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 | Sep 15, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Web/Tech
Summary:
- There is a lot of value to recognizing early trends, and acting upon them
- That Apple is as popular as Dell for computers among college students is a trend indicator that Dell’s future looks problematic, while Apple’s looks better
- It is hard to maintain long-term value from innovations that defend & extend an historical market – they are easily copied by competitors
- Long term value comes from the ability to innovate new product markets which are hard for competitors to copy
- Dell is a lousy investment, and Apple is a good one, because Dell is near end of life for its innovation (supply chain management) while Apple has a powerful new product/market innovation capability that can continue for several years
I can think of 3 very powerful reasons everyone should look closely at the following chart from Silicon Alley Insider. It is very, very important that Apple is tied with Dell for market share in PCs among college students, and almost 2.5 times the share of HP:
Firstly, it is important to understand that capturing young buyers is very valuable. If you catch a customer at 16, you have 50 to 60 years of lifelong customer value you can try to maintain. Thus, these people are inherently worth more than someone who is 55, and only 10 to 20 years of lifetime value. While we may realize that older people have more discretionary income, many loyalties are developed at a young age. Over the years, the younger buyers will be worth considerably more.
When I was 15 popular cars were from Pontiac (the GT and Firebird) Oldsmobile (Cutlas) Dodge (Charger and Challenger) and Chevy (Camaro.) Thus, my generation tended to stay with those brands a long time. But by the 1990s this had changed dramatically, and younger buyers were driving Toyotas, Hondas and Mazdas. Now, the American car companies are in trouble because a generational shift has happened. Market shares have changed considerably, and Toyota is now #1. Keeping the old buyers was not enough to keep GM and Chrysler healthy.
That for a quarter as many college students want a Mac as want a PC from Dell says a lot about future technology purchases. It portends good things for Apple, and not good things for leading PC suppliers. Young people’s purchase habits indicate a trend that is unlikely to reverse (look at how even the Toyota quality issues have not helped GM catch them this year.) We can expect that Apple is capturing “the hearts and minds” of college students, and that drives not just current, but future sales
Secondly, it is important to note that Dell built its distinction on price – offering a “generic” product with fast delivery and reasonable pricing. Dell had no R&D, it outsourced all product development and focused on assembly and fast supply chain performance. Unfortunately, supply chain and delivery innovation are far easier to copy than new product – and new market – innovation. Competitors have been able to match Dell’s early advantages, while Apple’s are a lot harder to meet – or exceed. Thus, it has not taken long for Dell to lose it’s commanding industry “domination” to a smaller competitor who has something very new to offer that competitors cannot easily match.
Not all innovation is alike. Those that help Defend & Extend an existing business – making PCs fast and cheap – offer a lot less long term value. Every year it gets harder, and costs more, to try to create any sense of improvement – or advantage. D&E innovations are valued by insiders, but not much by the marketplace. Customers see these Dell kind of innovations as more, better, faster and cheaper – and they are easily matched. They don’t create customer loyalty.
However, real product/market innovations – like the improvements in digital music and mobile devices – have a much longer lasting impact on customers and the markets created. Apple is still #1 in digital music downloads after nearly a decade. And they remain #1 in mobile app downloads despite a small share in the total market for cell phones. If you want to generate higher returns for longer periods, you want to innovate new markets – not just make improvements in defending & extending existing market positions.
Thirdly, this should impact your investment decisions. SeekingAlpha.com, reproducing the chart above, headlines “Are 2010 Apple Shares the new 1995 Dell Shares?” The author makes the case that Apple is now deeply mired in the Swamp, with little innovation on the horizon as it is late to every major new growth market. It’s defend & extend behavior is doing nothing for shareholder value. Meanwhile, Apple’s ability to pioneer new markets gives a strong case for future growth in both revenue and profits. As a result, the author says Dell is fully valued (meaning he sees little chance it will rise in value) while he thinks Apple could go up another 70% in the next year!
Too often people invest based upon size of company – thinking big = stability. But now that giants are falling (Circuit City, GM, Lehman Brothers) we know this isn’t true. Others invest based upon dividend yield. But with markets shifting quickly, too often dividends rapidly become unsustainable and are slashed (BP). Some think you should invest where a company has high market share, but this often is meaningless because the market stagnates leading to a revenue stall and quick decline as the entire market drops out from under the share leader (Microsoft in PCs).
Investing has to be based upon a company’s ability to maintain profitable growth into the future. And that now requires an ability to understand market trends and innovate new solutions quickly – and take them to market equally quickly. Only those companies that are agile enough to understand trends and competitors, implementing White Space teams able to lead market disruptions. Throw away those old books about “inherent value” and “undervalued physical assets” as they will do you no good in an era where value is driven by understanding information and the ability to rapidly move with shifting markets.
Oh, and if you feel at all that I obscured the message in this blog, here’s a recap:
- Dell is trying to Defend its old customers, and it’s not capturing new ones. So it’s future is really dicey
- Dell’s supply chain innovations have been copied by competitors, and Dell has little – if any – competitive advantage today. Dell is in a price war.
- Apple is pioneering new markets with new products, and it is capturing new customers. Especially younger ones with a high potential lifetime value
- Apple’s innovations are hard to duplicate, giving it much longer time to profitably grow revenues.
- You should sell any Dell stock you have – it has no chance of going up in value long term. Apple has a lot of opportunity to keep profitably growing and therefore looks like a pretty good investment.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 25, 2010 | Books, In the Rapids, Leadership, Lock-in
Summary:
- We are biased toward doing what we know how to do, rather than something new
- We like to think we can forever grow by keeping close to what we know – that’s a myth
- Growth only comes from entering growth markets – whether we know much about them or not
- To grow you have to keep yourself in growth markets, and it is dangerous to limit your prospects to projects/markets that are “core” or “adjacent to core”
Recently a popular business book has been Profit from the Core. This book proposes the theory that if you want to succeed in business you should do projects that are either in your “core,” or “adjacent to your core.” Don’t go off trying to do something new. The further you move from your “core” the less likely you will succeed. Talk about an innovation killer! CEOs that like this book are folks who don’t want much new from their employees.
I was greatly heartened by a well written blog article at Growth Science International (www.GrowthSci.com) “Profit from Your Core, or Not.. The Myth of Adjacencies.” Author Thomas Thurston does a masterful job of pointing out that the book authors fall into the same deadly trap as Jim Collins and Tom Peters. They use hindsight primarily as the tool to claim success. Their analysis looks backward – trying to explain only past events. In doing so they cleverly defined terms so their stories seemed to prove their points. But they are wholly unable to be predictive. And, if their theory isn’t predictive, then what good is it? If you can’t use their approach to give a 98% or 99% likelihood of success, then why bother? According to Mr. Thurston, when he tested the theory with some academic rigor he was unable to find a correlation between success and keeping all projects at, or adjacent to, core.
Same conclusion we came to when looking at the theories proposed by Jim Collins and Tom Peters. It sounds good to be focused on your core, but when we look hard at many companies it’s easy to find large numbers that simply do not succeed even though they put a lot of effort into understanding their core, and pouring resources into protecting that core with new core projects and adjacency projects. Markets don’t care about whatever you define as core or adjacent.
It feels good, feels right, to think that “core” or “adjacent to core” projects are the ones to do. But that feeling is really a bias. We perceive things we don’t know as more risky than thing we know. Whether that’s true or not. We perceive bottled water to be more pure than tap water, but all studies have shown that in most cities tap water is actually lower in free particles and bacteria than bottled – especially if the bottle has sat around a while.
What we perceive as risk is based upon our background and experience, not what the real, actual risk may be. Many people still think flying is riskier than driving, but every piece of transportation analysis has shown that commercial flying is about the safest of all transportation methods – certainly much safer than anything on the roadway. We also now know that computer flown aircraft are much safer than pilot flown aircraft – yet few people like the idea of a commercial drone which has no pilot as their transportation. Even though almost all commercial flight accidents turn out to be pilot error – and something a computer would most likely have overcome. We just perceive autos as less risky, because they are under our control, and we perceive pilots as less risky because we understand a pilot much better than we understand a computer.
We are biased to do what we’ve always done – to perpetuate our past. And our businesses are like that as well. So we LOVE to read a book that says “stick close to your known technology, known customers, known distribution system – stick close to what you know.” It reinforces our bias. It justifies us not doing what we perceive as being risky. Even though it is really, really, really lousy advice. It just feels so good – like sugary cereal for breakfast – that we justify it in our minds – like saying “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” as we consume food that’s probably less healthy than the box it came in!
There is no correlation between investing in your core, or close to core, projects and high rates of return. Mr. Thurston again points this out. High rates of return come from investing in projects in growth markets. Businesses in growth markets do better, even when poorly managed, than businesses in flat or declining markets. Where there are lots of customers wanting to buy a solution you simply do better than when there are lots of competitors fighting over dwindling customer revenues. Regardless of how well you don’t know the former or do know the latter. Market growth is a much better predictor of success than understanding your “core” and whatever you consider “adjacent.”
Virgin didn’t know anything about airlines before opening one – but international travel from London was set to boom and Virgin did well (as it has done in many new markets.) Apple didn’t know anything about retail music before launching the iPhone and iTunes, but digital music had started booming at Napster and Apple cleaned up. Nike was a shoe company that didn’t know anything about golf merchandise, but it entered the market for all things golf (first with just one club – the driver – followed by other things) by hooking up with Tiger Woods just as he helped promote the sport into dramatic growth.
Success comes from entering new markets where there is growth. Growth can overcome a world of bad management choices. When there are lots of customers with needs to fill, you can make a lot of mistakes and still succeed. To restrict yourself to “core” and “adjacent” invites failure, because your “core” and the “adjacent” markets that you know well simply may not grow. Leaving you in a tough spot seeking higher profits in the face of stiff competition — like Dell today in PCs. Or GM in autos. Sears in retailing. They may know their “core” but that isn’t giving them the growth they want, and need, to succeed in 2010.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Dell has remained focused on its core market, and as a result growth has stalled for 5 years.
- Cisco has aggressively developed entirely new markets, and it has grown 60% the last 5 years.
- To keep growing, and maintain your business value, you must CONSTANTLY keep developing new markets
Dell helped create the PC revolution. It’s simplification of the PC business into a limited set of technologies, no R&D, then putting its energy into lowering costs by focusing on supply chain made PCs very, very cheap. it was an idea never before attempted, and this Success Formula allowed Dell to become a household name around the world.
Unfortunately, the demand for PCs has flattened. And competitors have learned how to match (maybe beat?) Dell’s “core capabilities.” When markets shift, a company has to develop new markets, or risk hitting a growth stall.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
And that’s happened to Dell. Revenues have not continued to grow, Dell has remained focused on its “core markets” and “core capabilities” but without growth in those “core” areas the company has been severely hampered. Revenues are still 72% in “core” but there’s little reason to own the stock because company revenues are at best flat (despite volatility) the last 5 years. Dell is going nowhere – except following the problems at Microsoft. Since it’s now so late to mobile phones, any sort of tablet, or other markets with growth its unlikely Dell will be able to profitably develop any new businesses to replace the deteriorating PC market. Dell is stuck in the Swamp, so busy fighting alligators and mosquitoes that it’s no longer growing. It’s stuck in a low-no growth “core” market.
To remain a healthy business you have to constantly enter new markets.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
You may want to think of Cisco as a router, or router and switch company. That was certainly the company’s early Success Formula. But unlike Dell, Cisco has invested heavily in other businesses. Now Cisco revenue is 60% bigger than it was five years ago, while its percent of revenue in routers and switches has actually declined! By aggressively moving into new markets for “advanced technology” and services Cisco has improved its overall revenue, and kept the company very healthy. It has growth precisely because it moved away from its “core” to develop new markets, new products, new solutions and new revenues. Cisco keeps maneuvering itself back into the Rapids of growth before the current slows, and thus it avoids the growth stall eating up Dell’s value.
It is so easy to be lured into focusing on your “core”. Especially if you listen to your existing big customers. But markets shift, and you inevitably must move into new markets. And market shifts don’t care what your market share or your industry view. It’s up to all leaders to stay ahead of shifts by constantly developing scenarios for new markets, studying competitors for new insights, disrupting the old Success Formula Lock-ins and setting up White Space teams to develop new revenues and keep the business growing!
by Adam Hartung | Jul 1, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
"Stay the Course" is a popular phrase. It sounds all macho, and committed to a destiny, to proclaim you must "stay the course." However, as bnet.com pointed out there are times when "Stay the Course is a Recipe for Disaster." The article calls it "Stay The Course-Itis" (or STCI) for leaders that don't know when it's time to change direction. We can now see that BP simply drilled one too many deep-water holes in the Gulf – just as Exxon let one too many tipsy captains steer oil vessels before the Valdez crashed. Staying the course may sound good, but too often the course isn't right. And a bad course can lead you into disaster.
Take for example Dell. As reported by The New York Times, and picked up by CNBC.com, "in Suit Over Computers, Window into Dell's Fall," we learn that Dell went just a bit too far in its effort to be a low cost industry supplier. Hoping desperately to maintain a slight lead in lowering costs, Defending & Extending Dell's long-term Success Formula as industry supply chain leader, Dell simply bought bad parts. It then replaced bad product with more bad product. Refused to admit to itself that it had gone "too cheap" in its effort to be cheap. Things went from bad to worse as the Lock-in to keep costs low led to multiple customer disasters – even at the law firm defending Dell in court! And Michael Dell is being accused of financial irregularities in his effort to make Dell's results possibly look better than they were. Both corporately and personally leadership made some big mistakes – not unlike BP – in the effort for Dell to "Stay the Course."
Microsoft certainly isn't without it's STCI as CEO Steve Ballmer keeps dropping new projects to funnel money and other resources into old desktop/laptop products. The Wall Street Journal reported "Microsoft Kills Kin Mobile Less Than Two Months After Launch." Kin was a product targeted at the hot market for youthful cell phone users. A double-digit growth market. But Microsoft is backing out, despite its ballyhooed launch – including announcements to take the product to China very soon. Microsoft can't seem to do much but "Stay the Course" supporting old products.
Both tech companies have had no improvement in their market value the last decade. And BP has watched its value drop more than 50% since the spill started. Some now actively wonder if BP could disappear as SeekingAlpha.com discussed in "How Likely is a BP Takeover bid?" Staying the course in the Gulf, drilling for more oil in deeper water and taking on more risk, could cost BP its existence if another company buys up the discounted equity. Of course, there is still reason to think BP could get wiped out from the costs of the disaster without a takeover.
Companies can get over SCTI if they follow advice given at ABCNews.com "Reboot Your Small Business by Reinventing." The article applies to all size businesses, however. When you see your business doing poorly, especially relative to competitors, it's time to attack sacred cows and do some things differently. Instead of "doubling down" on the old Success Formula, do new things!
You don't want to end up like BP, Dell or Microsoft today. Once great companies that are floundering now – struggling to find growth as they continue spending so much energy trying to "Stay the Course." When the seas are too calm to sail, leaving you stranded with no growth, or the waves are crashing too heavily, as competition is derailing your efforts, why not set a new course? One that can lead you to better growth? There's no harm, or shame, in heading where the market is going, using Disruptions and White Space to develop new solutions. Don't let your ego, pride, or history/legacy push you to "stay the course" when better results can be found in new markets, new customers and new solutions.
PS – Yesterday SmartBrief on Leadership newsletter ran ""For Real Innovation, Pick Up the Phone" linking to the BloggingInnovation.com repost of "It's the One You Don't See That Kills You." Compliments to Braden Kelley for a great web site, and getting the word out about how important it is to apply innovation! I enjoyed how the newsletter grabbed the conclusion, that businesses need to obtain more outsider input, and ran with it as the title. better than my title, to be honest!
PPS – PRLog.org just picked up my blog on "Journalism in 2020." Great to see the media enjoying my comments about their industry, and passing them along through this communication site!
