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 | Oct 27, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- We like to think of "mature" businesses as good
- AT&T was a "mature" business, yet it failed
- "Maturity" leads to inward focus, and an unwillingness to adjust to market shifts
- Microsoft is trying to reposition itself as a "mature" company
- Despite its historical strengths, Microsoft has astonishing parallels to AT&T
- Growth is less risky than "maturity" for investors, employees and customers
Why doesn't your business grow like Apple or Google? Is it because you think of your business, or the marketplace you serve, as "mature?" Quite a euphanism, maturity. It sounds so good. How could being "mature" be bad? As children we strive to be "mature." The leader is usually the most "mature" person in the group. Those who like good art have "mature" taste. Surely, we should want to be "mature." And we should want our businesses to reach "maturity" and have "mature" leaders who don't take unnecessary risks. Once "mature" the business should be safe for investors, employees, suppliers and customers.
That was probably what the folks at AT&T thought. When judge Greene broke up AT&T in 1984 the company had a near monopoly on long-distance. AT&T was a "mature" company in a "mature" telephone industry. It appeared as though all AT&T had to do was keep serving its customers, making regular improvements to its offering, to perpetually maintain its revenue, jobs and profitability. A very "mature" company, AT&T's "mature" management knew everything there was to know about long distance – about everything related to communications. And due to its previous ownership of Bell Labs and Western Union, it had deep knowledge about emerging technologies and manufacturing costs allowing AT*T to make "mature" decisions about investing in future markets and products. This "mature" company would be able to pay out dividends forever! It seemed ridiculous to think that AT&T would go anywhere but up!
Unfortunately, things didn't work out so well. The "mature" AT&T saw its market share attacked by upstarts MCI and Sprint. As a few "early adopters" switched services – largely residential and other very small customers – AT&T was unworried. It still had most of the market and fat profits. As these relatively insignificant small users switched, AT&T reinforced its world's largest billing system as an incomparable strength, and reminded everyone that its "enterprise" (corporate) offerings were still #1 (anybody remember AT&T long distance cards issued by your employer for use at pay phones?).
But unfortunately, what looked like an unassailable market position in 1984 was eventually diminished dramatically as not only homeowners but corporations started shifting to new offerings from competitors. New pricing plans, "bundled" products and ease of use encouraged people to try a new provider. And that AT&T had become hard to work with, full of rules and procedures that were impossible for the customer to comprehend, further encouraged people to try an alternative. Customers simply got fed up with rigid service, outdated products and high prices.
Unexpectedly, for AT&T, new markets started to grow much faster and become more profitable than long distance voice. Data services started using a lot more capacity, and even residential customers started wanting to log onto the internet. Even though AT&T had been the leader (and onetime monopolist – did you know broadcast television was distributed over an AT&T network?) with these services, this "mature" company continued to focus on its traditional voice business – and was woefully late to offer commercial or residential customers new products. Not only were dial-up offerings delayed, but higher speed ISDN and DSL services went almost entirely to competitors.
And, much to the chagrin of AT&T leaders, customers started using their mobile phones a lot more. Initially viewed as expensive toys, AT&T did not believe that the infrastructure would be built quickly, nor be robust enough, to support a large base of cellular phone users. Further, AT&T anticipated pricing would keep most people from using these new products. Not to mention the fact that these new phones simply weren't very good – as compared to land-line services according to the metrics used by AT&T. The connection quality was wildly inferior to traditional long distance, and frequently calls were completely dropped! So AT&T was slow to enter this market, half-hearted in its effort, and failed to make any profits.
Along the way a lot of other "non-core" business efforts failed. There was the acquisition of Paradyne, an early leader in modems, that did not evolve with fast changing technology. New products made Paradyne's early products obsolete and the division disappeared. And the acquisition of computer maker NCR failed horribly after AT&T attempted to "improve" management and "synergize" it with the AT&T customer base and offerings.
AT&T had piles and piles of cash from its early monopoly. But most of that money was spent trying to defend the long distance business. That didn't work. Then there was money lost by wheelbarrow loads trying to enter the data and mobile businesses too late, and with little new to offer. And of course the money spent on acquisitions that AT&T really didn't know how to manage was all down the proverbial drain.
Despite its early monopoly, high cash flow, technology understanding, access to almost every customer and piles of cash, AT&T failed. Today the company named AT&T is a renamed original regional Bell operatiing company (RBOC) created in the 1984 break-up — Southwestern Bell. This classically "mature" company, a stock originally considered "safe" for investing in the "widow's and orphan's fund" used up its money and became obsolete. "Mature" was a misnomer used to allow AT&T to hide within itself; to focus on its past, instead of its future. By being satisfied with saying it was "mature" and competing in "mature" markets, AT&T allowed itself to ignore important market shifts. In just 25 years the company that ushered in mass communications, that had an incredibly important history, disappeared.
I was struck today when a Reuters story appeared with the headline "Sleepy in Seattle: Microsoft Learns to Mature." There's that magic word – "mature." While the article lays out concerns with Microsoft, there were still analysts quoted as saying that investors didn't need to worry about Microsoft's future. Investors simply need to change their thinking. Instead of a "growth" company, they should start thinking of Microsoft as a "mature" company. It sounds so reassuring. After all:
- Microsoft has a near monopoly in its historical business
- Microsoft has a huge R&D budget, and is familiar with all the technologies
- Microsoft has piles and piles of cash
- Microsoft has huge margins in its traditional business – in fact profits in operating systems and office automation exceed 100% of the total because it loses billions of dollars in other things like Bing, MSN and its incredibly expensive foray into gaming systems (xBox)
- Markets won't shift any time soon – say to this new "cloud computing" – and Microsoft will surely have products when they are needed if there is a market shift
- While home users may buy these new smartphones, tablets and some Macs, enterprise customers will keep using the technology they've long purchased
- Microsoft is smart to move slowly into new markets, it shouldn't cannibalize its existing business by encouraging customers to change platforms. Going slow and being late is a good thing for profits
- Although Microsoft has been late to smartphones and tablets, with all their money and size surely when they do get to market they will beat these upstarts Apple and Google, et. al.
Sure made me think about AT&T. And the fact that Apple is now worth more than Microsoft. Made me wonder just how comfortable investors should be with a "mature" Microsoft. Made me wonder how much investors, employees and customers should trust a "mature" CEO Ballmer.
Looking at the last 10 years, it seems like there's a lot more risk in "mature" companies than in "growth" ones. We can be almost certain that Apple and Google, which have produced huge returns for investors, will grow for the next 3 years, improving cash flow and profitability just by remaining in existing new markets. But of course both have ample new products pioneering yet more new markets. And companies like NetApp look pretty safe, building a fast-growing base of customers who are already switching to cloud computing – and producing healthy cash flow in the emerging marketplace.
Meanwhile, the track record for "mature" companies would leave something to be desired. One could compare Amazon to Circuit City or Sears. Or just list some names: AT&T, General Motors, Chrysler, Xerox, Kodak, AIG, Citibank, Dell, EDS, Sun Microsystems. Of course each of these is unique, with its own story. Yet….
by Adam Hartung | Sep 9, 2010 | Defend & Extend, Leadership, Lock-in
Leadership
Fire The Status Quo Police
Adam Hartung, 09.08.10, 06:00 PM EDT
Their power to prevent innovation can devastate your business.
“That’s not how we do things around here.” How often have you heard that? And what does it really mean? It is said to stop someone from doing something new. It is no way to promote innovation, is it?”
That’s the lead paragraph to my latest column on Forbes.com, published yesterday evening. Forbes launched a new editorial page covering Change Management, and gave my column’s link the premier placement!
All companies want to grow. But early in the lifecycle they Lock-in on what works, and then implement Status Quo Police that intentionally do not allow anything to change. Their belief is that if nothing changes, the business will always grow. So conformance to historical norms is more important than results to them. To Status Quo Police results will return when conformance to old norms is returned!
Of course, this completely ignores the marketplace. Market shifts, created by competitors launching new technologies, new pricing models, new delivery models or other new solutions cause the value of old solutions to decline. No matter how well you do what you always did, you can’t achieve historical results. The market has shifted!
To keep any company growing you must know who the Status Quo Police are in your organization. They can be in HR, controlling hiring, promotions and pay. In Finance controlling what projects receive resources. In Marketing, tightly controlling branding, product development or distribution. The Status Quo Police are committed to keeping things tightly controlled, and saving the organization from change that could send the company in the wrong direction! No matter what the marketplace may require.
But it’s not enough to know who the Status Quo Police are, its up to leaders to eliminate them! If you want to have a vibrant, profitably growing organization you have to constantly adjust to market shifts. You have to sense what the market wants, and move to deliver it. You have to be very wary of the Status Quo, and instead be open to making changes in order to grow. To do that, you have to hold those who would be the Status Quo Police in check. Otherwise, you’ll find the obstacles to innovation and growth overwhelming!
Please read the article at Forbes, review it and comment! Let me know what you think!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 26, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
Summary:
- Trends happen much faster than we expect
- Old solutions disappear much faster than we anticipate
- Early adopters are big winners, suppliers who expect markets to last longer are killed in end-stage price wars
- We can anticipate the failure of land line phones in just a few years (as declining demand makes infrastructure maintenance too costly)
- There are a lot of other changes coming very quickly, more quickly than many of us anticipate – putting those who are late to change at risk of survival
How long do you think you’ll keep a land-line based telephone? From the looks of things, it may be only another year or two. They may be as popular as an old-fashioned printing press in just 5 years.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider from BusinessInsider.com
As the chart shows, already about a third of Americans have discontinued their land lines. And, we can see the trend is accelerating. This doesn’t count people that have one, but have quit using it. From about half of a percent dropping their line each quarter early in 2007, by 2009 the trend had increased to 1.2 to 1.5 percent dropping their land lines quarterly. And that’s normal – trends accelerate – much faster than incumbent technology suppliers predict.
Mobile phones started out with limited use. They were big, and had short battery life. It was sketchy if transmission quality would be good enough to hear or talk. They were expensive to use, and had limited service areas. In the early days, only people who had a big need used them. It took a few years before adoption grew to where most people had one. But then, in the last 5 years, it has become clear that almost everyone has one. Even the old and elderly. And many people have two – one for personal and one for business.
When trends begin they are easy to discount. Early versions are less good than the current solution. Costs are high. But early adopters have a reason to pick up the new solution. There is some kind of unmet need that the solution fits. From that small base, the products improve. Most incumbent suppliers plot out a linear curve adoption curve, and expect dropping of the old solution to be some time way out in the future.
But improvements to the “fringe” solution come faster than incumbents – and even big users of incumbent technologies – expect. Adoption starts growing faster. Yet, the incumbent supplier will listen to big customers and expect people to keep their solutions for a long time as they gradually adopt the new:
- People will have an automobile, but they’ll hang onto the horse and buggy because roads are so poor
- He may buy a new copier, but he’ll keep the mimeo machine “just in case”
- Folks will get a phone, and email, but they’ll keep writing letters and thus need a postman daily
- People may buy refrigerators, but they’ll keep the icebox and want weekly ice delivery
- Readers will skim the web for news, but they’ll want to keep reading a daily newspaper
- PCs will be popular, but folks will hang onto that old typewriter “maybe to type envelopes or something”
- Installing spreadsheets on company PC’s will not eliminate the need for adding machines “for when we need the tape”
- Digital cameras will be convenient, but users will want the film camera for picture prints
- Installing a DVR will not eliminate the videocassette player because people “still may want to watch old tapes some day”
- People will keep their cassette players, and DVD players, even as they buy a new MP3 player because they will want to listen to the purchased collections
Actually, once someone adopts the new solution, they rapidly find no need for the old solution. It goes to the closet, and then the trash, quickly. And from a market perspective, once a third to a half the customers quit using a product it will disappear from use almost overnight. From that perspective, those who depend upon traditional land line phones have plenty to worry about. Because we’re near a third. And smart phones keep adding more capability every month – the iPhone now has almost 300,000 apps, and Android phones have over 100,000! It’s easy to see where the functionality, ease of use and ubiquitousness of mobile phones could make the old land line a waste of money within just 24 months!
So, what will happen to bill collectors and political phone ads (robocalls), when we quit using land lines? Along with the loss of land lines is the loss of the traditional phone book to find people. When will the cost of maintaining the poles and lines become so high, relative to the number of users, that we simply take them down to recycle the material? Lots of things change when growth begins to decline for land-lines, causing the decline to happen more quickly. And changing how we all get things done – as consumers and as businesses. Are you prepared?
The tendency is to think change will happen slowly. It doesn’t. When markets shift it happens quickly. Much more quickly than the entrenched competitor expects. The “experts” always say the demand for the old will last much longer than happens. He hopes to have a long life, clipping coupons, across a “maturing” market. Instead, demand falls rapidly and remaining competitors go into price wars trying to stay alive – hoping the market will some day return to the old way of doing things. Those who didn’t anticipate the shift rapidly run out of cash, and fail.
Are you ready for impending market shifts? How prepared are you for a world where
- We don’t print anything, because everyone has some kind of on-line digital document reader. Not just books and magazines, but user instructions, warranty info, etc.
- We don’t need cash because we can Paypal transact anything using our smartphone
- Doctors can monitor all your vital statistics real time, remotely, 24x7x365. Manufacturers can monitor use of their products 24x7x365
- So much retail is on-line that the amount of retail floor space declines 40%
- You can regrow a finger, or organ, if it is damaged
- Television and radio aren’t serially broadcast, you organize what you want when you want it. There are no “commercials” in content delivery
- The primary way of communicating with friends and colleagues is Facebook and Twitter – forget text except for only very private communications
by Adam Hartung | Aug 19, 2010 | Current Affairs, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- By 2015 or 2020 cash, checks, debit and credit cards could disappear
- Smartphones are positioned to eliminate old financial transaction tools, as well as land line phone service and PCs
- All businesses will have to make changes to deal with new forms of payment processing, and early adopters will likely gain an advantage with customes
- There will likely be some big winners and big losers from this transition
Can you imagine a world with no cash? It could happen soon, and how will it affect your business?
Bloomberg.com headlined “AT&T, Verizon to Target Visa, Mastercard with Smartphones.” The business idea is to replace your Visa and Mastercard with a smartphone app that acts as your debit and/or credit card. Doing this makes it faster and easier for smartphone users to place transactions – online or in person – without even bothering with a card or any other physical artifact.
This is a big deal, because according to Mediapost.com “Smartphones Nearly 20% of All Phones Sold.” So smartphones are starting to be everywhere, and at current rates will replace old mobile phones in just a couple of years. They are increasingly replacing traditional land-line service as headlined in DailyMarkets.com, “Cell Phone Only Use Hits New High of 24.5% in U.S.” People are abandoning the historical land-line telephone.
The traditional “phone company” and its services are rapidly disappearing. After all the effort Southwestern Bell put in to recreating the old “ma bell” of AT&T, it now looks like that entire business is in decline and likely to become about as common as CB or portable AM radios. What is the future of AT&T and Verizon if they front-end Discover as the payment processor? Will these companies transition to become something very different than their past, and if so what will that be? Or will they be an early proponent for change but let the business value go to others – as they did in mobile phones, ISDN and other internet connectivity as well as cable entertainment?
Mediapost.com also reports “PayPal Making Micropayments a Reality.” Which gives us the last piece of the puzzle to just about guarantee old payment methods are likely to be gone by 2020 (possibly earlier – 2015?). People are giving up old land-line telecom for mobile, and mobile is rapidly becoming all smartphones. Smartphones are getting apps allowing them to conduct financial transactions without the need of a credit card, debit card or (going ultra low-tech) check (no printer needed – lol – which has to be a concern for companies like Zebra that make the printers). In fact, you can even make all kinds of payments, even really small ones under $1 – not just big ones – using your cell phone by opening a Paypal account. What you can easily see is a future where you don’t need a wallet at all. Everything you’ll need for financial transactions will be on your smartphone. (How much you want to bet somebody will figure out how to put your driver’s license on the smartphone too?)
Ultra convenient, don’t you think? You won’t need a credit card, or any other card. You won’t need a PC to do your on-line banking. You won’t need cash for small purchases – you can even do garage sale transactions or buy gum using your smartphone. And there’s sure to be an app that will consolidate all your payments and set up to automatically do transactions (like your mortgage or car lease) without you even having to do anything. And all from your smartphone. No more wallet, no more PC, no more coins or bills in your pocket.
So, what happens to cash registers, and the folks that make them? No registers in restaurants or hotels? What happens to desk clerks in hotels – will they be necessary? What about cashiers in retail stores – any need? Will banks have any need for a local branch? Why would ATMs exist? Quite literally a raft of companies would be affected that deal in the handling of transactions – from Visa and Mastercard to IBM and Diebold. Even those little printers in cabs could disappear as your phone now pays the cabbie directly what the meter requires. You could even pay modern parking meters with your smartphone!! What happens to companies that make mens and women’s wallets? Will purses and clutches disappear from style? How much easier will it be for the IRS to track the income of people that have historically been in cash jobs?
Do your scenarios of 2015 include this kind of change in payments? Should it? What will be the impact on your bank? On your credit card supplier? Will your customers want to change how they pay? How will you need to change your order-to-cash process? Are you ready to be an early adopter, thus aiding revenue generation? Or will you let others steal sales by moving quickly to these modern payment systems?
There’s precious little that’s more important in business than collecting the money. A new set of technologies are sure to be changing how that happens. Will you leverage this to your advantage, or will your competitors?
