by Adam Hartung | Oct 13, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Summary:
- Many large, and leading, companies have not created much shareholder value the last decade
- A surprising number of very large companies have gone bankrupt (GM) or failed (Circuit City)
- Wal-Mart is a company that has generated no shareholder value
- The Wal-Mart disease is focusing on executing the business's long-standing success formula better, faster and cheaper — even though it's not creating any value
- Size alone does not create value, you have to increase the rate of return
- Companies that have increased value, like Apple, have moved beyond execution to creating new success formulas
Have you noticed how many of America's leading companies have done nothing for shareholders lately? Or for that matter, a lot longer than just lately. Of course General Motors wiped out its shareholders. As did Chrysler and Circuit City. The DJIA and S&P both struggle to return to levels of the past decade, as many of the largest companies seem unable to generate investor value.
Take for example Wal-Mart. As this chart from InvestorGuide.com clearly shows, after generating very nice returns practically from inception through the 1990s, investors have gotten nothing for holding Wal-Mart shares since 2000.
Far too many CEOs today suffer from what I call "the Wal-Mart Disease." It's an obsession with sticking to the core business, and doing everything possible to defend & extend it — even when rates of return are unacceptable and there is a constant struggle to improve valuation.
Fortune magazine's recent puff article about Mike Duke, "Meet the CEO of the Biggest Company on Earth" gives clear insight to the symptoms of this disease. Throughout the article, Mr. Duke demonstrates a penchant for obsessing about the smallest details related to the nearly 4 decade old Wal-Mart success formula. While going bananas over the price of bananas, he involves himself intimately in the underwear inventory, and goes cuckoo over Cocoa Puffs displays. No detail is too small for the attention of the CEO trying to make sure he runs the tightest ship in retailing. With frequent references to what Wal-Mart does best, from the top down Wal-Mart is focused on execution. Doing more of what it's always done – hopefully a little better, faster and cheaper.
But long forgotten is that all this attention to detail isn't moving the needle for investors. For all its size, and cheap products, the only people benefiting from Wal-Mart are consumers who save a few cents on everything from jeans to jewelry.
The Wal-Mart Disease is becoming so obsessive about execution, so focused on doing more of the same, that you forget your prime objective is to grow the investment. Not just execute. Not just expand with more of the same by constantly trying to enter new markets – such as Europe or China or Brazil. You have to improve the rate of return. The Disease keeps management so focused on trying to work harder, to somehow squeeze more out of the old success formula, to find new places to implement the old success formula, that they ignore environmental changes which make it impossible, despite size, for the company to ever again grow both revenues and rates of return.
Today competitors are chipping away at Wal-Mart on multiple fronts. Some retailers offer the same merchandise but in a better environment, such as Target. Some offer a greater selection of targeted goods, at a wider price range, such as Kohl's or Penney's. Some offer better quality goods as well as selection, such as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. And some offer an entirely different way to shop, such as Amazon.com. These competitors are all growing, and earning more, and in several cases doing more for their investors because they are creating new markets, with new ways to compete, that have both growth and better returns.
It's not enough for Wal-Mart to just be cheap. That was a keen idea 40 years ago, and it served the company well for 20+ years. But competitors constantly work to change the marketplace. And as they learn how to copy what Wal-Mart did, they can get to 90%+ of the Wal-Mart goal. Then, they start offering other, distinctive advantages. In doing so, they make it harder and harder for Wal-Mart to be successful by simply doing more of the same, only better, faster and cheaper.
Ten years ago if you'd predicted bankruptcy for GM or Chrysler or Circuit City you'd have been laughed at. Circuit City was a darling of the infamous best seller "Good To Great." Likewise laughter would have been the most likely outcome had you predicted the demise of Sun Microsystems – which was an internet leader worth over $200B at century's turn. So it's easy to scoff at the notion that Wal-Mart may never hit $500B revenue. Or it may do so, but at considerable cost that continues to hurt rates of return, keeping the share price mired – or even declining. And it would be impossible to think that Wal-Mart could ever fail, like Woolworth's did. Or that it even might see itself shredded by competitors into an also-ran position, like once powerful, DJIA member Sears.
The Disease is keeping Wal-Mart from doing what it must do if it really wants to succeed. It has to change. Wal-Mart leadership has to realize that what made Wal-Mart once great isn't going to make it great in 2020. Instead of obsessing about execution, Wal-Mart has to become a lot better at competing in new markets. And that means competing in new ways. Mostly, fundamentally different ways. If it can't do that, Wal-Mart's value will keep moving sideways until something unexpected happens – maybe it's related to employee costs, or changes in import laws, or successful lawsuits, or continued growth in internet retailing that sucks away more volume year after year – and the success formula collapses. Like at GM.
Comparatively, if Apple had remained the Mac company it would have failed. If Google were just a search engine company it would be called Alta Vista, or AskJeeves. If Google were just an ad placement company it would be Yahoo! If Nike had remained obsessed with being the world's best athletic shoe company it would be Adidas, or Converse.
Businesses exist to create shareholder value – and today more than ever that means getting into markets with profitable growth. Not merely obsessing about defending & extending what once made you great. The Wal-Mart Disease can become painfully fatal.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 13, 2010 | In the Whirlpool
Summary:
- GM is replacing its CEO and preparing to sell equity to the public
- Don’t buy the stock. GM will not be a market winner
“GM reports $1.3 billion in Q2 profits, Preps for Stock Sale” is the Detroit News headline. So, are you interested in buying some GM shares? If you do, can I interest you in a bridge I have for sale???
In addition to reporting 2 consecutive positive cash flow quarters, the CEO Ed Whitacre announced he’s leaving the post to be replaced by a different telecommunications executive, Don Akerson. Are you excited?
There are at least xx reasons NOT to buy GM shares:
- The company lost market share last year. It’s slide from dominance has not stopped. It has less than half the market share it had just 2 decades ago.
- GM lost $12.9 billion in the same quarter last year. There is no doubt the company brought forward costs last year to worsen the financials, thus making them look better than they should be now. Financial machinations are common in poorly performing companies, especially around bankruptcies
- The departing CEO, and the incoming CEO, are retired telecom execs. How many successful (meaning growing revenues profitably) telecom companies do you know? Now wait a minute…. right.
- To hit revenue targets GM increased fleet sales. Interpret that as chasing low-margin business for volume. It also means selling on price, not the desirability of the products to end users.
- GMs pension funds are underfunded to the tune of some $26 billion. When will they fulfill it?
GM hit a growth stall in the 1970s. Since then the company has steadily lost market share while watching profitability deteriorate to nothing. Fewer than 7% of companies ever consistently grow a mere 2% after a stall, and there’s nothing saying GM will be in that exceptional group.
GM downsized its exciting brands. Chevrolet is about as exciting as….. The big “hit” car is a re-release of the Camaro – a car that was successful way about 40 years ago. GM isn’t a leader in any new car segments, or new technologies.
GM has no White Space. It is run by retirees that really should go to Florida – year round. They keep trying to do what worked for their personal careers 30 years ago – and not what will make a company succeed today. There isn’t a single thing about GM that would make me want to own it.
Go buy Apple. There you get innovation, growth, new markets and a leader in several segments.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 26, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Innovation, Web/Tech
General Motors and Segway have teamed up to do a new product launch. The new product is described at Freep.com in "GM, Partner to unveil 2-seater" and is called the EN-V. And there's almost no hope it will succeed. Too bad, because both companies desperately need a winner. But the process they used to develop and launch this product was all wrong – and it would be a miracle if the arrow hits a bulls-eye.
Segway is the long-running story of a company with what looks like a great idea, but it never takes off. The original Segway seemed really neat. But people struggled to figure out why they would buy one. There is walking, there are bicycles, there are motorcycles and there are cars. Segway never defined who was under-served, or unserved, and therefore had a real need to use their new product. Segway management did a great job of public relations, because we all saw them on TV, in the news, and learned the name. But the product was developed internally, not in response to a market need. As a result, sales never materialized and Segway slipped into the business history file as another case study.
General Motors has no new product development process to create products for the future. For decades GM has attempted to defend and extend its 1940's approach of designing updated products, and hoping people will keep buying. It's been many years since GM launched a new product that people said "wow, that's just what I needed – and I wasn't even aware I needed that."
Now the two companies have teamed up to launch a 2 passenger Segway. They have identified the use they think this fits, and they think they know a target. But the problem is that this is just another "idea" designed and built without significant market input. Instead of developing a scenario of the future with deep insight to what people will want, and then making that product, they have said "wouldn't this be neat – and can't we imagine who might buy?" Interesting lab work, but unless they are very, very lucky the odds are greatest that people will think it's cute, but won't buy. After all, with the plethora of current solutions across a huge price range from many competitors means nobody is living without transportation. Why should potential customers inherently think this is a good idea.
Phoenix companies don't design products from inside the company outward. Instead, they use market input to discover the unmet needs, and they fulfill them. Especially when it's clear that competitors aren't jumping in to fulfill the need. They intend to Disrupt the marketplace not by some splashy introduction and hoping people will switch, but rather by identifying the under-served customers and giving them a solution they didn't have. Then the company learns, adapts and keeps pushing toward an ideal product that meets ever more needs. From this initial small success the market grows.
Segway never understood this. They don't define unmet needs, nor competitor inabilities – and thus they have great ideas but they fail to Disrupt the marketplace and their innovations have gone nowhere. GM works hard to avoid innovations that might be market disruptions, instead offering sustaining innovations hoping to defend their old business model.
This new type of vehicle might have a chance of success. But the only hope is for both companies to ignore the PR. They should set up a White Space team, and give that team a year to really understand the unmet needs in the marketplace. Then go back to the original design and make it very explicitly meaningful to people who have unmet needs. Launch small, make money, learn and grow.
But given the approach this dynamic duo is taking, only luck will keep this from being another missed opportunity for both struggling companies.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 11, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
I don't know the source of the phrase, but since a young boy I've heard "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." The phrase was used to describe a leader who was so out of touch he was unable to do the necessary things to save his city and the people in it. Lately, it seems like General Motors is ancient Rome.
"General Motors to launch the 'un-Dealership" is the Mediapost.com headline. Trying to leverage auto shows, GM is going to open minimally-branded brick-and-mortar locations in 3 or 4 cities where customers can test drive Chevrolet and other cars. The idea is that with less pressure from salespeople, customers will come use the internet cafe and hang out while occasionally test driving a car. Then they'll be fired up to go buy a GM product.
If that isn't fiddling…… well…… When will leaders admit GM is in seriously dire trouble? The company has lopped off complete product lines (Saturn, Hummer, Saab and Pontiac) and whacked away large numbers of dealers. Their cars are uninteresting, and losing market share to domestic (Ford) and foreign manufacturers. Design cycles are too long, products do not meet customer needs and competitors are zeroing in on GM customers. Product sales, and even dealerships, are being propped up using government subsidies. The best news in the GM business has been all the troubles Toyota is having.
During this malaise, the new GM Board agreed to appoint Ed Whitacre as the permanent CEO (see ABCnews.com article "GM Chairman Ed Whitacre Named Permanent CEO.") Great, just what GM needed. Another 70 year old white male as CEO who developed his business experience in the monopoly of the phone industry. Who's primary claim to fame was that after Judge Green tore AT&T apart to create competition he was able to put it back together – only after the marketplace for land-line phones had begun declining and without growth businesses like mobile data.
As the ABC article notes, Mr. Whitacre sees his role running GM as "a public service… I think this company is good for America. I think America needs this." Just the kind of enthusiasm we all like to hear from a turnaround CEO.
GM needs to get aggressive about change if it is going to survive in a flat auto business with global competitors. The company has no clear view of how it will be part of a different future, nor any keen insight to competitors. It is floundering to manage its historical products and distribution, with no insight as to how it will outmaneuver tough companies like Honda, Kia and Tata. It has not attacked its outdated product line, nor its design cycle, nor its approach to manufacturing. It has very little R&D, and is behind practically all competitors with innovations. A caretaker is NOT what GM needs.
I blogged months ago that GM needed a leader who was ready to change the company. Ready to adopt scenario planning, competitor obsession, Disruptions and White Space to drive industry change and give GM a fighting chance at competing in the future. It's going to take a lot more than 4 test drive centers with internet access and latte machines to make GM competitive. But given what the new Board did, putting Mr. Whitacre in the CEO role, the odds are between slim and none the right things will happen.
To survive you have to BEAT the competition. Read more about "The 10 ways to Beat the Competition" at BusinessInsider.com
by Adam Hartung | Jan 15, 2010 | Disruptions, eBooks, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Many people think the best way to grow is by setting big goals – even Big Audacious Hairy Goals (BHAGs). But increasingly we're learning that goal setting is not correlated with success. At AmericanPublicRadio.org there's a partial text, and MP3 download, of a recent interview between General Motors leaders and a University of Arizona Professor titled "It's not always good to create goals."
The story relates how about a decade a go, with market share hovering at 25%, GM set the goal of moving back to 29%. It became a huge, multi-year campaign. Lapel pins with "29" were made and all kinds of motivational programs were put in place. The GM organization had its goal, and it was highly aligned to the goal. But it didn't happen. Despite the goal, and all the energy and talent put into focusing on the goal, GM continued to struggle, lose share – and eventually file bankruptcy. The goal made no difference.
Worse, the interview goes on to discuss how goals often lead to decidedly undesirable, sometimes unethical – even illegal – behavior. Instances are cited where goal obsession led company employees to falsify documents, even ship bricks in place of products to meet sales targets. No executive wants this, but goals and goal obsession – especially when there is a lot of reinforcement socially and monetarily on the goal – can become a serious problem.
Results are exactly that. Results. They are an outcome. They are the way we track our behaviors and activities – our decisions. When we focus on goals – usually some sort of result – we lose track of what is important. We have to focus on what we do. And for most organizations a big goal merely leads people to try working harder, faster,better, cheaper. But when the Success Formula is mis-aligned with the market – even when the whole organization is aligned on maximizing the Success Formula results will still struggle – even falter. Goals don't help you fix a Success Formula returning poor results. Just look at GM.
In fact, it can make matters worse. In "White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts" (available on Amazon.com) the authors point out that when you try to turn a negative (a problem) into a positive (a challenge, or goal), you often achieve a rebound effect making people obsess about the problem. Tell somebody not to think about a white bear – and it's all they think about. When your company has a problem and you try to tell employees "hey, don't think about the problem. Go do your job. Work harder, increase your focus, and all will work out. Sure share is down, but don't think about lost share, instead think about the goal of higher market share" frequently the employees will start to become obsessive about the problem. It will reinforce doing more of the same – perhaps manicly. Instead of becoming innovative and doing something new, obsessive devotion to trying to make the old methods produce better results becomes the norm. Goals don't produce innovation – they produce repetition.
So what should you do when facing a problem? Disruptions. GM didn't need a big goal. GM needed to Disrupt its broken Success Formula. GM needed to attack a Lock-in (or two). GM leaders needed to admit the market had shifted, and that competitors were changing the game. GM needed to recognize, admit and encourage employees to engage in attacking old assumptions – and recognize that market share would continue eroding if they didn't do things differently. Setting a big goal reinforced the old Lock-ins and even an aligned organization – working it's metaphorical tail off – couldn't make the outdated Success Formula produce positive results.
Only a Disruption would have helped save GM. After attacking some Lock-ins, like the desire to move all customers to bigger and more expensive cars, or the desire to focus on long production runs, GM should have set up White Space teams to discover new Success Formulas. Instead of putting all its management energy and money into growing volume at Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GM nameplates, General Motors leadership should have revitalized the innovative Saturn and Saab to do new things – to develop new approaches that would be more competitive. Instead of pushing Hummer to have 3 identical cars in 3 sizes, GM leadership should have unleashed Hummer to explore the market for truly unique, limited production vehicles. GM should have allowed Pontiac to really take advantage of the design breakthroughs happening at the Australian design studio – to change the nameplate into a performance car segment leader. By attacking Lock-ins, Disrupting, and using White Space GM really could have turned around. Instead, by creating a BHAG GM reinforced its focus on its Hedgehog concept – and drove the company into bankruptcy.
You can see a 40 second video about the value and importance of Disruptions on YouTube here.
A 75 second video on White Space effectiveness on YouTube here.
Read free ebook on "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"
