It seems like the best way to find old success is to do more of what used to make you successful
But lack of success is from market shifts, meaning you need to do more things
Investing in what you know gets more expensive every year, with little (if any) improvement in returns
To regain success it’s actually better to get out into new markets where you can compete with lower investment rates, generating more profitable sales
Apple increased its sales of Macs not by focusing on Macs – but instead by becoming a winner in entirely different markets creating a feedback loop to the old, original “core”
MediaPost.com, in its article “Enterprise Sector Takes a Shine to Apple” has some remarkable statistics about Apple sales. At a time when most PC manufacturers, such as Dell and HP, are struggling to maintain even decent growth (even after the launch of upgraded Windows 7 and Office 2010) Apple is dramatically increasing its volume of Macs – and gaining market share. In last year’s second quarter:
Mac sales jumped almost 50% in the business sector
Mac sales jumped a whopping 200% in the government sector
Mac sales rose over 31% in the home sector
In Europe, Mac unit sales doubled their market share – and more than tripled their share in dollars
Yes, Macs are a small part of the market. Around 3.5% in the U.S. But, if you’re an Apple employee, supplier or investor that doesn’t matter, does it? In fact, it comes off sounding like a PC fan pooh-poohing a really astounding sales improvement. Nobody is saying the Mac will soon replace PCs (that’s more likely to happen via mobile devices where Apple has iPhone and iPad). But when you can dramatically increase your sales, especially as a $50B company, it’s a big deal.
The lesson for managers here is more unconventional. For years we’ve been told the way to grow your sales and profits is to “stick to your knitting.” To “protect your core.” The idea has been promoted that you should jettison anything that is a diversion to what you want to do best, and completely focus on what you select, and then try to out-compete all others with that product. If things don’t improve, then you need to get even more focused on your core, and invest more deeply. And hope the Mojo returns.
But that’s exactly the opposite of what Apple did. When almost bankrupt in 2001 Apple jettisoned multiple Mac products. It invested in music and entertainment products (iPod. iTouch and iTunes) to grab large sales with lower investment rates. It then rolled that success into developing the mobile computing/phone business with the iPhone and all those apps (some 250 thousand now and growing!). And it built on that success with a mobile tablet called the iPad. The Mac is now growing as a result of Apple’s success in all these other products creating a favorable feedback loop to the original “core”.
Apple spends less than 1/8th the money on R&D as Microsoft. And an even lesser amount on marketing, PR and sales. Yet, by entering new markets it gets far more “bang for its buck.” By entering new markets Apple is able to develop and launch new products, that sell in greater volumes and at higher profits, than had it stuck to being a “Mac company.” In fact, back when it only had 45 days of cash on hand, if it had stayed a “Mac company” Apple would have failed.
What we now see is that constantly re-investing in what you know drives down marginal rates of return. It keeps getting harder and harder, at ever greater cost, to drive new development and new sales with upgrades to old products. Look at the sales and profit problems at Sun Microsystems (world leader in Unix servers) and Silicon Graphics (world leader in graphics computers) and now Dell. What we’d like to think works at driving revenue and profits really raises new product costs and creates an easy target for new competitors who attack you as you sit there, all Locked-in to doing more of the same.
Contrarily, when you develop new products for new markets you grow revenues at lower cost, and thus higher profits. And you create a feedback loop that helps you get more sales without massive investments in your historical “core.” Think about Nike. It hasn’t been a “shoe company” for a very long time – but its shoes are greatly benefited by all the success Nike has in golf clubs and all those other products with a swoosh on them.
When confronted with a decision between “investing in the core” – or “protecting the mother ship” – or investing in new markets and solutions —- be very careful. Your “gut” may lead you to “in a blink” decide the obvious answer is to invest in what you know. But we are learning every quarter that this is a road to problems. You get more and more focused, and less and less prepared for the market shift that sent you into that “core focus” in the first place. Pretty soon you’re so far removed from the market you can’t survive – like Sun and SGI. It’s really a whole lot smarter to get out into new markets with White Space teams that can generate revenues with a lot less cost by being a smart, early competitor.
"From the day we start kindergarten we fear the teacher's call to our
parents saying, "Hello Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I'm sorry to tell you that
Mary has been disruptive in class." We are taught, trained and
indoctrinated to go along and get along, to not disrupt. In fact we're
constantly told to seek harmony. But in business that can destroy your
entire value."
That's the first paragraph from my Forbes.com column, posted today,"To Succeed You Must Seriously Disrupt." Companies that don't Disrupt remain Locked-in to Success Formulas with declining value until all hope is lost – just look at Sun Microsystems. Although Chairman Scott McNealy was famous for his Disruptive corporate behavior – he was unwilling to tolerate disruptions from his own organization to the company business model. In 10 years Sun went from $200B market cap to out of business.
Now Toyota is struggling because it wouldn't Disrupt. Meanwhile Honda is doing much better than most, because it is willing to Disrupt. Listen to the 40 second video on Disruptions, and read the article so you can see the need for Disruption and adopt in your business!
What is a brand worth? Do you spend a lot of time trying to "protect" your brand? A lot of marketing gurus spent the last 20 years talking about creating brands, and saying there's a lot of value in brands. Some companies have been valued based upon the expected future cash flow of sales attributed to a brand. Folks have heard it so often, often they simply assume a recognized name – a brand – must be worth a lot.
But, according to a Strategy + Business magazine article, "The trouble with brands," brand value isn't what it was cracked up to be. Using a boatload of data, this academic tome says that brand
trustworthiness has fallen 50%, brand quality perceptions are down 24%,
and even brand awareness is down 20%. It turns out, people don't think very highly of brands, in fact – they don't think about brands all that much after all.
And according to Fast Company in the article "The new rules of brand competition" the trend has gotten a lot worse. It seems that over time marketers have kept pumping the same message out about their brands, reinforcing the message again and again. But as time evolved, people gained less and less value from the brand. Pretty soon, the brand didn't mean anything any more. According to the Financial Times, in "Brands left to ponder price of loyalty," brand defection is now extremely common. Where consumer goods marketers came to expect 70% of profits from their most loyal customers, those customers are increasingly buying alternative products.
Hurrumph. This is not good news for brand marketers. When a company spends a lot on advertising, it wants to say that spend has a high ROI because it produces more sales at higher prices yielding more margin. Brand marketers knew how to segment users, then appeal to those users by banging away at some message over and over – with the notion that as long as you reinforced yourself to that segment you'd keep that customer.
But these folks ignore the fact that needs, and markets, shift. When markets shift, a brand that once seemed valuable could overnight be worth almost nothing. For example, I grew up thinking Ovaltine was a great chocolate drink. Have you ever heard of Ovaltine? I drank Tang because it went to the moon, and everyone wanted this "high-tech" food with its vitamin C. When was the last time you heard of Tang? It was once cache to be a "Marlboro Man" – rugged, virile, strong, successful, sexy. Now it stands for "cancer boy." Did the marketers screw up? No, the markets shifted. The world changed, products changed, needs changed and these brands which did exactly what they were supposed to do lost their value.
Lots of analysts get this wrong. Billions of dollars of value were trumped up when Eddie Lambert bought Sears out of his re-organized KMart. But neither company fits consumer needs as well as WalMart or Kohl's for the most part, so both are brands of practically no value. People said Craftsmen tools alone were worth more than Mr. Lampert paid for Sears – but that hasn't worked out as the market for tools has been flooded with different brands having lifetime warranties — and as the do-it-yourselfer market has declined precipitiously from the days when people expected to fix their own stuff. So a lot of money has been lost on those who thought KMart, Sears, Craftsman, Kenmore, Martha Stewart as a brand collection was worth significantly more than it's turned out to be. But that's because the market moved, and people found new solutions, not because you don't recognize the brands and what they used to stand for.
Every market shifts.Longevity requires the ability to adapt. But brand marketers tend to be "purists" who want the brand to live forever. No brand can live forever. Soon you won't even find the GE brand on light bulbs. That's if we even have light bulbs as we've known them in 15 years – what with the advent of LED lights that are much lower cost to operate and last multiples of the life of traditional bulbs. GE has to evolve – as it has with jet engines and a myriad of other products – to survive.
Think for a moment about Harley Davidson. Once, owning a Harley implied you were a true rebel. Someone outside the rules of society. That brand position worked well for attracting motorcycle riders 60 years ago. As people aged, many were re-attracted to the "bad boy" image of Harley, and the brand proliferated. A $50 jacket with a Harley Davidson winged logo might sell for $150 – implying the branding was worth $100/jacket!! But now, the average new Harley buyer is over 50 years old! The market has several loyalists, but unfortuanately they are getting older and dying. Within 20 years Harley will be struggling to survive as the market is dominated by riders who are tied to different brands associated with entirely different products.
If you see that your sales are increasingly to a group of "hard core" loyalists, it's time to seriously rethink your future. Your brand has found itself into a "niche" that will continue shrinking. To succeed long-term, everything has to evolve. You have to be willing to Disrupt the old notions, in order to replace them with new. So you either have to be willing to abandon the old brand – or cut its resources to build a new one. For example, Harley could buy Ducati, stop spending on Harley and put money into Ducati to build it into a brand competitive with Japanese manufacturers. This would dramatically Disrupt Harley – but it might save the company from following GM into bankruptcy.
The marketing lore is filled with myths about getting focused on core customers with a targeted brand. It all sounded so appealing. But it turns out that sort of logic paints you into a corner from which you have almost no hope of survival. To be successful you have to be willing to go toward new markets. You have to be willing to Disrupt "what you stand for" in order to become "what the market wants." Think like Virgin, or Nike. Be a brand that applies itself to future market needs – not spending all its resources trying to defend its old position.
Don't forget to download the new ebook "The Fall of GM" to learn more about why it's so critical to let Disruptions and White Space guide your planning rather than Lock-in to old notions.
"Invest in America – but Savings Bonds." I grew up seeing those signs. Of course, I'm over 50. They came from the World War era, when America asked people to buy "war bonds" to pay for involvement. At the time, pre-Bretton Woods, America was still on a gold standard. The country couldn't tust print all the money it wanted. To pay for war goods, Americans were asked to buy bonds. Not for the rate of return – nor even for the eventual gain on principle. It was pure patriotism. Buy bonds to pay for the war. As the clock turned, this patriotic thinking migrated to buying government bonds to help pay for highways, bridges, dams and other projects to help grow America.
I was reminded of this when I saw the Marketwatch.com headline "Ford raises $1.4billion in stock offering". I thought to myself, why would anyone on earth buy newly issued shares in Ford? It's hard to conceive of buying shares in the company as it exists, what with its very long history of weak profits, tepid product lines, limited innovation and lack of attachment to market trends. But to give the company new money, in form of equity with guarantee of a return on or of your principle…. Why that is simply befuddling. This money is not intended to go for new products or improving the company's links to customers. Rather, it all is intended to pay for part of a health care trust that might assuage growing total labor costs. Sort of like paying for part of a clean up on a previous toxic spill. Not something that makes money.
Ford is a company in the Whirlpool. It's odds of surviving are low. It's odds of making high rates of return and being globally competitive are almost nonexistent. Ford wants people to help management defend its past actions – which won't even extend past horrible perfornce – much less improve it. None of this mone is for White Space to do anything new. There is nothing in this offering to make you think Ford will ever be able to repay your investment – or even ever pay a dividend on it.
So I was left thinking that I guess you could buy this offering because you are patriotic. Sort of "Defend America by Defending Ford" and it's management ability to keep running a company that doesn't meet customer, investor or employee expectations. Henry Ford advanced civilization with his ideas for automation and how he applied them at his company – so we need to keep his namesake company alive, I guess (and conveniently forget he was opposed to civil rights, opposed to women's rights and opposed to all forms of organized labor.) And perhaps you want to invest in defending & extending America's involvement in auto production – even though we have a long history of being #1 in making something before exiting it - like shipbuilding, steelmaking and television set production. And maybe you just feel like its your duty to give money to Ford because it represents a great American brand – like RCA, Woolworth's, Studebaker and Hotpoint once did.
Or we can realize this is simply an investment intended to keep Ford alive for another year or two. A form of corporate life support hoping something new comes along to save the patient. For most of us, we're better off with the mattress. There are pension funds out there that receive cash quarter after quarter. They are always looking for investments. Some have billions of newly arrived dollars to invest. And for many, investing that money is done by "rules" rather than analysis. They have to invest x% in equities, and that's allocated Y% and Z% and A% into specific categories. And they will probably buy these shares, after their fund managers have some greatly expensive steak dinnbrs courtesy of the underwriters. Unfortunately, that doesn't make our pensions funds any healthier – but we have little or nothing we can do to affect those decisions.
Keep your money in companies that have White Space. Companies that don't fear Disruption in order to keep themselves aligned with market shifts. Invest in companies that talk about the future, and how their new products will open new opportunities for their customers to accomplish new things. Pay attention to those with long track records of above-average performance – like Google, Apple, Cisco – or Nike, GE and Johnson & Johnson. Invest in the Disruptors that are going to grow the new economy, not those hoping to suck off its benefits with no innovation or other contribution. That will more likely get your 401K back where you want it.
PS – for regular readers – I opologize for being offline without comments for a few days. Computer gremlins attacked me and it's been a struggle to regain control of the machine. Hopefully I'm back on track.
"Management is not a science, like physics, with immutable laws and testable theories. Instead, management, at its best, is an intelligent response to outside forces, often disruptive ones." So says Steve Lohr in " How Crisis shapes the Corporate Model" in The New York Times Saturday.
For years, many people thought of management as being all about execution. How to build plants, make things, sell those things and finance the operations of building and making stuff. In fact, whole books were written on execution, with the basis that strategy was pretty much unimportant. If you could execute well, what's the need for strategy?
But the last year has shown everyone that the world is a dynamic place. GM missed many changes, and now is barely alive. Despite a focus on execution, the CEO Rick Wagoner has been forced to step down by the administration if GM is to get more bailout money (see "GM's Wagoner Will Step Down" WSJ.com March 29) When you get behind, a "re-invention gap" emerges where the competition keeps going with the market further and further into the future, while you are left behind struggling to sell, grow and make money as you focus on execution. The longer you keep focusing on execution, the bigger the gap gets. Depending on size and competition, eventually you end up completely out of step with the market and unable to compete. Like GM.
The pressure to change with market needs is high everywhere, from banks to manufacturers to newspapers. From General Electric to Sara Lee to Sun Microsystems to The Tribune Corporation, companies that can't adapt to changes have seen their valuation hammered. And the companies we like today are those demonstrating they can adapt to market needs – like Google, Apple, RIM and Virgin. These companies are today investing in launching new products, investing in growth, rather than just trying to cut cost and execute on old business practices while waiting for the return of "better times."
Globalization is now hitting everyone. No industry, and no player in any industry, can ignore the impact of global competition in the way they compete. Today, we can wire together businesses from various service providers, with precious little investment, and reach customers quite profitably while maintaining enormous flexibility. Just ask Nike if you want to know how to "do it."
Focus, hard work, diligence – these have been the mantra for many business leaders. It makes us feel good to think that if we work hard, if we keep our eye on execution, we can succeed. But as readers of this blog have known for 4 years, those admirable qualities do not correlate to success (as academics and journalists have been pointing out when arguing with Jim Collins and his spurrious mathematical exercises). To be successful requires adaptability. You have to constantly scan the horizon for market shifts and emerging competitors that are ready to disrupt markets. And be ready to change everything you do, not just part of it, if you want to compete in the markets as they shift.
The companies, and executives, that will fail as a result of these tumultuous times has not been determined. You can keep from being one of the downtrodden if your focus remains on identifying future market needs and adapting to new competitors through White Space where you can develop new solutions. It's very possible to succeed going forward, if you're adaptive. Or you can end up like Mr. Wagoner and the management team at GM.
PS – The New York Times Company had better start reading its own material and undergo same radical adaptation of its own, or it may not survive to be a media player very soon. To steal from an old saying, it's about time that cobbler started checking his own family's shoes.
