Tag: managerialism

  • Milking the dead cow

    Milking the dead cow

    Many big Australian businesses seem untouchable as they dominate their markets to degree almost unknown in most other developed countries. As the story of Sensis shows, Australia’s big duopolies may not be as strong as they appear.

    The last few months have been tough for Sensis; revenues last year fell nearly 25%, the once strong business was folded into the latest incarnation of Telstra Digital Media and now the CEO Bruce Akhurst has departed after seven years.

    What could have been a dynamic business is now shriveling away, what went wrong?

    Milking the revenue cow

    Bruce did a good job of keeping revenue coming in during a period that the then owners, the Federal government, wanted to maximise the book value of Telstra before its sale.

    Year upon year Sensis could be relied upon to squeeze more money out of the businesses advertising in it.

    Management were focused on extracting revenue from the existing client base rather than responding to the obvious threat from online search.

    Expensive distractions

    When senior management decided to respond to the online world, they were sucked into unnecessary and expensive distractions; the most notable being the 2005 launch of Sensis Search where the then Telstra CEO – the disastrous Sol Trujillo – famously sneered “Google Schmoogle”.

    Three years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, Sensis admitted defeat. By then the small business advertisers who were the life blood of the directory market had woken up to the reality their customers weren’t using the Yellow Pages anymore. Sensis had missed the boat.

    Clunky processes

    Whenever I spoke to small businesses about Sensis through the 2000s there was the same complaint, “I don’t have time to deal with their sales people, just let me tick a box on a web page or send a fax!”

    Purchasing space was difficult for customers, their 1950s Willy Loman sales model should have been automated in the 1990s and never was.

    Instead Sensis was locked into a high cost sales model and added friction for advertisers which they shouldn’t need, not only were they expensive but they actually made it difficult for their customers to place orders.

    Should Sensis have been sold?

    At its peak in 2005, Sensis was valued at between 8 and 10 billion dollars as a stand alone company.

    Many, including myself, believe that breaking Sensis away would have been the best result given Telstra were at the time focused on protecting their fixed line copper wire monopoly and the directories business was not getting the management attention or capital investment it needed.

    History shows though that we might be wrong.

    Commander Communications was spun off from Telstra in 2000 and like Sensis had inherited an almost monopoly position in the small business communications market.

    By 2007 Commander was out of business thanks to a combination of incompetence, management greed and an inability to recognise the changing communications marketplace.

    The Australian disease

    Commander’s biggest problem was it saw its customers as cash cows, just as Sensis did. This exposes a much deeper problem in Australian industry and management culture.

    Over the last thirty years Australian government policies have seen duopolies develop in almost every key sector of the economy.

    All of these duopolies share the same “customer as a milk cow” philosophy which, along with the rampaging Australian dollar, has dragged Australia into being a high cost economy.

    The banking industry, while not a duopoly for the moment, is an even more debilitating example of the cash cow syndrome where small business has been crippled by excessive interest rates and fees – particularly since the 2008 crisis.

    Sensis’ demise is systemic of a culture that fixates on extracting maximum revenue from customers; concepts like innovation, R&D or adapting to market trends don’t have a role in this mentality.

    Milking cows is a fine business, but sometimes you have to think about the health of the herd.

    Similar posts:

  • The New Soviets

    The New Soviets

    US based investment writer Mike “Mish” Sherlock called Sony’s support line to get a repair for his recently purchased laptop computer.

    What followed was something from the 1970s Soviet Union – a simple request turned into a twelve day, 34 step odyssey of structural incompetence on the part of Sony.

    The tragic thing is Mike’s tale is all the result of mis-matched rewards in Sony’s organisation;

    • Sony’s management wanted to increase profits
    • Extended warranties were identified as a revenue generator
    • A senior manager decided cutting support costs would improve returns
    • The technical support is outsourced
    • Costs are saved by splitting contracts
    • Each outsourcer has a different IT platform
    • The outsourcing contracts have quotas and penalties
    • Individual staff are penalised for escalating problems
    • Support staff have tight performance criteria

    At every level performance indicators were met, despite the whole process costing far more than fixing the problem efficiently would have had – not to mention the loss of Mike as a customer – something that Sony can ill afford.

    Not surprisingly, the computer ended up being fixed by a local IT guy. Richard almost certainly earns a fraction of Sony’s Executive Vice President Group General Managers, or whatever the title they have to match their compensation packages is, yet he gets the job done.

    In Sony we see the Soviet model of management at work – an unaccountable, out of touch cadre of apparatchiks meeting their requirements under The Five Year Plan and are rewarded accordingly.

    Just like today’s Executive Vice President Group General Managers with their KPIs and bonuses.

    As we all know, the Soviet Union failed in 1991. One wonders when we’ll say the same thing about Sony or the dozens of other large corporations that have lost their way.

    Similar posts:

  • I don’t think I’ll write that

    I don’t think I’ll write that

    A media release popped into my inbox from an old client recently. It was, to put it nicely, a total load of corporate tosh from an organisation that has been captured by its time serving management.

    Having dwelt on this for a while, I went to write something about how this company had blown wonderful opportunities competing against a stodgy incumbent which had been given the opportunity to re-invent itself partly because of a new generation of smart, dynamic managers.

    Then a little voice said “no, they’ll never invite you back; the mark of epically incompetent management is holding permanent grudges for pointing out their failures.”

    So I didn’t write it.

    In one way it doesn’t matter; much of what ails the Western world’s business communities is how a culture of managerial incompetence has been allowed to develop.

    Almost everyone knows individuals who waddle from corporate disaster to debacle yet, despite causing the destruction of great slabs of shareholder value, move onto to higher positions and better paid jobs.

    Some even get invited back to companies they’ve previously trashed.

    We know who those people are; boards and big shareholders know who they are, yet they’ll still get hired.

    Which is why its best not to upset them too much. For the moment, history is on their side.

    Similar posts:

  • It’s you, not them

    It’s you, not them

    An article in Bloomberg on The Three Types of People To Fire Immediately is a classic example of mistaking symptoms for the cause of an organisation’s problems.

    G. Michael Maddock and Raphael Louis Vitón write that the biggest blockers to innovation in a business are the employees who can be roughly divided into four groups; the ones who welcome innovation and the three groups who block it – “the victims”, “the non-believers” and “the know it alls.”

    Vitón’s and Maddock’s advice is to sack those in the three groups of blockers.

    If anything sacking the “know it alls” means you will lose valuable corporate memory, the “non-believers” maybe the dissenters who are critical in keeping visions in contact with reality and the “victims” may actually be the most passionate people in your organisation.

    Those “victims” are often the people who’ve tried to make a difference early in their careers, their attempts failed and they found themselves sidelined and embittered within the organisation.

    I came across many of these when I was working with the state government, they’d had good ideas and continuously found themselves belittled when they’d tried to implement them.

    To add insult to injury, many of those ideas would be adopted some years later to great fanfare with credit given to the same managers who’d stifled the earlier suggestio

    Rather than giving those “victims” a pink slip, it might be worthwhile talking to those staff and finding why they are negative and where the system can be improved.

    If you have a workplace full of negativity then the blame for a dysfunctional culture usually lies in the management suite.

    Perhaps it’s the managers who need to be fired for creating a nay-sayer business culture of victims and non-believers.

    My concern with Vitón’s and Maddock’s advice is that it seems to play to the conceit of executives who think they, and their organisations, are something they are not. That’s nice for management consultants stoking corporate egos but a lousy deal for shareholders, staff and customers.

    Sometimes it’s better to understand what your business is and where the organisation’s strengths lie  – both in management in and staff – before jumping on the innovation bandwagon.

    Similar posts:

  • Lords of the digital manor

    Lords of the digital manor

    There is something fundamentally wrong with AOL’s media business states a Business Insider headline.

    What is fundamentally wrong is quite basic to anyone who has owned or managed a business – money.

    The problems at AOL illustrate the deep flaws in the “digital sharecropper” business model of putting free or cheap content on the web to harvest online advertising.

    Lords of the digital manor

    Sites like Demand Media and Huffington Post can’t make money from content if too many staff expect to get paid. Chris Anderson illustrated this in a rebuttal to Malcolm Gladwell where he examined the economics of his GeekDad blog and the work of its manager, Ken;

    So here’s the calculus:

    • Wired.com makes good money selling ads on GeekDad (it’s very popular with advertisers)
    • Ken gets a nominal retainer, but has also managed to parlay GeekDad into a book deal and a lifelong dream of being a writer
    • The other contributors largely write for free, although if one of their posts becomes insanely popular they’ll get a few bucks. None of them are doing it for the money, but instead for the fun, audience and satisfaction of writing about something they love and getting read by a lot of people.

    It’s almost touching to picture the modern day digital serf touching his flat cap and murmuring “thank you m’lud” on receiving a ha’penny from the lord of the digital manor before scampering back to working on becoming a well read, but unpaid writer.

    We don’t pay writers

    The business model of the Geek Dad blog or the Huffington Post relies upon these unpaid writers donating their work and time –the digital sharecroppers as described by Jeff Attwood.

    Low paid or free labour is essential to the success of these site, when the bulk of advertising income goes straight to the proprietors the digital aristocrats – Lord Chris of Wired or Duchess Arianna – can live well.

    The business model falls apart when management starts taking a cut of the profits; install a highly paid CEO and management team with their squadrons of Executive Vice Presidents or Group General Managers with the Medici-esque perks and entitlements these folk demand and the profits disappear.

    AOL’s problem is it has too many highly paid managers extracting wealth from the company’s cashflow.

    This is exactly the same problem print and television media empires have, once the rich rivers of gold allowed them to build up well paid management castes that are now crippling the businesses as revenues can’t support their financial burden.

    Paying for digital media’s future

    Over time, online media revenues are improving. As Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker pointed out in 2010 that U.S. consumers spend 28 percent of their media time online, yet in 2010 only 13 percent of ad spending goes to the Internet. As advertisers follow consumers, publishing on the web will become more profitable.

    The risk for big media organisations is their money will run out before the digital renaissance arrives and when it does, they may have squandered their natural advantages by shedding quality journalists, experienced sub-editors and good editors in an effort to prop up executive bonuses.

    AOL’s management problem is part of a much bigger problem across markets and industries, we can call it managerialism – there are too many highly paid managers getting in the way of the writers, engineers, scientists, artists and tradesman who add real value to their organisations.

    Strangely, it may be Chris Anderson’s “free” model that kills the managerial culture as enterprises that can’t afford to pay product creators certainly won’t pay an Executive Vice President’s entitlements.

    Similar posts: