2011.
Thanks Mike! Mike Meikle shares his insights at “Musings of a Corporate Consigliere” (http://mikemeikle.wordpress.com/). I hope you read more of his thoughts on innovation and corporate change at his blog site. I thank Mike for contributing this blog for readers of The Phoenix Principle today, and hope you’ve enjoyed his contribution to the discussion about innovation, strategy and market shifts.
If you would like to contribute a guest blog please send me an email. I’d be pleased to pass along additional viewpoints on wide ranging topics.
