by Adam Hartung | Dec 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Television
If you can't sell products, I guess you sell the business to generate revenue. That seems to be the approach employed by Sara Lee's CEO – who has been destroying shareholder value, jobs, vendor profits and customer expectations for several years. Crain's Chicago Business reports "Sara Lee to sell air care business for $469M" to Proctor & Gamble. This is after accepting a binding offer from Unilever to purchase Sara Lee's European body care and detergent businesses. These sales continue Ms. Barnes long string of asset sales, making Sara Lee smaller and smaller. Stuck in the Swamp, Ms. Barnes is trying to avoid the Whirlpool by selling assets – but what will she do when the assets are gone? For how long will investors, and the Board, accept her claim that "these sales make Sara Lee more focused on its core business" when the business keeps shrinking? The corporate share price has declined from $30/share to about $12 (chart here) And shareholders have received none of the money from these sales. Eventually there will be no more Sara Lee.
Look at Motorola, a darling in the early part of this decade – the company CEO, Ed Zander, was named CEO of the year by Marketwatch as he launched RAZR and slashed prices to drive unit volume:
Chart supplied by Silicon Alley Insider
Motorola lost it's growth in mobile handsets, and now is practically irrelevant. Motorola has less than 5% share, about like Apple, but the company is going south – not north. When growth escapes your business it doesn't take long before the value is gone. Since losing it's growth Motorola share values have dropped from over $30 to around $8 (chart here).
And so now we need to worry about GE, while being excited about Comcast. GE got into trouble under new Chairman & CEO Jeffrey Immelt because he kept investing in the finance unit as it went further out the risk curve extending its business. Now that business has crashed, and to raise cash he is divesting assets (not unlike Brenda Barnes at Sara Lee). Mr. Immelt is selling a high growth business, with rising margins, in order to save a terrible business – his finance unit. This is bad for GE's growth prospects and future value (a company I've longed supported – but turning decidedly more negative given this recent action):
Chart supplied by Silicon Alley Insider
Meanwhile, as the acquirer Comcast is making one heck of a deal. It is buying NBC/Universal which is growing at 16.5% compounded rate with rising margins. That is something which suppliers of programming, employees, customers and investors should really enjoy.
Revenue growth is a really big deal. You can't have profit growth without revenue growth. When a CEO starts selling businesses to raise cash, be very concerned. Instead they should use scenario planning, competitive analysis, disruptions and White Space to grow the business. And those same activities prepare an organization to make an acquisition when a good opportunity comes along.
(Note: The President of Comcast, Steven Burke, endorsed Create Marketplace Disruption and that endorsement appears on the jacket cover.)
by Adam Hartung | Aug 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership
I've long been a fan of GE. The only company to be on the Dow Jones Industrial Average for more than 100 years. A company that has transitioned through countless businesses, willing to get into and out of many opportunities in order to find ways to keep growing. Buried deep in the heart of this company's operating principles are tools which keep it from becoming too Locked-in. The constant 360 degree evaluations, the demand for results, the willingness to disagree, the acceptance of Disruptions, the investments in White Space. These have done GE well for years, allowing the company to evolve its Identity, Strategy and Tactics.
But recently, GE has been more disappointing. The stock crashed to $6/share earlier in 2009. And now Forbes reports "Accounting Tricks Catch Up With GE". One of the misguided tools of Defend & Extend Managers is using financial machinations – in effect generating profits out of thin air by playing with the accounting rules rather than making and selling something. I talk this through at length in "Create Marketplace Disruption" (FT Press, 2008) because for the CEO of a publicly traded company, it's an easy route to take. By playing with the accounting a business looks better, allowing the CEO to do more of the same instead of more deeply investigating market shifts that jeopardize the future.
I was deeply disappointed to read where GE allowed this to happen. They counted as revenue, and profit, sales of locomotives to financial institutions – rather than end users. And the use of derivatives at GE was an outright D&E practice to try making money on financial investments that weren't so good. I've decried the use of derivatives loudly – even by Warren Buffett – in previous blogs because they are a tool designed to make weak financial practices look better. This isn't what made GE great, but apparently these were the tools of "modern management" current executives used to prop up sales and profits – instead of focusing on the business. And now the SEC has forced GE to pay a fine for its actions.
Investors, employees and vendors need to be very wary of this. It could mark a sea-change in GE. For years, top executives made their mark by developing new businesses that were attuned to shifting markets. Jet engines and NBC are just a couple of huge businesses GE entered as a result of recognizing shifting markets and the huge opportunity being created. And GE has always been quick to pull the trigger on selling a business when a market shift meant the growth was starting to slow.
But now we can see that GE has used financial machinations to make some businesses look better. These kind of D&E actions are telltales of a company slipping from Phoenix Principle actions – which help you grow – into a company that could stall. And growth stalls are deadly. Only 7% of stalled companies every consistently grow at a mere 2% ever again.
So far, we know that these actions have hurt GE pretty badly. Firstly, there's the $50million fine. You may think this is chump change to GE – but it's money that didn't go into developing a new water filtration system, for example, which could make money down the road. Or invested into a new business plan that could turn into something big. Secondly, its use of financial instruments, including derivatives, and the SEC mark has dramatically eroded investor confidence. Like I said, over $150billion in market cap eroded (about 50%) in the last year alone – and that's after a recovery from $6 to nearly $15 per share (chart here).
High performing companies do NOT resort to D&E Management. It's a Siren's song, straight from Homer's travels, to lure the company ship onto the rocky shores. It seems so simple, and it is, to protect the existing business with financial adjustments that make it look better. But reality is that these poor returns indicate the market is shifting, and that action is needed to reconnect with the shifted marketplace. Whenever executives use D&E practices, including financial machinations (even legal ones) to make the business look better they are ignoring market shifts – which undermines the organization's ability to develop new scenarios, understand the impact of emerging competitors, disrupt old practices and develop White Space projects that can help the company move forward and meet market needs.
It was the willingness to resort to D&E Management that started GM on its long path to bankruptcy. Read "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes" for more info on how easy it is to slip into a rut wiping out future returns.
by Adam Hartung | May 6, 2009 | Uncategorized
"In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king." I've heard this phrase many times, and never has it been truer than today. With so many companies fairing so poorly – revenues down, profits down, layoffs – doing better than most doesn't mean you have to do all that well.
An example is News Corp. The Tribune Company is bankrupt, casting doubts on the future of The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and its other newspapers. The New York Times company threatened to close The Boston Globe unless it received major employee concessions. But even these won't save either the Globe or the Times as the headline "Boston Globe's obituary already written" comes from commentator Chuck Jaffe. Newspapers are discontinuing daily circulation, slimming down, and closing.
So when Marketwatch.com reports "News Corp. posts flat third-quarter profit" it sounds like a monumental success compared to its competitors. But it does beg the question, why is News Corp. doing so much better than its brethren? The answer lies in the multi-faceted approach News Corp. took to connecting with those who want information – and then connecting to their advertisers. While the web sites for most newspaper companies are weak products that attract few readers (or advertisers), and the writers feed only one outlet (papers) rather than multiple outlets, News Corp. stands in stark contrast with major outlets across all media internationally.
In addition to multiple newpapers News Corp. owns multiple television stations and entire networks. It is a major player in cable programming – including the #1 ranked cable news channel in the U.S. as well as networks across the globe. It is a leader in direct broadcast satellite with SKY, owns multiple weekly magazines (that all have web sites), is a major player in billboards, and owns several internet properties including MySpace.com
Across News Corp. the leadership is able to share acquisition costs for programming – including news – and the distribution – including all forms of programming outlets. News Corp.'s leadership did an excellent job of paying attention to market shifts. After starting as an Australian newspaper company it moved into all these different businesses in order to be part of the evolving market landscape. It obsessed about competitors, never fearing to enter markets others avoided – such as launching a national broadcast network in the 1980s, and taking on CNN when nobody agreed there was need for more than one 24 hour news channel. And early in the internet era it paid up to acquire MySpace in order to be a participant in the internet's growth, not just a spectator.
The leadership at News Corp. has never been shy about Disruptions – often making itself the target of many groups. But these Disruptions allowed News Corp. to open many White Space projects, teaching the company how to compete in rapidly changing markets.
And now, as several competitors are disappearing, News Corp. is doing the best in its class. While competitors are hopelessly mired in Whirlpools from which escape is likely impossible, News Corp. is merely "flat". And there's a lot to be said for "flat" results when competitors from GE (owner of NBC and several other channels) to New York Times Company are seeing their poorest results in decades – or even filing bankruptcy (like Tribune).
