by Adam Hartung | Nov 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Weblogs
"The Illusion of Brand Control" is a great article at Harvard Business Publishing. Andrew McAfee, who is a research scientist at the MIT Sloan school Center for Digital Business, offers the insight that in today's market it's not possible for a business to "control" its brand. "New media" like the internet and Facebook are bi-directional. People no longer just absorb a crafted message, they are able to push back. Bloggers and internet commenters can have more influence on a brand than traditional advertising and PR. As a result, a business's brand becomes the result of what others say about it – not just what the owner says.
And this mirrors what is happening across business today. As we've moved from the industrial to the information economy, success is no longer about amassing and controlling assets. Scale advantages have disappeared, with scale accessible to anyone who has a browser and a credit card. Where the business leader of 1965 likely felt success required controlling everything from employees and facilities to the brand message, in 2015 success is about adapting to rapidly shifting market requirements.
If you want your brand, and your business, to grow and be profitable, you have to realize the dramatic limits of "command and control." That approach works in very static, clearly defined environments. Like the military. Businesses today no longer operate in slow moving static environments with high levels of regulation and rigid business limits and significant entry barriers. Businesses today operate in complex, highly adaptive systems. Competitors can move fluidly, quickly, globally to offer new solutions and react to changes.
Today's leaders have to recognize that many of the most important impacts on their business (or brand) come from outside their organization. Completely out of management's control. Being Locked-in on what you know how to do has less and less value when you might well have to react very quickly to an external event in an entirely new way in order to maintain product position and growth. Just ask the leaders at Circuity City, who could not adapt quickly enough and saw their company fail. Adaptability to shifting market requirements becomes key to sustaining growth. Competitive advantage is not created by seeking entry barriers. Rather, competitive advantage now comes from understanding market shifts, and moving rapidly to position yourself in the right place – over and over and over.
Executives who feel like they have "control" of their business are under an illusion in 2009. And that has been demonstrated time and time again as this recession has driven home a plethora of market shifts. There are many things managers can control. But many of the most important things to success are completely out of management's hands. Thus, the ones who succeed aren't trying to control their brand, or business. Instead they are building organizations that have great market sensing and are quick to react. Just compare GM to Google and you'll see the gap between what worked in 1965, and what works 45 years later.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 19, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
According to Marketing Daily "Electric Cars Set to Tiptoe Into Showrooms." Nissan is supposed to introduce the Leaf. Chevrolet, Toyota and Ford are all supposed to begin offering a plug-in hybrid. None have announced prices, but all indicate they intend to price them at the high end – more costly than a like-sized traditional gasoline powered automobile. One reason for the higher price is that dealers normally expect to make 20% of a traditional vehicle's price in high-margin maintenance and repairs, and because these electrics won't provide that revenue and margin the manufacturers believe the dealer has to make more on the initial auto sale – or they won't sell them.
The manufacturers themselves are not optimistic about sales. They are targeting wealthy early adopter consumers for whom climate change and environment are critical issues. Citing a lack of infrastructure for recharging, and battery technology that takes too long to recharge, the manufacturers are non-committal on how many cars they will make – preferring to wait and see if demand develops.
Sort of sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it? This approach is very unlikely to succeed, because they manufacturers are trying to sell electric cars to people who are already well served by existing petroleum powered traditional and hybrid cars. These people have little or no reason to pay extra for new technology, so will be a hard sell. And with built-in excuses for the technological limits, the manufacturers aren't being promotional. Simultaneously, the manufacturers are more worried about the impact on dealers than the success of the vehicles.
It's not the product that's wrong, its the approach. These manufacturers are trying to launch a very different product, that really needs to appeal to very different customers. But they are trying to do it in the totally traditional way. Same brand names, same distribution, same sales people, same marketing, same financing – same everything. They are trying to have the existing organization, with all its Lock-ins, do something very different. And that never works.
Electric cars are ideal for White Space team introduction. White Space projects are given permission to do what it takes to make a project succeed. They are given permission to operate outside the Lock-ins. It's that permission to find the right answer, to find the market-based solution, which allows the innovation to develop a new Success Formula that meets market needs.
Electric cars are not a solution for the way automobiles have been used in the past. To succeed requires appealing to different scenarios about the future. Electric cars need to appeal to people for whom a traditional auto has limitations they don't like, and instead the electric auto is something they want. People who are underserved by the current products. The electric car will succeed with buyers who have reasons to want one. For whom the electric car is the solution to their problem – not a second-rate, overpriced solution to an old need.
Cell phones didn't succeed because they were purchased by people who already had wired phones with long distance. Early cell phones, for all their expense and weakness, were bought by people who had a real need for mobile telephony. For years, mobile phones were used only by a small group of people. It took years for cell phones to become commonplace. We all now know younger generation people who have no land line phone – for whom the mobile phone has displaced a traditional phone. But the cell phone didn't succeed by trying to be a high-priced alternative to the existing solution, it was a product that was desired by people for the advantages it offered – even when it was expensive, big and had limited range. Only over time did the cell phone evolve to a new Success Formula that is making traditional phones obsolete – and leaving traditional phone companies with a very hard transition.
Electric cars need an entirely "greenfield" start. Those responsible need to be chartered to "make this work" in an environment where failure is not an option for them. They need to believe their careers depend on finding the right solution, and developing it. And they need permission to do what the market requires. They need to be able to have a stand-alone brand, and its own distribution system, and unique marketing. They need the White Space with permission to do what it takes, and the resources to accomplish the task. Free from worrying about dealer reaction, marketing impact on traditional autos in the brand, or requirements to solve "infrastructure issues."
Imagine urbanites who want cars just for short hauls. Think about the ZipCar business in most major U.S. cities as the target buyer, rather than selling cars to individuals. Or think about other markets – outside the USA. How about places like Taiwan or Malaysia where distances are short and traffic is bad and much fuel is wasted just sitting. Towns like Tel Aviv. Maybe as delivery vehicles in urban areas where traveling is rarely more than 200 miles in a day because most time is spent sitting at lights – or making the delivery. There are places for which an electric car could be an ideal solution – just as they are today. Where a head-to-head match-up favors the electric vehicle.
Secondly, who says a traditional dealer is the right way to sell this vehicle to these people? Maybe it should be sold on-line, with somebody delivering the vehicle to the buyer and offering personalized instruction? Maybe it should be sold out of a Home Depot, or Staples, or Best Buy like an expensive appliance or computer? It's not clear to me that people, or companies, have much value for auto dealers – so perhaps this is the time to change the distribution system entirely — and perhaps take a lot of cost out of auto distribution.
There is a market for electric cars. Today. Just as the technology exists. And if White Space teams were allowed to find and develop that market, we could have a robust electric car industry in just a few years. But it won't happen via traditional approaches, from companies Locked-in to their traditional ways. Those companies only see obstacles, not opportunity. Without White Space, this will be just another example of a technology delayed.
But it does leave the door wide open for a company like Tesla. Tesla is a stand-alone company pioneering the electric car market. They are operating in White Space. Easy as Tesla is now to ignore, they may prove to be the upstart like Southwest Airlines that succeeds and makes money while the traditional industry players keep struggling.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 12, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
The Myth of Market Share by Richard Minitar is one of those little books, published in 2002 by Crown Business, that you probably never read – or even heard of (available on Amazon though). And that's too bad, because without spending too many words the author does a great job of describing the non-correlation between market share and returns. There are as many, or possibly more, companies with high profitability that don't lead in market share as ones that do. Even though the famous BCG Growth/Share matrix led many leaders to believe share was the key to business success. Another something that worked once (maybe) – but now doesn't.
"Moto Looks to Sell Set-Top Box Unit" is the Crain's Chicago Business headline. Motorola's television connection box business is #1 in market share. But even though Motorola paid $11B for it in 1999, they are hoping to get $4.5B today. That's a $6.5B loss (or 60%) in a decade. For a business that is the market share leader. Only, it's profitability + growth doesn't justify a higher price. Regardless of market share.
Kind of like Motorola's effort to be #1 in mobile handset market share by cutting RAZR prices. That didn't work out too well either. It almost bankrupted the company, and is causing Motorola to sell the set top box business to raise cash in its effort to spin out the unprofitable handset business.
On the other hand, there's Apple. Apple isn't #1 in PCs – by a long shot. It has about a 14% share I think. Nor is it #1 in mobile handhelds, where it has about a 2.5% market share. But Apple is more profitable than the market leaders in both markets. Today, Apple's value is almost as high as Microsoft – historically considered the undisputed king of technology companies.
Chart source Silicon Alley Insider 11/12/09
While Microsoft has been trying to Defend & Extend it's Windows franchise, its value has declined this decade. Quite the contrary for Apple.
Additionally, Apple has piled up a remarkable cash hoard with it's meager market shares in 2 of 3 businesses (Apple is #1 in digital music downloads – although not #1 in portable MP3 players).
Chart Source Silicon Alley Insider 11/11/09
"While Rivals Jockey for Market Share Apple Bathes in Profits" is the SeekingAlpha.com headline. Nokia has 35% share of the mobil handheld market. It earned $1.1B in the third quarter. With its 2.5% share Apple made $1.6B profit on the iPhone. While everyone in the PC business is busy cutting costs, Apple has innovated the Mac and its other products – proving that if you make products that customers want they will buy them and allow you to make money. While competitors behave like they can cost cut themselves to success, Apple proves the opposite is true. Innovation linked to meeting customer needs is worth a lot more money.
Bob Sutton, Stanford management professor, blogs on Work Matters "Leading Innovation: 21 Things that Great Bosses Say and Do." All are about looking to the future, listening to the market, using disruptions to keep your organization open, and giving people permission and resources to open and manage White Space projects.
If your solution to this recession is to cut costs and wait for the market to return – good luck. If you are trying to figure out how you can Defend & Extend your core – good luck. If you think size and/or market share is going to protect you – check out how well that worked for GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers and Circuit City. If you want to improve your business follow Apple's lead by developing thorough scenario plans you can use to understand competitors inside out, then Disrupt your old notions and use White Space to launch new products and services that meet emerging needs.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
"Saturn Done in Four Months" is the Autoweek.com headline. The next time somebody brings up the short life cycle of tech products, remember Saturn. GM started the company, grew it, and now is shutting it down on a timeline that roughly corresponds with the life of Sun Microsystems. Clearly manufacturing companies can do just as poorly as techs.
When Penske lost itsmanufacturing deal, the purchase of Saturn fell through. And GM leadership can't wait to clear out inventory. Production has already stopped. Soon, the products and dealers will disappear. Along with the brand name. Another experiment that failed. So it is very important our post-mortem teaches us the right lessons from Saturn.
I was appalled when Harvard Business School Publishing posted "Why Saturn Was Destined to Fail." According to the author, Saturn was an anchor that drug down a hurt GM!!!! Reporting that the successful Saturn launch came at the loss of $3,000 per car sold (a new factoid I've never before heard), he claims that GM should have been more focused on fixing its old business. The implication is that GM wasn't trying to fix its old business, instead being diverted by the very successful operations at Saturn! Pretty illogical. GM was doing everything it could to compete, but improving its old Success Formula simply wasn't enough given the market shifts already in place. To meet changing market requirements GM needed to develop a new Success Formula, and that was the purpose of Saturn!
Saturn was the best chance GM had to succeed! The Success Formula at Chevrolet and the other GM divisions had been created in the 1950s when GM dominated the industry. But by 1980 the market had shifted dramatically. Design cycles had dropped, customer tastes had changed, production methods had moved from long assembly lines to just-in-time, quality requirements were redefined and rising, and impressions of auto dealers had tanked. Saturn was established to teach GM how to compete differently.
The reason Saturn lost money had everything to do with accounting. GM forced all kinds of costs onto GM – which were not representative of a normal start-up. Without those costs, Saturn would have been much leaner and profitable. Further, after Saturn proved it could move faster and outsell expectations, GM quickly moved to force Saturn to act like other GM divisions. Forced sharing of components severely hampered the design cycle and flexibility. Union contract consistency pushed Saturn into old employee agreements which the union had previously agreed to wave. And forcing Saturn to allow traditional GM dealers to sell the Saturn brand tarnished the changed customer relationship Saturn worked hard to create.
When Roger Smith created GM he set it up seperately. His scenario of the future demanded GM figure out a new way to compete. Saturn, was a White Space project with permission and resources to figure out that new way. But Chairman Smith did not Disrupt the old GM auto management. He did not replace the Division presidents with leaders from EDS or Hughes (businesses he had acquired) who were willing to move in a new direction. He did not change the resource allocation system to give Saturn more clout over its own decisions and those at other divisions. Thus, when he left the larger divisions moved fast to change Saturn into their mold – rather than vice-versa. Instead of Chevrolet learning from Saturn, Saturn managers were forced to adopt Chevrolet practices.
Saturn proved that even a stodgy, Locked-in company can use White Space to develop new solutions. And it also proved that if you aren't willing to Disrupt the old Success Formula – if you aren't willing to attack old Lock-ins – White Space (regardless of its success) is unlikely to convert the company into a better competitor. The lesson of Saturn is NOT that it diverted GM's attention, but rather that GM was unwilling to Disrupt its Success Formula to learn from Saturn.
As investors, the question is pretty easy. Would you rather own Saturn, Pontiac and Hummer – the divisions of GM that had loyal customers and some reputation for innovation, quality and customer satisfaction – or Cadillac, Buick and Chevrolet? Would you rather have businesses that are looking forward with early plans for hybrids, and exciting cars like the G8, or a high volume business in cars that most people find ho-hum, at best? Do you want designers that take chances and bring out cars quickly, or that move slowly seeking the "lowest common denominator" in design? If you were an entrepreneur, would you rather be given pemission to lead Saturn, or Chevrolet?
Learning the right lessons from Saturn is important, or else our business leaders are doomed to repeat the GM mistakes. If you don't challenge your Success Formula, White Space project will be met with great resistance by the organization. They will be saddled with unnecessary costs and requirements that strip them of permission to do what the market demands. And they will not achieve the goals which they established to accomplish, including acting as a beacon for migrating a business forward.
For a deeper treatment of this topic please download the free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Sep 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
How many cars do you own? Odds are, it's at least 1 more than you need. There are more licensed vehicles in the USA than there are licensed drivers – so it's clear America is loaded with cars. Now it looks like a permanent shift is developing, to less auto ownership, and it will change competition significantly.
In places as far ranging as Detroit/Ann Arbor, Chicago and San Francisco increasingly people are opting for a new approach to transportation. Take the bus and train – yes. Take a cab – sometimes. And for a lot of folks they are joining car-sharing companies. According to Freep.com, "Service Lets Users Borrow a Car Whenevery they want." Pay a flat annual fee, as low as $30 to $150, then you rent a car in your neighborhood for as little as $8.00/hour. Right. No monthly insurance fee, no gas charge, no parking bills. You rent cars when you need them, and only as long as you need them.
To those of us, mostly older, this may seem heretical. How can you give up your car? It's long been a status symbol. What you drive is supposed to say something about who you are. But this is getting turned upside down. People, lots of people, are renting by the hour and they want something very cheap and easy to park. Cars have a place, but not in your personal parking spot at an enormous cost.
Implications are powerful. Firstly, recognize that the USA is increasingly an urban country. Every election we are reminded that while most the people live in cities, the electoral map is by state. Thus, a President can be elected while losing the popular vote! Just like the tendency across the globe, as agriculture makes less and less importance to the economy people gravitate to major urban centers. Likewise, as manufacturing jobs move offshore from America, people shift to office work which is more centralized in urban areas than the former "factory towns." These demographic trends have been developing for over 30 years, and show every sign of accelerating – not decreasing.
Thus, watching what the "early movers" are doing in urban areas is really important. We have to develop our scenarios about the future, and we can see that what happens in cities is becoming even more important than it was just a couple of decades ago. And in cities, people are opting not to buy cars. Nor even rent them for a day or two. Nor are they relying on ever more costly taxis. They are going for hourly rentals they can preschedule.
GM, Chrysler and Ford are getting very little of this business because the renters, 80%, prefer small hybrids. Hertz and other big rental car companies were being shut out, because their model was the daily rental — largely from an airport location for a traveling business person or vacationer.
In a real way, this shows all the signs of a classic Clayton Chrstensen "Disruptive Innovation." An unserved, or underserved, customer who cannot obtain personal transportation is able to get it. An unconventional solution, perhaps, but it's working. What does that tell us? As the business grows expect the leaders to develop better and better solutions, leading to more and more people accessing the solution. This is how we get to a very large market shift – not from the people currently served suddenly changing, but rather from the underserved market creating a new solution which gets improved and refined until it meets the needs of the majority of customers – who shift much later – but cut the legs out from under old Success Formulas. Meaning we could get back to families having one car (circa 1948) and when a second is needed they rent by the hour – even in the suburbs!! With insurance costs often topping $100/month for a second car, plus the cost to license and maintain it, it's less clear that multi-car ownership is as beneficial as it once was. If a viable new solution comes along – well it just might work!
This, of course, is not a good thing for auto companies dependent on a demand rebound to fix their recent woes. Their "good case" scenarios have people returning to adding to their personal fleets, while also returning to new car acquisition every 2 or 3 years. If instead buyers go the direction of less ownership and less frequent purchases it will be impossible for these companies to repay the government loans.
Markets shift. Often quickly and violently. Far too oten, we ignore these shifts. Because they look so different, so odd, that we believe it must be a short term phenomenon. We expect that things will soon get "back to normal." We have future scenarios – they are extensions of the past. But in the post-millenial global economy people are starting to do a lot of things differently. They aren't trying to return to old patterns. They are developing new ones. And if you want to compete, it's becoming crystal clear you have to change your assumptions about the future, your scenarios of the future and your approach to markets. Before you get left so far behind you fail.
