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 And largely outdated by faster news outlets providing real time updates via the web, or television for those still not on-line.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.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 13, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
If your boss told you that he enjoyed your hard work, but he wanted to cut your pay 50% I bet you would feel – well – violated. Your hard work is just that; hard work. If you received $100,000 (or $50,000 or $250,000) for that work last year it would be hard to accept receiving some fractionally lower amount for that same work next year. Especially given that every year you are able to work smarter, better and faster at what you do. Because your execution constantly improves you'd expect to receive more every year.
But in reality, it doesn't matter how hard we work. What matters is the value of that work. It's why nearly incoherent ball players and actors make millions while skillful engineers barely make 6 figures. In other words, pay inevitably ends up being the result of not only the output – it's volume and quality – but what it is worth. And that the compensation is a marketplace result – and not something we actually control – is hard for us to understand.
Every years many pundits decry "excessive" executive pay. There is ample discussion about how an executive received a boat load of money, meanwhile the company sales or profits or customer performance was less than average, or possibly even declined. Of course the executives don't think they are overpaid. They say "I worked hard, did my job, did what I thought was best and was agreed to by my Board of Directors. I did what most investors and my peers would have expected me to do. Therefore, I deserve this money – regardless of the results. I can't control markets or their many variables (like industry prices, costs of feedstock, international currency values, or the loss of a patent or other lawsuit, an industrial accident, or the development of a competitive breakthrough technology) so I can't control the results (like total revenues, or total profits or the stock prices). Therefore I deserve to be compensated for my hard work, even if things didn't work out quite like investors, customers, employees or suppliers might have liked."
This answer is hard for the detractors to accept. To them, if top management isn't responsible for results, who is? Yet, shockingly, each time this happens investment fund managers that own large stock positions will be interviewed, and they will agree the executives are doing their jobs so they should get paid based up on their title and industry – regardless the results.
An example of this behavior was reported by Crain's Chicago Business in "Tribune's $43M Bonus Plan Lambasted by Trustee." Even though Tribune Corporation's leadership, under Sam Zell, took the company from profitable to bankruptcy, and even though they've been unable to "fix" Tribune sufficiently to appease bondholders and develop a plan to remain a going concern thus exiting bankruptcy, the management team thinks it should be paid a bonus. Why? Because they are working diligently, and hard. So, even though there really are no acceptable results, they want to get paid a bonus.
We all have to realize that our company sales and profits are a result of the marketplace in which we compete, and the Success Formula we apply. The combination can produce very good results sometimes; even for a prolonged period. Newspapers had a good, long profitable run. But markets shift. When markets shift, we see that the old Success Formula must change because RESULTS deteriorate. Slow (or no, or negative) growth in revenues and/or profits and/or cash flow is a clear sign of a market shift creating a problem with the Success Formula. When this happens, rewarding EXECUTION (or hard work) is EXACTLY the WRONG thing to do! Doing more of the same will only exacerbate bad results – not fix them
What's bad for the business, in revenues/profits/cash flow, must (of necessity) be bad for the employees. Not because they are bad people. Or lazy, or incompetent, or arrogant, or any of many other bad connotations. But because the results are clearly saying that the value has eroded from the Success Formula . Usually because of a market shift (like readers and advertisers going from newspapers/print to the internet). What we MUST reward are the efforts to change the Success Formula, to get back to growing. Not hard work. As much as we'd like to say that hard work deserves money – we all know that money flows to the things we value regardless of how hard we work.
I've long been a detractor of many executives – Brenda Barnes at Sara Lee has been a frequent victim of this blog. Whitacre of GM another. Steve Ballmer at Microsoft. That the Boards of these companies compensate these leaders, and the teams they lead, is horrific. It reinforces the notion that what matters is hard work, willingness to toe the line of the old Success Formula, willingness to remain Locked-in to industry or company traditions – rather than results. Results which give independent feedback from the marketplace of the true value of the Success Formula.
Let's congratulate the Tribune Trustee. For once, more attention is being paid to results than to "hard work" or "execution." Tribune – like General Motors – needs a wholesale makeover. An entirely new team of leaders willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to define a new Success Formula. Willing to move the resources in these companies, including the employees, back into growth markets. If more Boards acted like the Tribune Trustee we'd be a lot better off because more companies would grow and maybe we'd move forward out of this recession.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 15, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Did you ever notice how often a large company will introduce a new solution (often a new technology), but then retrench from promoting it? Frequently, the market is developed by an alternate company that captures most of the value. We can see that behavior looking at smartphones.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
In 2008, three early leaders were Microsoft, RIM and Palm. But Microsoft chose to invest in Defending & Extending its PC software business – with updates to the operating system in Vista and OS 7. As the market has shifted toward mobile computing, Microsoft has been clobbered. But largely because it remained stuck trying to protect its "core" while the market shifted away. Palm also tried to Defend & Extend its early position with updates, but because it did not follow the pathway to greater usage with new applications it also has seen dramatic share decline.
Meanwhile, RIM has promoted new uses within the corporate world for mobility, and thus grown its market share. And Apple has made a huge impact by bringing forward dozens of new mobile applications, closely followed by Google. What we see is a classic example of the early entrant fading largely because they decided to Defend the old market, rather than investing in the new one. Really too bad for shareholders in Microsoft (losing 20 share points) and Palm (losing 10 share points), while good for shareholders of RIM, Apple and Google.
And in Apple's case we can see that the company continues using White Space to grow revenues by expanding the new marketplace. The iPad is off to a very strong start, with tens of thousands of units ordered last week. But of greater importance is how Apple is promoting the shift to mobile devices from traditional PC devices. At SeekingAlpha.com, in "How the iPad, Slates Will Evolve the Next Two Years," the reporter projects how demand for all laptop products will decline as more capability and functionality is added to mobile devices like smartphones and these new slate products.
Microsoft can keep trying to Defend & Extend PC technology, but it won't be long before their efforts largely won't matter. Don't forget that once Cray computers was a rapidly growing super-computer company. But increasing performance from much alternative products eventually made Cray irrelevant. Same for Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems.
Today the market capitalization of Microsoft is about $250B, about 4x sales. Apple's market cap is just over $200B, about 6x sales. Google's market cap is about $180B, about 8x sales. All reflect investor expectations about future growth. The D&E company is simply not expected to grow – and in fact is much more likely to disappoint than the companies growing share in growing markets toward which customers are shifting.
And any company can choose to participate in growth, versus Defend & Extend. While Tribune Corporation is trying to find a way out of bankruptcy, and struggling to figure out how to deal with market shifts away from newspapers, Hearst is taking positive action. The Wall Street Journal reports in "Hearst Jumps Into the Apps Business" how the old-line newspaper company has set up a White Space project, complete with dedicated people and its own funding, to begin developing mobile applications for news!
Even when business leaders see a market shift, far too many choose to Defend & Extend the "core." Unfortunately, that leads to disappointments. Keep in mind Microsoft and its rapid loss of Smartphone share as users move increasingly to mobile devices from PCs. To succeed leaders need to drive their organizations in the direction of market shifts, and growth. Like Apple, Google and even Hearst.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 6, 2010 | Current Affairs, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Leadership
Listen To Competitors–Not Customers
01.06.10, 03:10 PM EST
The accepted wisdom that the customer is king is all wrong.
That's the start to my latest Forbes column (Read here.) Think about it. What would Apple be if it had listened to its customers? An out of business niche PC company by now. What about Google? A narrow search engine company – anyone remember Alta Vista or Ask Jeeves or the other early search engine companies? No customer was telling Apple or Google to get into all the businesses they are in now – and making impressive rates of return while others languish.
But today Google launched Nexus One (read about it on Mobile Marketing Daily here) – a product the company developed by watching its competitors – Apple and Microsoft – rather than asking its customers. In the last year "smartphones" went to 17% of the market – from only 7% in 2007 according to Forrester Research. There's nothing any more "natural" about Google – ostensibly a search engine company – making smartphones (or even operating systems for phones like Android) than for GE to get into this business. But Google did because it's paying attention to competitors, not what customers tell it to do.
No customers told Google to develop a new browser – or operating system – which is what Chrome is about. In fact, IT departments wanted Microsoft to develop a better operating system and largely never thought of Google in the space. And no IT department asked Google to develop Google Wave – a new enterprise application which will connect users to their applications and data across the "cloud" allowing for more capability at a fraction of the cost. But Google is watching competitors, and letting them tell Google where the market is heading. Long before customers ask for these products, Google is entering the market with new solutions – the output of White Space that is disrupting existing markets.
Far too many companies spend too much time asking customers what to do. In an earlier era, IBM almost went bankrupt by listening to customers tell them to abandon PCs and stay in the mainframe business —– but that's taking the thunder away from the Forbes article. Give it a read, there's lots of good stuff about how people who listen to customers jam themselves up – and how smarter ones listen to competitors instead. (Ford, Tribune Corporation, eBay, Cisco, Dell, Salesforce.com, CSC, EDS, PWC, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics and HP.)
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
We end the first decade in 2000 with another first. In ReutersBreakingViews.com "Don't Diss the Dividend" we learn 2000-2009 is the first time in modern stock markets when U.S. investors made no money for a decade. Right. Worse performance than the 1930s Great Depression. Over the last decade, the S&P 500 had a net loss of about 1%/year. After dividends a gain of 1% – less than half the average inflation rate of 2.5%.
Things have shifted. We ended the last millenium with a shift from an industrial economy to an information economy. And the tools for success in earlier times no longer work. Scale economies and entry barriers are elusive, and unable to produce "sustainable competitive advantage." Over the last decade shifts in business have bankrupted GM, Circuit City and Tribune Corporation – while gutting other major companies like Sears. Simultaneously these changes brought huge growth and success to Google, Apple, Hewlett Packard, Virgin and small companies like Louis Glunz Beer, Foulds Pasta and Tasty Catering.
Even the erudite McKinsey Quarterly is now trumpeting the new requirements for business success in "Competing through Organizational Agility." Using academic research from the London Business School, author Donald Sull points out that market turbulence increased 2 to 4 times between the 1970s and 1990s – and is continuing to increase. More market change is happening, and market changes are happening faster. Thus, creating strategies and organizations that are able to adjust to shifting market requirements creates higher revenue and improved operational efficiency. Globally agility is creating better returns than any other business approach.
A McKinsey Quarterly on-line video "Navigating the New Normal: A Conversation with 4 Chief Strategy Officers," discusses changes in business requirements for 2010 and beyond. All 4 of these big company strategists agree that success now requires far shorter planning cycles, abandoning efforts to predict markets that change too quickly, and recognizing that historically indisputable assumptions are rapidly becoming obsolete. What used to work at creating competitive advantage no longer works. Monolothic strategies developed every few years, with organizations focused on "execution," are simply uncompetitive in a rapidly shifting world.
And "the old boys club" of white men in top business leadership roles is quickly going to change dramatically. In the Economist article "We Did It" we learn that in 2010 the American workforce will shift to more than 50% women. If current leaders continue following old approaches – and generating anemic returns – they will rapidly be replaced by leaders willing to do what has to be done to succeed in today's marketplace. Like Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, women will take on more top positions as investors and employees demand changes to improve performance. Leaders will have to be flexible and adaptive or they, and their organizations, will not survive.
Additionally, the information technology products which unleashed this new era will change, and become unavoidable. In Forbes "Using the Cloud for Business" one of the creators of modern ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems (like SAP and Oracle) Jan Baan discusses how cloud computing changes business. ERP systems were all about data, and the applications were stovepiped – like the industrial enterprises they were designed for. Unfortunately, they were expensive to buy and very expensive to install and even more expensive to maintain. Simultaneously they had all the flexibility of cement. ERP systems, which proliferate in large companies today, were control products intended to keep the organization from doing anything beyond its historical Success Formula.
But cloud computing is infinitely flexible. Compare Facebook to Lotus Notes and you start understanding the difference between cloud computing and large systems. Anyone can connect, share links, share files and even applications on Facebook at almost no cost. Lotus Notes is an expensive enterprise application that costs a lot to buy, to operate, to maintain and has significantly less flexibility. Notes is about control. Facebook is about productivity.
Cloud computing is 1/10th the cost of monolithic owned/internal IT systems. Cloud computing offers small and mid-sized companies all the computing opportunity of big companies – and big advantages to new competitors if CIOs at big companies hold onto their "investments" in IT systems too long. Businesses that use cloud architectures can rearrange their supply chain immediately – and daily. Flexibility, and adaptability, grows exponentially. And EVERYONE can use it. Where mainframes were the tool for software engineers (and untouchable by everyone else), the PC made it possible for individuals to have their own applications. Cloud computing democratizes computing so everyone with a smartphone has access and use. With practically no training.
As we leave the worst business environment in modern times, we enter a new normal. Those who try to defend & extend old business practices will continue to suffer declining returns, poor performance and failure – like the last decade. But those who embrace "the new normal" can grow and prosper. It takes a willingness to let scenarios about the future drive your behavior, a keen focus on competitors to understand market needs, a willingness to disrupt old Lock-ins and implement White Space so you can constantly test opportunities for defining new, flexible and higher returning Success Formulas.
Here's to 2010 and the new normal! Happy New Year!
