by Adam Hartung | May 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
"Chrysler delivers the bad news to 789 dealers" was yesterday's headline. Today the headline read "GM notifies dealers of shutdowns" as the company sent 1,100 dealers the notice they would no longer be allowed to stay in business. Thousands are losing jobs. Chrysler is bankrupt, and GM looks destined to file shortly. But wait a minute, GM was the market share leader for the last 50 years!! These big companies, in manufacturing, were supposed to be able to protect their business and become "cash cows." They weren't supposed to get beaten up, see their cash sucked away and end up with nothing!
About 30 years ago a fairly small management consultancy that was started as a group to advise a bank's clients hit upon an idea that skyrcketed its popularity. The fledgling firm was The Boston Consulting Group, and its idea was the Growth/Share matrix. It created many millions of dollars in fees over the years, and is now a staple in textbooks on strategic planning. Unfortunately, like a lot of business ideas from that era, we're learning from companies like GM and Chrysler that it doesn't work so well.
The idea was simple. Growth markets are easier to compete in because people throw money at the companies – either via sales or investment. So it's easier to make money in growing businesses. Market share was considered a metric for market power. If you have high share, you supposedly could pretty much dictate prices. High share meant you were the biggest, which supposedly meant you had the biggest assets (plant, etc.) and thus you had the lowest cost. So, low growth and low share meant your business was a dog. High growth and low share was a question mark – maybe you'd make money if you eventually get high share. High growth and high share was a star. And low growth but high share is a cash cow because you could dominate a business using your market clout to print money – or in the venacular of the matix – milk the money from this cow into which you put very little feed.
In the 1970s/80s, looking at the industrial era, this wasn't a bad chart. Especially in asset intensive businesses that had what were then called "scale advantages." In the industrial world, having big plants with lots of volume was interpreted as the way to being a low-cost company. Of course, this assumed most cost was tied up in plant and equipment – rather than inventory, people, computers, advertising, PR, viral marketing, etc. The first part of the matrix has held up pretty well; the last part hasn't. We now know that it's easier to make money in growth. But it doesn't turn out that share really gives you all that much power nor does it have a big determination in profitability.
We know that having share is no defense of profits. The assumption about entry barriers keeping competitors at bay, and thus creating a "defensive moat" around profits, is simply not true. Today, companies build "scale" facilities overnight. They obtain operating knowledge by hiring competitor employees, or simply obtaining the "best practices" from the internet. Distribution systems are copied with third party vendors and web sites. Even advertising scale can be obtained with aggressive web marketing at low cost. And so many facilities are "scale" in size that overcapacity abounds – meaning the competitor with no capacity (using outsourced manufacturing) can be the "low cost" competitor (like Dell.).
Thus, all markets are overrun with competitors that drive down profits any time growth slows. As GM learned, even with more than 50% share (which they once had) they could not stop competitors from differentiating and effectively competing. Not even Chrysler, with the backing of Mercedes, could maintain its share and profits against far less well healed competitors. When growth slows, the cash disappears into the competitive battles of the remaining players. Unfortunately, even new players enter the market just when you'd think everyone would run for the hills (look at Tata Motors launching itself these days wtih the Nano). Competitors never run out of new ideas for trying to compete – even when there's no growth – so they keep hammering away at the declining returns of once dominant players until they can no longer survive.
Competition exists in all businesses except monopolies, and threatens returns of even those with highest share. Today it might be easy to say that Google cannot be challenged. That is short-sighted. People said that about Microsoft 20 years ago – and today between Apple, Linux and Google Microsoft's revenue growth is plummeting and the company is unable to produce historical results. People once said Sears could not be challenged in retailing. Kodak in amateur photography. And GM in cars. Competitors don't quit when growth slows – until they go bankrupt – and even then they don't quit (again, look at Chrysler). High share is no protection against competition.
And thus, there is no "easy cash in the cow" to be milked. It all gets spent fighting to stay alive. Trying to protect share by cutting price, paying for distribution, advertising. And if you don't spend it, you simply vanish. Really fast. Like Lehman Brothers. Or Bennigans.
The only way to make money, long term, is to keep growing. To keep growing you have to move into new markets, new technologies, new services – in other words you have to keep moving with the marketplace. And that produces success more than anything else. It's all about growth. Forget about trying to have the "cash cow" – it's like the unicorn – it never existed and it never will.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Travel, Web/Tech
"Xerox chops earnings outlook as sales slide" is the headline on Marketwatch.com. Do you remember when Xerox was considered the most powerful sales company on earth? In the 1970s and into the 1980s corporations marveled at the sales processes at Xerox – because those processes brought in quarter after quarter of increasing profitable revenue. Xerox practically wiped out competitors – the small printing press manufacturers – during this period, and "carbon paper" was quickly becoming a museum relic (if you are under 30 you'll have to ask someone older what carbon paper is – because it requires an explanation of something called a typewriter as well [lol]).
But today, do you care about Xerox? If you have a copier, you don't care who made it. It could be from Sharp, or Canon, or anybody. You don't care if it's Xerox unless you work in a "copy store" like Kinko's or run the copy center for the corporation – and possibly not even in those jobs. And because desktop printers have practically made copiers obsolete, you may not care about copiers at all. In short, even though Xerox invented the marketplace for widespread duplicating, because the company stayed in its old market of big copiers it has seen revenue declines and has largely become irrelevant.
"U.S. airline revenue plunges for another month" is another Marketwatch.com headline. And I ask again, do you care? The airlines were deregulated 30 years ago, and since then as a group they've never consistently made money (only 1 airline – Southwest – is the exception to this discussion.) The big players in the early days included TWA, Eastern, Braniff, PanAm – names long gone from the skies. They've been replaced by Delta, American and United – as we've watched the near collapse of US Airways, Northwest and Continental. But we've grown so used to the big airlines losing money, and going bankrupt, and screaming about unions and fuel costs, that we've pretty much quit caring. The only thing frequent travelers care about now is their "frequent flier miles" and how they can use them. The airline itself is irrelevant – just so long as I get those miles and get my status and they let me board early.
When you don't grow, you lose relevance. In the mid-1980s the battle raged between Apple's Macintosh and the PC (generically, from all manufacturers) as to which was going to be the dominant desktop computer. By the 1990s that question had been answered, and as Macintosh sales lagged Apple lost relevance. But then when the iPod, iTunes, iTouch and iPhone came along suddenly Apple gained a LOT of relevance. When companies grow, they demonstrate the ability to serve markets. They are relevant. When they don't grow, like GM and Citibank, they lose relevance. It's not about cash flow or even profitability. When you grow, like Amazon with its Kindle launch, you get attention because you demonstrate you are connected to where markets are headed.
Is your business obsessing about costs to the point it is hurting revenue? If so, you are at risk of losing relevance. Like Sara Lee in consumer goods, or Sears in retailing, even if the companies are able to make a profit – possibly even grow profits after some bad years – if you can't grow the top line you just aren't relevant. And if you aren't relevant, you can't get more customers interested in your products/services, and you can't encourage investors. People want to be part of Google, not Kodak.
To maintain (or regain) relevance today, you have to focus on growth. Cutting costs is not enough. If you lose relevance, you lose your customer base and financing, and you make it a whole lot easier for competitors to grow. While you're looking internally, or managing the bottom line, competitors are figuring out the market direction, and proving it by demonstrating growth. And that's why today, even more than before, it is so critical you focus planning on future markets for growth, obsess about competitors, use Disruptions to change behavior and implement White Space to experiment with new business opportunities. Because if you don't do those things you are far, far too likely to simply become irrelevant.
[note: Thanks for feedback that my spelling and grammar have gotten pretty sloppy lately. I'm going to allocate more time to review, as well as writing. And hopefully pick up some proofreading to see if this can improve. Sorry for the recent problems, and I appreciate your feedback on errors.]
by Adam Hartung | Mar 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
All businesses hurting in today's economy must significantly change if they want to improve their performance. In the early 1900s the world saw the advent of several new machines ushering in the industrial era. But, the economy was based on agriculture – and largely the "family farm." As the industrial era expanded landowners tried to Defend & Extend their old business models by leveraging up the family farms – borrowing more and more money to plant "fencerow-to-fencerow" as it was called. Borrowers overworked the land, and with all the debt piled on when a glitch happened (a combination of drought and falling commodity prices from expansion) the mountain of debt collapsed. The beginnings of the Great Depression hit the farmers in the 1920s. The coming of the industrial revolution made old Success Formulas based on land ownership and agriculture obsolete – and no amount of debt could defer the shift forever. It took 10 years (into the 1940s) to fully transition to the new economy, and when we did Ford, GM and other industrial giants overtook the land barrons of the earlier era.
I was reminded of this today when discussing scenario planning with Diane Meister, Managing Director of Meridian Associates in Chicago. Today she sees the deteriorating Success Formulas in her clients. Companies that keep trying to apply Industrial era Success Formulas in what is now an information economy. When they aren't prepared for big shifts – it can be devastating. But those who do prepare can improve position quickly. She told me how one of her clients had an excellent business selling toys to FAO Schwartz and other top toy chains. But Meridian could see that the growth of Target created a viable scenario for a big shift in how toys would be distributed. She implored her client to prepare for possibly the failure (note – failure – not just weakness) of several big toy chains. Good thing she did, within 2 years most of her client's retail distribution was bankrupt. Only by using scenarios to prepare for a big market shift were they able to survive – in fact come out a leader – due to the big shifts happening in retail as a result of the change in markets. (Don't hesitate to contact her firm at the link – good stuff!)
As we transition into the information economy, big changes are going to happen to all businesses. The source of value, and competitiveness, has changed. Today the Allstate Insurance's CEO was quoted in Crain's "Insurer's Should Have Federal Regulator." And in an article at Marketwatch.com, "Dimon Backs Regulation", the CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce he backs additional mortgage regulation. Both of these leaders are looking forward, and recognize that markets have shifted. New regulations will be critical to success. Their future scenarios show it will take a different approach to be a global competitor in 2015 – to be a winner in the global information economy that won't support industrial era Success Formulas.
Not everyone gets it. Also at Marketwatch.com in "AT&T Chief Sounds Alarm", the AT&T CEO decries rising health care costs and worries system changes will hurt his competitiveness. Wake up! What sort of scenario is he using that expects America to keep the current health care system – and the current employer-paid insurance? Even insurance companies now recognize the system is broken and needs change. In no other country are health care costs "baked in" to the cost of a company's P&L. Think about it – even where there is national health care (Britain, France, Canada, Germany, etc.) the companies don't carry the cost as a line item they must recoup via sales and margin. Elsewhere, the cost of health care is born by society through taxes. The reality is that any American company trying to compete has a whole host of incremental costs on its shoulders because we ask employers to pay in order to keep personal income taxes low. Until we change the whole basis of how America chooses to insure its population, employers are being forced to carry costs not seen by offshore competitors. In a global marketplace – this sort of "yesterday thinking" will not survive. Employers should be leading the charge for national health care – just so they can get the issue out of their plethora of problems and off the backs of their P&Ls!
Those that don't change will end up out of the game. Because they didn't do effective scenario planning, that considered the rise of "upscale discounters," FAO Schwartz (mentioned earlier) and Zany Brainy's failed — not even a Tom Hanks movie could keep customers coming in the doors. Markets are merciless in taking down companies that can't globally compete on what's important. We can prop up GM for a short time, but no country can afford to try to keep its people working (avoid unemployment costs) and insured by pumping money into a dysfunctional car company that isn't competitive. Sears has ignored the trends, and is one of the "walking dead." Once the world's greatest retailer, it built what was for years the world's tallest building (now 2nd). But now Crain's has reported in "Willis will get Sears Tower naming rights" that soon the great building the great retailer built in its home town of Chicago will likely be renamed for a London insurance company. Of course, Sears sold the building years ago in its effort to subsidize its failiing retail business – and hasn't even been a tenant in the building for decades. It won't be long before no one even remembers Sears. Sears remained Locked-in to what it once was, and ignored scenarios about a different future that would require change.
The world has shifted. If your scenarios for the future expect a return to old practices – well, that isn't going to happen. If you want to be a leader in the next economy, you better start building new scenarios TODAY!
error correction - in yesterday's blog I inadvertently said I was "not" twittering. Talk about a badly mistaken typo! I meant the opposite. I am twittering and hope you all hook up so we can tweek each other.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Science
The headlines scream for an answer to when markets will bottom (see Marketwatch.com article from headline "10 signs of a Floor" here) . But for Phoenix Principle investors, that question isn't even material. Who cares what happens to the S&P 500 – you want investments that will go up in value — and there are investments in all markets that go up in value. And not just because we expect some "greater fool" to bail us out of bad investments. Phoenix Principle investors put their money into opportunities which will meet future needs at competitive prices, thus growing, while returning above average rates of return. It really is that simple. (Of course, you have to be sure that other investors haven't bid up the growth opportunity to where it greatly exceeds its future value — like happened with internet stocks in the late 1990s. But today, overbidding that drives up values isn't exactly the problem.)
People get all tied up in "what will the market do?" As an investor, you need to care about the individual business. For years that was how people invested, by focusing on companies. But then clever economists said that as long as markets went up, investors were better off to just buy a group of stocks – an average such as the S&P 500 or Dow Jones Industrials. These same historians said don't bother to "time" your investments at all, just keep on buying some collection (some average) quarter after quarter and you'll do OK. We still hear investment apologists make this same argument. But stocks haven't been going up – and who knows when these "averages" will start going up again? Just ask investors in Japan, where they are still waiting for the averages to return to 1980s levels so they can hope to break even (after 20 years!). These historians, who use the past as their barometer, somehow forgot that consistent and common growth was a requirement to constantly investing in averages.
When the 2008 market shift happened, it changed the foundation upon which "constantly keep buying, don't time investing, it all works out in the end" was based. Those days may return – but we don't know when, if at all. Investors today have to return to the real cornerstone of investing – putting your money into investments which will give people what they want in the future.
Regardless of the "averages," businesses that are positioned to deliver on customer needs in future years will do well. If today the value of Google is down because CEO Eric Schmidt says the company won't return to old growth rates again until 2010, investors should see this as a time to purchase because short-term considerations are outweighing long-term value creation. Do you really believe internet ad-supported free search and paid search are low-growth global businesses? Do you really believe that short-term U.S. on-line advertising trends will remain at current rates, globally, for even 2 full years? Do you think Google will not make money on mobile phones and connectivity in the future? Do you think the market won't keep moving toward highly portable devices for computing answers, like the Apple iPhone, and away from big boxes like PCs?
When evaluating a business the big questions must be "is this company well positioned for most future scenarios? Are they developing robust scenarios of the future where they can compete? Are they obsessing about competitors, especially fringe competitors? Are they willing to be Disruptive? Do they show White Space to try new things?" If the answer to these questions is yes, then you should be considering these as good investments. Regardless of the number on the S&P 500. Look at companies that demonstrate these skills – Johnson & Johnson, Cisco Systems, Apple, Virgin, Nike, and G.E. – and you can start to assess whether they will in the future earn a high rate of return on their assets. These companies have demonstrated that even when people lose jobs and incomes shrink and trade barriers rise, they know how to use scenario planning, competitor obsession, disruptions and white space to grow revenue and profits.
You should not buy a company just because it "looks cheap." All companies look cheap just prior to failing. You could have been a buyer of cheap stock in Polaroid when 24 hour kiosks (not even digital photography yet) made the company's products obsolete. Just because a business met customer needs well in the past does not mean it will ever do so again. Like Sears. Or increasingly Motorola. Or G.M. These companies aren't focused on innovation for future customer needs, they prefer to ignore competitors, they hate disruptions and they refuse to implement White Space to learn. So why would you ever expect them to have a high future value?
Why did recent prices of real estate go up in California, New York, Massachusetts and Florida faster than in Detroit? People want to live and work there more than southeastern Michigan. For a whole raft of reasons. In 1920 the price of a home in Iowa or Kansas was worth more than in California. Why? Because an agrarian economy favored the earth-rich heartland over parched California. In the robust industrial age from 1940 to 1960, the value of real estate in Detroit, Chicago, Akron and Pittsburgh was far higher than San Francisco or Los Angeles. But in an information economy, the economics are different – and today (even after big price declines) California homes are worth multiples of Iowa homes. And, as we move further into the information economy, manufacturing centers (largely on big bodies of water in cool climates) have declining value. The market has shifted, and real estate values reflect the shift. Unless you know of some reason for lots (like millions) of health care or tech jobs to develop in Detroit, the region is highly over-built — even if homes are selling for fractions of former values.
We seem to have forgotten that to make high rates of return, we all have to be "market timers" and "investment pickers." Especially when markets shift. Because not everyone survives!!!!! All those platitudes about buying into market averages only works in nice, orderly markets with limited competition and growth. But when things shift – if you're in the wrong place you can get wiped out!! When the market shifted from agrarian to industrial in the 1920s and '30s my father was extremely proud that he became a teacher and stayed in Oklahoma (though the dust storms and all). But, by the 1970s it was clear that if he'd moved to California and bought a house in Palo Alto his net worth would have been many multiples higher. The same is true for stock investments. You can keep holding on to G.M., Citibank and other great companies of the past — or you can admit shift happened and invest in those companies likely to be leaders in the information-based economy of the next 30 years!
by Adam Hartung | Mar 5, 2009 | Investing, Trends, Uncategorized
I've never met anyone who says they speculate in the stock market. My colleagues always say they are investors; people who know what they were doing and savvy about the market. But, reality is that most people speculate. Because they don't invest on underlying business value. Instead, they rely on words from "gurus" and follow trends. That, unfortunately, is speculating.
Back on 12/21/08 (just a couple of months ago) the DJIA was at 8960, the S&P 918. Looking at The Chicago Tribune for that day, the primary recommendation by analysts for 2009 was "Keep an eye on long-term horizons" and "weather out the storm". The markets were down, but don't panic. Famed investment maven Elaine Garzarelli recommended if you had $10k in cash to invest $2k in tech stocks, $2k in Citigroup Preferred, $2k in GE and $2k in an income-oriented fund. Then put $2k into a short fund to hedge your risks! She couldn't have been more dead wrong on the only two named companies – GE and C. Both are at modern, or all time, lows. Don Phillip, managing director at Morningstar, recommended investing all $10K in equities because "they've taken an unprecedented hit and are very cheap."
When you hear investment gurus, on TV or elsewhere, tell you to "stay the course, the market always recovers" they are basing their opinions on history – not the future. This isn't last year, or the last recession, or the last economy. Will all economies eventually recover? Maybe not. Will the U.S. economy recover in your lifetime? Not assured – Japan has been in a recession for over a decade! Does that mean American companies will be the ones to lead the world in the next upmarket? Not assured. These "gurus" have been dead wrong for almost a year – and at the most important time in your investment history. If they were so wrong for the last year, why are they still on TV? Why are you listening?
In the short term, stock markets are driven by momentum. When most people are buying, the markets keep going up. Even for individual stocks. Sears had no reason to go up in value after being acquired by Ed Lampert's KMart corporation. Sears and Kmart were overleveraged, earning below-market rates of return, and with assets that had long lost their luster. But because Jim Cramer of CNBC Mad Money fame knew and liked Mr. Lampert he kept talking up the stock. Other hedge fund operators thought Mr. Lampert had been clever in the past, so they guessed he knew something they didn't and they speculated in his investment. The value went up 10x – and then came down 90%. Wild ride – but in the history of markets unless you are a speculator, you should never have invested in Sears. When you hear "don't be a market timer" remember that the only way to make money in Sears was to be a market timer – you had to buy and sell at the right time because the company wasn't able to increase its value. Sears' Success Formula was out of date, and there was no sign of a plan for the future, nor obsession about market changes and competitors, nor willingness to Disrupt old behaviors nor White Space. From the beginning this was a bad investment, and it has remained that way.
Today the market remains driven by momentum. Who wants to say they are buying stocks when the major averages keep falling? What CEO wants to say he's optimistic when it's popular to present "caution"? Who wants to discuss opportunities for markets in 2015 being 3x bigger when right now demand for industrial products like cars is down 20-40%? When momentum is up, you can't find a pessimistic CEO. Nor a pessimistic investor. So the likewise is equally true.
Reality is that there are good investments today, and bad. If a business is firmly locked into the industrial economy, such as GM and Ford, making the same products in much the same way to sell to pretty much the same customers, but with new competitors entering from all around - those companies are not good investments. Regardless of the rate of economic growth or debt availability. Their Lock-in to outdated Success Formulas means that their rates of return will not improve, even if overall economic growth does. Markets have shifted, and keep shifting. Businesses that were not profitable in the old market aren't going to suddenly be better competitors in a future market. Just the opposite is more likely. Even if they survive in a foxhole for a year or two, when they come out the market will be filled with new competitors just as vicious as the old ones.
But there are businesses positioning themselves for the markets of tomorrow. Apple with its iPod, iTunes, iPhone is an example. Google with its near monopoly on internet ad placement and management as well as search. And companies that are moving toward new markets rather than remaining frozen in the old model and exacerbating weaknesses with cost cutting. Like Domino's pizza.
GM will never again be a great car company. So what's new? That was clear in 1980 when Chairman Roger Smith said the company had a limited future in autos operating as it always had. That doesn't mean GM couldn't again be a growing, healthy company if new management sent the company in search of new markets with growth opportunities. Like Singer getting out of sewing machines to be a defense contractor in the 1980s. By purchasing an old-fashioned mortgage bank, and an old fashioned investment bank/retail brokerage, Bank of America is not strengthening its position for future markets. Instead, it is fighting the last war. But any company can change its competitive position if it chooses to focus on, and invest in, new markets. And those who do it NOW will be first into the new markets and able to change competitive position. When markets shift, those who move to the new competitiveness first gain the advantage. And their position is reinforced by competitors who dive for cover through cost cuts not tied to business repositioning.
Why is GM still on the DJIA? They should have been removed years ago. That's how the Dow intelligentsia keeps the average always going up – by taking off companies like Sears and replacing them with companies that are more closely linked to where markets are going (at the time, Home Depot). If we swapped out GM for Google, and Kraft for Apple, the numbers on the DJIA would be considerably better than we see today. And if you want to make money as an investor, you have to do the same thing. You have to dump companies that are unwilling to break out of Lock-in to outdated business models and invest in companies who are heading full force into future markets. In all markets there are good investments. But you have to find the companies that plan for the future, not the past – obsess about competitors – are not afraid to Disrupt themselves and markets – and utilize White Space to test new products and services that can create growth no matter what the economy.
