by Adam Hartung | Jul 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, eBooks, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Years ago there was a TV ad featuring the actor Pauly Shore. Sitting in front of a haystack there was a sign over his frowning head reading "Find the needle." The voice over said "hard." Then another shot of Mr. Shore sitting in front of the same haystack grinning quite broadly, and the sign said "Find the hay." the voice over said "easy." Have you ever noticed that in business we too often try to do what's hard, rather than what's easy?
Take for example The New York Times Company, profiled today on Marketwatch.com in "The Gray Lady's Dilemma." The dilemma is apparently what the company will do next. Only, it really doesn't seem like much of a dilemma. The company is rapidly on its way to bankruptcy, with cash flow insufficient to cover operations. The leaders are negotiating with unions to lower costs, but it's unclear these cuts will be sufficient. And they definitely won't be within a year or two. Meanwhile the company is trying to sell The Boston Globe, which is highly unprofitable, and will most likely sell the Red Sox and the landmark Times Building in Manhattan, raising cash to keep the paper alive.
Only there isn't much of a dilemma here. Newspapers as they have historically been a business are no longer feasible. The costs outweigh the advertising and subscription dollars. The market is telling newspaper owners (Tribune Corporation, Gannett, McClatchey, News Corp. and all the others as well as The Times) that it has shifted. Cash flow and profits are a RESULT of the business model. People now are saying that they simply won't pay for newspapers – nor even read them. Thus advertisers have no reason to advertise. The results are terrible because the market has shifted. The easy thing to do is listen to the market. It's saying "stop." This should be easy. Quit, before you run out of money.
Of course, company leadership is Locked-in to doing what it always has done. So it doesn't want to stop. And many employees are Locked-in to their old job descriptions and pay – so they don't want to stop. They want to do what's hard – which is trying to Defend & Extend a money-losing enterprise after its useful life has been exhausted. But if customers have moved on, isn't this featherbedding? How is it different than trying to maintain coal shovelers on electric locomotives? This approach is hard. Very hard. And it won't succeed.
For a full half-decade, maybe longer, it has been crystal clear that print news, radio news and TV news (especially local) is worth a lot less than it used to be. They all suffer from one-way communication limits, poor reach and frequently poor latency. All problems that didn't exist before the internet. This technology and market shift has driven down revenues. People won't pay for what they can get globally, faster and in an interactive environment. As these customers shift, advertisers want to go where they are. After all, advertising is only valuable when it actually reaches someone.
Meanwhile, reporting and commentary increasingly is supplied by bloggers that work for free – or nearly so. Not unlike the "stringers" used by news services back in the "wire" days of Reuters, UPI and AP. Only now the stringers can take their news directly to the public without needing the wire service or publishers. They can blog their information and use Google to sell ads on their sites, thus directly making a market for their product. They even can push the product to consolidators like HuffingtonPost.com in order to maximize reach and revenue. Thus, the costs of acquiring and accumulating news has dropped dramatically. Increasingly, this pits the expensive journalist against the low cost journalist. And the market is shifting to the lower cost resource — regardless of how much people argue about the lack of quality (of course, some [such as politicians] would question the quality in today's "legitimate" media.)
Trying to keep The New York Times and Boston Globe alive as they have historically been is hard. I would contend a suicide effort. Continuing is explained only by recognizing the leaders are more interested in extending Lock-in than results. Because if they want results they would be full-bore putting all their energy into creating mixed-format content with maximum distribution that leads with the internet (including e-distribution like Kindle), and connects to TV, radio and print. Pricing for newspapers and magazines would jump dramatically in order to cover the much higher cost of printing. And the salespeople would be trained to sell cross-format ads which run in all formats. Audience numbers would cross all formats, and revenue would be tied to maximum reach, not the marginal value of each format. That is what advertisers want. Creating that sale, building that company, would be relatively much easier than trying to defend the Lock-in. And it would produce much better results.
The only dilemma at The New York Times Company is between dying as a newspaper company, or surviving as something else. The path it's on now says the management would rather die a newspaper company than do the smart thing and change to meet the market shift. For investors, this poses no dilemma. Investors would be foolhardy to be long the equity or bonds of The New York Times. There will be no GM-style bailout, and the current direction is into the Whirlpool. Employees had better be socking away cash for the inevitable pay cuts and layoffs. Suppliers better tighten up terms and watch the receivables. Because the company is in for a hard ending. And faster than anyone wants to admit.
Don't miss my recent ebook, "The Fall of GM" for a
quick read on how easily any company (even the nation's largest employer) can be
easily upset by market shifts. And learn what GM could have done to avoid
bankruptcy – lessons that can help your business grow!
http://tinyurl.com/mp5lrm
by Adam Hartung | Jul 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership
Business leaders too often react to a recession by cutting costs, stopping spending, discontinuing new product launches — and waiting. The theory is that the market is bad, so it's an uphill slog to try doing anything new. Supposedly, a smart leader waits until things improve before spending again.
An example of this thinking is at GM. The retired executive brought back to head marketing, Bob Lutz, supports killing off the Pontiac brand to make GM smaller and leaner. But he realized this week that there was a car in the Pontiac lineup called the G8 which was selling pretty good. Designed in Autralia, this 2 passenger sports car had sales up 56% from last year – something no other GM car could boast. So Lutz said he'd find a way to keep making and selling the car. But now, Lutz has reversed position and in "GM's Lutz Makes another U-Turn" from the Wall Street Journal he says "upon further review and careful study, we simply cannot make a business
case for such a program. Not in today's market, in this economy, and
with fuel regulations what they are and will be." In other words, we can interpret these comments as "we at GM want to save money and try selling the cars we've got – whether you like them or not – rather than move forward with a car you may really want." This kind of thinking is not the way to grow out of a recession.
On the other hand, we have Tesla Motors. The company Mr. Lutz laughed at a few months ago claiming it wasn't a serious car company. Tesla has one car for sale today, a superfast 2 seater sports car that is 100% electric. Today in Marketing Daily we read "Tesla Plugs Dealership into Manhanttan's Chelsea". Tesla is selling 100% of its production, and it is supporting that by opening a new, stylish dealership in Manhattan. While GM is eliminating a hot seller, Tesla continues to promote theirs. While GM closes dealerships, Tesla opens a new one. Tesla is making a car, albeit a low production model, that people want. It is going where the market is shifting. That's how you get out of a recession, you give customers what they want.
I met another great example last week at Morgan Aircraft. You've never heard of this company unless you've been to an air show. While the makers of private aircraft like Cessna and Gulfstream are shutting down production, Morgan has raised millions of dollars while developing a new aircraft slated for market introduction in about 4 years (flying in tests today, still needing FAA approval). But the Morgan isn't a typical plane as you know it – what's called a "fixed wing" aircraft. The Morgan is able to take off vertically, like a helicopter, then fly horizontally like a plane. This dramatically improves the use of a plane by eliminating airport runways, and thus the commuting requirements to/from airports for business flyers. Morgan has identified the early users of their aircraft, which will allow successful introduction as it expands the market for its technology. Morgan brings to market something new, something different, something that gives buyers a reason to buy – better economics and improved ease of use. That's how you raise money and build a business in a recession – by offering something new that creates demand for your product.
Perhaps even Starbucks' new leadership is getting the idea. After months of doing "the wrong stuff" (as reported in this blog), The Seattle Times reports "Starbucks Tests New Name for Stores." Only this is way beyond a name test. The new stores have a different menu, including liquor, a different ambiance, and even different coffee making equipment. This is something new. Will it matter? We don't yet know, because (a) we haven't heard of any Disruptions in Starbucks to make us think this is a really serious initiative that could displace the earlier commitment to "coffee", (b) we don't know how much permission the developers of the new idea have to really do something new – like maybe not sell coffee at all, and (c) we don't know if there are any significant resources committed to the project. So it's too early to know if this is really White Space. But at least it's not another flavor of coffee or repackaging of coffee or more of the same – which was killing Starbucks. If the leadership really starts creating some White Space projects to develop new stores then even the beleagured Starbucks has the opportunity to grow itself out of this recession.
Recessions dramatically bring home market shifts. Those clinging to old Success Formulas are exposed as very weak (like GM) and are targets for failure. Those who reach out to provide solutions to new market demands can not only grow during the recession, but upstage older competitors. They can change market competitiveness to favor themselves, and grow dramatically by overtaking the Locked-in competition. Recessions end when businesses launch new products and services that meet the needs of a shifted market. So if you're waiting on the recession to end – just keep on waiting. When it ends you just might find you are so out of the market you aren't competitive any longer. Instead, get with moving toward the new market needs today so you strengthen your business and become a leader in the near future.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 13, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"Is Bob Lutz the right guy to run GM Marketing?" is the question headlined on Advertising Age. I'm sure you know I think the answer is a resounding "NO."
I'll never forget a few months when Mr. Lutz, being interviewed for a national magazine, said the Tesla sports car and the company that developed it was a joke. He said it wasn't a real car, nor was Tesla a real car company. He said the leadership at Tesla didn't know what it meant to be a professional auto company, and to be professional auto executives. He was condescending and rude as to the future of Tesla.
Let's see, Tesla has made a 100% electric car, sold 100% of its output, has investors that aren't the federal government, has never been bankrupt and has never asked for a bailout to stay in business. Meanwhile, the former vice-chairman of GM was a stanch critic of the electric car, saying it would never meet the driving needs of the American public, and fully supported GM killing its electric car program. While he was a leader at GM, the company couldn't even keep 100% of its capacity in operation, much less sell 100% of the output, the company begged the federal government for money to keep it in operation when private investors would no longer invest, and then wiped out the equity holders entirely – and over 80% of the value of bondholders, by leading the company into bankruptcy.
Mr. Lutz was an executive at GM. But that doesn't make him a good executive. In fact, given the performance of GM since 1975 (nearly 35 years) it might be more of a disqualifier than a qualifier. Why would anyone want to hire an executive who stayed in one industry for over 40 years, during which the companies he worked for lost share, saw their margins decline, led in no new technology categories, was perennially late introducing new products, saw their costs spiral out of control, had the lowest job satisfaction in the industry by its employees, had some of the lower quality scores among consumers in the industry and and eventually had to declare bankruptcy?
America loves to glorify, make heroes even, of business executives. Usually of large companies. But few of these executives actually made a significant positive impact on their companies, employees, investors or suppliers. Executives rise because they are very good at supporting the Success Formula, not because they produce significantly better results. As long as the manager turned director turned V.P. keeps reinforcing the Success Formula, in fact many mistakes can be overlooked. Especially if the executive's style is similar to the top brass at the company (same school, same degrees, same geographic origin, same religion, same politics, same views.) What gets an executive promoted at GM (and most large companies) is simply not results. It is consistent reinforcement of a Success Formula, burnishing and amplifying it, even in the face of deterioriating results. Like Mr. Lutz.
There is no popular election of executives. In this case, perhaps there should be. Given how disgusted most people are with GM, I doubt many people would vote to keep the original management in place. And I doubt fewer still would vote to place a 77 year old executive who was part of the long term industry decline and recent failure in a top position. And even fewer would say that a 77 year old is prepared to take on marketing leadership in a world where traditional advertising has declining value, and the best companies are creatively using all kinds of internet marketing programs. Not just because of his age – but because he's never developed the remotest skill to do the work. Many 30 year olds could explain in deep detail how to get viral campaigns working – while all Mr. Lutz could say is he's seen a YouTube! video and read a blog or two. And he gets to manage the 4th largest ad budget in the USA? Isn't that how GM got into this mess – having people in top jobs who were out of step with current market realities?
Businesses exist to put resources to effective use. We measure that effectiveness with cash flow and profits. We ask that the leaders who borrow money from investors (equity and debt) return that principle with a positive rate of return. And we ask that the executives honor their commitments to the employees and vendors. In the case of GM, the executives eliminated the investments made by investors, reneged on the employee commitments and left vendors holding the bag on long-term contracts the company will no longer honor. Even old customers can no longer hold the company accountable for its defective products. By all measures, these leaders failed. And yet someone thinks it's a good idea to keep the same people running this company?
GM needs new leadership. Leadership willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to develop a new Success Formula. Asking Mr. Lutz to be the head of marketing is not a Disruption. It is an action specifically intended to remain Locked-in to the old Success Formula and maintain the re-invention gap between GM and the marketplace. With this kind of decision making, GM will find itself back in bankruptcy court a lot faster than any of the experts even think.
Don't miss the new ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Jul 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
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
- 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;
- 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;
- 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
- 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"
by Adam Hartung | Jul 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
"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 Formula. Bankruptcy addresses a symptom of the weak business – debts and obligations – but does not address what's really wrong - a 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 same. GM 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.
