Disrupt to avoid failure – Blockbuster

Blockbuster Video is in big trouble.  Most analysts think the company is going to file bankruptcy – unlikely to survive – with a mere $.30 stock price today.  Most of us remember when the weekly (or more frequent) trip to Blockbuster was part of every day life.  Like too many companies, Blockbuster was in the Rapids of growth when people wanted VHS tapes, then DVDs, to rent – and CDs to purchase.  We happily paid up several dollars for rentals and purchases.  Blockbuster grew quickly, and developed a powerful Success Formula that aided its growth.

As it is failing, I was startled by a Forbes.com article "What Blockbuster Video Can Teach Us About Economics." The author contends that this failure is a good thing, because it will release poorly used resources to new application.  Like most economists, his idea has good theory.  But I doubt the employees (who lose pay and benefits), shareholders, debt holders, bankers, landlords and suppliers – as well as the remaining customers, appreciate his point of view.  Theory won't help them deal with lost cash flow and expensive transition costs.

As the market shifted to mail order and on-line downloads, Blockbuster could have changed its Success Formula.  But instead the company remained Locked-in to doing what it has always done.  It will fail not because some force of nature willed its demise.  Rather, management made the bad decision to try Defending & Extending an out of date business model – rather than exploring market shifts, studying the competition intensely then using Disruptions and White Space to attack both Netflix and the on-line players.  Blockbuster's demise was not a given.  Rather, it was a result of following out of date management practices that now have serious costs to the businesses and people who are part of the Blockbuster eco-system.  I struggle to see how that is a good thing.

Fortunately, ManagementExcellence.com has a great article about ideas for attacking a threatened Success Formula in order to avoid becoming a Blockbuster entitled "Leadership Caffeine: 7 Odd Ideas to Help You Get Unstuck."  The author specifically takes aim at the comfort of Lock-in, and describes how managers can start to make Disruption part of everyday life:

  1. Fight the tyranny of Recurring Meetings
  2. Rotate Leadership
  3. Break the back of bad-habit brainstorming
  4. Do something completely off-task with your group
  5. Introduce your team to thought leaders and innovators
  6. Play games
  7. Change up your routine

Described in detail in the article, these are simple things anybody can do that begin to reveal how deeply we Lock-in, and expose the power of how we could behave differently.  If Blockbuster management had applied these ideas, the company would have been a lot more likely to return positively to society – rather than become another bankruptcy statistic.

Know when to say “no” – Chicago Sun-Times Media Group and Newspapers

I never cease to be startled by the optimism of businesspeople.  Why would anybody buy a newspaper company these days?  Yet, Crain's reports "Sun Times Sale Appears Near."  It's believed the buyers are a group of independent investors, no media experience, led by Mesirow Financial Group.

Ever heard the term "smart money?"  This is definitely not "smart money."  Just like Cerberus was none to clever to spend billions buying Chrysler a couple of years ago.  Shortly before it went bankrupt.  Too often, those with lots of money to invest become full of hubris.  They believe their experience allows them to "fix" any business.  This almost always involves cost cutting – such as letting go any sort of R&D, product development, advertising, marketing and often sales.  Assets are sold to raise cash and incur one-time write-offs (with tax deductions) and get rid of depreciation charges.  These financiers believe they can "fix" any business if they are "tough" enough to cut enough costs, and get the remaining employees "focused" on specific segments with specific products.

Only we're finding out that just doesn't work.  This sort of "company flipping" was prevalent in the early 2000s.  But it added no value, and it wasn't long before market investors quit playing.  The value of these cost-stripped businesses, with no growth potential, dropped like a stone.  Without growth, the business just keeps on shrinking.

Tribune Corporation, parent of newspaper Chicago Tribune, has already filed bankruptcy.  But it is expected to wipe out bondholders (lots of it the employee pension plan), and come out of bankruptcy.  To a market which in which fewer and fewer people read newspapers, and fewer and fewer advertisers are buying ads.  There is too much competition today for too few subscribers, and too few advertisers, in newspapers.  Sun Times Media has no major on-line presence, nor television stations.  So how will these investors make a return on their acquisition investment?

They won't.

It's hard to give up in business.  It's hard to believe that there just isn't demand for buggy whips any more.  It's hard to believe that the last remaining buggy whip manufacturers are so competitive, unwilling to give up, that they don't make much profit.  We are romanced into believing that "if you really want to be a blacksmith, there's a way to make money at it."  We want to believe that somehow if we work hard enough, if we're smart enough, we can "fix" any business.  But when the market has shifted, and demand drops, the smart leaders know to say "no."  They take their investing to where customers and demand are growing so they can make a much better rate of return.

Invest in the Rapids.  Not the Swamp.  Companies in the Swamp almost always end up in the Whirlpool.  It's hard to think Sun Times Media isn't already there – what with their negative cash flow and very small cash hoard.  Unless you know exactly how you're going to add growth to a troubled business, it's best to simply walk away.

Catch the shift and Grow – or die away – Apple vs. Sears

"Sears Axes Ad Budget As Sales Slide" is the latest Crain's article.  Revenues have been falling at Sears ever since Mr. Ed Lampert took control of the venerable Chicago retailer.  His initial actions were to cut costs in order to prop up profits.  Which worked for about 8 quarters.  But then the impact of cost cutting cracked back like a bullwhip, shredding profits.  Mr. Lampert reacted by further cutting costs to "bring them in line with sales."  And the whirlpool started.  Cut costs, revenue falls, cut costs, revenue falls, cut costs……  And now he largely blames the recession for Sears poor performance.  As if his Lock-in, and that of the management, to old approaches had nothing to do with the dismal results now at Sears.

There are those who think these actions are smart, to bring costs "in alignment with retail trends" as Morningstar put it.  But reality is Sears is now in the Whirlpool of failure.  Looking at the lifecycle, they've gone past the point of no return – out of the Swamp of slow growth – and into the last stage -  failure.  The stores would be closed and sold to other retailers, except there's a dearth of retail buyers out there these days.  Thus shareholders are stuck with underperforming real estate, constantly declining revenues and falling cash flow. 

Not all retailers are seeing declining revenues Bloomberg.com reported today "Apple May Be Highest Grossing Fifth Avenue Retailer."  While Sears and others are watching sales go down, Apple's retail store revenues rose 2.5% this year – and it's Fifth Avenue store has seen traffic increase 22% this last quarter.  In a town where tourists often put an emphasis on shopping, they used to ask locals how to find Bloomingdales or Saks.  Now they want to know where to find the Apple store. 

Markets shift.  When they do, you have to change your Success Formula or your results decline.  When customers change their behavior, you have to change as well or your sales and profits go down.  But most leaders react to market shifts by trying to do the same thing they've always done, only faster, better and cheaper.  Oops.  That only leaves you chasing your tail – just like Sears.  You keep working harder and harder but results don't improve.  Then eventually something happens that throws you into bankruptcy, or an acquisition for your assets, and it's "game over."   Meanwhile, all the time you're watching returns shrink shareholders watch value decline, employees grow disgruntled as you whittle away bonuses, benefits, pay and jobs, and vendors grow tired of the impossible negotiations for lower costs while waiting to get paid on strung-out terms.  Nobody is having a good time.  Just go ask the folks at Sears.

But there are always businesses that catch the market shift and use it to propel their growth.  Like Apple.  Once a niche and low-profit computer manufacturer, they've turned into a producer of music players, music distributor and mobile phone supplier as well as computer manufacturer.  And when everyone would have said that retail is a terrible investment, they've turned into a surprisingly successful retailer as well.  Appple keeps throwing itself back into the Rapids of growth, rather than slipping into the Swamp of stagnation and Whirlpool of failure.

Apple keeps going toward the market shifts.  Apple's CEO (and increasingly other executives) Disrupts the company's Success Formula, always challenging the company to do new things. And White Space is constantly created where permission is given to operate outside old Lock-ins and resources are provided for the opportunity to grow.  Apple could have done a half-hearted job of retailing, trying to act like Best Buy or Nike with its stores and merchandise, or only funding stores in suburban malls instead of tier 1 retail space on the very best (and most expensive) retail avenues.

The next time you're asking yourself "when will this recession end?" think about Sears and Apple.  If  your business acts like Sears your recession won't be anytime soon.  If you keep doing more of the same, cutting costs and hoping to hold on for a recovery, your doing nothing to end the recession and it's unlikely you'll find much improvement in your business.  But if you develop scenarios about the future which allow you to attack competitors, using Disruptions to change your approach and the market, then using White Space to develop new solutions you can bring this recession to an end sooner than you think.  People in your business will have chances to grow, and so will your revenues and profits. 

For more about how we set ourselves up for failure, and how to avoid the traps download the free ebook The Fall of GM:  What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes.

Why Google isn’t like GM

Google is growing, and GM is trying to get out of bankruptcy.  On the surface there are lots of obvious differences.  Different markets, different customers, different products, different size of company, different age.  But none of these get to the heart of what's different about the two companies.  None of these really describe why one is doing well while the other is doing poorly.

GM followed, one could even say helped create, the "best practices" of the industrial era.  GM focused on one industry, and sought to dominate that market.  GM eschewed other businesses, selling off profitable businesses in IT services and aircraft electronics.  Even selling off the parts business for its own automobiles.  GM focused on what it knew how to do, and didn't do anything else. 

GM also figured out its own magic formula to succeed, and then embedded that formula into its operating processes so the same decisions were replicated again and again.  GM Locked-in on that Success Formula, doing everything possible to Defend & Extend it.  GM built tight processes for everything from procurement to manufacturing operations to new product development to pricing and distribution.  GM didn't focus on doing new things, it focused on trying to make its early money making processes better.  As time went by GM remained committed to reinforcing its processes, believing every year that the tide would turn and instead of losing share to competitors it would again gain share.  GM believed in doing what it had always done, only better, faster and cheaper.  Even into bankruptcy, GM believed that if it followed its early Success Formula it would recapture earlier rates of return.

Google is an information era company, defining the new "best practices".  It's early success was in search engine development, which the company turned into a massive on-line advertising placement business that superceded the first major player (Yahoo!).  But after making huge progress in that area, Google did not remain focused alone on doing "search" better year after year.  Since that success Google has also launched an operating system for mobile phones (Android), which got it into another high-growth market.  It has entered the paid search marketplace.  And now, "Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS" is the CNN headline. 

"Google to unveil operating system to rival Microsoft" is the Marketwatch headline.  This is not dissimilar from GM buying into the airline business.  For people outside the industry, it seems somewhat related.  But to those inside the industry this seems like a dramatic move. For participants, these are entirely different technologies and entirely different markets. Not only that, but Microsoft's Windows has dominated (over 90% market share) the desktop and laptop computer markets for years.  To an industrial era strategist the Windows entry barriers would be considered insurmountable, making it not worthwhile to pursue any products in this market.

Google is unlike GM in that

  1. it has looked into the future and recognizes that Windows has many obstacles to operating effictively in a widely connected world.  Future scenarios show that alternative products can make a significant difference in the user experience, and even though a company currently dominates the opportunity exists to Disrupt the marketplace;
  2. Google remains focused on competitors, not just customers.  Instead of talking to customers, who would ask for better search and ad placement improvements, Google has observed alternative, competitive operating system products, like Unix and Linux, making headway in both servers and the new netbooks.  While still small share, these products are proving adept at helping people do what they want with small computers and these customers are not switching to Windows;
  3. Google is not afraid to Disrupt its operations to consider doing something new.  It is not focused on doing one thing, and doing it right.  Instead open to bringing to market new technologies rapidly when they can Disrupt a market; and
  4. Google uses extensive White Space to test new solutions and learn what is needed in the product, distribution, pricing and promotion.  Google gives new teams the permission and resources to investigate how to succeed – rather than following a predetermined path toward an internally set goal (like GM did with its failed electric car project).

Nobody today wants to be like GM.  Struggling to turn around after falling into bankruptcy.  To be like Google you need to quit following old ideas about focusing on your core and entry barriers – instead develop scenarios about the future, study competitors for early market insights, Disrupt your practices so you can do new things and test lots of ideas in White Space to find out what the market really wants so you can continue growing.

Don't forget to download the new, free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"

Why Bankruptcies Don’t Work – Tribune Corporation and General Motors

"Tribune Company Profitability Continues to Deteriorate" is the Crain's headline.  Even though Tribune filed for bankruptcy several months ago, its sales, profits and cash flow have continued deteriorating.  The company is selling assets, like the Chicago Cubs, in order to raise cash.  But its media businesses, anchored by The Chicago Tribune, are a sinking ship which management has no idea how to plug.  While the judge can wipe out debt, he cannot get rid of the internet and competitors that are reshaping the business in which Tribune participates.  Bankruptcy doesn't "protect" the business, it merely delays what increasingly appears to be inevitable failure.

"GM Clears Key Hurdles to Bankruptcy Exit" is the BusinessWeek headline.  In record time a judge has decided to let GM shift all its assets and employees into a "new" GM, leaving all the bondholders, employee contracts and lawsuits in the "old" GM.  This will wipe out all the debt, obligations and lawsuits GM has complained about so vociferously.  But it won't wipe out lower cost competitors like Kia, Hyuandai or Tata Motors.  And it won't wipe out competitors with newer technology and faster product development cycles like Toyota or Honda.  GM will still have to compete – but it has no real plan for overcoming competitive weaknesses in almost all aspects of the business.

It was 30 years ago when I first head the term "strategic bankruptcy."  The idea was that a business could hide behind bankruptcy protection to fix some minor problem, and a clever management could thereby "save" a distressed business.  But this is a wholly misapplied way to think about bankruptcy.  In reality, bankruptcy is just another financial machination intended to allow Locked-in existing management to Defend & Extend a poorly performing Success FormulaBankruptcy addresses a symptom of the weak business – debts and obligations – but does not address what's really wronga business model out of step with a shifted marketplace.

The people running GM are the same people that got it into so much trouble.  The decision-making processes, product development processes, marketing approaches are all still Locked-in and the sameGM hasn't been Disrupted any more than Tribune company has.  Quite to the contrary, instead of being Disrupted bankruptcy preserves most of the Locked-in status quo and breathes new life into it by eliminating the symptoms of a very diseased Success Formula.  Meanwhile, White Space is obliterated as the reorganized company kills everything that smacks of doing anything new in a cost-cutting mania intended to further preserve the old Success Formula. 

Everyone in the bankruptcy process talks about "lowering cost" as the way to save the business.  When in fact the bankrupt business is so out of step with the market that lowering costs has only a minor impact on competititveness.  Just look at the perennial bankruptcy filers – United Airlines, American Airlines and their brethren.  Bankruptcy has never allowed them to be more competitive with much more profitable competitors like Southwest.  Even after 2 or 3 trips through the overhaul process.

Bankruptcy does not bode well for any organization.  It's a step on the road to either having your assets acquired by someone who's better market aligned, or failure.  Those who think Tribune will emerge a strong media competitor are ignoring the lack of investment in internet development now happening – while Huffington Post et.al. are growing every week.  Those who think the "new" GM will be a strong auto company are ignoring the market shifts that threw GM to the brink of failure over the last year.  Both companies are still Defending & Extending the past in a greatly shifted world – and nobody can succeed following that formula.

Don't forget to download the ebook "The Fall of GM:  What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes" for a primer on how to keep your business out of bankruptcy court during these market shifts.