There’s a silent crisis going on. Some of the best and brightest of brands of a previous generation are dying off. These were world leaders like Kodak, Sears, Digital Equipment Corporation and Borders. Yes, some of these companies are still technically in business, but they are a shadow of their former selves and are, for all intents and purposes, zombie brands.
How did this happen? How could these leading brands, staffed with smart, diligent people, go from great to gone in less than a generation? These were not dot-bomb fantasies or Madoff-style Ponzi schemes. These were major companies with thousands of employees and significant revenues. And yet, in a relatively short time, they slipped off the precipice. DEC was the second-largest computer company in the world as recently as the mid-90s. Circuit City was a fixture on the landscape of many American towns.
The cause of death: the unexpected. Technological disruption is the equivalent of a meteor strike from outer space. The victims should have seen it coming but they were too busy looking at the competitor across the street to look at the flaming rock coming down out of the sky.
There are obviously nuances and specifics in each case; however, there are also commonalities. First, the doomed didn’t really understand their core value proposition. They woke up every morning and did things without understanding which of those activities were important to their consumers. As a result, their planning process only looked at linear projections of the future with marginal changes. IBM deserves huge credit for being willing to completely overall a huge and still profitable business in the 90s. It is almost unique in its willingness to do this.
The departed also focused almost exclusively on competitors that looked like them and approached the market the same way, the guys that they see in customer lobbies and at trade shows. Guys in blue suits could not imagine that businesses would trust their computing to kids in shorts and flip flops.
These companies also didn’t adequately respect substitutes. Department stores couldn’t imagine that consumers would push a cart around a drafty warehouse to buy big flats of toilet paper. Kodak didn’t envision a future without film.
These blind spots come from constructing a future narrative that assumes consumers’ interests and decision-processes map precisely to the incumbents ‘ feature set. Yet time after time, consumers switched brands because a new competitor offered lower prices, more style, more convenience, better selection, etc. These companies almost always overestimated their customers’ loyalty. They thought they were getting an A, and, in reality, were getting a gentleman’s C. The new match for brands is that you’re only as good as the net difference between the consumers that love you and the consumers that hate you. The vast majority of lukewarm consumers are always in play, always open to a better offer from a competitor.
Finally, these companies listened too closely to their installed base. Current customers typically provide exceptional input on how to solve last year’s problems. I once took over a technology publication that was covering a lot of old, boring technologies while ignoring the hot new things. The editor was a smart guy and almost certainly knew this was not the way to grow the business. Over breakfast, he revealed that his comp plan was based on retaining his current subscribers (all users of old technologies), not attracting new readers. He was rational — he was managing his comp plan. It was the company’s backward focus that was the problem.
Companies trying to envision a radically different (and perhaps unlikely) future need to consider complex, non-linear possibilities. The planning process needs to ask the tough question: “What could put us out of business altogether?” They need to approach planning without assuming that the continued success of their business is a given. According to Michael Lewis’ book “The Big Short,” one of the reasons analysts were surprised by the housing collapse is that their models didn’t allow for the possibility that housing prices could ever drop.
Companies can’t become paralyzed, paranoid wrecks worrying about every horrible possibility. However, it is important to enable people to come forward with unpopular and perhaps heretical scenarios that could challenge the business.
In order to have an authentic strategic planning process, it’s essential that you consider your business’s version of a meteor strike. The expected only wounds you. The unexpected kills you.
Peter Horan is the executive chairman of Halogen Media and a longtime digital media executive. Follow him on Twitter at @peterchoran.
Publishers say the competition is steeper than expected for event sponsorship dollars this year
Selling events was harder than expected for some publishers in Q2, but having a niche helped win some of the coveted sponsorship dollars.
Why some publishers are giving their AI chatbots a personality
BuzzFeed and Ingenio are hoping giving their chatbots a unique voice and tone will differentiate their AI products but others are prioritizing utility over entertainment.
Digiday+ Research: Nearly two-thirds of publishers think they will lose when the third-party cookie dies
Publishers have been busy prepping for the end of the third-party cookie, but that doesn't mean they think they'll come out on top in the post-cookie era. In fact, publishers count themselves among those who stand to lose from the end of the cookie.
SponsoredWhat the measurement and currency discussion really means to TV advertisers
Ali Mack, head of TV and agency, Experian Major streaming video providers have recently made headlines by adopting new currencies for ad measurement, threatening Nielsen’s long-standing TV ratings monopoly. NBCUniversal, for example, has certified iSpot and VideoAmp as currencies for advanced audiences and formed the Joint Industry Committee with Paramount, TelevisaUnivision and Warner Bros. Discovery. […]
Media Briefing: Publisher execs fear lack of visibility for Q3, but feel steady year over year
Publisher execs share how Q2 shook out for their businesses as they brace for an equally murky second half.
Spotify cancels six true crime podcasts amid layoffs, Gimlet-Parcast merger
Spotify is canceling six shows and laying off 200 people as it merges its Gimlet and Parcast units to push its podcast business towards profitability.