Is Facebook the new Microsoft?

Are the internet giants – Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon following the same path as Microsoft did in the 1990s?

One of the problems with dominating your field is that to find new growth opportunities involves becoming distracted with your core business and damaging your reputation. This is what hurt Microsoft over the last decade and now threatens the internet’s big four.

App.net CEO Dalton Caldwell wrote an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg describing how the social media giant is trying to wipe out competitors through bullying them into being acquired.

If a business doesn’t succumb to Facebook’s seduction, then they risk being wiped out by the social media giant setting up their own version of the product which they can push out to a billion subscribers.

Jason Calacanis explores this strategy with Facebook’s launch of Poke, designed to compete with the instant messaging service Snapchat.

In many ways this is the same model that Microsoft employed in the 1990s as it worked towards dominating the desktop computer market – bully innovators into selling to them and, if that fails, copy the product and crush the opposition.

It worked for Microsoft because they controlled the distribution channels through their tight relationships with computer manufacturers.

Microsoft created their own applications, or features in their products, which would be bundled onto Dell, Gateway or Compaq computers. Once users had functionality built into Windows or Microsoft Office then they didn’t have to buy a third party app.

Bundling network protocols destroyed the business models of LANtastic and Novell, in the browser wars Microsoft killed Netscape by putting Internet Explorer on the desktop and in the office suite predatory pricing killed WordPerfect and Lotus while resulting in acquisitions of companies like Visio.

This way of business cemented Microsoft’s domination of their desktop, office productivity and server markets at the turn of the century. It was a true river of gold that continues to flow today.

Unlike the personal computer software markets, bullying or buying your way into market dominance doesn’t work online as the barriers to entry that protected Microsoft from competitors are nonexistent on the web.

Both AOL and Yahoo! learned this the hard way as their acquisition sprees through the dot com boom didn’t prevent them from sliding into irrelevance.

A good example of how hard it is for the Internet giants to execute a plan for world domination is the rise and fall of Google’s Knol as described by Seth Godin, who thought his own Squidoo startup would be crushed by the Internet giant. It turned out not to be so.

For the web incumbents the fundamental problem are, as Jason says, that they are not focusing on their core businesses and they have plenty of Plan Bs as Seth Godin described.

The manager who fails with Knol or Poke moves onto another division with a pat on the back and a safe claim on their bonus. The startup founders on the other hand are fighting for survival.

All four of the Internet’s giants have similarities to Microsoft in the 1990s as every single one dominates its niche and wonders how to expand outside their core business – for Google, and possibly the other three, there’s the added problem of managerialism as a large cadre of managers worries more about maintaining privileges over competing in the marketplace.

Managerialism ended up crippling Microsoft and continues to do so today, whether Facebook and Google can avoid that fate remains to be seen.

A bigger problem for Facebook is losing trust – Microsoft’s conduct, particularly with WordPerfect and Netscape in the late 1990s made a generation of developers and entrepreneurs cautious about dealing with the company.

For many that suspicion remains and is one of the barriers the company now has to overcome in the smartphone and cloud computing markets where it is one of the crowd of scrappy challengers.

In the social and online worlds, collaboration is one of the keys to success. If Facebook, or any of the others, lose the trust of the community then they’ll become irrelevant a lot faster than WordPerfect or LANtastic did.

Becoming irrelevant is the real worry for Facebook’s tenured managers and their investors.

Similar posts:

Reskilling the workforce

The 1980s management aim of reducing training costs is now affecting business, the next generation of leaders will be finding opportunities in today’s skills shortages.

One of the core objectives 1980s management philosophy is to shift costs and risks onto others. Staff training is one area that caught the brunt of the drive to slash expenses for short term gain, as a consequence we have a skills crisis with offers opportunities for savvy entrerpreneurs.

In Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs: Chasing After the ‘Purple Squirrel Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli discusses his recent book that looks at this problem.

Cappelli’s argument is that companies aren’t offering enough for the skills they desire, they often ask too much of candidates and they won’t train staff.

In Cappelli’s book, he claims that staff training has plummeted;

One of your chapters in the book is called “A Training Gap, Not a Skills Gap.” You have some figures showing that in 1979, young workers received an average of two and a half weeks of training per year. By 1991, only 17% of young employees reported getting any training during the previous year, and by last year, only 21% said they received training during the previous five years.

The predictable consequence of neglecting training for the last thirty years is we now face skills shortages and those responsible – the managers and business owners who refuse to train workers – are now demanding governments do something about it.

In many ways today’s skills shortages epitomise the short termism of 1980s thinking and how we now find society, and business, is struggling with the long term effects and costs.

Wherever there’s a problem there is opportunity and there’s a breed of businesses, training companies and workers who will be taking advantage of the failures of the previous generation of managers.

For those stuck in the 1980s mindset that training, like most staff expenses, is a cost and not an investment they are going to struggle in a world where adding value is more profitable than being the lowest cost provider.

 

The photo THE BEAD MAKER — Apprentice Watches the Master — A Rosary Shop in Old Meiji-Era Japan was posted to Flickr by Okinawa Soba.

Similar posts:

Poor journalism and social media

Fairfax gets the Sandy Hook shooter story wrong and blames social media and shows how broken their own journalism is.

Brother’s plea shows up online failings crows the Sydney Morning Herald over social media’s role in misidentifying the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

The problem for the SMH is that social media wasn’t responsible for the story. As the Washington Post reported, CNN and various other outlets misidentified the shooter as his brother who had to take to social media to correct the record.

For the mainstream media, the Sandy Hook shooting was not their finest hour; not only did they misidentify Ryan Lanza as the shooter, but they mistakenly reported his mother had worked at the school. When the Daily Mail does a better analysis of the story than many outlets, you know something is wrong.

Something is certainly wrong at Fairfax as the cutting of resources results in the Sydney Morning Herald being three days behind the story and factually wrong on key aspects – not to mention adding a smug headline that is embarrassingly incorrect.

While the writer of the SMH article should be held to account for sloppy work and poor research, the real responsibility for this embarrassment lies with the paper’s editors and management who should be ensuring what appears under the masthead is accurate and reliable.

Both The Age and Sydney Morning Herald are essential to the fabric of their respective cities, this story is a good example of the important role the SMH has in shining light on the arcane dealings of the city’s business community. Fairfax can, and should, do far better than a poor, badly researched story on social media.

Ironically, the mis-identification story quotes media academic Julie Posetti as saying “anyone with an internet connection could now contribute to and comment on the breaking news cycle without going through the filters of the traditional media.”

At Fairfax, those filters are broken with the breathing space from selling its New Zealand digital operation, the company’s management has an opportunity to fix their credibility problem and focus on its core business.

Similar posts:

Life in the mob

At a time of easily generated moral hysteria, it’s best to keep your head rather than joining the mob.

The reaction to last week’s tragic passing of a nurse over a hoax phone call shows how hysteria and cynicism in new and old media fuel each other.

Having created villains, in this case the two hapless Sydney radio hosts, the mainstream media creates a moral outrage to stir up the mob which in turn generates more headlines.

As with the Hillsborough tragedy, this allows those in positions of responsibility the opportunity to avoid scrutiny and accountability.

In this case we see the hospital management demanding action being taken against the Sydney duo while conveniently ducking questions about why poorly paid nurses are expected to act as switchboard operators on top of their already considerable responsibilities.

Now we’re seeing calls to make practical jokes illegal – no doubt there’ll be a wave of teenage boys being prosecuted for making prank phone calls when panicked politicians pass poorly drafted laws to deal with the ‘problem’.

Our taxes at work.

Your mission in life is to use your brain and not to be one of the torch bearing mob.

If it’s you the mob are looking for, then it’s best to lie low until another headline or something shiny distracts them.

Similar posts:

Bringing manufacturing home

How GE is reviving its American manufacturing operations

In the 1980s General Electric, like most US companies, sent most of its appliance manufacturing offshore.

Now its coming home.

The Atlantic Magazine looks at how General Electric is resuscitating manufacturing at Kentucky’s Appliance Park as management finds US workers are more skilled and productive than their equivalents in Mexico or China.

An important part of the article is how critcal supply chains are; manufacturing hubs rely upon having a community of skilled service providers and suppliers around the factories while being close to customers improves and simplifies logistics.

In the latter case, it now take hours or days to deliver products to customers’ stores or warehouses rather than the five weeks it takes from China.

The cost of those goods is lower too, the Kansas made GeoSpring heater sells for $1299 while the Chinese product sells for $1599.

What is most notable though is how designers and managers now have a better understanding of the manufacturing process; where under the oustourced model the difficulties in assembly were none of their business, now they are far more deeper and directly involved.

This really goes to the core of what an organisation does – in the 1980s it was fashionable to talk of the “virtual corportation” where everything the business did was outsourced except for the managers who were employed solely to pocket their bonuses.

In the 1990s and early 2000s that “virtual corporation” became a reality as manufacturing and customer support were offshored and logistics was outsourced.

One of the best examples was customer support where looking after the needs of those who buy the company’s products were secondary to the need to cut costs.

This focus on cost cutting over customer service hurt Dell badly in the 2000s and it continues to hurt many organisations – particularly telcos and banks – today.

The weakness in the “virtual corporation” model was the company ended up adding little more value than the brand name and eventually those offshored manufacturers and call centres took control of the business’ goodwill and intellectual property.

Eventually the hidden costs of offshoring became too obvious for even the most craven, KPI driven manager to ignore and suddenly manufacturing in the Western world became competitive again.

Sadly, the fixation on dirt cheap labour has damaged many industries beyond the point where they can be salvaged with too many skilled workers lost and the ecosystem of capable suppliers destroyed. These are costs where tomorrow’s managers will rue the short sighted actions of yesterday’s corporate leaders.

Similar posts:

Comparing Management costs

How much are big corporations spending on administration and marketing costs?

Telecoms analyst site Asymco has a look at how much Samsung spends on marketing compared to other tech companies, particularly Apple, with Coca-Cola added as a sanity check from outside the bubble.

While the results are stunning with Samsung dwarfing the others, the Asymco story also touches on the total cost of sales and general administration expenses with the observation that, as a proportion of revenue, Sumsung’s are soaring while Apple’s are declining.

Teasing those figures out a bit more is interesting, when we track the sales and general administration costs of all the business we see that with the exception of Apple they’ve been remarkable flat in straight dollar terms over the last three years.

Of course this comparison is a little unfair as this is an absolute number, not as a proportion of revenue and as Horace Dediu points out in the Asymco posts Apple’s expenses as a ratio to sales has fallen.

For companies like HP, Dell and Microsoft where sales have been stagnant or falling it might be that the ratio is rising while spending is flat.

We’ll tease these figures out over the next few days.

In the meantime, the fact that Samsung is spending such an awesome amount on marketing should cause us to treat Android sales figures with caution as that spend in undoubtedly inflating their sales figures. More on that in the future as well.

Similar posts:

Whitman’s managerial mountain

How Meg Whitman has to dismantle the legacy of over a decade’s poor management at HP

This week’s announcement by HP that it will take a nearly nine billion dollar write down on the $10 billion investment it made in British business intelligence software business Autonomy shows how a once proud company can be laid low by a managerial culture.

HP’s purchase of Autonomy was a classic example of the Silicon Valley greater fool exit where the founders and investors of a business find a foolish buyer – in this case HP – to overpay for the operation.

In HP’s case it appears they overpaid by $8.8 billion dollars, this follows a $8 billion dollar write down earlier this year on the 2008 acquisition of Electronic Data Systems.

HP’s management are now claiming Autonomy’s managers defrauded them and the deal has been referred to the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the UK Serious Fraud Office – a point which Autonomy’s former CEO, Mike Lynch, describes as nonsense given 300 HP managers and two major accounting companies carried out due diligence on the firm.

For HP this is another humiliation on a decade of embarrassment largely caused by poor leadership with poorly chosen CEOs including the hubristic Carly Fiorina, followed by the poster boy of entitled managerialism, Mark Hurd, who in turn was succeeded by the haplessly incompetent Leon Apotheker.

Apotheker was the wrong person to undo the mistakes of his predecessors however at least with the Autonomy purchase he was trying to clamber onto a technology trend before it left the station, unlike both Hurd and Fiorina who had missed opportunities and entered markets way too late. Although like Apotheker, they overpaid for acquisitions like Palm, EDS and 3Com.

In Fiorina’s case she had missed the dot com boom and subsequent bust while trashing the company’s brand by competing with Dell in the low end, lousy margin consumer PC industry.

Hurd’s solution was services, as shown by the $14 billion dollar acquisition of EDS. At the same time he took an axe to HPs costs and continued Fiorina’s gutting of HP’s core competences in R&D and high end industrial technology.

Like all managerialists, Mark didn’t apply the cost cutting mantra to himself, staying at the best hotels and flying the world on corporate jets like a latter Bourbon. A list of his expenses, along with the salaries for himself and his senior executive buddies, would embarrass a third-world kleptocrat.

When he left HP under the cloud of a sexual harrassment scandal, the board gave him a settlement of over $40 million dollars rather than the $27 million he was entitled to.

Most infamously, in the scandal that bought him down, a company ‘hostess’ claimed he stopped by an ATM in Madrid to show her the million he kept on call in his checking account.

It’s instructive that Roman emperors would have a slave reminding them that they were only mortal. Today’s managerial heroes have ‘hostesses’ to remind them of their entitled position of being hairy chested, virile heroes of 20th Century capitalism; even as their 1980s thinking destroyed shareholder wealth on an industrial scale.

One could ask why a company like HP would need ‘hostesses’ – particularly at a time when cost cutting was mandating office lights were turned off at 6pm. Just the fact pretty ladies could be on the company payroll to solely to stroke the egos of senior male executives is enough in itself to illustrate the mess HP had become.

With over $16 billion in write downs this year, sacking the eye-candy for over-privileged middle aged executives is the easier task for current HP CEO Meg Whitman. Whether she can manage to save HP from over a decade of poor management remains to be seen, but the shareholders will be hoping.

Similar posts: