Creative Destruction – Page 13

Joe Biden’s Dad Told Him to “Get Up” in Face of Job Loss

Innovative entrepreneurs, through the process of creative destruction, provide us with wonderful new products and services. But sometimes the process also results in job loss. One response to the job loss is to shut down innovation. Another is to preach resilience. Joe Biden’s Dad said “get up.” (The clip is from a talk that Joe Biden gave to the National Press Club on August 1, 2007. The full talk is posted to the C-SPAN web site.)

A mainly similar presentation of the “get up” message is on p. xxii of Biden’s autobiography:
Biden, Joe. Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics. New York: Random House, 2007.

Ben Franklin Stores as Incubators of Retail Success

(p. 192) The chain was called Michaels. I’d never heard of it but, as George related its ancestry, I became more and more intrigued. You see, once upon a time it had been a Ben Franklin store, and therein lies a story.
Back in 1877, Edward and George Butler, brothers from Boston, came up with a new concept for retailing. Instead of setting up a specialty shop to sell one line of items–like shoes or dresses or kitchen supplies–they set up a store where they could sell all sorts of stuff. This was the very beginning of department stores, except that they weren’t yet called that. They were called variety stores, and they carried a large assortment of low-cost goods. Then the Butlers set up a “five-cent counter,” where everything cost a nickel. It worked in Boston, so they expanded westward and called it Ben Franklin Stores.
Three-quarters of a century later, in the days when America was just starting to move westward with the automobile, there were no shopping malls or big national retail chains. What you found in every town, especially in small-town America, was a variety store, like Ben Franklin’s. In Lake Providence, we had Morgan and Lindsey’s, where you could buy everything from paper napkins to thimbles, birthday cards, curtain hooks, and boxes of chocolates. The Butlers’ idea of a nickel counter became so popular and widespread that these places came to be nicknamed “five-and-dimes” or “five-and ten-cent” stores.
(p. 193) While some of them became the heart of Main Street America, others grew to become legendary department stores, like Macy’s in New York, Wanamaker’s in Philadelphia, and Lehman’s in Chicago. Still others merged into chains to compete with Ben Franklin Stores. That’s how JC Penney’s was born.

Source:
Wyly, Sam. 1,000 Dollars and an Idea: Entrepreneur to Billionaire. New York: Newmarket Press, 2008.

“Innovation” Should Be Reserved for Electricity, Printing Press, Telephone and iPhone

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) “Most companies say they’re innovative in the hope they can somehow con investors into thinking there is growth when there isn’t,” says Clayton Christensen, a professor at Harvard Business School and the author of the 1997 book, “The Innovator’s Dilemma.”
. . .
Scott Berkun, the author of the 2007 book “The Myths of Innovation,” which warns about the dilution of the word, says that what most people call an innovation is usually just a “very good product.”
He prefers to reserve the word for civilization-changing inventions like electricity, the printing press and the telephone–and, more recently, perhaps the iPhone.
. . .
Mr. Berkun tracks innovation’s popularity as a buzzword back to the 1990s, amid the dot-com bubble and the release of James M. Utterback’s “Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation” and Mr. Christensen’s “Dilemma.”
. . .
(p. B8) Mr. Christensen classifies innovations into three types: efficiency innovations, which produce the same product more cheaply, such as automating credit checks; sustaining innovations, which turn good products into better ones, such as the hybrid car; and disruptive innovations, which transform expensive, complex products into affordable, simple ones, such as the shift from mainframe to personal computers.
A company’s biggest potential for growth lies in disruptive innovation, he says, noting that the other types could just as well be called ordinary progress and normally don’t create more jobs or business.
But the disruptive innovations can take five to eight years to bear fruit, he says, so companies lose patience.
It is far easier, he adds, for companies to just say they’re innovating. “Everybody’s innovating, because any change is innovation.”

For the full story, see:
LESLIE KWOH. “You Call That Innovation? Companies Love to Say They Innovate, but the Term Has Begun to Lose Meaning.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., May 23, 2012): B1 & B8.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Private Equity Firms Increase Efficiency and Create as Many Jobs as They Destroy

(p. A23) Forty years ago, corporate America was bloated, sluggish and losing ground to competitors in Japan and beyond. But then something astonishing happened. Financiers, private equity firms and bare-knuckled corporate executives initiated a series of reforms and transformations.
The process was brutal and involved streamlining and layoffs. But, at the end of it, American businesses emerged leaner, quicker and more efficient.
. . .
As Reihan Salam noted in a fair-minded review of the literature in National Review, in any industry there is an astonishing difference in the productivity levels of leading companies and the lagging companies. Private equity firms like Bain acquire bad companies and often replace management, compel executives to own more stock in their own company and reform company operations.
Most of the time they succeed. Research from around the world clearly confirms that companies that have been acquired by private equity firms are more productive than comparable firms.
This process involves a great deal of churn and creative destruction. It does not, on net, lead to fewer jobs. A giant study by economists from the University of Chicago, Harvard, the University of Maryland and the Census Bureau found that when private equity firms acquire a company, jobs are lost in old operations. Jobs are created in new, promising operations. The overall effect on employment is modest.

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID BROOKS. “How Change Happens.” The New York Times (Tues., May 22, 2012): A23.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated May 21, 2012.)

The “giant study by economists” mentioned by Brooks is:
Davis, Steven J., John C. Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, Josh Lerner, and Javier Miranda. “Private Equity and Employment.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers: # 17399, Sept. 2011.

Harvard and M.I.T. Free Online Courses May Disrupt Mid-Tier Universities

(p. A17) In what is shaping up as an academic Battle of the Titans — one that offers vast new learning opportunities for students around the world — Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Wednesday announced a new nonprofit partnership, known as edX, to offer free online courses from both universities.
Harvard’s involvement follows M.I.T.’s announcement in December that it was starting an open online learning project, MITx. Its first course, Circuits and Electronics, began in March, enrolling about 120,000 students, some 10,000 of whom made it through the recent midterm exam. Those who complete the course will get a certificate of mastery and a grade, but no official credit. Similarly, edX courses will offer a certificate but not credit.
But Harvard and M.I.T. have a rival — they are not the only elite universities planning to offer free massively open online courses, or MOOCs, as they are known. This month, Stanford, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Michigan announced their partnership with a new commercial company, Coursera, with $16 million in venture capital.
. . .
Education experts say that while the new online classes offer opportunities for students and researchers, they pose some threat to low-ranked colleges.
“Projects like this can impact lives around the world, for the next billion students from China and India,” said George Siemens, a MOOC pioneer who teaches at Athabasca University, a publicly supported online Canadian university. “But if I were president of a mid-tier university, I would be looking over my shoulder very nervously right now, because if a leading university offers a free circuits course, it becomes a real question whether other universities need to develop a circuits course.”

For the full story, see:
TAMAR LEWIN. “Harvard and M.I.T. Join to Offer Web Courses.” The New York Times (Thurs., May 3, 2012): A17.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story is dated May 2, 2012, and has the title “Harvard and M.I.T. Team Up to Offer Free Online Courses.”)

Capitalism More about Creating New Markets than about Competing to Dominate Old Ones

(p. A21) As a young man, Peter Thiel competed to get into Stanford. Then he competed to get into Stanford Law School. Then he competed to become a clerk for a federal judge. Thiel won all those competitions. But then he competed to get a Supreme Court clerkship.
Thiel lost that one. So instead of being a clerk, he went out and founded PayPal. Then he became an early investor in Facebook and many other celebrated technology firms. Somebody later asked him. “So, aren’t you glad you didn’t get that Supreme Court clerkship?”
The question got Thiel thinking. His thoughts are now incorporated into a course he is teaching in the Stanford Computer Science Department. (A student named Blake Masters posted outstanding notes online, and Thiel has confirmed their accuracy.)
One of his core points is that we tend to confuse capitalism with competition. We tend to think that whoever competes best comes out ahead. In the race to be more competitive, we sometimes confuse what is hard with what is valuable. The intensity of competition becomes a proxy for value.
In fact, Thiel argues, we often shouldn’t seek to be really good competitors. We should seek to be really good monopolists. Instead of being slightly better than everybody else in a crowded and established field, it’s often more valuable to create a new market and totally dominate it. The profit margins are much bigger, and the value to society is often bigger, too.
Now to be clear: When Thiel is talking about a “monopoly,” he isn’t talking about the illegal eliminate-your-rivals kind. He’s talking about doing something so creative that you establish a distinct market, niche and identity. You’ve established a creative monopoly and everybody has to come to you if they want that service, at least for a time.

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID BROOKS. “The Creative Monopoly.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., April 24, 2012): A21.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated April 23, 2012.)

The online Peter Thiel notes are at:
http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/21169325300/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-4-notes-essay

Steve Jobs Channels Ellis Wyatt

(p. 260) In 2007 Forbes magazine named Steve Jobs the highest-paid exec-(p. 261)utive of any of America’s five hundred largest companies, based on gains in the value of stock granted to him at Apple. He was on the board of directors of the Walt Disney Co. Yet his former residence in Woodside, where he had once met with Catmull and Smith and mused about buying Lucasfilm’s Computer Division, was now in a state of decay under his ownership.
He had wanted to demolish it; after a group of neighborhood residents opposed his plan to do so, he left the house open to the elements. The interior suffered damage from water and mold. Vines crept up the stucco walls and wandered inside.
The memories that haunted its hallways were those of Jobs’s darkest times. He had bought the house only months before the humiliation of his firing from Apple; he lived in it through that firing and through the hard, money-hemorrhaging years of Pixar and NeXT. He left it as his fortunes were about to change, as he was sending Microsoft away from Pixar, convinced that he had something he should hold on to.
When a judge ruled against his quest for a demolition permit, Jobs appealed in 2006 and 2007 all the way to the California Supreme Court, but he lost at every stage. He received proposals from property owners offering to cart the house away in sections and restore it elsewhere; he rejected them. One way or another, it seemed, he meant for the house to be destroyed.

Source:
Price, David A. The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.
(Note: italics in original.)
(Note: The passage above is from the Epilogue and the pages given above are from the hardback edition (pp. 260-261). The identical passage also appears in the 2009 paperback edition, but on p. 265.

Diamond to Teach Creative Destruction Colloquium in Fall 2012

Colloquium Rationale:
Creative destruction is the process through which innovative new products are created, and older obsolete products are destroyed. In transportation, for example, cars creatively destroyed the horse and buggy, trains creatively destroyed horse-drawn wagons. Such innovations contribute to longer and richer lives, but may come at the cost of greater uncertainty in the labor market. Schumpeter claimed that the process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. Although Nobel-prize-winner George Stigler has described creative destruction as “heresy,” a growing number of economists and non-economists have found the concept useful in understanding the world. While most of the emphasis will be on the implications of creative destruction for business and the economy, the discussion will sometimes involve issues related to information science, sociology, medicine, law, engineering, psychology, literature, political science, architecture, and history.

You can hear me talking about last year’s version of the Creative Destruction Colloquium (which was offered last year under a different course number and a slightly different title) in the following YouTube video:

“Crises Are an Inevitable Concomitant of Risk”

(p. 11) Some economic risks are worth taking, and crises are an inevitable concomitant of risk. Crises, like firm failures, can be seen as a manifestation of the Schumpeterian process of creative destruction. The role for economic analysis is to ensure that the creation dominates and that the destruction is not too costly.

Source:
Eichengreen, Barry. Capital Flows and Crises. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003.

Successful Innovation Depends More on Will than on Intellect

(p. 9) The odysseys of [Lasseter, Catmull, Smith and Jobs], and of Pixar as a whole, bring to mind the observation of the maverick economist Joseph Schumpeter that successful innovation “is a feat not of intellect, but of will.” Writing about the psychology of entrepreneurs in the early twentieth century, a rime when the subject was unfashionable, he believed few individuals are prepared for “the resistances and uncertainties incident to doing what has not been done before.” Those who braved the risks of failure did so out of noneconomic as well as economic motives, among them “the joy of creating, of getting things done, or simply of exercising one’s energy and ingenuity.” In Pixar’s case, at least, the resistances and uncertainties were abundant–as was the will.

Source:
Price, David A. The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.
(Note: my strong impression is that the pagination is the same for the 2008 hardback and the 2009 paperback editions, except for part of the epilogue, which is revised and expanded in the paperback. I believe the passage above has the same page number in both editions.)