by Adam Hartung | Jan 22, 2012 | Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Transparency, Web/Tech
Turning over a new year inevitably leads to selections for "CEO of the Year." Investor Business Daily selected Larry Page of Google 3 weeks ago, and last week Marketwatch.com selected Jeff Bezos of Amazon. Comparing the two is worthwhile, because there is almost nothing similar about what the two have done – and one is almost sure to dramatically outperform the other.
Focusing on the Future
What both share is a willingness to focus their companies on the future. Both have introduced major new products, targeted at developing new markets and entirely new revenue streams for their companies. Both have significantly sacrificed short-term profits seeking long-term strategic positioning for sustainable, higher future returns. Both have, and continue to, spend vast sums of money in search of competitive advantage for their organizations.
And both have seen their stock value clobbered. In 2011 Amazon rose from $150/share low to almost $250 before collapsing at year's end to about $175 – actually lower than it started the calendar year. Google's stock dropped from $625/share to below $475 before recovering all the way to $670 – only to crater all the way to $585 last week. Clearly the analysts awarding these CEOs were looking way beyond short-term investor returns when making their selections. So it is more important than ever we understand what both have done, and are planning to do in the future, if we are to support either, or both, as award winners. Or buy their stock.
Google participates in great growth markets
The good news for Google is its participation in high growth markets. Search ads continue growing, supplying the bulk of revenues and profits for the company. Its Android product gives Google great position in mobile devices, and supporting Chrome applications help clients move from traditional architectures and applications to cloud-based solutions at lower cost and frequently higher user satisfaction. Additionally, Google is growing internet display ad sales, a fast growing market, by increasing participation in social networks.
Because Google is in high growth markets, its revenues keep growing healthily. But CEO Page's "focus" leadership has led to the killing of several products, retrenching from several markets, and remarkably huge bets in 2 markets where Google's revenues and profits lag dramatically – mobile devices and search.
Because Android produces no revenue Google bought near-bankrupt Motorola to enter the hardware and applications business becoming similar to Apple – a big bet using some old technology against what is the #1 technology company on the planet. Whether this will be a market share winner for Google, and whether it will make or lose money, is far from certain.
Simultaneously, the Google+ launch is an attempt to take on the King Kong of social – Facebook – which has 800million users and remarkable success. The Google+ effort has been (and will continue to be) very expensive and far from convincing. Its product efforts have even angered some people as Google tried steering social networkers rather heavy-handidly toward Google products – as it did with "Search plus Your World" recently.
Mr. Page has positioned Google as a gladiator in some serious "battles to the death" that are investment intensive. Google must keep fighting the wounded, hurting and desperate Microsoft in search against Bing+Yahoo. While Google is the clear winner, desperate but well funded competitors are known to behave suicidally, and Google will find the competition intensive. Meanwhile, its offerings in mobile and social are not unique. Google is going toe-to-toe with Apple and Facebook with products which show no great superiority. And the market leaders are wildly profitable while continuously introducing new innovations. It will be tough fighting in these markets, consuming lots of resources.
Entering 3 gladiator battles simultaneously is ambitious, to say the least. Whether Google can afford the cost, and can win, is debatable. As a result it only takes a small miss, comparing actual results to analyst expectations, for investors to run – as they did last week.
Amazon redefines competition in its markets
CEO Bezos' leadership at Amazon is very different. Rather than gladiator wars, Amazon brings out products that are very different and avoids head-to-head competition. Amazon expands new markets by meeting under- or unserved needs with products that change the way customers behave – and keeps competitors from attacking Amazon head-on:
- Amazon moved from simply selling books to selling a vast array of products on the web. It changed retail buying not by competing directly with traditional retailers, but by offering better (and different) on-line solutions which traditional retailers ignored or adopted far too slowly. Amazon was very early to offer web solutions for independent retailers to use the Amazon site, and was very early to offer a mobile interface making shopping from smartphones fast and easy. Because it wasn't trying to defend and extend a traditional brick-and-mortar retail model, like Wal-Mart, Amazon has redefined retail and dramatically expanded shopping on-line.
- Amazon changed the book market with Kindle. It utilized new technology to do what publishers, locked into traditional mindsets (and business models) would not do. As the print market struggled, Amazon moved fast to take the lead in digital publishing and media sales, something nobody else was doing, producing fast revenue growth with higher margins.
- When retailers were loath to adopt tablets as a primary interface for shoppers, Amazon brought out Kindle Fire. Cleverly the Kindle Fire is not directly positioned against the king of all tablets – iPad – but rather as a product that does less, but does things like published media and retail very well — and at a significantly lower price. It brings the new user on-line fast, if they've been an Amazon customer, and makes life simple and easy for them. Perhaps even easier than the famously easy Apple products.
In all markets Amazon moves early and deftly to fulfill unmet needs at a very good price. And then it captures more and more customers as the solution becomes more powerful. Amazon finds ways to compete with giants, but not head-on, and thus rapidly grow revenues and market position while positioning itself as the long term winner. Amazon has destroyed all the big booksellers – with the exception of Barnes & Noble which doesn't look too great – and one can only wonder what its impact in 5 years will be on traditional retailers like Kohl's, Penney's and even Wal-Mart. Amazon doesn't have to "win" a battle with Apple's iPad to have a wildly successful, and profitable, Kindle offering.
The successful CEO's role is different than many expect
A recent RHR International poll of 83 mid-tier company CEOs (reported at Business Insider) discovered that while most felt prepared for the job, most simultaneously discovered the requirements were not what they expected. In the past we used to think of a CEO as a steward, someone to be very careful with investor money. And someone expected to know the business' core strengths, then be very selective to constantly reinforce those strengths without venturing into unknown businesses.
But today markets shift quickly. Technology and global competition means all businesses are subject to market changes, with big moves in pricing, costs and customer expectations, very fast. Caretaker CEOs are being crushed – look at Kodak, Hostess and Sears. Successful CEOs have to guide their businesses away from investing in money-losing businesses, even if they are part of the company's history, and toward rapidly growing opportunities created by being part of the shift. Disruptors are now leading the success curve, while followers are often sucking up a lot of profit-killing dust.
Amazon bears similarities to the Apple of a decade ago. Introducing new products that are very different, and changing markets. It is competing against traditional giants, but with very untraditional solutions. It finds unmet needs, and fills them in unique ways to capture new customers – and creates market shifts.
Google, on the other hand, looks a lot like the lumbering Microsoft. It has a near monopoly in a growing market, but its investments in new markets come late, and don't offer a lot of innovation. Google's products end up competing directly, somewhat like xBox did with other game consoles, in very, very expensive – usually money-losing – competition that can go on for years. Google looks like a company trying to use money rather than innovation to topple an existing market leader, and killing a lot of good product ideas to keep pouring money into markets where it is late and not terribly creative.
Which CEO do you think will be the winner in 2015? Into which company are you prepared to invest? Both are in high growth markets, but they are being led very, very differently. And their strategies could not be more different. Which one you choose to own – as a product customer or investor – will have significant consequences for you (and them) in 3 years.
It's worth taking the time to decide which you think is the right leadership today. And be sure you know what leadership principles you are adopting, and following in your organization.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 13, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Before there was Facebook, the social media juggernaut which is changing how we communicate – and might change the face of media – there was MySpace. MySpace was targeted at the same audience, had robust capability, and was to market long before Facebook. It generated enormous interest, received a lot of early press, created huge valuation when investors jumped in, and was undoubtedly not only an early internet success – but a seminal web site for the movement we now call social media. On top of that, MySpace was purchased by News Corporation, a powerhouse media company, and was given professional managers to help guide its future as well as all the resources it ever wanted to support its growth. By almost all ways we look at modern start-ups, MySpace was the early winner and should have gone on to great glory.
But things didn’t turn out that way. Facebook was hatched by some college undergrads, and started to grow. Meanwhile MySpace stagnated as Facebook exploded to 600 million active users. During early 2010, according to The Telegraph in “Facebook Dominance Forces Rival Networks to Go Niche,” MySpace gave up on its social media leadership dreams and narrowed its focus to the niche of being a “social entertainment destination.” As the number of users fell, MySpace was forced to cut costs, laying off half its staff this week according to MediaPost.com “MySpace Confirms Massive Layoffs.” After losing a reported $350million last year, it appears that MySpace may disappear – “MySpace Versus Facebook – There Can Be Only One” reported at Gigaom.com. The early winner now appears a loser, most likely to be unplugged, and a very expensive investment with no payoff for NewsCorp investors.
What went wrong? A lot of foks will be relaying the tactics of things done and not done at MySpace. As well as tactics done and not done at Facebook. But underlying all those tactics was a very simple management mistake News Corp. made. News Corp tried to guide MySpace, to add planning, and to use “professional management” to determine the business’s future. That was fatally flawed when competing with Facebook which was managed in White Space, lettting the marketplace decide where the business should go.
If the movie about Facebook’s founding has any veracity, we can accept that none of the founders ever imagined the number of people and applications that Facebook would quickly attract. From parties to social games to product reviews and user networks – the uses that have brought 600 million users onto Facebook are far, far beyond anything the founders envisioned. According to the movie, the first effort to sell ads to anyone were completely unsuccessful, as uses behond college kids sharing items on each other were not on the table. It appeared like a business bust at the beginning.
But, the brilliance of Mark Zuckerberg was his willingness to allow Facebook to go wherever the market wanted it. Farmville and other social games – why not? Different ways to find potential friends – go for it. The founders kept pushing the technology to do anything users wanted. If you have an idea for networking on something, Facebook pushed its tech folks to make it happen. And they kept listening. And looking within the comments for what would be the next application – the next promotion – the next revision that would lead to more uses, more users and more growth.
And that’s the nature of White Space management. No rules. Not really any plans. No forecasting markets. Or foretelling uses. No trying to be smarter than the users to determine what they shouldn’t do. Not prejudging ideas so as to limit capability and focus the business toward a projected conclusion. To the contrary, it was about adding, adding, adding and doing whatever would allow the marketplace to flourish. Permission to do whatever it takes to keep growing. And resource it as best you can – without prejudice as to what might work well, or even best. Keep after all of it. What doesn’t work stop resourcing, what does work do more.
Contrarily, at NewsCorp the leaders of MySpace had a plan. NewsCorp isn’t run by college kids lacking business sense. Leaders create Powerpoint decks describing where the business will head, where they will invest, how they will earn a positive ROI, projections of what will work – and why – and then plans to make it happen. They developed the plan, and then worked the plan. Plan and execute. The professional managers at News Corp looked into the future, decided what to do, and did it. They didn’t leave direction up to market feedback and crafty techies – they ran MySpace like a professional business.
And how’d that work out for them?
Unfortunately, MySpace demonstrates a big fallacy of modern management. The belief that smart MBAs, with industry knowledge, will perform better. That “good management” means you predict, you forecast, you plan, and then you go execute the plan. Instead of reacting to market shifts, fast, allowing mistakes to happen while learning what works, professional managers should be able to predict and perform without making mistakes. That once the bright folks who create the strategy set a direction, its all about executing the plan. That execution will lead to success. If you stumble, you need to focus harder on execution.
When managing innovation, including operating in high growth markets, nothing works better than White Space. Giving dedicated people permission to do whatever it takes, and resources, then holding their feet to the fire to demonstrate performance. Letting dedicated people learn from their successes, and failures, and move fast to keep the business in the fast moving water. There is no manager, leader or management team that can predict, plan and execute as well as a team that has its ears close to the market, and the flexibility to react quickly, willing to make mistakes (and learn from them even faster) without bias for a predetermined plan.
The penchant for planning has hurt a lot of businesses. Rarely does a failed business lack a plan. Big failures – like Circuit City, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM – are full of extremely bright, well educated (Harvard, Stanford, University of Chicago, Wharton) MBAs who are prepared to study, analyze, predict, plan and execute. But it turns out their crystal ball is no better than – well – college undergraduates.
When it comes to applying innovation, use White Space teams. Drop all the business plan preparation, endless crunching of historical numbers, multi-tabbed Excel spreadsheets and powerpoint matrices. Instead, dedicate some people to the project, push them into the market, make them beg for resources because they are sure they know where to put them (without ROI calculations) and tell them to get it done – or you’ll fire them. You’ll be amazed how fast they (and your company) will learn – and grow.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 8, 2010 | Food and Drink, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- We too often think of competition as “head to head”
- Smart competitors avoid direct competition, instead using alternative methods in order to lower cost while appealing directly to market needs
- Proctor & Gamble has long dominated advertising for many consumer goods, but the impact, value and payoff of traditional advertising has declined markedly as people have switched to the web
- New competitors can utilize internet and social media tools to achieve better brand positioning and targeted marketing at far lower cost than old mass media products
- Colgate is in a great position to blow past P&G by investing quickly and taking the lead in internet marketing for its products
- Eschew calls for investing in old methods of competition, and instead find new ways to compete that allow you to end-run traditional leaders
According to a recent Advertising Age article (“To Catch Up Colgate May Ratchet Up Its Ad Spending“) Colgate has done a surprisingly good job of holding onto market share, despite underspending almost all its competitors in advertising. This is no mean feat in consumer products, where advertising dominates the cost structure. But the AdAge folks are predicting that to avoid further declines, and grow, Colgate will have to dramatically up its ad spending. That would be old-fashioned, backward-thinking, short-sighted and a lousy use of resources!
Colgate competes with lots of companies, but across categories its primary competitor is Proctor & Gamble. In toothpaste, P&G’s Crest outspends Colgate by over $25M – or about 35%. In dishsoap Colgate spent nothing on Palmolive in 2010, compared to P&G’s spend of $30M on Dawn. In deodorant/body soap Colgate spent about $9M on Softsoap, Irish Spring and Speedstick while P&G spent 9 times more (over $82M) on Old Spice and Secret. (Side note, Unilever spent $148M on Dove and a whopping $267M when adding in Axe and Degree!) In pet food, Unilever spends $35M dollars more (almost 4x) on Iams than Colgate spent on Hills Science Diet. Altogether, in these categories, P&G spent almost $158M more than Colgate (2.5x more)! As a big believer in traditional advertising, AdAge therefore predicts that Colgate should dramatically increase its annual ad budget – and maintain these higher levels for 5 years in order to overcome its historical “underspending.”
But that would be like deciding to trade punches with Goliath!
Why would Colgate want to do more of what P&G does the most? While advisors try to pit competitors directly against each other, head-to-head “gladiator style” combat leaves the combatants bloody – some dead. That’s a dumb way to compete. Colgate has long spent in other areas, such as supporting dog rescue operations and with product specialists gaining endorsements while eschewing more general advertising. Now, if Colgate wants to take action to grow share, it should pick up a sling (to continue the (Biblical metaphor) in its ongoing battle. And the good news is that Colgate has an entire selection of new, alternative weapons to use today.
Across all its product categories, Colgate can utilize a plethora of new social media marketing tools. At costs far lower than traditional mass advertising, Colgate can build promotional web programs that appeal directly to targeted consumers. Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare, Groupon, YouTube, Google and many other tool providers allow Colgate to spend far, far less than traditional advertising to provide specific brand promotions, product information, purchase incentives (such as coupons) and product variations targeted at various niches.
With these tools Colgate can not only reach directly into buyer laptops and mobile devices, but offer specific information and incentives. Traditional advertising, whether print (newspaper and magazine), radio, television or coupons is a low percentage tool. Seeking response rates (or even recall rates) of just 1 to 5 percent is normal – meaning 90% percent of your spending is, quite literally, just “overhead” cost. But with modern on-line tools it is very common to have response rates of 50% – or even higher! (Depending upon how targeted and accurate, of course!)
Colgate is in a great position!
It has spent much less than competitors, and maintained good brand position. It’s biggest competitors are locked-in to spending vast sums on traditional tools that have low impact and are in declining media. Colgate could now decide to commit itself to using the new, modern tools which are lower cost, and have decidedly more targeted results. In this way, Colgate can get out of the “colliseum” where the gladiators are warring, and throw rocks at them from the stands. Play its own game – to win – while letting those in the pit whack away at each other becoming weaker and weaker trying to use the old, heavy and unsophisticated tools.
Now is a wonderful time to be the “underdog” competitor. “Media” and advertising are in transition. How people obtain information on products and services is moving from traditional advertsing and PR (public relations) focused through mass media to networks with common interests in social media. Instead of delays in obtaining information, based upon publisher programming dates, customers are seeking immediate, and current information, exactly when they need it – on their mobile devices. Those competitors who rapidly adopt these new tools are well positioned to be the new Davids in the battle with old Goliaths. And that includes YOU.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 29, 2010 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Most leaders optimize their core business
- This does not prepare the business for market shifts
- Motorola was a leader with Razr, but was killed when competitors matched their features and the market shifted to smart phones
- Netflix's leader is moving Netflix to capture the next big market (video downloads)
- Reed Hastings is doing a great job, and should be emulated
- Netflix is a great growth story, and a stock worth adding to your portfolio
"Reed Hastings: Leader of the Pack" is how Fortune magazine headlined its article making the Netflix CEO its BusinessPerson of the Year for 2010. At least part of Fortune's exuberance is tied to Netflix's dramatic valuation increase, up 200% in just the last year. Not bad for a stock called a "worthless piece of crap" in 2005 by a Wedbush Securities stock analyst. At the time, popular wisdom was that Blockbuster, WalMart and Amazon would drive Netflix into obscurity. One of these is now gone (Blockbuster) the other stalled (WalMart revenues unmoved in 2010) and the other well into digital delivery of books for its proprietary Kindle eReader.
But is this an honor, or a curse? It was 2004 when Ed Zander was given the same notice as the head of Motorola. After launching the Razr he was lauded as Motorola's stock jumped in price. But it didn't take long for the bloom to fall off that rose. Razr profits went negative as prices were cut to drive share increases, and a lack of new products drove Motorola into competitive obscurity. A joint venture with Apple to create Rokr gave Motorola no new sales, but opened Apple's eyes to the future of smartphone technology and paved the way for iPhone. Mr. Zander soon ran out of Chicago and back to Silicon Valley, unemployed, with his tale between his legs.
Netflix is a far different story from Motorola, and although its valuation is high looks like a company you should have in your portfolio.
Ed Zander simply took Motorola further out the cell phone curve that Motorola had once pioneered. He brought out the next version of something that had long been "core" to Motorola. It was easy for competitors to match the "features and functions" of Razr, and led to a price war. Mr. Zander failed because he did not recognize that launching smartphones would change the game, and while it would cannibalize existing cell phone sales it would pave the way for a much more profitable, and longer term greater growth, marketplace.
Looking at classic "S Curve" theory, Mr. Zander and Motorola kept pushing the wave of cell phones, but growth was plateauing as the technology was doing less to bring in new users (in the developed world):
Meanwhile, Research in Motion (RIM) was pioneering a new market for smartphones, which was growing at a faster clip. Apple, and later Google (with Android) added fuel to that market, causing it to explode. The "old" market for cell phones fell into a price war as the growth, and profits, moved to the newer technology and product sets:
The Motorola story is remarkably common. Companies develop leaders who understand one market, and have the skills to continue optimizing and exploiting that market. But these leaders rarely understand, prepare for and implement change created by a market shift. Inability to see these changes brought down Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems in 2010, and are pressuring Microsoft today as users are rapidly moving from laptops to mobile devices and cloud computing. It explains how Sony lost the top spot in music, which it dominated as a CD recording company and consumer electronics giant with Walkman, to Apple when the market moved people from physical CDs to MP3 files and Apple's iPod.
Which brings us back to what makes Netflix a great company, and Mr. Hastings a remarkable leader. Netflix pioneered the "ship to your home" DVD rental business. This helped eliminate the need for brick-and-mortar stores (along with other market trends such as the very inexpensive "Red Box" video kiosk and low-cost purchase options from the web.) Market shifts doomed Blockbuster, which remained locked-in to its traditional retail model, made obsolete by competitors that were cheaper and easier with which to do business.
But Netflix did not remain fixated on competing for DVD rentals and sales – on "protecting its core" business. Looking into the future, the organization could see that digital movie rentals are destined to be dramatically greater than physical DVDs. Although Hulu was a small competitor, and YouTube could be scoffed at as a Gen Y plaything, Netflix studied these "fringe" competitors and developed a superb solution that was the best of all worlds. Without abandoning its traditional business, Netflix calmly moved forward with its digital download business — which is cheaper than the traditional business and will not only cannibalize historical sales but make the traditional business completely obsolete!
Although text books talk about "jumping the curve" from one product line to another, it rarely happens. Devotion to the core business, and managing the processes which once led to success, keeps few companies from making the move. When it happens, like when IBM moved from mainframes to services, or Apple's more recent shift from Mac-centric to iPod/iPhone/iPad, we are fascinated. Or Google's move from search/ad placement company to software supplier. While any company can do it, few do. So it's no wonder that MediaPost.com headlines the Netflix transition story "Netflix Streams Its Way to Success."
Is Netflix worth its premium? Was Apple worth its premium earlier this decade? Was Google worth its premium during the first 3 years after its Initial Public Offering? Most investors fear the high valuations, and shy away. Reality is that when a company pioneers a growth business, the value is far higher than analysts estimate. Today, many traditionalists would say to stay with Comcast and set-top TV box makers like TiVo. But Comcast is trying to buy NBC in order to move beyond its shrinking subscriber base, and "TiVo Widens Loss, Misses Street" is the Reuters' headline. Both are clearly fighting the problems of "technology A" (above.)
What we've long accepted as the traditional modes of delivering entertainment are well into the plateau, while Netflix is taking the lead with "technology B." Buying into the traditionalists story is, well, like buying General Motors. Hard to see any growth there, only an ongoing, slow demise.
On the other hand, we know that increasingly young people are abandoning traditional programing for 100% entertainment selection by download. Modern televisions are computer monitors, capable of immediately viewing downloaded movies from a tablet or USB drive – and soon a built-in wifi connection. The growth of movie (and other video) watching is going to keep exploding – just as the volume of videos on YouTube has exploded. But it will be via new distribution. And nobody today appears close to having the future scenarios, delivery capability and solutions of Netflix. 24×7 Wall Street says Netflix will be one of "The Next 7 American Monopolies." The last time somebody used that kind of language was talking about Microsoft in the 1980s! So, what do you think that makes Netflix worth in 2012, or 2015?
Netflix is a great story. And likely a great investment as it takes on the market leadership for entertainment distribution. But the bigger story is how this could be applied to your company. Don't fear revenue cannibalization, or market shift. Instead, learn from, and behave like, Mr. Hastings. Develop scenarios of the future to which you can lead your company. Study fringe competitors for ways to offer new solutions. Be proactive about delivering what the market wants, and as the shift leader you can be remarkably well positioned to capture extremely high value.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 11, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Whirlpool, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Business value requires meeting future needs
- Businesses have to transition to remain valuable
- U.S. News is smart to drop its print edition and go all digital
- Print newspapers and magazines are obsolete
- Old brands have no value
- Businesses have to develop and fulfull future scenarios, and forget about what made them successful in the past. Value comes from delivering in the future, not the past
Do you know any antique collectors? They scour for old things, considered rare because they are the remaining few out of a bygone era. For some people, these old things represent something treasured about the past – perhaps a turn in technology or some aspect of society. But there is no useful purpose to an antique. You can’t use the chair as a chair, for fear you’ll break it. Mostly, old things are just that – old things. Once useful, but no longer. They are remembrances. For most of us, seeing them in a museum once in a while is plenty often enough. We don’t need a houseful of them – and would happily trade the old Schwynn bicycle from high-school days for an iPad.
So what’s the value of the Chicago Tribune, or the Los Angeles Times? With the internet, tablets and other ereaders, mobile smartphones and laptops – why would anyone expect these newspapers to ever grow in value? Yes, they were once valuable – when readers could be “current” with daily news, largely from a single source. But now these newsapapers are practically obsolete. Expensive to create, expensive to print, expensive to distribute. And largely outdated by faster news outlets providing real time updates via the web, or television for those still not on-line. They are as valuable as a stack of 45 or 33 RPM records, or 8-track tapes (and if you don’t know what those are, ask your parents.)
As much as some of us, especially over 40, like the idea of newspapers and magazines – they really are obsolete. When automobiles were first created many people who grew up riding horses said the auto would never be able to displace the horse. Autos required petrol, where horses could feed anywhere. Autos required roads, where horses could walk (or tow a cart) practically anywhere. Mechanical autos broke down, where horses were reliable day after day. And autos were expensive to purchase and use. To those raised with horses, the auto seemed interesting but unnecessary – and with drawbacks. Yet, auto technology was clearly superior – offering better speed and longer distances, and the infrastructure was rapidly coming into place. The horse was obsolete. And this change made livery stables, saddle makers and blacksmiths obsolete as well. It took only a few years.
Today, printed documents like newspapers and magazines are obsolete. They have a purpose for travelers and commuters – but not for long. Tablets are making even the travelers use of paper unnecessary. With each of the 12million iPads sold (and who knows how many Kindles and other readers) another newspaper was unnecessary on the hotel room door. So I was extremely heartened to read that “U.S. News [and World Report] is ending its print edition” on MediaLifeMagazine.com.
Some might nostalgically say this decision is the end of something grand. Contrarily, this is the smart move by leadership to help the employees, customers and suppliers all continue pushing forward. As a print product U.S. News reached its end of life. As a digital product, U.S. News has a chance of becoming an important part of future journalism. While some are concerned the future digital product is not about the same old news it used to report, the facts are that we don’t need another magazine just for news. But the rankings and industry reports U.S. News has long created have the most value to readers (and therefore advertisers) and so the editors will be focusing on those areas. Smart move. Instead of doing what they always did, the editors are going to produce what the market wants. U.S. News has a fighting chance of survival, and thriving, if it focuses on the marketplace and meeting needs. It can expand with new products as it continues to learn what digital readers want, and advertisers will support. As an obsolete weekly magazine it didn’t have any value, but as a digital product it has a chance of being worth something.
I was shocked to read in Advertising Age “Meister Brau, Braniff and 148 other Trademarks to be Sold at Auction.” Who would want to buy a trademark of an old brand? It no longer has any value. Brands and trademarks have value when they help you aspire toward something in the future. A dead brand would have the cost not only of developing value — like Google in search or Android in phones has done; or the entire “i” line from Apple, or even Whole Foods or Prada. But to resurrect Meister Brau, Lucky Whip or Handi-Wrap would mean first overcoming the old (worn out and failed) position, and then trying to put something new on top. It’s even more expensive than starting from scratch with a brand that has no meaning – because you have to overcome the old meaning that clearly did not succeed.
Value is in the future. Yes, rare artifacts are sometimes cherished, and their tangible ownership (think of historical pottery, or rare furniture) can cannote something of a bygone era that provides an emotional trigger. These occasionally (like real items from the Titanic) can be collected and valuable. But a brand? Do you want a plastic Lucky Whip tub to help you recall bad 1960s deserts? Or a cardboard Handi-Wrap box to remind you of grandma’s leftovers? In business value is not about the past, it’s entirely about the future.
For businesses to create value they have to generate and fulfull scenarios about the future. Nobody cares if you were good last year (and certainly not if you were good last decade – anybody want an Oldsmobile?) They care about what you’re going to give them in the future. And all business planning needs to be looking forward, not backward. And that’s why it’s a good thing that U.S. News is going all digital. Maybe if the turnaround pros at Tribune Corporation understood this they could figure out how to grow revenues at Tribune or the Times again, and maybe get the company out of bankruptcy. Because trying to save any business by looking at what it used to do is never going to work.
