What To Learn From Maytag
by
Gary North
by Gary North
DIGG THIS
On the October
21 edition of the CBS news show, "Sunday Morning," there was a
segment on the history of the Maytag washing machine company.
The company began producing washers in 1907 in Newton, Iowa. This
week, the last floor employee at the nearly deserted Newton facility
will be permanently laid off. Newton and Maytag have divorced. Reconciliation
is unlikely due to irreconcilable differences.
The brand
will bump along for a while longer. It may even recover its lost
profitability. But it is now owned by Whirlpool, which bought the
Maytag company in 2006 for $1.7 billion.
The show interviewed
workers who had been with the company their entire adult lives.
Their careers are over. They will soon be facing the harsh realities
of a retirement based on fixed incomes and rising prices.
What I found
of much greater interest was this testimony from a more recent employee.
"When
I started working at the company 15 years ago, it was really hustling
and bustling," David Daehler said. "We was working 24/7 at the first
plant I worked in. And we couldn't put out enough product. Life
was good. Four or five years ago things were really good with the
company. And when things started going down, they really spiraled."
Here is a company
that truly had things together for almost a hundred years. Yet in
five years, it self-destructed. How? By cutting corners. Of all American
companies, Maytag's management should never have cut corners.
"From
the beginning, F.L. Maytag understood that delivering on the promise,
putting his mouth where his money was, was really critical and he
did that," said Nancy Koehn, a brand historian at Harvard Business
School. "There really isn't another appliance that has that special
place, that real estate if you will, in customers' hearts and heads
like Maytag."
In just five
years, Maytag's senior managers squandered the company's reputation.
There is a lesson here.
MY MAYTAG
EXPERIENCE
Early in our
marriage, in 1976, my wife bought a used Maytag for (I recall),
$125. That was $460 in today's money. We moved that machine from
Northern Virginia to North Carolina in 1977. From there, we moved
to Texas in 1980. We still had that machine when we moved to Arkansas
in 1998. It needed just three repairs in those 21 years, all minor.
The paint had eroded off the settings dial, but the machine still
worked fine. We left it behind when we moved to Arkansas in 2005.
It still worked fine. We brought our back-up Maytag with us, bought
used in 1998 for $200. It also works fine.
That was Maytag's
reputation. It was reinforced by one of the most effective ad campaigns
in television history: the lonely Maytag repairman. The famous Maytag
repairman was veteran character actor Jesse White. White had a widely
recognized face, but only movie buffs (or Stan Freberg skit buffs)
knew who he was. His face was almost timeless, from Harvey
(1950) to the Maytag repairman job. He held the position from
1967 to 1988. He was not the first Maytag repairman, but he is the
one my generation remembers and the generation that followed.
Then, sometime
around 2000, things began to slide. The Web spread the word: Maytag's
Neptune front-loading washer was a stinker literally. The
following story was posted in 2005. It
is still on-line.
We
were having dinner with our new neighbors the other day when talk
turned to washing machines. Our Maytag had started making strange
noises the Thursday before, and we were surprised that the lonely
Maytag repairman couldn't make it out to our house until the next
Tuesday. Our neighbors, who had gotten a fancy Maytag Neptune washer
and dryer set when they acquired their house, had found out that
the Neptune washer had another well-deserved name, the "Stinkomatic."
This morning
I did a little Internet searching and happened upon maytagproblems.com.
A little more searching led me to ConsumerAffairs.com where I
learned that Maytag has just settled a class action lawsuit over
the Neptune. This comment was typical of the complaints I saw.
"The
stench was awful," said Anne of Treasure Island, Fla., in a complaint
to ConsumerAffairs.Com. "I was told to wash the boot and the gasket
in the door once a week. Use only a certain detergent. Wipe the
door and the inside down with bleach once a week and then leave
the door open for 2 hours after each washing."
"I was
washing my washer more than I was washing my laundry," she said.
That complaint
was in stark contrast to the statement that I found in the Maytag
Pressroom on their website.
For the better part of a century, Maytag (TM) brand appliances
have been synonymous with dependability and quality. Today, Maytag
remains one of America's most trusted appliance manufacturers.
Based in Newton, Iowa, Maytag Appliances offers a full line of
high-performance appliances.
The short-sighted
managers who ran the company thought that a bland public relations
statement on its Website, which affirmed the good old days, would
overcome the company's collapsing product quality, announced widely
on the Web.
A year later,
the company was bought out.
Here is a
classic case of a deliberate violation of a USP: unique selling
proposition. A unique selling proposition is that unique and original
benefit that a product offers to consumers. If it can be encapsulated
in a slogan, it becomes a cash cow. A famous USP is "Melts in your
mouth, not in your hand." I don't have to identify the product,
do I?
Maytag's USP
was reliability. It built its TV campaign around this theme from
1967 to 2007. But senior management decided to cut corners to save
a few bucks. They allowed units to leave the factory that had major
problems.
They did this
in the era of the Web. They did not perceive that a true revolution
had taken place, 1996 to 2000. They did not perceive that the Web
would allow bad news to circulate by word of mouse. They did not
perceive that disappointed buyers now had a way to get out the message.
The message was clear: Maytag had abandoned reliability its
unique selling proposition.
The speed
of consumer retaliation was very fast. As the former employee said,
"We was working 24/7 at the first plant I worked in. And we couldn't
put out enough product. Life was good. Four or five years ago things
were really good with the company. And when things started going
down, they really spiraled." In a very brief period, the company
became unprofitable. Whirlpool moved in to take advantage of the
crisis.
Whirlpool's
management believes that the Maytag brand can be restored. This
is a huge gamble. Once lost, a USP is very difficult to restore.
CONSUMERS
RUN THE SHOW
The idea that
a great ad campaign can create a silk purse out of a sow's ear is
quite popular in tenured, market-immune academia, but sellers know
better. Maytag's ads proclaimed the same old story after 2000, but
consumers were not fooled. They walked away from the brand by the
millions. Another classic case of consumers' absolute control over
the profitability of a company is Schlitz beer. It was a mainstay
of the beer industry three decades ago. It was second in market
share only to Bud. It tried to save a few percentage points with
a new, improved formula improved for the accounting department.
David Aaker, a professor of marketing at Berkeley, describes
what happened.
Executives
often fail to recognize that delivering high quality is not enough
to gain a marketplace advantage; there must be a perception among
customers that high quality exists. Profits for the Joseph Schlitz
Brewing Co. fell steadily, from $48 million in 1974 to a negative
$50 million in 1979. In Schlitz's Milwaukee plant in 1974, the "accelerated
batch fermentation" process was finally put in production after
10 years of development. For some time the company had reduced costs
by substituting corn syrup for barley malt. The fact that Schlitz
was attempting to save money by going to less-expensive ingredients
and processes was difficult to keep quiet and defend, especially
since Anheuser-Busch Cos. had made the explicit decision to keep
using the more expensive ingredients. In addition, Schlitz's CEO
died in 1977, and legal problems in 1978 led to the loss of 4 top
marketing people. Still, the collapse of the Schlitz brand equity
was caused largely by the loss of the perceived quality of the product.
This loss turned out to be irreversible.
In 1982, Stroh's
Beer bought out Schlitz. It had taken Shlitz's management less than
a decade to destroy the company. "You only go around once in life,"
a famous Schlitz commercial had proclaimed. This turned out to be
true. In 1999, Stroh's went out of the beer business after 150 years.
It sold Schlitz to Pabst. Hardly anyone noticed.
If there is
a rule that must not be violated it is quality control. It is better
to hike the price than reduce quality. Why? Because of brand loyalty.
The secret of success is repeat sales. This of course is far more
true of beer than washing machines. Repeat business is everything.
The existing client base must be courted. Word of mouth starts with
this base. Put the consumers' loyalty to the test for the sake of
a few percentage points' profit, and you risk the survival of the
company. The loyal brand users return because the product meets
their tastes and is predictable. Call into question this predictability,
and you risk everything.
RECESSIONS
AND COSTS
The great
temptation of recessions is to cut costs by cutting quality. Profits
fall, sales fall, and advertising doesn't compensate for the decline.
Word goes down the chain of command: "Cut costs!" The command is
obeyed.
Schlitz took
the plunge with its new formula in 1974, just as a recession was
beginning. Managers refused to understand that the immediate fall
in sales and profits was due mainly to the shift in brand loyalty.
They thought it was due to the recession. By the time the recession
ended in 1976, the damage had been done. The company sold to Stroh's
in the middle of the next recession.
The same thing
happened to Maytag. It cut quality just as the recession began or
immediately before. The fall in profits could be blamed on the recession
of 2001. By the time the recession ended and the economy clearly
was reviving, the company had established its new reputation: poor
quality. Its USP was finished.
This practice
is common. In January, 2003, I wrote an
article about the lost vision at Dell Computer. I related the
story of my experience with tech support, which Dell had moved to
India. It was not a pleasant experience.
The following
November, Dell
cancelled its contract with its Indian tech support firm. This
got a lot of bad publicity.
But Dell did
not move customer support out of India. It just switched companies
in India. The
complaints are still coming from disgruntled buyers.
As for Dell's
share price, it is a bit less than half of what it was at the peak
of the dot-com bubble in March, 2000. The company is unlikely ever
to shake off its reputation for poor service. It gained this reputation
years ago. Management seems to have factored consumer dissatisfaction
into its business model. The
share price reflects this.
The company
made its decision to
shift its customer support center to India in October, 2000,
a few months before the 2001 recession began.
Its share
price by then had collapsed by two-thirds. Management was pressured
by this to find ways to restore the company's fortunes. The move
to India came just as the 2001 recession hit. Cost-cutting was on
the front burner. The result has been what seems to be a permanent
set-back for the company. I found no mention on the Web of a stock
split since 2001, which would have lowered the price without lowering
total capital gains to investors. There had been four splits in
five years, 199297.
THE
CASE FOR CASH
The time to
make gains in market share is during a recession. The competition
is scared. Revenue is falling. Plans are being re-thought. The advertising
budgets are cut because increases in the budget do not gain increases
in profitability.
When the competition
moves into self-defense mode, an innovative firm with cash reserves
can use advertising to increase its market share. This produces
initial losses. Ad costs are not matched by rising revenues. But
buyers will be attracted to the brand when they see the ads.
In recessions,
people keep buying. They just don't buy the same things as in booms.
There is a shift from products that are desired when income is high
to staples. Discretionary income shrinks.
At this point,
companies that sell high-end niche products to wealthy people have
a great advantage over companies that sell price-competitive, mass-produced
items at Wal-Mart. People do cut back, though not as rapidly as
their income falls. They borrow to keep spending. Their tastes do
not change as fast as their income does.
In this shift
from confident spending to cautious spending, the entrepreneur can
make his move. He can secure a new customer at the expense of a
competitor who did not see the signs of the recession.
MISES
SHOWED THE WAY
When central
bank monetary expansion ends, followed by slower growth in the monetary
base, the economy slows. This is Ludwig von Mises' insight in his
theory of debased money. I have written a
chapter on his theory of the boom-bust cycle.
We are now
well into the disinflation stage on the cycle. Corporate managers
who understand Mises should by now have moved from aggressive marketing
to capital accumulation. Now is a good time to build cash, whether
you are a corporate manager or an individual. The goal here is to
have reserves when the fire sales begin. This will not take long.
The setback has hit residential real estate. This has only just
begun.
If your employer
has been in cash-building mode for the last six months, this is
a good sign.
You would
be wise to take the signs of recession seriously.
CONCLUSION
There are
no free lunches. There are no free booms. Booms are followed by
busts.
In
good times, prepare for bad times. Lay up reserves. In bad times,
the grasshoppers who sang "The world owes me a living" all summer
start selling their banjos for food. If you're in the banjo business,
you will get some great deals on inventory.
October
24, 2007
Gary
North [send him mail]
is the author of Mises
on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.
He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An
Economic Commentary on the Bible.
Copyright ©
2007 LewRockwell.com
Gary
North Archives
|