Decoding the new economy

Legacy people

Virgin America shows how quickly legacy operations are falling behind their younger competitors

“The problem with legacy businesses is legacy people” said David Cush, the CEO of Virgin America at the Dreamforce conference.

For many organisations this is indeed the problem; that managements, workforces and shareholders are locked into a way of doing business that has worked for them in the past, so when change arrives they are ill-equipped to deal with it.

One of the key take aways from the Dreamforce conference is that the rate of business change is accelerating as technologies like cloud computing and the Internet mature.

For the legacy businesses locked into old ways this means they are going backwards faster than they could imagine.

A good example of this is when Virgin America showed their vision of how customer service works in a connected, social world.

The problem for companies like United and the other legacy carriers with their older aircraft and lumbering IT systems is they simply don’t have the infrastructure to provide these services if they wanted to.

One of the characteristics of 1980s management thinking is under-investing in equipment. ‘working your assets’ by flogging them way past their replacement dates is a handy way to increase profits and management bonuses, but it leaves a business exposed when newer technologies come along.

That’s the problem the legacy businesses, whether they are airlines, banks, telcos or in any other sector. Those who are nimble and those who have invested in new systems can take advantage of the change.

For some of these businesses even if they had the wits, and cash, to make those investments it’s dubious whether they could make the tools work properly.

‘Getting it’ is more than just understanding how to turn on an iPhone or send a tweet, it’s about how these tools can be used in a business.

If you don’t know how to use these tools, or understand the consequences of using them, then the investment is wasted.

For those organisations who are falling behind, they have to start moving quickly or their legacy is the only trace there will be of their existence.

When disruption meets regulation

Innovation wasn’t meant to be easy, particularly when you’re against vested interests.

Taxi booking applications have been one of the big areas for smartphone developers. Around the world apps for hailing cabs have popped up following the lead of San Francisco’s Uber.

One of the opportunities for copycat developers is that in most places taxis are regulated by the local city or state government, so an app for New York will struggle in Los Angeles, Paris or Tokyo and savvy entrepreneurs can create their own Uber knock off suited to their own location.

The problem is in most places taxis are regulated as a cartel, not a public service. Sometimes that cartel is to protect drivers, sometimes the companies that run the networks and often taxi license holders.

Sydney, Australia, is a good example of the latter two. The New South Wales state government’s rules are designed to protect the interests of the greedy ‘investors’ who’ve bought taxi license plates and the networks who run the booking systems and management of the cabs.

The result is Sydney cab drivers are treated like serf in what can only described as a feudal system while customers have to put up with lost bookings, poorly kept vehicles and high taxi fares.

It’s a lousy deal all round and is a great example of where disruption can change things for the better.

The problem is the incumbents will fight innovation that threatens their cosy and profitable arrangements and the regulators are part of that comfortable alliance.

In New York it looks like the Taxi and Limousine Commissioner does have some of the consumer interests at heart, pointing out that the metered fare is what passengers have to be charged by law. In most cities though, particularly Sydney, protecting the passenger is just another smokescreen for protecting vested interests.

Something that many innovators don’t realise is the power of those vested interests.

In the case of the taxi app developers many of them are about to get a nasty taste of just how vicious incumbent and their tame regulators can be when confronted with a threat to their cosy business arrangements.

Moving on from the gadget era

Amazon reinvent their business to suit changing economic times

Yesterday at the launch of the next generation of Kindle e-readers Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos observed why the various Google Android based tablets have failed.

Why? Because they’re gadgets, and people don’t want gadgets anymore. They want services that improve over time. They want services that improve every day, every week, and every month.

Throughout the industrial revolution progress and innovation was about creating products that improved people’s lives – whether it was Josiah Wedgwood making affordable crockery, Thomas Edison commercialising the light bulb or Henry Ford making cheap motor cars available to the masses – these innovations changed the way we lived or did business.

In the late Twentieth Century business focused more on creating gadgets and our lives became a race to accumulate more useless tat to store in our big McMansions to store the junk in.

We wore out our credit cards and home equity in “buying stuff we don’t need to impress people we don’t like” throughout the 1990s and early 2000s.

Today that’s changed, consumers are now more cautious and, despite the efforts of governments to prop up the broken system, the great credit boom is over.

Jeff Bezos is onto this, instead of Amazon offering me-too products that don’t add value, “people don’t want gadgets anymore. They want services that improve over time.”

The word ‘service’ is notable — one of the things Amazon have achieved is changing how customers use books and DVDs from outright purchases that they can trade and sell to licensed products where Amazon and publishers control distribution.

Amazon are consolidating their position as one of the big four Internet empires. How Google, Apple and PayPal respond to Amazon’s suite of services will define much of the online economy.

Selling old rope

Sometimes rebranding an old concept works in the favour of customers.

“Big Data is a fad” announced a speaker at a technology conference. “We’ve had Big Data for years. We used to call it business analytics.”

He’s right. The IT industry is very good at rebadging technology and the term ‘Big Data’ is just the latest of many examples — the best of which is how ‘cloud computing’ which is largely a rebadging of SaaS, Application Service Providers or client-server.

While it’s easy to be cynical about this IT industry habit, there is a valid underlying point to this repainting old rope — that the refurbished old string is cheaper and more useful than what came before it.

The problem for innovators creating accessible, cheaper and faster ways to do things is they risk that their product will be likened to the old, expensive and inaccessible methods. No cloud computing provider wants to be associated with IBM’s expensive client-server products or the flaky Application Service Provider of the dot com era.

Most innovations aren’t revolutionary, they have evolved out of an older way of doing things. So saying “it’s being done before” when seeing an innovative product may be missing the point.

In the case of Big Data the principles aren’t new but we’re collecting more data than ever before and the old tools — even if they could manage with the volume of information— are far more expensive than the new services.

So repainting old rope isn’t always done for purely marketing purposes, sometimes there’s a real benefit to the customers.

Stranded markets

Businesses with old, declining markets are going to slowly fade away

“Stranded assets” are an accounting term for property that’s worth more on the books than it is in the marketplace.

Often the valuation problem has come about because of market, legislative or physical changes – what was a valuable and useful asset becomes isolated from the rest of a business.

Customers are biggest asset we have in our business – so what happens if our customer base becomes a “stranded asset”?

This situation isn’t far-fetched in a time when technology changes a marketplace – a blacksmith providing services to stagecoach companies would have been in this situation a hundred years ago.

In response to Are Businesses Fleeing the Online Space?, Xero’s Australian CEO Chris Ridd made some points about the problems MYOB have in the accounting software marketplace.

We see that going online to the cloud is finally allowing many small businesses the opportunity to avoid the “walk into Harvey Norman and fork out hundreds of up-front dollars on on-premise software” experience and instead go straight to the simplicity and cost efficacy of the cloud.

This is evidenced in our numbers and the fact that 40% of new customers signing up to Xero are coming from no software. (I mentioned last week at the NBN Forum that it was 30%, but we doubled checked and were staggered to find it was actually a lot higher). So we are creating a new market and cloud is therefore increasing the addressable market for accounting software. The cloud changes the economics of doing IT and makes automation of the business accessible and attractive to a whole new category of SMEs.

Chris’ point is interesting – the new generation of businesses aren’t going to the computer superstore and buying box software. Which is a problem for those who sell box software such as MYOB and Harvey Norman.

What’s more, customers have moved away from those same superstores along with things like phone directories and classified ads, which is the problem companies like Sensis and Fairfax have to deal with.

A decade or so ago, MYOB, Sensis and Fairfax were dominant in their markets with a loyal band of customers. Today the remaining customers – many of whom have not changed their business plans for decades – are”stranded markets” made up of holdouts who won’t move to new technologies.

Those holdouts aren’t particularly profitable and they are slowly leaving their industries through retirement or, increasingly for these slow adopters, going broke.

Being dominant in a market that’s declining in both profits and sales is not the place to be for any business.

It’s difficult for the managers of these enterprises to move as their existing products are their core business, which is the classic innovators dilemma, but the alternative is to end up like Kodak or Sony.

One thing missed in the eulogies for Steve Jobs is how he overcame the innovator’s dilemma problem within Apple. When it became apparent the old Mac OS was a barrier to innovation, he killed it along with the floppy disk and Apple Device Bus.

Apple’s customers hated it as most of them had a substantial investment in the hardware which Jobs had made obsolete overnight. But almost all of them came back and became greater fans.

News Corporation are trying a different tack to Steve Jobs in splitting the operation into an “old” business and a “new’ business. That way the old business can find a way to make money or quietly fade away without affecting the newer, more dynamic entertainment and electronic arms of the organisation.

The challenge for MYOB – along with Harvey Norman, Fairfax and Sensis – is to move their customers to the new technologies, those who won’t go are the past and those stranded customers will isolate the business from the mainstream.

Beating the first mover advantage

Not being first to the market doesn’t mean your product is too late.

Twitter founders Biz Stone and Ev Williams can’t be accused of standing still, along with having founded the Blogger service that made creating websites easy which they sold to Google, their company Obvious Corporation has been working on various new projects.

Branch and Medium are their two latest releases.

At first glance Branch is similar to the Quora service where people ask questions and followers. While Quora is reasonably successful, it hasn’t gained traction outside of the tech community.

Medium is a new blogging service, which superficially appears similar to Tumblr or even the Blogger service Ev and Biz founded in 1999.

It’s tempting to dismiss both Branch and Medium as they aren’t doing things that are new. both are iterations of older services but that doesn’t mean they can’t succeed. When Facebook was launched there was plenty of competition in services like Friendster and MySpace, the upstart blew them both away.

The same is true of the iPod, Windows and Google – all entered markets that were already crowded and well catered for. All of them succeeded because they were better than what was on the market.

In the tech industry is that the first mover advantage is illusionary at best, unless you have a compelling position in the marketplace your product is vulnerable to a smarter, slicker upstart. This is particularly true if the existing services have serious flaws.

Should Branch avoid falling into Quora’s trap of silly policies and overzealous administrators – the same trap that doomed the open source directory DMOZ and threatens Wikipedia – then it may well succeed.

Medium could also disrupt the blogging industry, Blogger is being neglected by Google while WordPress is becoming increasingly complex and difficult to use. The success of services like Tumblr, Instagram and Posterous shows people want an easy way to publish their ideas or what they are doing onto the web.

While it’s too early to say if Branch or Medium will be a success remains to be seen, but writing them off as being unoriginal would be a mistake.

Tag: innovation

When disruption meets regulation

Similar posts:

Moving on from the gadget era

Similar posts: