Why Yahoo Investors Should Worry about Marissa Mayer

Marissa Mayer created a firestorm this week by issuing an email requiring all employees who work from home to begin daily commuting to Yahoo offices.  Some folks are saying this is going to be a blow to long-term employees, hamper productivity and will harm the company. Others are saying this will improve communications and cooperation, thin out unproductive employees and help Yahoo.

While there are arguments to be made on both sides, the issue is far simpler than many people make it out to be – and the implications for shareholders are downright scary.

Yahoo has been a strugging company for several years.  And the reason has nothing to do with its work from home policy.  Yahoo has lacked an effective strategy for a decade – and changing its work from home policy does nothing to fix that problem.

In the late 1990s almost every computer browser had Yahoo as its home page.  But Yahoo long ago lost its leadership position in content aggregation, search and ad placement.    Now, Yahoo is irrelevant.  It has no technology advantage, no product advantage and no market advantage.  It is so weak in all markets that its only value has been as a second competitor that keeps the market leader from being attacked as a monopolist! 

A series of CEOs have been unable to develop a new strategy for Yahoo to make it more like Amazon or Apple and less like – well, Yahoo.  With much fanfare Ms. Mayer was brought into the flailing company from Google, which is a market leader, to turn around Yahoo.  Only she's been on the job 7 months, and there still is no apparent strategy to return Yahoo to greatness. 

Instead, Ms. Mayer has delivered to investors a series of tactical decisions, such as changing the home page layout and now the work from home policy.  If tactical decisions alone could fix Yahoo Carol Bartz would have been a hero – instead of being pushed out by the Board in disgrace. 

Many leading pundits are enthused with CEO Mayer's decision to force all employees into offices.  They are saying she is "making the tough decisions" to "cut the corporate cost structure" and "push people to be more productive." Underlying this lies thinking that the employees are lazy and to blame for Yahoo's failure. 

Balderdash.  It's not employees' fault Yahoo, and Ms. Mayer, lack an effective strategy to earn a high return on their efforts. 

It isn't hard for a new CEO to change policies that make it harder for people to do their jobs – by cutting hours out of their day via commuting.  Or lowering productivity as they are forced into endless meetings that "enhance communication and cooperation." Or forcing them out of the company entirely with arcane work rules in a misguided effort to lower operating costs or overhead.  Any strategy-free CEO can do those sorts of things. 

Just look at how effective this approach was for

  • "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap at Scott Paper
  • "Fast Eddie" Lampert at Sears
  • Carol Bartz at Yahoo
  • Meg Whitman at HP
  • Brian Dunn at Best Buy
  • Gregory Rayburn at Hostess
  • Antonio Perez at Kodak

The the fact that some Yahoo employees work from home has nothing to do with the lack of strategy, innovation and growth at Yahoo.  That failure is due to leadership.  Bringing these employees into offices will only hurt morale, increase real estate costs and push out several valuable workers who have been diligently keeping afloat a severely damaged Yahoo ship. These employees, whether in an office or working at home, will not create a new strategy for Yahoo.  And bringing them into offices will not improve the strategy development or innovation processes. 

Regardless of anyone's personal opinions about working from home, it has been the trend for over a decade.  Work has changed dramatically the last 30 years, and increasingly productivity relies on having time, alone, to think and produce charts, graphs, documents, lines of code, letters, etc.  Technologies, from PCs to mobile devices and the software used on them (including communications applications like WebEx, Skype and other conferencing tools) make it possible for people to be as productive remotely as in person. Usually more productive removed from interruptions.

Taking advantage of this trend helps any company to hire better, and be more productive.  Going against this trend is simply foolish – regardless the intellectual arguments made to support such a decision. Apple fought the trend to PCs and almost failed.  When it wholesale adopted the trend to mobile, seriously reducing its commitment to PC markets, Apple flourished.  It is ALWAYS easier to succeed when you work with, and augment trends.  Fighting trends ALWAYS fails.

Yahoo investors have plenty to be worried about.  Yahoo doesn't need a "tough" CEO.  Yahoo needs a CEO with the insight to create, and implement, a new strategy.  And a series of tactical actions do not sum to a new strategy.  As importantly, the new strategy – and its implementation – needs to augment trends.  Not go against trends while demonstrating the clout of a new CEO. 

If you've been waiting to figure out if Ms. Mayer is the CEO that can make Yahoo a great company again, the answer is becoming clear.  She increasingly appears very unlikely to have what it takes.

Irrelevancy leads to failure – Worry for Yahoo, Microsoft, HP, Sears, etc.

The web lit up yesterday when people started sharing a Fortune quote from Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, "We are literally moving the company from BlackBerrys to smartphones."  Why was this a big deal?  Because, in just a few words, Ms. Mayer pointed out that Research In Motion is no longer relevant.  The company may have created the smartphone market, but now its products are so irrelevant that it isn't even considered a market participant.

Ouch.  But, more importantly, this drove home that no matter how good RIM thinks Blackberry 10 may be, nobody cares.  And when nobody cares, nobody buys.  And if you weren't convinced RIM was headed for lousy returns and bankruptcy before, you certainly should be now.

But wait, this is certainly a good bit of the pot being derogatory toward the kettle.  Because, other than the highly personalized news about Yahoo's new CEO, very few people care about Yahoo these days as well.  After being thoroughly trounced in ad placement and search by Google, it is wholly unclear how Yahoo will create its own relevancy.  It may likely be soon when a major advertiser says "When placing our major internet ad program we are focused on the split between Google and Facebook," demonstrating that nobody really cares about Yahoo anymore, either. 

And how long will Yahoo survive?

The slip into irrelevancy is the inflection point into failure.  Very few companies ever return.  Once you are no longer relevant, customer quickly stop paying attention to practically anything you do.  Even if you were once great, it doesn't take long before the slide into no-growth, cost cutting and lousy financial performance happens. 

Consider:

  • Garmin once led the market for navigation devices.  Now practically everyone uses their mobile phone for navigation. The big story is Apple's blunder with maps, while Google dominates the marketplace.  You probably even forgot Garmin exists.
  • Radio Shack once was a consumer electronics powerhouse.  They ran superbowl ads, and had major actresses parlaying with professional sports celebrities in major network ads.  When was the last time you even thought about Radio Shack, much less visited a store?
  • Sears was once America's premier, #1 retailer.  The place where everyone shopped for brands like Craftsman, DieHard and Kenmore.  But when did you last go into a Sears?  Or even consider going into one?  Do you even know where one is located?
  • Kodak invented amateur photography.  But when that market went digital nobody cared about film any more.  Now Kodak is in bankruptcy.  Do you care?
  • Motorola Razr phones dominated the last wave of traditional cell phones.  As sales plummeted they flirted with bankruptcy, until Motorola split into 2 pieces and the money losing phone business became Google – and nobody even noticed.
  • When was the last time you thought about "building your body 12 ways" with Wonder bread?  Right.  Nobody else did either.  Now Hostess is liquidating.

Being relevant is incredibly important, because markets shift quickly today. As they shift, either you are part of the trend going forward – or you are part of the "who cares" past.  If you are the former, you are focused on new products that customers want to evaluate. If you are the latter, you can disappear a whole lot faster than anyone expected as customers simply ignore you.

So now take a look at a few other easy-to-spot companies losing relevancy:

  • HP headlines are dominated by write offs of its investments in services and software, causing people to doubt the viability of its CEO, Meg Whitman.  Who wants to buy products from a company that would spend billions on Palm, business services and Autonomy ERP software only to decide they overspent and can never make any money on those investments?  Once a great market leader, HP is rapidly becoming a company nobody cares about; except for what appears to be a bloody train wreck in the making.  In tech – lose customesr and you have a short half-life.
  • Similarly Dell.  A leader in supply chain management, what Dell product now excites you?  As you think about the money you will spend this holiday, or in 2013, on tech products you're thinking about mobile devices — and where is Dell?
  • Best Buy was the big winner when Circuit City went bankrupt.  But Best Guy didn't change, and now margins have cratered as people showroom Amazon while in their store to negotiate prices.  How long can Best Buy survive when all TVs are the same, and price is all that matters?  And you download all your music and movies?
  • Wal-Mart has built a huge on-line business.  Did you know that?  Do you care?  Regardless of Wal-mart's on-line efforts, the company is known for cheap looking stores with cheap merchandise and customers that can't maintain credit cards.  When you look at trends in retailing, is Wal-Mart ever the leader – in anything – anymore?  If not, Wal-mart becomes a "default" store location when all you care about is price, and you can't wait for an on-line delivery.  Unless you decide to go to the even cheaper Dollar General or Aldi.

And, the best for last, is Microsoft.  Steve Ballmer announced that Microsoft phone sales quadrupled!  Only, at 4 million units last quarter that is about 10% of Apple or Android.  Truth is, despite 3 years of development, a huge amount of pre-release PR and ad spending, nobody much cares about Win8, Surface or new Microsoft-based mobile phones.  People want an iPhone or Samsung product. 

After its "lost decade" when Microsoft simply missed every major technology shift, people now don't really care about Microsoft.  Yes, it has a few stores – but they dwarfed in number and customers by the Apple stores.  Yes, the shifting tiles and touch screen PCs are new – but nobody real talks about them; other than to say they take a lot of new training.  When it comes to "game changers" that are pushing trends, nobody is putting Microsoft in that category.

So the bad news about a  $6 billion write-down of aQuantive adds to the sense of "the gang that can't shoot straight" after the string of failures like Zune, Vista and early Microsoft phones and tablets.  Not to mention the lack of interest in Skype, while Internet Explorer falls to #2 in browser market share behind Chrome. 

Browser share IE Chrome 5-2012Chart Courtesy Jay Yarrow, BusinessInsider.com 5-21-12

When a company is seen as never able to take the lead amidst changing
trends, investors see accquisitions like $1.2B for Yammer as a likely future write down.  Customers lose interest and simply spend money elsewhere.

As investors we often hear about companies that were once great brands, but selling at low multiples, and therefore "value plays."  But the truth is these are death traps that wipe out returns.  Why?  These companies have lost relevancy, and that puts them one short step from failure. 

As company managers, where are you investing?  Are you struggling to be relevant as other competitors – maybe "fringe" companies that use "voodoo solutions" you don't consider "enterprise ready" or understand – are obtaining a lot more interest and media excitment?  You can work all you want to defend & extend your past glory, but as markets shift it is amazingly easy to lose relevancy.  And it's a very, very tough job to play catch- up. 

Just look at the money being spent trying at RIM, Microsoft, HP, Dell, Yahoo…………

Don’t Buy Yahoo – At Least Not Yet

With great public fanfare Yahoo hired a Google executive as CEO this week. 

The good news is that by all accounts Ms. Marissa Mayer is very hard working, very smart and deeply knowledgeable about all things internet.  Ms. Mayer also was extremely successful at Google, which is a powerful recommendation for her skills.  This has pleased a lot of people.  Some have practically gushed with excitement, and have already determined this is a pivotal event destined to save Yahoo.

But, before we get carried away with ourselves, there are plenty of sound reasons to remain skeptical.  Check out this chart, and I concur completely with originator Jay Yarow of Business Insider – the #1 problem at Yahoo is revenue growth:

Yahoo revenue growth 7-2012
Source:  BusinessInsider.com reproduced with permission of Jay Yarow

Let's not forget, this problematic slide occurred under the last person who had great tech industry credentials, deep experience and a ton of smarts; Carol Bartz.  She was the last Yahoo CEO who was brought in with great fanfare and expectations of better things after being the wildly successful CEO of AutoCad.  Only things didn't go so well and she was unceremoniously fired amidst much acrimony.

So, like they say on financial documents, past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future performance.

What Yahoo needs is to become relevant again.  It has lost the competition in search, and search ads, to Google.  It is not really competitive in banner ads with leader Facebook, and strong competitor Google.  It is no longer leads in image sharing which has gone to Pinterest.  It has no game in local coupons and marketing which is being driven by GroupOn and Yelp.  For a company that pioneered the internet, and once led in so many ways, Yahoo has lost relevancy as new entrants have clobbered it on all fronts. 

Because it has fallen so far behind, it is ridiculous to think Yahoo will catch up and surpass the industry leaders in existing markets.  No CEO, regarless of their historical success and skills, can pull off that trick.  The only hope for Yahoo is to find entirely new markets where it can once again pioneer new solutions that do not go head-to-head with existing leaders.  Yahoo must meet emerging, unmet needs in new ways with new, innovative solutions that it can ride to success.  Like the turn to mobile that saved the nearly dead Mac-centric Apple in 2000.  Or the change to services from hardware that saved IBM in the 1990s.

Ms. Mayer's entire working career was at Google, so it is worth looking into Google's experience to see if that gives us indications of what Ms. Mayer may do.

Unfortunately, Google has been really weak at implementing new solutions which create high revenue, new markets.  Google has been a wild success at search, its first product, which still generates 90% of the company's revenue. 

  • Android is a very important mobile operating system.  But unfortunately giving away the product has done nothing to help sales and profits at Google.  Yahoo certainly cannot afford to develop something so sophisticated and give it away.
  • To try turning around the Android sales and profits Google bought market laggard Motorola Mobility for $12.5B.  With a total market cap of only $19.2B Yahoo is in no position to attempt buying its way out of trouble.
  • Chrome is a great product that has selectively won several head-to-head battles with other application environments.  However, again, it has not created meaningful revenues.  Despite a big investment.
  • Google+ has its advocates, but it was at least 3 years late to market allowing Facebook to develop a tremendous lead.  So far the product is still far behind in its gladiator battle with FB, and produces little revenue despite the enormous development and launch costs – which are still draining resources from Google.
  • Google has invested in an exciting, self-driving automobile.  But nobody knows when, or if, it will be sold.  So far, money spent and no plan for a return.
  • Google glasses are cool.  But the revenue model?  Launch date?  Manufacturing and distribution partners for commercialization?
  • Google innovated a number of exciting potential product markets, but because it failed at market implementation eventually it simply killed them.  Remember Wave?  Powermeter? Picnik? Google Checkout?  Google answers? Google Buzz? Fast Flip? Google Lively? Squared? 

If ever a company proved that there is a difference between innovating new products and launching successfully to create new markets  it has to be Google.

So is Yahoo destined to fail?  No.  As previously mentioned, Apple and IBM both registered incredibly successful turnarounds.  Bright people with flexible minds and leadership skills can do incredible things.  But it will be up to Ms. Mayer to actually shed some of that Google history – fast.

At Google Ms. Mayer was employee #20 on a veritable rocket ship.   The challenge at Google was to keep being better and better at search, and ads associated with search.  And developing products, like GMail, that continued to tie people to Google search.  It was hard work, but it was all about making Google better at what it had always done, executing sustaining innovations to keep Google ahead in a rapidly growing marketplace.

Yahoo is NOT Google, and has a very different set of needs.  

Yahoo is in far worse shape now than when Ms. Bartz came in as the technical wonderkind to turn it around last time. Ms. Mayer takes the reigns of a company going in the wrong direction (losing revenues) with fewer people, fewer resources, weaker market position on its primary products and a weakening brand.   Hopefully she's as smart as many people say she is and acts quickly to find those new markets with products fulfilling unmet needs.  Or she's likely to end up turning out the lights at the company where Ms. Bartz dimmed them significantly.