Economically, is Obama America's Greatest Modern President?

With the stock market hitting new highs, some people have already forgotten about the Great Recession.  If you recall 2009, things looked pretty bleak economically.  But the outlook has changed dramatically in just 4 years.  And it has been a boon for investors, as even the safest indices have yielded a 250% return (>25% annualized compound return:)

Source: Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box at Facebook.com

Meanwhile, trends have reversed direction with unemployment falling, and consumer confidence rising:

Source: Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box at Facebook.com

Since this coincides with President Obama’s first term, I asked the authors of “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box,” (available on Amazon.com) which I reviewed in my October 11, 2012 column, to capture their opinions on how much Americans should attribute the equity upturn, and improved economic prospects, to the President as we enter his second term.

Interview with Bob Deitrick, co-Author "Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box" (BBBB):

Q- Bob, how much credit should Americans give President Obama for today’s improved equity values?

BBBB – Our research reviewed American economic performance since President Roosevelt installed the first Federal Reserve Board Chairman - Republican Marriner Eccles.  We observed that even though there are multiple impacts on the economy, it was clear that policy decisions within each administration, from FDR forward, made a clear difference on performance. And relatively quickly. 

Presidents universally take credit when the economy does well (such as Reagan,) and choose to blame other factors when the economy does poorly (such as Carter.)  But there was a clear pattern, and link, between policy and financial market performance. 

Although we hear almost no one in the Obama administration taking credit for record index highs, they should.   Because the President deserves significant credit for how well this economy has done during his leadership. 

The auto rescue plan has worked.  American car manufacturers are still dominant and employing millions directly and in supplier companies.  Wall Street reform has been painful but it has re-instated faith amongst investors.  The markets are far more predictable than they were four years ago, as VIX numbers demonstrate greater faith and less risk. 

Even for small investors, such as thoughs limited to their 401(k) or IRA investments, the average annual compound return on stocks under President Obama has been more than 24% since the lows of March, 2009.  This is a better result than either Clinton, Reagan or FDR who were the prior winners in our book. 

Q- Bob, what policies do you think were most important toward achieving today’s new highs?

BBBB – Firstly, let’s review just how bad things were in 2009.  In 2000 America was completing the longest bull market in history. But by the end of President Bush's tenure the country had witnessed 2 stock market crashes, and the DJIA had fallen 58%.  This was the second worst market decline in history (exceeded only by the Great Depression,) and hence the term “Great Recession” was born.

In 2000, at the end of Clinton’s administration, the Consumer Confidence Index was at a record high 140.  By January, 2009 this index had fallen to an historic low of 25.3.  Comparatively, when Reagan took office at the end of the economically weak Carter years the Confidence Index was still at 74.4!  Today this measure of how people feel about the country is still nowhere near 2000 levels, but it is almost 3 times better than 4 years ago.

Significantly, in 2000 America had a budget surplus.  By 2009 surpluses were long gone and the country was racking up historic deficits as taxes were cut while simultaneously outlays for defense skyrocketed to cover costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Additionally, banks were on the edge of failing due to unregulated real estate speculation and massive derivative losses.

Today the Congressional Budget Office is reporting a $200B decrease in the deficit almost entirely due to increased revenue from a growing economy and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush's administration - and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.)  America's "debt problem" seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.

We can largely thank a fairer tax code, improved regulation and consistent SEC enforcement.  Also, major strides in health care reform - something no other President has accomplished - has given American's more faith in their future, and an increased willingness to invest.  

Q- To which President would you compare Obama’s economic performance?

BBBB- By all measures, President Obama has outperformed every modern President. 

The easiest comparison would be to President Reagan, who’s economic performance was superb.  Even though Obama's performance is better.

Reagan had the enormous benefit of two major factors:

1. a significantly better economy than Obama inherited, even if afflicted by inflation
2. and his two terms coincided with the highest performing demographic years of the Baby Boomer generation.

Today's demographics have shifted dramatically.  The country is much older, with fewer young people supporting a much larger near-retirement age group.  This inherent demographic fact makes creating economic growth monumentally harder than it was 30 years ago.

Few people think of Reagan as a stimulus addict.  Yet, his administration’s military build-up added $1trillion of stimulus to the national debt ($2.3trillion adjusted for inflation) - the opposite of what is happening during the Obama years.  Many like to think that it was tax cutting which grew the economy, but undoubtedly we now know that this dramatic defense and infrastructure (highways, etc.) stimulus had more to do with igniting economic growth.  Reagan's spending looked far more like FDR than Herbert Hoover!

Ronald  Reagan tripled the national debt during his tenure, creating what today's Congressional austerity advocates might have called "a legacy of unpayable debt for our grandchildren.” But, as we saw, later growth (during Clinton) resolved that debt and created a budget surplus by 2000.

Q- Bob, President’s Obama detractors liken the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) to an Armageddon on business, sure to kill economic growth and plunge the country back into recession.  Do you agree?

BBBB- To the contrary, ACA levels the playing field and will be good for economic growth.  Where previously only large corporations could afford employee health care plans, in the future far more employees will have far more equitable coverage.  Further, today employees frequently are unable to leave a company to start a new business because they would lose health care, which in the future will not be true.

One leading indicator of the benefits of ACA might be the performance of healthcare and biotech stocks, which are up 20-30% and leaders in the current market rally.

Q- What policies would you recommend the Obama administration follow in order to promote economic growth, more jobs and greater returns for investors during the second term?

BBBB-  Obama needs to make the cornerstone of his second term creating new job growth.  That was the primary platform of his candidacy, and it is a platform long successful for the Democratic party.  If President Obama can do this and  govern effectively, this could be his real legacy.

 

 

The Ugly Leadership Horsefly in the Record DJIA Economic Ointment

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) jumped to record levels - over 15,000 - today after a favorable U.S. jobs report showed 165K new jobs and a drop in unemployment to 7.5%.  Politicians, economists, business leaders and investors were buoyed by economic improvements and the hope for further growth.  A higher stock market is considered a great ointment for what has hurt America the last several years.

But there's a big, ugly fly in this ointment.  While the indices are rising, revenues at many very large, key component companies are actually declining.  And possibly worse, the revenue growth rate for large companies has been declining for at least 3 years.

Source: Marketwatch "The Tell" 5/3/13 Matt Andrejczak

As the chart shows, Caterpillar has led the revenue decline, dropping a whopping 17.5% year-over-year.  But noteworthy declines included JPMorganChase dropping 15.5%, Pfizer down 12.4% and Merck down 9%.  It's hard to imagine a great long-term bull market when revenues are distinctly going in a bearish direction for several stalwart companies.

It is also important to note that the rate of DJIA growth has declined markedly.  In 2011 first quarter growth was 11.4% over 2010.  But 2012 was only 9.4% over 2011 and 2013 came in only a paltry 3.8% over 2012.  Ouch!  Clearly, jobs growth will not be sustained if these organizations cannot put more money on the top line.

So why aren't these companies growing? 

For companies to grow they must invest in new products, new markets and the resources to sell and deliver these new products and new markets.  And that creates jobs.  Think about easy to identify revenue successes like Apple (iPads,) Samsung (smartphones,) Amazon.com, Netflix, Tesla, Facebook.  Proper investment leads to revenue growth opportunities.

But, unfortunately, America's leaders have reduced their investment in growth projects the last 15 years.  Instead, they've been giving more money to investors -- and increasingly dumping money into stock buybacks that manipulate price and help improve management bonuses!

Source: Business Insider 4/8/13; Sam Ro; Reproduced from Goldman Sachs Research

As the chart demonstrates, in 1998 42% of corporate cash was reinvested into the means of production - which creates growth.  Today this has declined to only about 1/3 of available cash; a whopping 25% decline!  Additionally, R&D investments which should lead to new products and higher sales, dropped from 16% of cash used a decade ago to a more meager 12%! 

Where has the money gone?  13% of cash was going directly to investors, who could then invest in other companies with higher rate of return growth projects.  That number has risen to 18%, which is inherently a good thing as we can hope a lot of that has been re-invested in other companies. 

But 13-17% used to be spent on stock buybacks, which create no revenue or economic growth.  All share buybacks do is exchange cash for shares, reducing the number of shares and changing metrics like earnings per share and thus the price/earnings (P/E) multiple.  It does not create any new investment.  That number has risen to a staggering 22-34% of revenues! 

Net/net, in the not too distant past America's leaders were putting 70-74% of their cash to work by investing in growth projects.  And 12% was going to investors for projects elsewhere.  By in the mid-1990s this reinvestment rate declined to 52-55%, ushering in the Great Recession.  After improving this rate has started declining again, and remains stuck no better than 60% of cash.  Coupled with the 5% increase in cash being robbed from growth projects to buy back stock,  the net reinvestment remains mired at 55%!

American's want jobs and a growing economy.  As do people everywhere!  We are excited when we see improvement.  But today, the ugly horsefly in the ointment is the lack of revenue growth - and the lack of investment in growth projects.  Until business leaders begin putting their corporate cash hoards into growth projects again the long-term outlook remains problematic, even if the market is hitting record DJIA highs.

 

2 Wrongs Don't Fix JC Penney

JCPenney's board fired the company CEO 18 months ago.  Frustrated with weak performance, they replaced him with the most famous person in retail at the time. Ron Johnson was running Apple's stores, which had the highest profit per square foot of any retail chain in America.  Sure he would bring the Midas touch to JC Penney they gave him a $50M sign-on bonus and complete latitude to do as he wished.

Things didn't work out so well.  Sales fell some 25%.  The stock dropped 50%.  So about 2 weeks ago the Board fired Ron Johnson.

The first mistake:  Ron Johnson didn't try solving the real problem at JC Penney.  He spent lavishly trying to remake the brand.  He modernized the logo, upped the TV ad spend, spruced up stores and implemented a more consistent pricing strategy.  But that all was designed to help JC Penney compete in traditional brick-and-mortar retail. Against traditional companies like Wal-Mart, Kohl's, Sears, etc.  But that wasn't (and isn't) JC Penney's problem.

The problem in all of traditional retail is the growth of on-line.  In a small margin business with high fixed costs, like traditional retail, even a small revenue loss has a big impact on net profit.  For every 5% revenue decline 50-90% of that lost cash comes directly off the bottom line - because costs don't fall with revenues.  And these days every quarter - every month - more and more customers are buying more and more stuff from Amazon.com and its on-line brethren rather than brick and mortar stores.  It is these lost revenues that are destroying revenues and profits at Sears and JC Penney, and stagnating nearly everyone else including Wal-Mart. 

Coming from the tech world, you would have expected CEO Johnson to recognize this problem and radically change the strategy, rather than messing with tactics.  He should have looked to close stores to lower fixed costs, developed a powerful on-line presence and marketed hard to grab more customers showrooming or shopping from home.  He should have targeted to grow JCP on-line, stealing revenues from other traditional retailers, while making the company more of a hybrid retailer that profitably met customer needs in stores, or on-line, as suits them.  He should have used on-line retail to take customers from locked-in competitors unable to deal with "cannibalization."

No wonder the results tanked, and CEO Johnson was fired.  Doing more of the tired, old strategies in a shifting market never works.  In Apple parlance, he needed to be focused on an iPad strategy, when instead he kept trying to sell more Macs.

But now the Board has made its second mistake.  Bringing back the old CEO, Myron Ullman, has deepened JP Penney's lock-in to that old, traditional and uncompetitve brick-and-mortar strategy. He intends to return to JCP's legacy, buy more newspaper coupons, and keep doing more of the same.  While hoping for a better outcome.

What was that old description of insanity?  Something about repeating yourself.....

Expectedly, Penney's stock dropped another 10% after announcing the old CEO would return.  Investors are smart enough to recognize the retail market has shifted.  That newsapaper coupons, circulars and traditional advertising is not enough to compete with on-line merchants which have lower fixed costs, faster inventory turns and wider product selection. 

It certainly appears Mr. Johnson was not the right person to grow JC Penney.  All the more reason JCP needs to accelerate its strategy toward the on-line retail trend.  Going backward will only worsen an already terrible situation.

Interesting Apple Infographic

http://www.moneychoice.org/the-fall-of-apple/

 

United - this is NOT "any way to run an airline"

The good folks at Wichita State (a final four contender as U.S. basketball fans know) and Purdue released their 2013 Airline Quality Rating.  United Airlines came in dead last.  To which United responded that they simply did not care.  Oh my.

Interestingly, this study is based wholly on statistical performance, rather than customer input.  The academics utilize on-time flight performance, denied passenger boardings, mishandled bags and complaints filed with the Department of Transportation.  It does not even begin to explore surveying customers about their satisfaction.  Anyone who flies regularly can well imagine those results.  Oh my.

So how would you expect an innovative, adaptive growth-oriented company (think like Amazon, Apple, Samsung, Virgin, Neimann-Marcus, Lulu Lemon) to react to declining customer performance metrics?  They might actually change the product, to make it more desirable by customers.  They might hire more customer service representatives to identify customer issues and fix problems quicker.  They might adjust their processes to achieve higher customer satisfaction.  They might train their employees to be more customer-oriented. 

But, United decidedly is not an innovative, adaptive organization.  So it responded by denying the situation.  Claiming things are getting better.  And talking about how it is spending more money on its long-term strategy.

United doesn't care about customers - and really never has.  United is focused on "operational excellence" (using the word excellence very loosely) as Messrs. Treacy and Wiersema called this strategy in their mega-popular book "The Discipline of Market Leaders" from 1995. United's strategy, like many, many businesses, is to constantly strive for better execution of an old strategy (in their case, hub-and-spoke flight operations) by hammering away at cutting costs. 

Locked in to this strategy, United invests in more airplanes and gates (including making acquisitions like Continental) believing that being bigger will lead to more cost cutting opportunities (code named "synergies".)  They beat up on employees, fight with unions, remove anything unessential (like food) invent ways to create charges (like checked bags or change fees), fiddle with fuel costs, ignore customers and constantly try to engineer minute enhancements to operations in efforts to save pennies.

Like many companies, United is fixated on this strategy, even if it can't make any money.  Even if this strategy once drove it to bankruptcy.  Even if its employees are miserable. Even if quality metrics decline. Even if every year customers are less and less happy with the product.  All of that be darned!  United just keeps doing what it has always done, for over 3 decades, hoping that somehow - magically - results will improve.

Today people have choices.  More choices than ever.  That's true for transportation as well.  As customers have become less happy, they simply won't pay as much to fly.  The impact of all this operational focus, but let the customer be danged, management is price degradation to the point that United, like all the airlines, barely (or doesn't - like American) cover costs.  And because of all the competition each airline constantly chases the other to the bottom of customer satisfaction - each  lowering its price as it mimics the others with cost cuts.

In 1963 National Airlines ran ads asking "is this any way to run an airline?" Well, no. 

Success today - everywhere, not just airlines - requires more than operational focus.  Constantly cutting costs ruins the brand, customer satisfaction, eliminates investment in new products and inevitably kills profitability.  The litany of failed airlines demonstrates just how ineffective this strategy has become.  Because operational improvements are so easily matched by competitors, and ignores alternatives (like trains, buses and automobiles for airlines) it leads to price wars, lower profits and bankruptcy.

Nobody looks to airlines as a model of management.  But many companies still believe operational excellence will lead to success.  They need to look at the long-term implications of this strategy, and recognize that without innovation, new products and highly satisfied new customers no business will thrive - or even survive.

How Samsung Changed the Game on Apple

The iPad is now 3 years old.  Hard to believe we've only had tablets such a short time, given how common they have become.  It's easy to forget that when launched almost all analysts thought the iPad was a toy that would be lucky to sell a few million units.  Apple blew away that prediction in just a few months, as people demonstrated their lust for mobility.  To date the iPad has sold 121million units - with an ongoing sales rate of nearly 20million per quarter.

Following very successful launches of the iPod (which transformed music from CDs to MP3) and iPhone (which turned everyone into smartphone users,) the iPad's transformation of personal technology made Apple look like an impenetrable juggernaut - practically untouchable by any competitor!  The stock soared from $200/share to over $700/share, and Apple became the most valuable publicly traded company on any American exchange!

But things look very different now.  Despite huge ongoing sales (iPad sales exceed Windows sales,) and a phenomenal $30B cash hoard ($100B if you include receivables) Apple's value has declined by 40%! 

In the tech world, people tend to think competition is all about the product.  Feature and functionality comparisons abound.  And by that metric, no one has impacted Apple.  After 3 years in development, Microsoft's much anticipated Surface has been a bust - selling only about 1.5million units in the first 6 months.  Nobody has created a product capable of outright dethroning the i product series.  Quite simply, there have been no "game changer" products that dramatically outperform Apple's.

But, any professor of introductory marketing will tell you that there are 4 P's in marketing: Product, Price, Place and Promotion.  And understanding that simple lesson was the basis for the successful onslaught Samsung has waged upon Apple in 2012 and 2013. 

Samsung did not change the game with technology or product.  It has used the same Android starting point as most competitors for phones and tablets.  It's products are comparable to Apple's - but not dramatically superior.  And while they are cheaper, in most instances that has not been the reason people switched.  Instead, Samsung changed the game by focusing on distribution and advertising!

 
Chart courtesy Jay Yarrow, Business Insider 4/2/13 and Horace Dediu, Asymco

The remarkable insight from this chart is that Samsung is spending almost 4.5 times Apple - and $1B more than perennial consumer goods brand leader Coca-Cola on advertising! Simultaneously, Samsung has set up kiosks and stores in malls and retail locations all over America.

Can you imagine having the following conversation in your company in 2010?:

"As Vice President of Marketing I propose we take on the market leader not by having a superior product.  We will change the game from features and function comparisons to availability and awareness.  I intend to spend more than anyone in our industry on advertising - even more than Coke.  And I will open so many information and sales locations that our products will be as available as Coke.  We'll be everywhere.  Our products may not be better, but they will be everywhere and everyone will know about them."

Samsung found Apple's Achilles heel.  As Apple's revenues rose it did not keep its marketing growing.  SG&A (Selling, General and Administrative) expense declined from 14% of revenues in 2006 to 5% in 2012; of course aiding its skyrocketing profits.  And Apple continued to sell through its fairly limited distribution of Apple stores and network providers.  Apple started to "milk" its hard won brand position, rather than intensify it.

Samsung took advantage of Apple's oversight.  Samsung maintained its SG&A budget at 15% of revenues - even growing it to 24% for a brief time in 2009, before returning to 15%.  As its revenues grew, advertising and distribution grew.  Instead of looking back at its old ad budget in dollars, and maintaining that budget, Samsung allowed the budget to grow (to a huge number!) along with revenues. 

And that's how Samsung changed the game on Apple.  Once America's untouchable brand, the Apple brand has faltered.  People now question Apple's sustainability. Some now recognize Apple is vulnerable, and think its best times are behind it.  And it's all because Samsung ignored the industry lock-in to constantly focusing on product, and instead changed the game on Apple.

Something Microsoft should have thought about - but didn't.

Of course, Apple's profits are far, far higher than Samsung's.  And Apple is still a great company, and a well regarded brand, with tremendous sales.  There are ongoing rumors of a new iOS 7 operating system, an updated format for iPads, potentially a dramatically new iPhone and even an iTV.  And Apple is not without great engineers, and a HUGE war chest which it could use on advertising and distribution to go heads up with Samsung.

But, at least for now, Samsung has demonstrated how a competitor can change the game on a market leader.  Even a leader as successful and powerful as Apple.  And Samsung's leaders deserve a lot of credit for seeing the opportunity - and seizing it!

 

Why Small Business Leaders are Missing the Digital/Mobile Revolution

It is an unfortunate fact that small businesses fail at a higher rate than large businesses.  While we've come to accept this, it somewhat flies in the face of logic.  After all, small businesses are run by owners who can achieve entrepreneurial returns rather than managerial bonuses, so incentive is high.  Conventional wisdom is that small businesses have fewer, and closer relationships to customers (think Ace Hardware franchisees vs. Home Depot.)  And lacking layers of overhead and embedded management they should be more nimble.

Yet, they fail.  From as high as 9 out of 10 for restaurants to 4 out of 10 in more asset intensive business-to-business ventures.  That is far higher than large companies.

Why?  Despite conventional wisdom most small businesses are run by leaders committed to a single, narrow success formula.  Most are wedded to their core ideology, based on personal history, and unwilling to adapt until the business completely fails.  Most reject new technologies and other emerging innovations as long as possible, trying to conserve  cash and wait for "more proof" change will pay off.  Additionally, most spend little time investing time, or money, in innovation at all as they pour everything into defending and extending their historical business approach. 

Take for example the major trend to digital marketing.  Everyone knows that digital is the only growing ad market, while print is fast dying:
Chart republished with permission of Jay Yarow, Business Insider 3/19/2013

Yet AdWeek reported a new Boston Consulting Group study reveals that a mere 3% of small business ad dollars are in digital!

Digital marketing is one of the few places where ads can be purchased for as little as $100.  Digital ads are targeted at users based upon their searches and pages viewed, thus delivered directly to likely buyers.  And digital ads consistently demonstrate the highest rate of return.  That's why it's growing at over 20%/year!

Yet, small businesses continue to put most of their money into local newspapers and direct mail circulars.  The least targeted of all advertising, and increasingly the least read!  While print ad spending has declined over 80% the last few years, to 1950 levels (adjusted for inflation,) smarter businesses have abandoned the media.  At large companies in 2012 38% of advertising is on digital, second only to TV's 42% - and rapidly moving into first place!

A second major trend is the move to mobile and app usage.  In the last 2 years mobile users have grown and shown a distinct preference for apps over mobile web sites.  App use is growing while mobile web sites have stalled:
Chart republished with permission of Alex Cocotas, Business Insider 3/20/13

Even though there are over 1million apps available for iPhone and Android users, the vast majority of small businesses have no apps aligned with their business and customers.  Most small businesses, late to the game in digital marketing, are content to try and add mobile capability to their already existing web site - hoping that it will be sufficient for future growth. Meanwhile, customers are going directly for apps in accelerating numbers every month!
Chart republished with permission of Alex Cocotas, Business Insider 1/8/13

Rather than act like market leaders, using customer intimacy and nimbleness to jump ahead of lumbering giants, small business leaders complain they are unsure of app value - and keep spending money on historical artifacts (like their web site) rather than invest in higher return innovation opportunities.  Many small businesses are spending $20k+/year on printed brochures, coupons and newspaper or magazine PR when a like amount spent on an app could connect them much more tightly with customers, add higher value and expand their base more quickly and more profitably!

The trend to digital marketing - including the explosive growth in mobile app use - is proven.  And due to very low relative up-front cost, as well as low variable cost, both trends are a wonderful boon for small businesses ready to adopt, adapt and grow.  But, unfortunately, the vast majoritiy of small business leaders are behaving oppositely!  They remain wedded to outdated marketing and customer relationship processes that are too expensive, with lower yield! 

The opportunity is greater now than during most times for smaller competitors to be disruptive.  They can seize new innovations faster, and leverage them before larger competitors.  But as long as they cling to old practices and processes, and beliefs about historical markets, they will continue to fail, smashed under the heal of slower moving, bureaucratic large companies who have larger resources when they do finally take action.

 

Related articles

Innovation REALLY Matters - Lessons Learned from Detroit

Clearing Up Digital Marketing Confusion Among SMBs

Google Goes All In For Digital Marketing : Starts Think Insights

How To Adapt A Business To The New Mobile Reality

More than One-Quarter of SMB Websites Cannot Be Found in Online...

Small Businesses are Missing from Digital Ads Marketplace

Why Yahoo Investors Should Worry about Marissa Mayer

Marissa Mayer created a firestorm this week by issuing an email requiring all employees who work from home to begin daily commuting to Yahoo offices.  Some folks are saying this is going to be a blow to long-term employees, hamper productivity and will harm the company. Others are saying this will improve communications and cooperation, thin out unproductive employees and help Yahoo.

While there are arguments to be made on both sides, the issue is far simpler than many people make it out to be - and the implications for shareholders are downright scary.

Yahoo has been a strugging company for several years.  And the reason has nothing to do with its work from home policy.  Yahoo has lacked an effective strategy for a decade - and changing its work from home policy does nothing to fix that problem.

In the late 1990s almost every computer browser had Yahoo as its home page.  But Yahoo long ago lost its leadership position in content aggregation, search and ad placement.    Now, Yahoo is irrelevant.  It has no technology advantage, no product advantage and no market advantage.  It is so weak in all markets that its only value has been as a second competitor that keeps the market leader from being attacked as a monopolist! 

A series of CEOs have been unable to develop a new strategy for Yahoo to make it more like Amazon or Apple and less like - well, Yahoo.  With much fanfare Ms. Mayer was brought into the flailing company from Google, which is a market leader, to turn around Yahoo.  Only she's been on the job 7 months, and there still is no apparent strategy to return Yahoo to greatness. 

Instead, Ms. Mayer has delivered to investors a series of tactical decisions, such as changing the home page layout and now the work from home policy.  If tactical decisions alone could fix Yahoo Carol Bartz would have been a hero - instead of being pushed out by the Board in disgrace. 

Many leading pundits are enthused with CEO Mayer's decision to force all employees into offices.  They are saying she is "making the tough decisions" to "cut the corporate cost structure" and "push people to be more productive." Underlying this lies thinking that the employees are lazy and to blame for Yahoo's failure. 

Balderdash.  It's not employees' fault Yahoo, and Ms. Mayer, lack an effective strategy to earn a high return on their efforts. 

It isn't hard for a new CEO to change policies that make it harder for people to do their jobs - by cutting hours out of their day via commuting.  Or lowering productivity as they are forced into endless meetings that "enhance communication and cooperation." Or forcing them out of the company entirely with arcane work rules in a misguided effort to lower operating costs or overhead.  Any strategy-free CEO can do those sorts of things. 

Just look at how effective this approach was for

• "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap at Scott Paper
• "Fast Eddie" Lampert at Sears
• Carol Bartz at Yahoo
• Meg Whitman at HP
• Brian Dunn at Best Buy
• Gregory Rayburn at Hostess
• Antonio Perez at Kodak

The the fact that some Yahoo employees work from home has nothing to do with the lack of strategy, innovation and growth at Yahoo.  That failure is due to leadership.  Bringing these employees into offices will only hurt morale, increase real estate costs and push out several valuable workers who have been diligently keeping afloat a severely damaged Yahoo ship. These employees, whether in an office or working at home, will not create a new strategy for Yahoo.  And bringing them into offices will not improve the strategy development or innovation processes. 

Regardless of anyone's personal opinions about working from home, it has been the trend for over a decade.  Work has changed dramatically the last 30 years, and increasingly productivity relies on having time, alone, to think and produce charts, graphs, documents, lines of code, letters, etc.  Technologies, from PCs to mobile devices and the software used on them (including communications applications like WebEx, Skype and other conferencing tools) make it possible for people to be as productive remotely as in person. Usually more productive removed from interruptions.

Taking advantage of this trend helps any company to hire better, and be more productive.  Going against this trend is simply foolish - regardless the intellectual arguments made to support such a decision. Apple fought the trend to PCs and almost failed.  When it wholesale adopted the trend to mobile, seriously reducing its commitment to PC markets, Apple flourished.  It is ALWAYS easier to succeed when you work with, and augment trends.  Fighting trends ALWAYS fails.

Yahoo investors have plenty to be worried about.  Yahoo doesn't need a "tough" CEO.  Yahoo needs a CEO with the insight to create, and implement, a new strategy.  And a series of tactical actions do not sum to a new strategy.  As importantly, the new strategy - and its implementation - needs to augment trends.  Not go against trends while demonstrating the clout of a new CEO. 

If you've been waiting to figure out if Ms. Mayer is the CEO that can make Yahoo a great company again, the answer is becoming clear.  She increasingly appears very unlikely to have what it takes.

Innovation REALLY Matters - Lessons Learned from Detroit

Forbes republished its annual "Most Miserable Cities" list.  It looks at employment/unemployment, inflation, incomes and cost of living, crime, weather, commute times - a pretty good overview of things tied to living somewhere.  Detroit ranked first, as the most miserable city, with Flint, MI second.  And my home-sweet-home Chicago came in fourth.  Ouch! 

There is an important lesson here for every city - and for our country.

Detroit was a thriving city during the industrial revolution.  Innovation in all things mechanical led to the modern automobile; a marvelous innovation which, literally, everyone wanted.  As demand skyrocketed, Henry Ford's management team developed the modern assembly line which allowed production volumes to skyrocket as well.  Detroit was a hotbed of industrial innovation.

This fueled growth in jobs, which led to massive immigration to Detroit.  With growth the tax base expanded, and quickly Detroit was a leading city with all the best things people could want.  In the 1950s and 1960s Detroit reaped the benefits of the local auto companies, and their suppliers, as ongoing innovations drove better cars, more sales, more revenue taxes, higher property values and higher property taxes.  It was a glorious virtuous circle.

But things changed.

Offshore competitors came into the market creating different kinds of autos appealing to different customers.  Initially they had lower costs, and less expensive designs.  Their cars weren't as good as GM, Ford or Chrysler - but they were cheap.  And when gasoline prices took off in the 1970s people suddenly realized these cars were also more fuel efficient and cheaper to maintain.  As these offshore competitors gained more sales they invested in making better cars, until they had quality as good as the Detroit companies, plus better fuel efficiency.

But the Detroit companies had become stuck in their processes that worked in earlier days.  Even though the market shifted, they didn't.  What passed for innovations were increasingly simple appearance changes as bottom-line focus reduced willingness to do new things, and offered fewer new things to do.  GM and its brethren didn't shift with the market, and by the 1980s the seeds of big problems already were showing.  By the 1990s profits were increasingly variable and elusive.

The formerly weak and small competitors now were more competitive in a changed market favoring smaller cars with more, and better, technology.  The market had changed, but the big American auto companies had not.  They kept doing more of the same - hopefully better, faster and striving for cheaper.  But they were falling further behind.  By the 2000s decade failure had become the viable option, with both Chrysler and GM going bankrupt.

As this cycle played out, the impact on Detroit was clear.  Less success in the business base meant fewer revenue tax dollars from less profitable companies.  Cost reductions meant employment stagnated, then started falling.  Incomes stagnated, and people left Detroit to find better paying jobs. Property values began to fall.  Income and property taxes declined.  Governments had to borrow more, and cut costs, leading to declines in services.  What had been a virtuous circle became a violently destructive whirlpool.

Detroit's business leaders failed to invest in programs to drive more new jobs in non-auto, non-industrial, business development.  As competitors hurt the local industry, Detroit (and Michigan's) leaders kept trying to invest in saving the historical business, while the economy was shifting from an industrial base to an information one.  It wasn't just autos that were less valuable as companies, but everything industrial.  Yet, leaders failed at attracting new technology companies.  The economic shift - the market shift - was unaddressed, and now Detroit is bankrupt.

Much as I like living in Chicago, unfortunately the story is far too similar in my town.  Long an industrial hub, Chicago (and Illinois) enjoyed the benefits of growing companies, employment and taxes during the heyday of industrialism.  This led to well paid, and very well pensioned, government employees providing services.  The suburbs around Chicago exploded as people migrated to the Windy City for jobs - despite the brutal winters.

But Chicago has been dramatically affected by the shift to an information economy.  The old machine shops, tool and dye makers and myriad parts manufacturers were decimated as that work often went offshore to cheaper manufacturers.  Large manufacturers like Western Electric and International Harvester (renamed Navistar) failed.  Big retailers like Montgomery Wards disappeared, and even Sears has diminished to a ghost of its former self.  All businesses killed by market shifts. 

And as a result, people quit moving to Chicago - and actually started leaving.  There are now fewer jobs in Illinois than in the year 2000, and as a result people have left town.  They've gone to cities (and states) where they could find jobs in growth industries allowing for more opportunity, and rising incomes. 

Just like Detroit, Chicago shows early signs of big problems.  Crime is up, with an unpleasantly large increase in murders.  Insufficient income and property tax revenues led to budget crises across the board.  Dramatic actions like selling city parking meters to shore up finances has led to Chicago having the most expensive parking in the country - despite far from the highest incomes.  Property taxes in suburbs have escalated, with taxes in collar Lake county higher than Los Angeles! Yet the state pension system is bankrupt, causing the legislature to put in place a 50% state income tax increase!  Meanwhile the infrastructure is showing signs of needing desperate work, but there is no money. 

Like Detroit, Chicago's businesses (and governments) have invested insufficiently in innovation.  Recent Chicago Tribune columns on local consumer goods behemoth Kraft emphasized (and typified) the lack of new product development and stalled revenue growth.  Where Bay Area tech companies expect 50% of revenues (or more) from new products (or variations), Kraft has admitted it has relied on stalwarts like Velveeta and Mac & Cheese so much that fewer than 10% of revenues come from anything new. 

Culturally, too many decisions in the executive suites of both the companies, and the governments, are focused on what worked in the past rather than investing in innovation.  Even though the vaunted University of Illinois has one of the world's top 5 engineering schools, the majority of graduates find they leave the state for better paying jobs.  And a dearth of angel or venture funding means that start-ups simply are forced coastal if they hope to succeed.

And this reaches to our national policies as well.  Plenty of arguments abound for cutting costs - but are we effectively investing in innovation?  Do our tax policies, as well as our expenditures, drive innovation - or constrict it?  It was government programs which unleashed nuclear power and gave us a rash of innovations from putting a man on the moon.  Yet, today, we seem obsessed with cutting budgets, cutting costs and doing less - not even more - of the same. 

Growth is a wonderful thing.  But growth does not happen without investment in innovation.  When companies, or industries, stop investing in innovation growth slows - and eventually stops.  Communities, states and even nations cannot thrive unless there is a robust program of investing for, and implementing, innovation. 

With innovation you create renewal.  Without it you create Detroit.

Dell - Take the Money and Run! Innovation trumps execution.

Michael Dell has put together a hedge fund, one of his largest suppliers and some debt money to take his company, Dell, Inc. private.  There are large investors threatening to sue, claiming the price isn't high enough.  While they are wrangling, small investors should consider this privatization manna from heaven, take the new, higher price and run to invest elsewhere - thankful you're getting more than the company is worth.

In the 1990s everybody thought Dell was an incredible company.  With literally no innovation a young fellow built an enormously large, profitable company using other people's money, and technology.  Dell jumped into the PC business as it was born.  Suppliers were making the important bits, and looking for "partners" to build boxes.  Dell realized he could let other people invest in microprocessor, memory, disk drive, operating system and application software development.  All he had to do was put the pieces together. 

Dell was the rare example of a company that was built on nothing more than execution.  By marketing hard, selling hard, buying smart and building cheap Dell could produce a product for which demand was skyrocketing.  Every year brought out new advancements from suppliers Dell could package up and sell as the latest, greatest model.  All Dell had to do was stay focused on its "core" PC market, avoid distractions, and win at execution.  Heck, everyone was going to make money building and selling PCs.  How much you made boiled down to how hard you worked.  It wasn't about strategy or innovation - just execution. 

Dell's business worked for one simple reason.  Everybody wanted PCs.  More than one.  And everybody wanted bigger, more powerful PCs as they came available.  Market demand exploded as the PC became part of everything companies, and people, do.  As long as demand was growing, Dell was growing.  And with clever execution - primarily focused on speed (sell, build, deliver, get the cash before the supplier has to be paid) - Dell became a multi-billion dollar company, and its founder a billionaire with no college degree, and no claim to being a technology genius.

But, the market shifted.  As this column has pointed out many times, demand for PCs went flat - never to return to previous growth rates.  Users have moved to mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets, while corporate IT is transitioning from PC servers to cloud services.  iPad sales now nearly match all of Dell's sales.  Dell might well be the world's best PC maker, but when people don't want PCs that doesn't matter any more.

Which is why Dell's sales, and profits, began to fall several years ago.  And even though Michael Dell returned to run the company 6 years ago, the downward direction did not change.  At its "core" Dell has no ability to innovate, or create new products.  It is like HTC - merely a company that sells and assembles, with all of its "focus" on cost/price.  That's why Samsung became the leader in Android smartphones and tablets, and why Dell never launched a Chrome tablet.  Lacking any innovation capability, Dell relied on its suppliers to tell it what to build.  And its suppliers, notably Microsoft and Intel, entirely missed the shift to mobile.  Leaving Dell long on execution skills, but with nowhere to apply them.

Market watchers knew this. That's why  Dell's stock took a long ride from its lofty value on the rapids of growth to the recent distinctly low value as it slipped into the whirlpool of failure.

Now Dell has a trumped up story that it needs to go public in order to convert itself from a PC maker into an IT services company selling cloud and mobile capabilities to small and mid-sized businesses.  But Dell doesn't need to go private to do this, which alone makes the story ring hollow.  It's going private because doing so allows Michael Dell to recapitalize the company with mountains of debt, then use internal cash to buy out his stock before the company completely fails wiping out a big chunk of his remaining fortune.

If you think adding debt to Dell will save it from the market shift, just look at how well that strategy worked for fixing Tribune Corporation. A Sam Zell led LBO took over the company claiming he had plans for a new future, as advertisers shifted away from newspapers.  Bankruptcy came soon enough, employee pensions were wiped out, massive layoffs undertaken and 4 years of legal fighting followed to see if there was any plan that would keep the company afloat.  Debt never fixes a failing company, and Dell knows that.  Dell has no answer to changing market demand away from PCs.

Now the buzzards are circling.  HP has been caught in a rush to destruction ever since CEO Fiorina decided to buy Compaq and gut the HP R&D in an effort to follow Dell's wild revenue ride.  Only massive cost cutting by the following CEO Hurd kept HP alive, wiping out any remnants of innovation.  Now HP has a dismal future.  But it hopes that as the PC market shrinks the elimination of one competitor, Dell, will give newest CEO Whitman more time to somehow find something HP can do besides follow Dell into bankruptcy court.

Watching as its execution-oriented ecosystem manufacturers are struggling, supplier Microsoft is pulling out its wallet to try and extend the timeline.  Plundering its $85B war chest, Microsoft keeps adding features, with acquisitions such as Skype, that consume cash while offering no returns - or even strong reasons for people to stop the transition to tablets. 

Additionally it keeps putting up money for companies that it hopes will build end-user products on its software, such as its $500M investment in Barnes & Noble's Nook and now putting $2B into Dell.  $85B is a lot of money, but how much more will Microsoft have to spend to keep HP alive - or money losing Acer - or Lenovo?  A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to a lot of money!  Not counting losses in its own entertainmnet and on-line divisions.  The transition to mobile devices is permanent and Microsoft has arrived at the game incredibly late - and with products that simply cannot obtain better than mixed reviews.

The lesson to learn is that management, and investors, take a big risk when they focus on execution.  Without innovation, organizations become reliant on vendors who may, or may not, stay ahead of market transitions.  When an organization fails to be an innovator, someone who creates its own game changers, and instead tries to succeed by being the best at execution eventually market shifts will kill it.  It is not a question of if, but when.

Being the world's best PC maker is no better than being the world's best maker of white bread (Hostess) or the world's best maker of photographic film (Kodak) or the world's best 5 and dime retailer (Woolworth's) or the world's best manufacturer of bicycles (Schwinn) or cold rolled steel (Bethlehem Steel.)  Being able to execute - even execute really, really well - is not a long-term viable strategy.  Eventually, innovation will create market shifts that will kill you.

Related articles

Sell Microsoft NOW - Game over, Ballmer loses

Dell in $24.4B founder-led deal to go private

Related articles

Why Twitter Won the SuperBowl While Traditional Ad Execs Don't Get It

Reading reviews of Super Bowl ads I was struck by two observations:

1. The reviewers got the value of most ads backwards
2. They missed the most important ad of all - on Twitter

Super Bowl ads cost $1M+ to make.  Then they cost $2M+ to air.  So it is an expensive proposition.  This isn't fine art, like a Picasso, with a long shelf life to create a rate of return.  These ads need to pay off fast.  They need to build the brand with existing and/or new customers to drive sales and make back that money now.

So let's start with one of the best reviewed ads - Chrysler's "God Made a Farmer". Reviewers liked the home-spun approach of using a dead conservative radio commentator voicing over pictures of farmers in pick-ups.  Unfortunately, from a rate of return perspective my bet is this ad will end up near the very bottom.  

• Firstly, the 50 year trend is to urbanization.  In 1900 9 out of 10 Americans had something to do with agriculture.  Now it is fewer than 1 in 20.  Trucks are used for lots of things, but farming makes up a small percentage.  It has been a full generation since most 2nd generation Americans had anything to do with a farm.  Showing people using a product in ways that almost nobody uses it, and with a message most of your target market doesn't even recognize, leaves most people confused rather than ready to buy.
• Secondly, first generation Americans are changing the demographics of America quickly.  First generation Americans (can I say immigrant?) proved large enough, and powerful enough, to play a spoiler role in Mitt Romney's run for the Presidency.  To them, farming in America has no history, appeal or meaning to their lives. 
• Thirdly, no one under the age of 35 has any idea who Paul Harvey is.  Perhaps Chrysler could have used Bill O'Reilly and achieved its message mission.  But as it was, there were two of us +50 people who spent 5 minutes trying to tell the group watching the game at my home who Paul Harvey even was - and why he was being quoted.

A 24 year old boy watching the game with me in suburban Chicago listened to my explanation about Paul Harvey and farming.  He drives a Ford F-250 4x4 pick-up.  After I finished he looked me square in the eyes and said "Swing, and a miss."  And that's what I'd say to Chrysler.  Whoever made this ad had more money than market research and common sense.

Simultaneously, reviewers hated GoDaddy.com's "Perfect Match, Bar Rafieli's Big Kiss." This portrayed a very stereotypical engineer enjoying a long kiss with a pretty girl - referring to how the company's products well serve client needs.  Reviewers found the ad in bad taste.  My bet is this ad will have immediate payback for GoDaddy.com

Have you ever heard of the monstrously successful situation comedy "The Big Bang Theory?"  At just about any time you can find this in reruns on at least one, if not more than one, cable channel.  The show is so successful that to pull people viewers to its Monday night schedule CBS actually chose to rerun "Big Bang" episodes amidst new episodes of its other programs in January.  The show thrives on the tension of male technical professionals seeking to solve the age old question of how a man can appeal to desirable ladies.  Politically correct or not, the show is successful because it is a timeless message.  Most boys want to be liked by girls.

Today the world of people who have technical, or quasi-technical jobs, is HUGE.   GoDaddy's target audience of people buying, and servicing, web domains just happens to be mostly male under-40 men with technical or quasi-technical backgrounds.  This little, tasteless demonstration may have upset the high ethics of ad execs (or has "Mad Men" unraveled that myth?) but to its target group this ad was pure gold.  And same for GoDaddy.com.

But most importantly, none of these ads will have the payback of 9 words a marketer tweeted when the lights went out at the game.  Because it had blown a huge wad of money on a traditional game ad the Oreo brand folks at Mondelez were watching the game with their media agency 360i.  Thinking quickly the creatives came up with an idea, and the brand guys approved it - so out went the tweet from Oreo Cookies "No problem.  You can still dunk in the dark."

"Booya" as my young friends say.  10,000 retweets and an entire Monday news cycle devoted to the quick thinking folks who posted this tweet.  ROI?  Given that the incremental cost was zero, pretty darn high. If I was investing, I'd take the tweet over the video.  The equivalent of a kick return for a TD.

The world has changed.  We now live in a 24x7, real-time, always-on world.  We no longer wait for the weekly magazine for analysis, or the daily newspaper for information.  Or even the 11:00 television daily recap.  We pick up alerts on our mobile devices constantly.  Receive highlights from friends on Facebook and Twitter.  We want our information NOW.  And those who connect to this new way of living for providing us information are not only accepted, but admired by those thriving on the social networks.

This year's Super Bowl social media postings were triple last year's; over 30million.  This is the world of immediate feedback.  Immediate discussion.  And the place were ads need to be immediate as well.  Those who understand this, and connect to it, will succeed.  Others, who spend too much to make and then distribute ads on traditional media, will not.  Just as newspaper ads have lost of their relevance - TV ads are destined for the same conclusion.

The good news is that Mondelez and its Oreos team was ready, and willing, to take advantage.  Where were most of the other advertisers?  Audi, VW and P&G's Tide also jumped in.  But of all those millions spent on once-run ads, these major corporate advertisers - and their extremely highly paid ad agencies - were absent.  When the easy money was to be made, they simply weren't there.  Off drinking beer and watching the game when they should have been working!

Today we learned Twitter is buying Bluefin to make its information on who is tweeting, about what, in real time even better.  This will be helpful for any smart advertiser.  And not just the multi-billion dollar giants.  The good news is anyone, anywhere in any size company can play in this real-time, on-line social media world.  You don't have to be huge, or rich. 

Where were you when the lights went out?  Were you taking advantage of what we may later call a "once in a lifetime" opportunity? 

Where will you be the next time?  Are you ready to invest in the new world of social media advertising?   Or are you stuck spending too much to come in too late?

And the Winner Is - Netflix!!

Last week's earning's announcements gave us some big news.  Looking around the tech industry, a number of companies reported about as expected, and their stocks didn't move a lot.  Apple had robust sales and earnings, but missed analyst targets and fell out of bed!  But without a doubt, the big winner was Netflix, which beat expectations and had an enormous ~50% jump in valuation!

My what a difference 18 months makes (see chart.)  For anyone who thinks the stock market is efficient the value of Netflix should make one wonder.  In July, 2011 the stock ended a meteoric run-up to $300/share, only to fall 80% to $60/share by year's end.  After whipsawing between $50 and $130, but spending most of 2012 near the lower number, the stock is now up 3-fold to $160!  Nothing scares investors more than volatility - and this kind of volatility would scare away almost anyone but a day trader!

Yet, through all of this I have been - and I remain - bullish on Netflix.  During its run-up in 2010 I wrote "Why You Should Love Netflix," then when the stock crashed in late 2011 I wrote "The Case for Buying Netflix" and last January I predicted Netflix to be "the turnaround story of 2012."  It would be logical to ask why I would remain bullish through all the ups and downs of this cycle - especially since Netflix is still only about half of its value at its high-point.

Simply put, Netflix has 2 things going for it that portend a successful future:

1. Netflix is in a very, very fast growing market.  Streaming entertainment.  People have what appears to be an insatiable desire for entertainment, and the market not only has grown at a breathtaking rate, but it will continue to grow extremely fast for several more quarters.  It is unclear where the growth rate may tap out for content delivery - putting Netflix in a market that offers enormous growth for all participants.
2. Netflix leadership has shown a penchant for having the right strategy to remain a market leader - even when harshly criticized for taking fast action to deal with market shifts.  Specifically, choosing to rapidly cannibalize its own DVD business by aggressively promoting streaming - even at lower margins - meant Netflix chose growth over defensiveness.

In 2011 CEO Reed Hastings was given "CEO of the Year 2010" honors by Fortune magazine.  But in 2011, as he split Netflix into 2 businesses - DVD and streaming - and allowed them to price independently and compete with each other for customer business he was trounced as the "dunce" of tech CEOs. 

His actions led to a price increase of 60% for anyone who decided to buy both Netflix products, and many customers chose to drop one.  Analysts predicted this to be the end of Netflix. 

But in retrospect we can see the brilliance of this decision.  CEO Hastings actually did what textbooks tell us to do - he began milking the installed, but outdated, DVD business.  He did not kill it, but he began pulling profits and cash out of it to pay for building the faster growing, but lower margin, streaming business.  This allowed Netflix to actually grow revenue, and grow profits, while making the market transition from one platform (DVD) to another (streaming.)

Almost no company pulls off this kind of transition.  Most companies try to defend and extend the company's "core" product far too long, missing the market transition.  But now Netflix is adding around 2 million new streaming customers/quarter, while losing 400,000 DVD subscribers.  And with the price changes, this has allowed the company to add content and expand internationally -- and increase profits!!

Marketwatch headlined that "Naysayers Must Feel Foolish."  But truthfully, they were just looking at the wrong numbers.  They were fixated on the shrinking installed base of DVD subscribers.  But by pushing these customers to make a fast decision, Netflix was able to convert most of them to its new streaming business before they went out and bought the service from a competitor. 

Aggressive cannibalization actually was the BEST strategy given how fast tablet and smartphone sales were growing and driving up demand for streaming entertainment.  Capturing the growth market was far, far more valuable than trying to defend the business destined for obsolescence. 

Netflix simply did its planning looking out the windshield, at what the market was going to look like in 3 years, rather than trying to protect what it saw in the rear view mirror.  The market was going to change - really fast.  Faster than most people expected.  Competitors like Hulu and Amazon and even Comcast wanted to grab those customers.  The Netflix goal had to be to go headlong into the cold, but fast moving, water of the new streaming market as aggressively as possible.  Or it would end up like Blockbuster that tried renting DVDs from its stores too long - and wound up in bankruptcy court.

There are people who still doubt that Netflix can compete against other streaming players.  And this has been the knock on Netflix since 2005.  That Amazon, Walmart or Comcast would crush the smaller company.  But what these analysts missed was that Amazon and Walmart are in a war for the future of retail - not entertainment - and their efforts in streaming were more to protect a flank in their retail strategy, not win in streaming entertainment.  Likewise, Comcast and its brethren are out to defend cable TV, not really win at anytime, anywhere streaming entertainment.  Their defensive behavior would never allow them to lead in a fast-growing new marketplace.  Thus the market was left for Netflix to capture - if it had the courage to rapidly cannibalize its base and commit to the new marketplace.

Hulu and Redbox are also competitors.  And they very likely will do very well for several years.  Because the market is growing very fast and can support multiple players.  But Netflix benefits from being first, and being biggest.  It has the most cash flow to invest in additional growth.  It has the largest subscriber base to attract content providers earlier, and offer them the most money.  By maintaining its #1 position - even by cannibalizing itself to do so - Netflix is able to keep the other competitors at bay; reinforcing its leadership position.

There are some good lessons here for everyone:

1. Think long-term, not short-term.  A king can become a goat only to become a king again if he haa the right strategy.  You probably aren't as good as the press says when they like you, nor as bad as they say when hated.  Don't let yourself be goaded into giving up the long-term win for short-term benefits.
2. Growth covers a multitude of sins!  The way Netflix launched its 2-division campaign in 2011 was a disaster.  But when a market is growing at 100%+ you can rapidly recover.  Netflix grew its streaming user base by more than 50% last year - and that fixes a lot of mistakes. Anytime you have a choice, go for the fast growing market!!
3. Follow the trend!  Never fight the trend!  Tablet sales were growing at an amazing clip, while DVD players had no sales gains.  With tablet and smartphone sales eclipsing DVD player sales, the smart move was to go where the trend was headed.  Being first on the trend has high payoff.  Moving slowly is death.  Kodak failed to aggressively convert film camera customers to its own digital cameras, and it filed bankruptcy in 2012.
4. Dont' forget to be profitable!  Even if it means raising prices on dated solutions that will eventually become obsolete - to customer howls.  You must maximize the profits of an outdated product line as fast as possible. Don't try to defend and extend it.  Those tactics use up cash and resources rather than contributing to future success.
5. Cannibalizing your installed base is smart when markets shift.  Regardless the margin concerns.  Newspapers said they could not replace "print ad dollars" with "on-line ad dimes" so many went bankrupt defending the paper as the market shifted.  Move fast. Force the cannibalization early so you can convert existing customers to your solution, and keep them, before they go to an emerging competitor.
6. When you need to move into a new market set up a new division to attack it.  And give them permission to do whatever it takes.  Even if their actions aggravate existing customers and industry participants.  Push them to learn fast, and grow fast - and even to attack old sacred cows (like bundled pricing.)

There were a lot of people who thought my call that Netflix would be the turnaround tech story of 2012 was simply bizarre.  But they didn't realize the implications of the massive trend to tablets and smartphones.  The impact is far-reaching - affecting not only computer companies but television, content delivery and content creation.  Netflix positioned itself to be a winner, and implemented the tactics to make that strategy work despite widespread skepticism. 

Hats off to Netflix leadership.  A rare breed.  That's why long-term investors should own the stock.

Sell Microsoft NOW - Game over, Ballmer loses

Microsoft needed a great Christmas season.  After years of product stagnation, and a big market shift toward mobile devices from PCs, Microsoft's future relied on the company seeing customers demonstrate they were ready to jump in heavily for Windows8 products - including the new Surface tablet.

But that did not happen. 

With the data now coming it, it is clear the market movement away from Microsoft products, toward Apple and Android products, has not changed.  On Christmas eve, as people turned on their new devices and launched their first tweet, Surface came in dead last - a mere 2% compared to the number of people tweeting from iPads (Kindle was second, Android third.)  Looking at more traditional units shipped information, UBS analysts reported Surface sales were 5% of iPads shipped.  And the usability reviews continue to run highly negative for Surface and Win8.

This inability to make a big splash, and mount a serious attack on Apple/Android domination, is horrific for Microsoft primarily because we now know that traditional PC sales are well into decline.  Despite the big Win8 launch and promotion, holiday PC sales declined over 3% compared to 2011 as journalists reported customers found "no compelling reason to upgrade."  Ouch!

Looking deeper, for the 4th quarter PC sales declined by almost 5% according to Gartner research, and by almost 6.5% according to IDC.  Both groups no longer expect a rebound in PC shipments, as they believe homes will no longer have more than 1 PC due to the mobile device penetration  - the market where Surface and Win8 phones have failed to make any significant impact or move beyond a tiny market share.  Users increasingly see the complexity of shifting to Win8 as not worth the effort; and if a switch is to be made consumer and businesses now favor iOS and Android.

Microsoft's monopoly over personal computing has evaporated.  From 95% market domination in 2005 share has fallen to just 20% in 2012 (IDC, Goldman Sachs.)  Comparing devices, in 2005 there were 55 Windows devices sold for every Apple device; today explosive Apple sales has lowered that multiple to a mere 2! (Asymco).  Universally the desire to upgrade Microsoft products has simply disappeared, as XP still has 40% of the Windows market - and even Vista at 5.7% has more users than Win8 which has only achieved a 1.75% Windows market share despite the long wait and launch hoopla. And with all future market growth coming in tablets, which are expected to more than double unit volume sales by 2016, Microsoft is simply not in the game.

These trends mean nothing short of the ruin of Microsoft.  Microsoft makes more than 75% of its profits from Windows and Office.  Less than 25% comes from its vaunted servers and tools.  And Microsoft makes nothing from its xBox/Kinect entertainment division, while losing vast sums on-line (negative $350M-$750M/quarter).  No matter how much anyone likes the non-Windows Microsoft products, without the historical Windows/Office sales and profits Microsoft is not sustainable.

So what can we expect at Microsoft:

1. Ballmer has committed to fight to the death in his effort to defend & extend Windows.  So expect death as resources are poured into the unwinnable battle to convert users from iOS and Android.
2. As resources are poured out of the company in the Quixotic effort to prolong Windows/Office, any hope of future dividends falls to zero.
3. Expect enormous layoffs over the next 3 years.  Something like 50-60%, or more, of employees will go away.
4. Expect closure of the long-suffering on-line division in order to conserve resources.
5. The entertainment division will be spun off, sold to someone like Sony or even Barnes & Noble, or dramatically reduced in size.  Unable to make a profit it will increasingly be seen as a distraction to the battle for saving Windows - and Microsoft leadership has long shown they have no idea how to profitably grow this business unit.
6. As more and more of the market shifts to competitive cloud businesses Apple, Amazon and others will grow significantly.  Microsoft, losing its user base, will demonstrate its inability to build a new business in the cloud, mimicking its historical experiences with Zune (mobile music) and Microsoft mobile phones.  Microsoft server and tool sales will suffer, creating a much more difficult profit environment for the sole remaining profitable division.

Missing the market shift to mobile has already forever tarnished the Microsoft brand.  No longer is Microsoft seen as a leader, and instead it is rapidly losing market relevancy as people look to Apple, Google, Amazon, Samsung, Facebook and others for leadership.   The declining sales, and lack of customer interest will lead to a tailspin at Microsoft not unlike what happened to RIM.  Cash will be burned in what Microsoft will consider an "epic" struggle to save the "core of the company." 

But failure is already inevitable.  At this stage, not even a new CEO can save Microsoft.  Steve Ballmer played "Bet the Company" on the long-delayed release of Win8, losing the chance to refocus Microsoft on other growing divisions with greater chance of success.  Unfortunately, the other players already had enough chips to simply bid Microsoft out of the mobile game - and Microsoft's ante is now long gone - without holding a hand even remotely able to turn around the product situation.

Game over. Ballmer loses. And if you keep your money invested in Microsoft it will disappear along with the company.   

Related articles

Mobile Overtakes Desktops in 2013: Microsoft Be Warned

The iPad and the Surface: a tale of two tablets

Microsoft Sold 1 Million Surface Tablets During 2012's Q4

Why Jeff Bezos is our greatest living CEO

The Harvard Business Review recently published its list of the 100 Best Performing CEOs.  This list is better than most because it looks at long-term performance of the CEO during his or her time in the job - with many on the list in service more than a decade.

#1 was Steve Jobs.  #2 is Jeff Bezos - making him the greatest living CEO.  It is startling just how well these two CEOs performed.  During Jobs' tenure Apple investors achieved a return of 66.8 times their money.  During Mr. Bezos' tenure shareholders achieved a remarkable 124.3 times return on their money.  In an era when most of us are happy to earn 5-10%/year - which equates to doubling your money about once a decade - these CEOs exceeded expectations 30-60 fold!

Both of these CEOs achieved greatness by transforming an industry.  We all know the Apple story.  From near bankruptcy as the Mac company Mr. Jobs led Apple into the mobile devices business, and created a transformation from Walkmen, Razrs and PCs to iPods, iPhones and iPads - to the detriment of Sony, Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft, HP and Dell. 

The Amazon story is all the more remarkable because it has been written in the far more mundane world of retail - not known for being nearly as fast-changing at tech.

Lest we forget, Amazon started as an on-line seller of books frequently unavailable at your local bookstore.  "What's a local bookstore?" you may now ask, because through continuous upgrading of its capability to build on the advances in internet usage - across machines, browsers, wi-fi and mobile - Amazon drove into bankruptcy such large booksellers as B.Dalton and Borders - leaving Barnes & Noble a mere shell of its former self and on tenous footing.  And the number of small bookshops has dropped dramatically.

But Amazon's industry transformation has gone far beyond bookselling.  Amazon was one of the first, and by most users considered the best, at offering a complete on-line storefront for any retailer who wants to sell goods through Amazon's site.  You can set up your inventory, display products, provide user information, manage a shopping cart and handle check out all through Amazon - with minimal technical skill.  This allowed Amazon to bring vastly more products to customers; and without adding all the inventory or warehousing cost.

As digital uses grew, Amazon moved beyond the slow-paced publishers to launch the Kindle and give us eReaders displacing paper books and periodicals.  But this was just the first salvo in the effort to promote additional on-line buying, as Amazon next launched Kindle Fire which at remarkably low cost gave people a tablet already set up for doing retail shopping at Amazon.

As Amazon launched its book downloads and on-line services, it built its own cloud services business to aid businesses and people in using tablets, and doing more things on-line; which further reinforced the digital retail world in which Amazon dominates.

And make no doubt about it, Kindle Fire - and the use of all other tablets - is the WalMart and other traditional brick-and-mortar retail killer.  Amazon is now a player in all pieces of the transition which is happening in retail, from traditional shopping to on-line. 

Demand for retail space in the USA began declining in 2009 and has not stopped.  Most analysts blamed it on the great recession.  But in retrospect we can now see it was the watershed year for customers to begin looking more, and buying more, on-line.  Now each year growth in on-line retail continues, while demand at traditional stores wanes.

Just look at this last holiday season.  To (hopefully) drive revenue stores were opening on Thanksgiving, and doing 24 and 48 hours of non-stop staffing and promotions to drive sales.  But it was mostly in vain, as traditional retail saw almost no gains.  Despite doing more and more of what they've always done - trying to be better, faster and cheaper - they simply could not change the trend away from shopping on-line and back into the stores.

For the last year the #1 trend in retailing has been "showrooming" where customers stand in a store with a smartphone comparison pricing on-line (most frequently Amazon) to the product on the shelf.  Retailers were forced to match on-line prices, despite their higher overhead, or lose the business.  And now Target has implemented a policy of price-matching Amazon for all of 2013 in hopes of slowing the trend to on-line purchasing.

Circuit City went bankrupt, which saved Best Buy as it picked up their lost business.  But now Best Buy is close to failure.  Same store sales at WalMart have been flat.  JCPenney recruited Apple's retail store wizard as CEO - but he's learned when you have to compete with Amazon life simply sucks.  Nobody in traditional retail has found a way to reverse the on-line shopping trend, which is still dominated by Amazon.

We all can learn from these two CEOs and the companies they built.  First, and foremost, is understand trends and align with them.  If you help people move in the direction they want to go life is easy, and growth can be phenomenal.  Trying to slow, stop or reverse a trend doesn't work, and is expensive. 

Second, don't ask customers what they want, instead give them what they need.  Customers may be on a trend, but they will frame their requests in the old paradigm.  By creating new trend-promoting products and solutions you can capture the customer and avoid head-to-head competition with the "old guard" titans selling the increasingly outdated solutions.  Don't build better brick-and-mortar, make brick-and-mortar obsolete.

So, what's stopping you from growing your business like Apple or Amazon?  What keeps you from being the next Steve Jobs, or Jeff Bezos?  Can you spot trends and provide trend-supporting solutions for customers?  Or are you stymied because you're spending too much time trying to defend and extend your old business in the face of game changing trends.

Who Wants a Big Mac for Christmas? Bah! Humbug! McDonald's Scrooge!

How would you recognize signs of a troubled business?  Often the key indicator is when leadership clearly takes "more of the same" to excess.

This week McDonald's leadership began encouraging franchisees to open on Christmas Day.  Their primary objective, clearly stated, was to produce more revenue and hopefully show a strong December. 

I nominate McDonald's for the 2012 Dickens' Award as the most Scrooge-est business behavior this season. 

"Christmas is but an excuse for workers to pick their employer's pockets every 25th December" is I believe how Charles Dickens put it in "A Christmas Carol."  Poor Bob Cratchet couldn't even have 1 day off per year.  And in McDonald's case the company founder actually made it corporate policy to never be open on Thanksgiving or Christmas days so employees could be with family. 

Bah! Humbug!

Now, there are a lot of trends McDonald's could legitimately cite when making a case for being open on Christmas - a case that could actually shed a positive light on the company:

• The number of single people has risen over the last decade.  This trend means that many more people now have a need for at least one meal not in a family setting on 25 December.
• America has a large and storied Jewish community for whom 25 December does not have a special religious meaning.  For these people enjoying their habitual norms such as eating at McDonald's would indicate an open-minded company supports all faiths.
• America is a nation of immigrants.  While the founders were European Christians, today America has a very diverse group of immigrants, especially from Asia and the Indian sub-continent, who follow Islam and other faiths for which 25 December has, again, no particular meaning.  Offering them a place to eat on their day off could show a connection with their growing importance to America's future.  An act of understanding to their impact on the country.

These are just 3, and there are likely more and better ones (please offer your thoughts in the comments section.)  But truthfully, this is not why McDonald's is urging franchisees to toil on this national holiday.  Instead, it is just to make a buck. 

But then again, what trend has McDonald's successfully leveraged in the last... let's say 2 decades?  Despite the rapid growth of high end coffee, the "McCafe" concept was a decade late, and so missed the mark that it has made no impact when competing against Caribou Coffee, Peet's or Starbucks.  And it has had minimal benefit for McDonald's. 

To understand the dearth of new products just go to McDonald's web site where you'll see an animated ad for the "101 reasons to eat a McRib" - that mystery meat product which is at least 30 years old and rotated on and off the menu in the guise of "something new."

McDonald's had a very rough last quarter.  It's sales per store declined versus a year ago.  The number of stores has stagnated, sales are stagnant, new products are non-existent.  Even Ronald McDonald has aged, and apparently moved on to the nursing home.  What can you think about that is exciting about McDonald's?

Desperate to do something, McDonald's fired the head of North America.  But that doesn't fix the growth problem at McDonald's, it just demonstrates the company is internally fixated on blame rather understanding external market shifts and taking action.  McDonald's keeps doing more of the same, year after year; such as opening more stores in emerging markets, staying open longer hours at existing locations and even opening on Thanksgiving and Christmas in the U.S. 

McDonald's Ghost of Christmas past was its great strength, from its origin, of consistency.  In the 1960s when people traveled away from home they could never be quite sure what a restaurant offered.  McDonald's offered a consistent product, that people liked, at a consistent (and affordable) price.  This success formula launched tremendous growth, and a revolution in America's restaurant industry, creating a great string of joyous past Christmases. 

But the Ghost of Christmas present is far more bleak.  50 years have passed, and now people have a lot more options - and much higher expectations - regarding dining.  But McDonald's really has failed to adapt.  So now it is struggling to grow, struggling to meet goals, struggling to be a kind and gentle employer.  Now asking its employees to work on Christmas - and ostensibly eat Big Macs.

What is the Ghost of Christmas Future for McDonald's?  Not surprisingly, if it cannot adapt to changing markets things are likely to worsen.  No company can hope to succeed by simply doing more of the same forever.  Constantly focusing on efficiency, and beating on franchisees and employees to stay open longer, is a downward spiral.  Eventually every business HAS to innovate;  adapt to changing market conditions, or it will die.  Just look at the tombstones - Kodak, Hostess, Circuit City, Bennigan's ....

Take time between now and 2013 to ask yourself, what is your Ghost of Christmas past upon which your business was built?  How does that compare to the Ghost of Christmas present?  If there's a negative gap, what should you expect your Ghost of Christmas Future to look like?  Are you adapting to changing markets, or just hoping things will improve while you resist putting enough coal on the fire to keep everyone warm?

 

The Day TV Died - Winners and Losers (Comcast, Disney, CBS)

Remember when almost everyone read a daily newspaper? 

Newspaper readership peaked around 2000.  Since then printed media has declined, as readers shifted on-line.  Magazines have folded, and newspapers have disappeared, quit printing, dramatically cut page numbers and even more dramatically cut staff. 

Amazingly, almost no major print publisher prepared for this, even though the trend was becoming clear in the late 1990s. 

Newspapers are no longer a viable business.  While industry revenue grew for almost 2 centuries, it collapsed in a mere decade.

Chart Source: BusinessInsider.com

This market shift created clear winners, and losers.  On-line news sites like Marketwatch and HuffingtonPost were clear winners.  Losers were traditional newspaper companies such as Tribune Corporation, Gannett, McClatchey, Dow Jones and even the New York Times Company.  And investors in these companies either saw their values soar, or practically disintegrate. 

In 2012 it is equally clear that television is on the brink of a major transition.  Fewer people are content to have their entertainment programmed for them when they can program it themselves on-line.  Even though the number of television channels has exploded with pervasive cable access, the time spent watching television is not growing.  While simultaneously the amount of time people spend looking at mobile internet displays (tablets, smartphones and laptops) is growing at double digit rates.

Chart Source: Silicone Alley Insider Chart of the Day 12/5/12

It would be easy to act like newspaper defenders and pretend that television as we've known it will not change.  But that would be, at best, naive.  Just look around at broadband access, the use of mobile devices, the convenience of mobile and the number of people that don't even watch traditional TV any more (especially younger people) and the trend is clear.  One-way preprogrammed advertising laden television is not a sustainable business. 

So, now is the time to prepare.  And change your business to align with impending new realities.

Losers, and winners, will be varied - and not entirely obvious.  Firstly, a look at those trying to maintain the status quo, and likely to lose the most.

Giant consumer goods and retail companies benefitted from the domination of television.  Only huge companies like P&G, Kraft, GM and Target could afford to lay out billions of dollars for television ads to build, and defend, a brand.  But what advantage will they have when TV budgets no longer control brand building?  They will become extremely vulnerable to more innovative companies that have better products and move on fast lifecycles. Their size, hierarchy and arcane business practices will lead to huge problems.  Imagine a raft of new Hostess Brands experiences.

Even as the trends have started changing these companies have continued pumping billions into the traditional TV networks as they spend to defend their brand position.  This has driven up the value of companies like CBS, Comcast (owns NBC) and Disney (owns ABC) over the last 3 years substantially. But don't expect that to last forever. Or even a few more years.

Just like newspaper ad spending fell off a cliff when it was clear the eyeballs were no longer there, expect the same for television ad spending.  As giant advertisers find the cost of television harder and harder to justify their outlays will eventually take the kind of cliff dive observed in the chart (above) for newspaper advertising.  Already some consumer goods and ad agency executives are alluding to the fact that the rate of return on traditional TV is becoming sketchy.

So far, we've seen little at the companies which own TV networks to demonstrate they are prepared for the floor to fall out of their revenue stream.  While some have positions in a few internet production and delivery companies, most are clearly still doing their best to defend & extend the old business - just like newspaper owners did.  Just as newspapers never found a way to replace the print ad dollars, these television companies look very much like businesses that have no apparent solution for future growth.  I would not want my 401K invested in any major network company.

And there will be winners.

For smaller businesses, there has never been a better time to compete.  A company as small as Tesla or Fisker can now create a brand on-line at a fraction of the old cost.  And that brand can be as powerful as Ford, and potentially a lot more trendy. There are very low entry barriers for on-line brand building using not only ad words and web page display ads, but also using social media to build loyal followers who use and promote a brand.  What was once considered a niche can become well known almost overnight simply by applying the new dynamics of reaching customers on-line, and increasingly via mobile.  Look at the success of Toms Shoes.

Zappos and Amazon have shown that with almost no television ads they can create powerhouse retail brands.  The new retailers do not compete just on price, but are able to offer selection, availability and customer service at levels unachievable by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers.  They can suggest products and prices of things you're likely to need, even before you realize you need them.  They can educate better, and faster, than most retail store employees.  And they can offer great prices due to less overhead, along with the convenience of shipping the product right into your home. 

And as people quit watching preprogrammed TV, where will they go for content?  Anybody streaming will have an advantage - so think Netflix (which recently contracted for all the Disney content,) Amazon, Pandora, Spotify and even AOL.  But, this will also benefit those companies providing content access such as Apple TV, Google TV, YouTube (owned by Google) to offer content channels and the increasingly omnipresent Facebook will deliver up not only friends, but content -- and ads. 

As for content creation, the deep pockets of traditional TV production companies will likely disappear along with their ability to control distribution.  That means fewer big-budget productions as risk goes up without revenue assurances. 

But that means even more ability for newer, smaller companies to create competitive content seeking audiences.  Where once a very clever, hard working Seth McFarlane (creator of Family Guy) had to hardscrabble with networks to achieve distribution, and live in fear of a single person controlling his destiny, in the future these creative people will be able to own their content and capture the value directly as they build a direct audience.  A phenomenon like George Lucas will be more achievable than ever before as what might look like chaos during transition will migrate to a much more competitive world where audiences, rather than network executives, will decide what content wins - and loses.

So, with due respects to Don McLean, will today be the day TV Died?  We will only know in historical context.  Nobody predicted newspapers had peaked in 2000, but it was clear the internet was changing news consumption behavior.  And we don't know if TV viewership will begin its rapid decline in 2013, or in a couple more years. But the inevitable change is clear - we just don't know exactly when.

So it would be foolish to not think that the industry is going to change dramatically.  And the impact on advertising will be even more profound, much more profound, than it was in print.  And that will have an even more profound impact on American society - and how business is done. 

What are you doing to prepare?

 

 

Irrelevancy leads to failure - Worry for Yahoo, Microsoft, HP, Sears, etc.

The web lit up yesterday when people started sharing a Fortune quote from Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, "We are literally moving the company from BlackBerrys to smartphones."  Why was this a big deal?  Because, in just a few words, Ms. Mayer pointed out that Research In Motion is no longer relevant.  The company may have created the smartphone market, but now its products are so irrelevant that it isn't even considered a market participant.

Ouch.  But, more importantly, this drove home that no matter how good RIM thinks Blackberry 10 may be, nobody cares.  And when nobody cares, nobody buys.  And if you weren't convinced RIM was headed for lousy returns and bankruptcy before, you certainly should be now.

But wait, this is certainly a good bit of the pot being derogatory toward the kettle.  Because, other than the highly personalized news about Yahoo's new CEO, very few people care about Yahoo these days as well.  After being thoroughly trounced in ad placement and search by Google, it is wholly unclear how Yahoo will create its own relevancy.  It may likely be soon when a major advertiser says "When placing our major internet ad program we are focused on the split between Google and Facebook," demonstrating that nobody really cares about Yahoo anymore, either. 

And how long will Yahoo survive?

The slip into irrelevancy is the inflection point into failure.  Very few companies ever return.  Once you are no longer relevant, customer quickly stop paying attention to practically anything you do.  Even if you were once great, it doesn't take long before the slide into no-growth, cost cutting and lousy financial performance happens. 

Consider:

• Garmin once led the market for navigation devices.  Now practically everyone uses their mobile phone for navigation. The big story is Apple's blunder with maps, while Google dominates the marketplace.  You probably even forgot Garmin exists.
• Radio Shack once was a consumer electronics powerhouse.  They ran superbowl ads, and had major actresses parlaying with professional sports celebrities in major network ads.  When was the last time you even thought about Radio Shack, much less visited a store?
• Sears was once America's premier, #1 retailer.  The place where everyone shopped for brands like Craftsman, DieHard and Kenmore.  But when did you last go into a Sears?  Or even consider going into one?  Do you even know where one is located?
• Kodak invented amateur photography.  But when that market went digital nobody cared about film any more.  Now Kodak is in bankruptcy.  Do you care?
• Motorola Razr phones dominated the last wave of traditional cell phones.  As sales plummeted they flirted with bankruptcy, until Motorola split into 2 pieces and the money losing phone business became Google - and nobody even noticed.
• When was the last time you thought about "building your body 12 ways" with Wonder bread?  Right.  Nobody else did either.  Now Hostess is liquidating.

Being relevant is incredibly important, because markets shift quickly today. As they shift, either you are part of the trend going forward - or you are part of the "who cares" past.  If you are the former, you are focused on new products that customers want to evaluate. If you are the latter, you can disappear a whole lot faster than anyone expected as customers simply ignore you.

So now take a look at a few other easy-to-spot companies losing relevancy:

• HP headlines are dominated by write offs of its investments in services and software, causing people to doubt the viability of its CEO, Meg Whitman.  Who wants to buy products from a company that would spend billions on Palm, business services and Autonomy ERP software only to decide they overspent and can never make any money on those investments?  Once a great market leader, HP is rapidly becoming a company nobody cares about; except for what appears to be a bloody train wreck in the making.  In tech - lose customesr and you have a short half-life.
• Similarly Dell.  A leader in supply chain management, what Dell product now excites you?  As you think about the money you will spend this holiday, or in 2013, on tech products you're thinking about mobile devices --- and where is Dell?
• Best Buy was the big winner when Circuit City went bankrupt.  But Best Guy didn't change, and now margins have cratered as people showroom Amazon while in their store to negotiate prices.  How long can Best Buy survive when all TVs are the same, and price is all that matters?  And you download all your music and movies?
• Wal-Mart has built a huge on-line business.  Did you know that?  Do you care?  Regardless of Wal-mart's on-line efforts, the company is known for cheap looking stores with cheap merchandise and customers that can't maintain credit cards.  When you look at trends in retailing, is Wal-Mart ever the leader - in anything - anymore?  If not, Wal-mart becomes a "default" store location when all you care about is price, and you can't wait for an on-line delivery.  Unless you decide to go to the even cheaper Dollar General or Aldi.

And, the best for last, is Microsoft.  Steve Ballmer announced that Microsoft phone sales quadrupled!  Only, at 4 million units last quarter that is about 10% of Apple or Android.  Truth is, despite 3 years of development, a huge amount of pre-release PR and ad spending, nobody much cares about Win8, Surface or new Microsoft-based mobile phones.  People want an iPhone or Samsung product. 

After its "lost decade" when Microsoft simply missed every major technology shift, people now don't really care about Microsoft.  Yes, it has a few stores - but they dwarfed in number and customers by the Apple stores.  Yes, the shifting tiles and touch screen PCs are new - but nobody real talks about them; other than to say they take a lot of new training.  When it comes to "game changers" that are pushing trends, nobody is putting Microsoft in that category.

So the bad news about a  $6 billion write-down of aQuantive adds to the sense of "the gang that can't shoot straight" after the string of failures like Zune, Vista and early Microsoft phones and tablets.  Not to mention the lack of interest in Skype, while Internet Explorer falls to #2 in browser market share behind Chrome. 

Chart Courtesy Jay Yarrow, BusinessInsider.com 5-21-12

When a company is seen as never able to take the lead amidst changing trends, investors see accquisitions like $1.2B for Yammer as a likely future write down.  Customers lose interest and simply spend money elsewhere.

As investors we often hear about companies that were once great brands, but selling at low multiples, and therefore "value plays."  But the truth is these are death traps that wipe out returns.  Why?  These companies have lost relevancy, and that puts them one short step from failure. 

As company managers, where are you investing?  Are you struggling to be relevant as other competitors - maybe "fringe" companies that use "voodoo solutions" you don't consider "enterprise ready" or understand - are obtaining a lot more interest and media excitment?  You can work all you want to defend & extend your past glory, but as markets shift it is amazingly easy to lose relevancy.  And it's a very, very tough job to play catch- up. 

Just look at the money being spent trying at RIM, Microsoft, HP, Dell, Yahoo............

-

Hostess' Twinkie Defense Is a Failure

Hostess Brands filed for liquidation this week.  Management blamed its workforce for the failure.  That is straightforward scapegoating.

In 1978 Dan White killed San Francisco's mayor George Moscone and city supervisor Harvey Milk.  The press labeled his defense the "Twinkie Defense" because he claimed eating sugary junk food - like Twinkies - caused diminished capacity.  Amazingly the jury bought it, and convicted him of manslaughter instead of murder saying he really wasn't responsible for his own actions.  An outraged city rioted.

Nobody is rioting, but management's claim that unions caused Hostess failure is just as outrageous. 

Founded in 1930 as Interstate Bakeries Co. (IBC) the company did fine for years. But changing consumer tastes, including nutrition desires, changed how much Wonder Bread, Twinkies, HoHos and Honey Buns people would buy -- and most especially affected the price - which was wholly unable to keep up with inflation. This trend was clear in the early 1980s, as prices were stagnant and margins kept declining due to higher costs for grain and petroleum to fuel the country's largest truck fleet delivering daily baked goods to grocers.

IBC kept focusing on operating improvements and better fleet optimization to control rising costs, but the company was unwilling to do anything about the product line.  To keep funding lower margins the company added debt, piling on $450M by 2004 when forced to file bankruptcy due to its inability to pay bills.  For 5 years financial engineers from consultancies and investment banks worked to find a way out of bankruptcy, and settled on adding even MORE debt, so that - perversely - in 2009 the renamed Hostess had $670M of debt - at least 2/3 the total asset value!

Since then, still trying to sell the same products, margins continued declining.  Hostess lost a combined $250M over the last 3 years. 

The obvious problem is leadership kept trying to sell the same products, using roughly the same business model, long, long, long after the products had become irrelevant.  "Demand was never an issue" a company spokesman said.  Yes, people bought Twinkies but NOT at a price which would cover costs (including debt service) and return a profit. 

In a last, desperate effort to keep the outdated model alive management decided the answer was another bankruptcy filing, and to take draconian cuts to wages and benefits.  This is tanatamount to management saying to those who sell wheat they expect to buy flour at 2/3 the market price - or to petroleum companies they expect to buy gasoline for $2.25/gallon.  Labor, like other suppliers, has a "market rate."  That management was unable to run a company which could pay the market rate for its labor is not the fault of the union.

By constantly trying to defend and extend its old business, leadership at Hostess killed the company.  But not realizing changing trends in foods made their products irrelevant - if not obsolete - and not changing Hostess leaders allowed margins to disintegrate.  Rather than developing new products which would be more marketable, priced for higher margin and provide growth that covered all costs Hostess leadership kept trying to financial engineer a solution to make their horse and buggy competitive with automobiles. 

And when they failed, management decided to scapegoat someone else.  Maybe eating too many Twinkies made the do it.  It's a Wonder the Ding Dongs running the company kept this Honey Bun alive by convincing HoHos to loan it money!  Blaming the unions is simply an inability of management to take responsibility for a complete failure to understand the marketplace, trends and the absolute requirement for new products.

We see this Twinkie Defense of businesses everywhere.  Sears has 23 consecutive quarters of declining same-store sales - but leadership blames everyone but themselves for not recognizing the shifting retail market and adjusting effectively. McDonald's returns to declining sales - a situation they were in 9 years ago - as the long-term trend to healthier eating in more stylish locations progresses; but the blame is not on management for missing the trend while constantly working to defend and extend the old business with actions like taking a slice of cheese off the 99cent burger.  Tribune completey misses the shift to on-line news as it tries to defend & extend its print business, but leadership, before and afater Mr. Zell invested, refuses to say they simply missed the trend and let competitors make Tribune obsolete and unable to cover costs. 

Businesses can adapt to trends.  It is possible to stop the never-ending chase for lower costs and better efficiency and instead invest in new products that meet emerging needs at higher margins.  Like the famous turnarounds at IBM and Apple, it is possible for leadership to change the company. 

But for too many leadership teams, it's a lot easier to blame it on the Twinkies.  Unfortunately, when that happens everyone loses.

 

Why the Top 20 R&D spenders waste their money - lessons from Microsoft & GM

Many people equate spending on R&D with investing in innovation.  The logic goes that R&D spending is lab spending, and out of labs come innovations.  Hence, those that spend a lot on R&D are innovative.

That is faulty logic.

This chart shows R&D spending from the top 20 companies in 2011:

Chart reproduced with permission of Business Insider

Think of your own list of companies that are providing innovations which change your work, or life. Would you include Apple? Amazon? Facebook? Google? Genentech?  (Here's the link to Fast Company's 50 most innovative for 2012).  Note that none of these companies appear on the list of top R&D spenders. 

On the other hand, as you look at the big spender list some things might be apparent:

• Microsoft is #5, spending $9B and nearly 13% of revenue.  Yet, for this money in 2012 the world received updates to their aging operating system and office automation software.  Both of which failed to register favorable reviews by industry gurus, and are considered far from innovative.  And Nokia, which is so floundering some consider it a likely bankruptcy candidate soon, is #7! Despite spending nearly $8B on R&D Nokia is now completely reliant on Microsoft if it is to even survive.
• Autos make up a big part of the group.  Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, Honda and Daimler are all on the list, spending a whopping $36B.  Yet, even though they give us improvements nobody considers them (especially GM)  very innovative.  That award would go to little Tesla Motors.  Or maybe Tata Motors in India.
• Pharmaceuticals make up the dominant industry.  Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca are all here - spending a cumulative $54B!  Yet, they have all failed to give the world any incredible new drugs, all have profit struggles, and the industry is rife with discussions about weak product pipelines. The future of modern medicine increasingly is shifting to genetic solutions, biologics and more specific alternatives to the historical drug regimes from these aging pharma R&D programs.

Do you see the obvious pattern?  Most big R&D spenders are not really seeking innovations.  They are spending money on historical programs, following historical patterns and trying to defend and extend the historical business.  In other words, they are spending vast sums attempting to sustain (or recapture) historical success.  And, as the list shows, largely doing a pretty lousy job of it. 

If you were given $10,000 to invest would you select these top 20 R&D spenders - or would you look for other, more innovative companies.  From a profitability, rate of return and trend perspective, most of these companies look weak - or downright horrible.

Innovators don't focus on what they spend, but where they spend it.

The companies most known for innovation don't keep spending money year after year on their old business.  Instead of digging deeper into what they already know, they invest laterally.  They spend money putting the pieces together in new, unique ways.  They try to find new solutions to old problems, using new - even fringe - technologies.  They try to develop disruptive solutions that actually change the marketplace, rather than trying to make something that already exists better, faster or cheaper.

Lots of people like to think there is "scale" in research.  Bigger is better.  What's more important, for investors, is that there is "diminishing returns."  The more you research an area the more you have to spend to find anything new.  The costs keep escalating, as the gains shrink.  After investing for a while, continuing to research an area is not a good investment (although it may be very intellectually interesting.) 

Most of the companies on this list would be smarter to scrap their existing R&D programs, cut the budget in half (at least,) and then invest it somewhere very different.  Instead of looking deeper, they need to look wider - broader.  They need to investigate alternative solutions, rather than more of the same.  They need to be putting more money on fringe opportunities, and a lot less into the core.

Until they do, few on this list are very good investment bets.  You'll do better investing like, and in, the real innovators.

 

Wake Up! Ballmer's driving Microsoft off a cliff!

This is an exciting time of year for tech users - which is now all of us.  The biggest show is the battle between smartphone and tablet leader Apple - which has announced new products with the iPhone 5 and iPad Mini - and the now flailing, old industry leader Microsoft which is trying to re-ignite its sales with a new tablet, operating system and office productivity suite.

I'm reminded of an old joke.  Steve the trucker drives with his pal Alex.  Someone at the diner says "Steve, imagine you're going 60 miles an hour when you start down a hill.  You keep gaining speed, nearing 90.  Then you realize your brakes are out.  Now, you see one quarter mile ahead a turn in the road, because there's a barricade and beyond that a monster cliff.  What do you do?"

Steve smiles and says "Well, I wake up Alex."

"What?  Why?" asks the questioner.

"Because Alex has never seen a wreck like the one we're about to have."

Microsoft has played "bet the company" on its Windows 8 launch, updated office suite and accompanied Surface tablet.  (More on why it didn't have to do this later.)  Now Microsoft has to do something almost never done in business.  The company has to overcome a 3 year lateness to market and upend a multi-billion dollar revenue and brand leader.  It must overcome two very successful market pioneers, both of which have massive sales, high growth, very good margins, great cash flow and enormous war chests (Apple has over $100B cash.) 

Just on the face of it, the daunting task sounds unlikely to succeed.

But there is far more reason to be skeptical.  Apple created these markets with new products about which people had few, if any conceptions.  But today customers have strong viewpoints on both what a smartphone and tablet should be like to use - and what they expect from Microsoft.  And these two viewpoints are almost diametrically opposed. 

Yet Microsoft has tried bridging them in the new product - and in doing so guaranteed the products will do poorly.  By trying to please everyone Microsoft, like the Ford Edsel, is going to please almost no one:

• Since the initial product viewing, almost all professional reviewers have said the Surface is neat, but not fantastically so.  It is different from iOS and Google's Android products, but not superior.  It has generated very little enthusiasm.
• Tests by average users have shown the products to be non-intuitive.  Especially when told they are Microsoft products.  So the Apple-based interface intuition doesn't come through for easy use, nor does historical Microsoft experience.  Average users have been confused, and realize they now must learn a 3rd interface - the iOS or Android they have, the old Microsoft they have, and now this new thing.  It might as well be Linux for all its similarity to Microsoft.
• For those who were excited about having native office products on a tablet, the products aren't the same as before - in feel or function.  And the question becomes, if you really want the office suite do you really want a tablet or should you be using a laptop?  The very issue of trying to use Office on the Surface easily makes people rethink the question, and start to realize that they may have said they wanted this, but it really isn't the big deal they thought it would be.  The tablet and laptop have different uses, and between Surface and Win8 they are seeing learning curve cost maybe isn't worth it. 
• The new Win8 - especially on the tablet - does not support a lot of the "professional" applications written on older Windows versions.  Those developers now have to redevelop their code for a new platform - and many won't work on the new tablet processors.
• Many have been banking on Microsoft winning the "enterprise" market.  Selling to CIOs who want to preserve legacy code by offering a Microsoft solution.  But they run into two problems. (1) Users now have to learn this 3rd, new interface.  If they have a Galaxy tab or iPad they will have to carry another device, and learn how to use it.  Do not expect happy employees, or executives, who expressly desire avoiding both these ideas. (2) Not all those old applications (drivers, code, etc) will port to the new platform so easily.  This is not a "drop in" solution.  It will take IT time and money - while CEOs keep asking "why aren't you doing this for my iPad?"

All of this adds up to a new product set that is very late to market, yet doesn't offer anything really new.  By trying to defend and extend its Windows and Office history, Microsoft missed the market shift.  It has spent several billion dollars trying to come up with something that will excite people.  But instead of offering something new to change the market, it has given people something old in a new package.  Microsoft they pretty much missed the market altogether.

Everyone knows that PC sales are going to decline.  Unfortunately, this launch may well accelerate that decline.  Remember how slowly people were willing to switch to Vista?  How slowly they adopted Microsoft 7 and Office 2010?  There are still millions of users running XP - and even Office XP (Office Professional 2003.)  These new products may convince customers that the time and effort to "upgrade" simply means its time to switch.

Microsoft has fallen into a classic problem the Dean of innovation Clayton Christensen discusses.  Microsoft long ago overshot the user need for PCs and office automation tools.  But instead of focusing on developing new solutions - like Apple did by introducing greater mobility with its i products - Microsoft has diligently, for a decade, continued to dump money into overshooting the user needs for its basic products.  They can't admit to themselves that very, very, very few people are looking for a new spreadsheet or word processing application update.  Or a new operating system for their laptop.

These new Microsoft products will NOT cause people to quit the trend to mobile devices.  They will not change the trend of corporate users supplying their own devices for work (there's now even an IT acronym for this movement [BYOD,] and a Wikipedia page.) It will not find a ready, excited market of people wanting to learn yet another interface, especially to use old applications they thought they already new!

It did not have to be this way.

Years ago Microsoft started pouring money into xBox.  And although investors can complain about the historical cost, the xBox (and Kinect) are now market leaders in the family room.  Honestly, Microsoft already has - especially with new products released this week - what people are hoping they can soon buy from AppleTV or GoogleTV; products that are at best vaporware. 

Long-term, there is yet another great battle to be fought.  What will be the role of monitors, scattered in homes and bars, and in train stations, lobbies and everywhere else?  Who will control the access to monitors which will be used for everything from entertainment (video/music,) to research and gaming.  The tablet and smartphones may well die, or mutate dramatically, as the ability to connect via monitors located nearly everywhere using ---- xBox?

But, this week all discussion of the new xBox Live and music applications were overshadowed by the CEO's determination to promote the dying product line around Windows8. 

This was simply stupid.  Ballmer should be fired. 

The PC products should be managed for a cash hoarding transition into a smaller market.  Investments should be maximized into the new products that support the next market transition.  xBox and Kinect should be held up as game changers, and Microsoft should be repositioned as a leader in the family and conference room; an indespensible product line in an ever-more-connected world. 

But that didn't happen this week.  And the CEO keeps heading straight for the cliff.  Maybe when he takes the truck over the guard rail he'll finally be replaced.  Investors can only wake up and watch - and hope it happens sooner, rather than later.