Rahul Ingle’s Blog

The following are the Economic stress periods.

· The Great Depression (1929-1939): Stock markets crashed worldwide, and a banking collapse took place in the United States. The recession and following downturn lasted 10 years.

· The Oil Crisis and resulting recession (1973-1975): A quadrupling of oil prices by OPEC coupled with high government spending due to the Vietnam War led to stagflation in the United States. The downturn lasted two years.

· Recession of the early 1980s (1980-1982): The primary cause of the recession was a contraction in monetary policy by the Federal Reserve in the United States designed to control high inflation.

· Stock Market Crash (1987) and the recession of the early 1990s: Stock markets around the world crashed, shedding a huge value in a very short period.

· Asian Financial Crisis (1997-1998): Investors deserted emerging Asian share markets, including an overheated Hong Kong stock market. Asian economies began showing signs of recovery after two years.

· Collapse of the dotcom bubble (2001-2003): The collapse of the dot-com bubble, the September 11 attacks, and accounting scandals contributed to a contraction in many western economies.

· Sub-prime crises (2008-09): The fall of financial system of US mortgage leading to credit crunch. The market fall short of money and demand started dying out.

Seven critical success factors

Focus on core business

All companies should emphasize the importance of focusing on their core competencies during turbulent economic times. Companies who did diversify and split focus away from their core competencies often struggled to manage their unrelated businesses whereas companies that remained focused, or re-focused on their core created opportunities to gain market share more easily from their competitors.

According to a study done by Bain and Co, many companies either ‘hunker down’ or stray outside their core business in a desperate bid for growth. Both of these approaches create openings for companies willing to pursue thoughtful and balanced recession strategies. This emphasizes the importance of focus during periods of economic stress. An excellent example of one company that maintained a focus on their core business was Royal Dutch Shell during the Oil Crisis of the early 1970s. While the other oil companies diversified, Shell focused on its retail business investing in service stations with high sales value, and divesting from non performing stations. In this way it increased the reach and profitability of its retail operations and emerged from the crisis the industry leader.

There was no evidence of acquisitions made to diversify companies into new business areas either to chase short term profits or to hedge risk. Some companies made successful acquisitions because they did not overextend themselves into risky purchases and kept their attention on their core strategy and activities. Arrow is slightly different, as they carried more risk during their initial acquisitions due to their more urgent financial position.

In this way, they concentrated their economic resources rather than becoming distracted by demanding new business activity. In the recession of the late 1980s, Kmart acquired multiple unrelated retail businesses. This sapped much needed resources and attention from Kmart’s core competencies and ultimately undermined their business. Kmart lost customers to their competitor, Wal-Mart, who continued investment in their service infrastructure and gained an estimated 2 to 4 percent in comparable-store sales. Wal-Mart achieved this because it maintained focus on its core business.

Companies used different strategies to focus on their core business and in some cases multiple approaches were needed including:

· Acquiring assets related to building the core competencies of the business.

· Strategic divestments of non-core divisions because managing diverse businesses split the attention and resources of the company.

· Investing in advertising of their core brands to build value from their primary operations. This helped most companies in the study gain market share during the downturn as their competitors were reducing advertising investments

· Boosting research and development to support core products, as well as creating new products to support key business divisions. Successful, new product introductions during recessions were crucial to their recovery

· Improving business processes to use resources best in the most value adding parts of the business.

Improved process and efficiency

A common theme among these companies was the process by which they implemented their strategy during recessions. It is logical that process efficiencies will be sought to trim costs from budgets during a recession. Flexibility allowed the business to implement their recession strategies quicker than competitors. In some cases horizontal management structures also directly attributed to the speed with which companies were able to integrate acquired businesses successfully.

Speed and flexibility also allowed businesses to correct wrong turns promptly by abandoning ideas that were not working and turbo charging those that were paying dividends. Right before the Asian financial crisis struck, Toyota was undertaking a series of internal reforms that enabled it to operate more efficiently. Their aim was to position themselves so that they could react quicker and at a much larger scale and they did this by becoming more flexible with their decision making processes. As a result of the crisis, Toyota was able to rapidly implement these changes and this helped to position them for a profitable recovery period. At IBM, then CEO Lou Gerstner believed it was their swift execution of strategies that was the key to their success. Many of the companies studied, improved the efficiency of operations and decision making by empowering lower tier managers throughout their businesses. For example, Coca-Cola gave local managers greater control of their divisions aiming to “think local, act local”. This ensured local relevance and maximized business performance because the decision making was in the hands of those closest to the market.

Rather than programmes that respond specifically to a crisis, some companies design their structures and processes to consistently ensure the maximum flexibility and efficiency. General Electric’s management systems create leaders at every level of the business and these leaders are empowered to respond to difficult environments and build a resilient portfolio of business ventures. This enabled them to ride out recessionary periods with relative ease by increasing attention to areas of their portfolio that were best able to create profitability and growth at any given time. By empowering managers they are able to respond to downturn and implement recession strategies quickly.

Successful businesses also targeted improved efficiency and removed operational slack during recessionary periods. At Cisco they redesigned roles and responsibilities to improve cooperation among functions and reduce duplication of effort. At 3M during the dot-com recession they introduced Six Sigma™ cost cutting techniques, which improved product development by reducing errors and defects. They streamlined the labor required to produce new products, improved value through engineering quality, and reducing manufacturing cycle time. Many experts consider the improved efficiency of 3M, through cost cutting techniques, to be the driving factor for their growth and profitability coming out of the 2001 recession.

Strategic divestment

At face value these divestments were part of a strategy of cutting costs and/or generating short term liquidity, particularly where less profitable divisions were divested. Most company’s divestment was primarily used to raise cash to service debt and fund further investment. However it is important to note that most divestitures made were of divisions that were not in-line with the company’s long term strategic view, or differed from the company’s core-business. For example, IBM sold some non-strategic divisions despite these divisions being of high value, because they didn’t contribute to the long term vision of the company. Arrow Electronics also sold their side-line businesses in order to generate cash so that they could make new acquisitions which strengthened their core.

Companies also pruned areas of their business that were not so profitable to enable them to execute their strategy. Examples of this are Shell selling their less profitable stations throughout the United States and focusing more on the most profitable ones, and General Electric selling factories and other assets that were less productive but were previously difficult to shut down. Interestingly, most of the job losses attributed to downsizing during these periods occurred when companies were getting rid of long-standing activities that added little business value, divesting from non-strategic divisions and shedding less productive assets that were difficult to dispose of in good times. Managing unrelated businesses often splits much needed resources and focus. By shedding these non-core operations, many of these companies energized their core businesses and better positioned them to pursue growth and profitability.

Contingency planning

This is important as it demonstrates it is never too late to act, as some companies survived turbulent times despite having no specific plan for the recession. However, in all cases when the downturn hit, the companies quickly assembled a plan and put in place a strategy for dealing with adverse conditions. While most companies did not plan in advance for crisis, for those that did it was helpful in securing their long run strategic position. The best example of advanced planning for downturn is Royal Dutch Shell, who, in the 1970s, implemented a scenario planning process. One of the first scenarios they planned for was in the event that petrol prices increased by 400 percent, which was exactly what happened a few years later during the Oil Crisis. Planning for such an event, gave Shell time to consider the best strategic approaches and this ultimately led to very astute moves they made that helped them emerge as market leaders.

Emerson Electric also has strong planning processes to cope with adverse economic conditions. They develop three versions of their monthly budget forecasts. Plan A is for good economic times, Plan B for bad economic times and Plan C for disastrous economic times. Such planning helps the company correct faults that can be potentially deadly to the business before they come about.

Even where companies do not have specific recession planning, often they have succeeded because their regular business planning process is structured to maximize their resilience and flexibility in tough times. For instance, IBM maintains tight financial discipline by controlling costs and managing cash effectively in order to maintain liquidity levels. Johnson and Johnson and Shell both hold significant cash reserves to insulate them from adverse times. Other companies conduct internal and external environment diagnostics so they are able to react quickly when economic turbulence occurs. Arrow Electronics is another excellent example. They frequently take stock of their financial and strategic position in order to better prepare themselves for turbulent times and enable them to react quickly when it happens.

Acquisitions and strategic alliances

There are several reasons why acquisition of competing or allied businesses is seen as a good strategy by some companies in a period of economic downturn. The ‘entry price’ is likely to be lower than at other times as businesses are sold under stress or to liquidate assets. This means that companies can purchase targets that may otherwise have been out of their reach. There may also be less competition for acquisition targets because few companies make available the resources to make acquisitions during periods of economic stress. Sometimes businesses become available for acquisition that has previously been unattainable, as they struggle to deal with a downturn.

BM acquired in order to quickly build their customer base and obtain new technology that would otherwise have taken significant research and development to create in-house. In contrast, Cisco made an acquisition specifically to bring new talent into their business in the hopes that this would increase innovation. Cisco Systems suggest that their acquisitions were successful primarily because they were so closely related to the company’s core business strategy.

In the case of Proctor and Gamble, they made acquisitions that gave them access to new products and new market segments. This allowed them to expand their reach much more quickly than would have been possible through organic growth. Coca-Cola, Johnson and Johnson and Wal-Mart also made strategic acquisitions during periods of economic downturn for similar reasons.

Arrow Electronics also provides an excellent example of strategic acquisitions as it made audacious but smart purchases during the late 1980s downturn. During this period, Arrow was in serious trouble, having lost between US$10 million and US$20 million each year for three years. It had no operating income and was carrying debt of US$150 million. By making strategic divestments of non-core businesses it created sufficient liquid assets to make further acquisitions. Steve Kaufman, then CEO of Arrow Electronics said “We made our greatest strategic moves during the period of our greatest financial weakness…We acquire in bad times”. In the first year after its 1987 acquisition of a rival company, it registered a modest profit of US$10 million. It was the acquisition in 1991 of the third largest company in the industry, coupled with some minor acquisitions in Europe that enabled it to grow and overtake then industry leaders Avnet Ltd, who were twice the size of Arrow. It was their use of risky but smart acquisitions that enabled Arrow Electronics to emerge from the recession as industry leaders in a strong financial position with sales soon reaching US$4.6 billion. As well as outright purchase of other businesses or business assets, some companies used strategic alliances to execute their strategy during a recession. In this context a strategic alliance differs from an acquisition, in that it is a formal relationship between two or more parties that retain independent operations. Companies such as Coca-Cola, Toyota Motors and Procter and Gamble were able to use strategic alliances as a tool for increased growth and profitability during the recovery period. In the case of Coca-Cola, it created a strategic alliance with Walt Disney in order to create innovative new drinks for children during the 2001 downturn. These strategic alliances enabled the companies to enter into new markets, get access to new ideas, technology, products and customers much quicker than would have been possible organically.

Increased advertising and marketing

Advertising was used effectively by some companies to help weather downturns and strengthen demand for their core products. Cutting costs is a reasonable reaction to times of economic stress and often advertising spend reduces as it may be viewed as a cost not an investment. However, examples in this research indicate that maintaining or increasing targeted advertising spend during a recessionary period is a good way for companies to gain market share in a highly competitive environment.

According to a study by Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy (PIMS) researchers, companies that increased marketing spending during a recession gained market share three times as fast during the recovery compared to companies who cut advertising spending. Recessionary consumers make careful choices but still need to make purchases to support their lifestyle. While spending may fall in aggregate, and consumers look hard for good deals, companies can use targeted advertising to increase demand for their products if they tap into the mindset of these consumers. Procter and Gamble provide an excellent example of effective marketing techniques during a downturn.

Proctor and Gamble has always increased advertising spending whenever the economy is turbulent. During the Great Depression, while competitors were cutting their advertising budgets, Procter and Gamble actually increased spending. They turned to the radio to advertise their products. In spite of the fact that shareholders were demanding they cut back on advertising, then CEO Deupree knew that people were still buying essential household products. They created innovative radio programming that did not focus specifically on their household cleaning products but instead gained the attention of their key purchasing demographic – housewives. They sponsored radio serials which were broadcast in weekday daytime slots when mostly housewives would be available to listen. The shows were aimed at and consumed by a predominantly female audience. As a result the daily “soap opera” was created and became known by this title because these dramatic shows were sponsored by Proctor and Gamble’s cleaning products including its key brand of Ivory™ soap. It used powerful marketing techniques of product placement and tailoring products specifically to a demographic. The campaign was so successful that Proctor and Gamble doubled its advertising budget every two years during the depression, and by 1939 were sponsoring 21 radio programmes. They continue to maintain their philosophy of advertising during difficult economic times. CEO A.G. Lafely once stated “When times are tough, we build share”. They seem to do this largely through vigorous promotion. Coca-Cola also knew the importance of advertising during a downturn and especially the importance of the image associated with their products. During the severe stresses of the Great Depression, their advertisements depicted a pleasant and inexpensive escape from reality. They have since maintained an aggressive stance on advertising during a downturn and have released a number of successful campaigns right in the midst of economic crisis. Another good example is Coca-Cola’s “I’d like to buy the world a coke” campaign of the 1970s which gained iconic status.

Shell also used successful marketing strategies during the oil crisis in order to gain share from their competitors. They used smart manipulation of consumer concerns with taglines such as “keep your tyres pumped at the correct pressure and you could gain extra miles for the same tank of fuel”. The company was able to build brand loyalty by demonstrating that it understood the concerns of its cost-conscious consumers.

There are other reasons why these companies may have been particularly successful at using targeted advertising in a downturn. In the first instance, advertising agencies are highly motivated to secure accounts and may offer competitive pricing during these periods. Also, consumers that are reducing their discretionary spending may be more likely to stay at home and watch television (or in the case of the depression go to the movie serials or listen to the radio) rather than go out for entertainment. This makes advertising media more attractive as market size of different media can increase during the downturn. In this way companies that increased advertising spend such as Proctor and Gamble, Coca-Cola and Shell were able to increase market share by getting an increased “share of mind” of the consumer.

The importance of advertising spend is supported by evidence that companies who slash marketing spending by 50 percent take three to four years to return to their pre-recession sales levels. Research also indicates that these companies must spend far more than they saved in order to recover lost market share caused by their decreased presence during the downturn.

Research and development

Some companies increased research and development (R&D) spending during recessionary periods. They used R&D to meet the increasingly diverse needs of their recessionary customers who seek greater value from their spending. Most companies also tried to increase their speed to market with new products to gain advantage over their competition. They did this by prioritizing development of the most promising products that met the immediate needs of their customers.

3M was a particular stand out in terms of strategic R&D. In each of the last four recessions that occurred in the United States 3M focused its R&D efforts on increasing the speed at which products reach the market, prioritizing R&D investment, and halting projects that were not proving viable sooner. During the 1980s recession they introduced the ‘Genesis programme’, focused on encouraging technological entrepreneurship and new product development. In the 1990s, 3M senior management found they were not producing products fast enough. They sent researchers to work more closely with their marketing teams to transfer technology into commercial products. They also introduced the ‘Pacing Plus programme’, which singled out the most promising new products in order to streamline development. During the dot-com bubble recession they introduced ‘3M Acceleration’, aimed at faster and more effective commercialization by prioritizing R&D investment and cutting not so promising projects earlier in the R&D process.

When companies spend more on R&D during a recession they will see greater increase in terms of profitability and growth in the recovery. Businesses must be ready with the next wave of innovative technology before consumer demand picks up. Companies that reduce R&D spending may have the desirable effect of improving short-term cash flow, but they increase the likelihood of permanent damage to competitive advantage and market share. Increased R&D spending can also create products that meet the increasingly diverse needs of customers and help firms identify and focus on the innovative products that provide the most value. An example of this is Proctor and Gamble, who sent researchers ‘into the field’ to understand consumer needs.

Both Procter and Gamble and 3M have released some of their most successful products during a recession. During the Great Depression, 3M launched their first Scotch Tape™ product, and during the early 1980s recession they released Post-it Notes™. Similarly, during the dot-com recession, Proctor and Gamble released their Swiffer™ and Crest™ products, each now earn over a billion dollars in annual revenue for the company.

A new product launch may actually have greater impact during a recession than at other times. A product that is unique or demonstrably better than others should be able to command a higher price, even among price conscious shoppers. Competitors who are running scared may be late in countering a new product with their ‘me-too’ offerings. As noted above, companies may also be able to use targeted advertising strategies to gain greater impact from a product launch during a downturn.

Conclusion

Recessions are notorious for breaking companies. But the some companies in the recessions also provide opportunities to reinvigorate.

Critical success factors for these successful companies include:

· Focus on core business, strengthening it where possible and re-focusing on core strategic goals where necessary to put resources where they are most needed. A recession can also provide an opportunity to shed non-core operations which split focus and resources.

· Companies should not be afraid to spend, but must do so wisely. During a recession may be the best time to acquire assets or other companies. This can strengthen and refocus the company to position for increased growth and profitability when the recovery period comes. The key is to acquire companies that strengthen the core competencies of the business and are aligned with the corporate strategy.

· Maintaining or increasing advertising has proven to have many advantages and will often lead to increased market share as competitors who cut back lose ‘share of survival of the company.

· Maintaining or increasing spending on R&D has also proven to be advantageous as it can create new value in core products/services that can sway recessionary consumers as trading is more competitive. New products can have a greater impact when released during a downturn. Cutting costs in these areas may produce desirable short term results but may increase the likelihood of permanent damage to competitive advantage and market share growth in the long term.

· For companies that do not plan in advance for economic turmoil, it is never too late to start. Early analysis and the use of scenario planning can dramatically improve results and speed recovery.

· Improving the efficiency and process of operations will help execute the recession strategy and may also free up cash flow. Furthermore, if the strategy is not working, having speed and flexibility built into the management and operational structure allows for mistakes to be corrected quickly.