Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

The New Contrarianism: Less for Less

Posted by: Helen Walters on January 7, 2009

I recently chatted with Michael Raynor, co-author of The Innovator’s Dilemma, author of The Strategy Paradox, and currently a Distinguished Fellow at Deloitte Research. We recorded a podcast, which you can hear here, on Michael’s latest theory: “The New Contrarianism.” Essentially, it’s his way for businesses to think about innovation in straitened times. Rather than paraphrase his ideas, I thought I’d just go ahead and publish them, complete with his analysis of how the wireless phone industry could use the current global economic woes to turn itself around. So… Here’s Michael:

Your customers are going bankrupt. Your suppliers are cutting off credit. You’re struggling to avoid layoffs. It’s the perfect time to innovate and grow!

Contrarian investing has made some people fabulously wealthy, Baron de Rothschild and Warren Buffett among them. In fact, contrarianism is hardly contrary at all; it is the conventional wisdom, and it is conceptually straightforward: having husbanded at least some of your cash during the boom, you look for companies with solid fundamentals but prices that have been artificially depressed by the prevailing panic.

But watch out: There are at least two pitfalls that await the would-be contrarian. First, it's often impossible to buy when everyone else is selling because you don't have the cash. The general lack of liquidity is what makes this a financial crisis, after all.

Second, our instincts often lead us to pursue contrarian strategies in self-destructive ways. Wedded to the mindset that innovation amounts to "more for more" – that is, better value but at higher prices – we try to take advantage of others' weaknesses by offering the "same for less." The result is that companies that try to innovate in a downturn actually do little more than slap on a 20% off sticker. This can make bad situations much worse.

For example, it's been reported that in the wake of the US federal government's $85 billion bail-out of AIG, other commercial insurers are taking a run at the company's most lucrative commercial insurance customers. Not surprisingly, AIG is fighting back with everything it's got: those lucrative customers are likely key to the company's long-term prospects. The result has been a rapidly escalating price war that one can only imagine does little to burnish anyone's results.

If companies are to take advantage of the current malaise, we need a "new contrarianism," one that shakes loose the money needed to invest and applies those resources to bone fide strategic opportunities. This is summed up in the notion of "less for less." Seen through this lens, the current environment is awash in promise.

Take, for example, the telecom industry. Major wireline providers have long been losing customers to wireless services. In a recession, this trend will only accelerate, rapidly eroding the profitability of a capital intensive, scale sensitive business. Making lemonade out this serving of citrus requires bold moves. Since the wireline business is in secular decline anyway, why not shift the business model to align better with marketplace realities? Turn voice services from a core offering into a by-product of a new infrastructure focused on video and data services. The quality (latency, selection, etc.) of the video need not even be as "good" as cable, for now, because stretched consumers might be easily won over by a la carte, channel-by-channel subscriptions. The finishing blow is bundling video service with wireless telephony. Then, rather than fighting a losing "more for more" battle for $35/month in voice spend, the telcos could seize the high ground competing with "less for less" for $50/month on video. Into the bargain the telcos would be freeing themselves from a 19th century business model even as they positioned themselves for growth.

Another "less for less" opportunity lies with high-end retailers that have a chance to re-make their model for the masses. Whole Foods, for example, has defined the market for organics. The company's historical growth rates might be in jeopardy, however, for as The New York Times reports, as belts tighten the organic arugula might be the first to go. The "more for more" response is to find distressed sales of good locations and expand, either now or when the economy recovers. The "same for less" response is to scale back investment and cut prices to hold share. The first ignores your income statement and balance sheet while the second foregoes a chance to remake your market. The "less for less" response is to forge a new model optimized for the current reality. Why not offer organic olives, just not 25 varieties? How about smaller, less expensive, focused stores with limited operating hours? Hold less inventory, tolerate more frequent stockouts, and shift to more self-service. This not only protects the bottom line today, it creates a model with broader appeal that is well-positioned for growth when the clouds part.

These suggestions might seem fanciful, but they are not without precedent. Toyota's econo-boxes gained credibility during the 1970s oil crisis and set the company on a thirty-year growth trajectory. Thanks to the rationing of WWII, women's silk stockings were prohibitively expensive and in short supply. In that scarcity DuPont found the first market for its new polymer, nylon. (And now you know why they're called "nylons".) And in the Great Depression, Kellogg's transformed inexpensive cold cereal from an unwelcome substitute for eggs into "part of this complete breakfast." Each of these began life as a "less for less" offering that grew into market-defining products.

Contrarianism can be good advice, but for most of us it is impractical. But the "new contrarianism" of less for less provides both the means to do it well and a way to do it right.

Thanks, Michael. What do you think?

Reader Comments

Peter Mortensen

January 7, 2009 4:34 PM

Interesting stuff. Very provocative and quite different from what I was envisioning when you first tweeted it.

The recommendations and cases Michael's making are interesting, but the commonalities don't seem as tightly linked as he's implying. After all, it's well-known that the threat of substitutes (one of Porter's five forces) becomes much stronger during an economic downturn -- that's Kellogg's, Toyota and DuPont.

But Michael's recommendations for Whole Foods are dramatically different. Ultimately, he's recommending switching the business model of the grocery store from the supermarket to what Trader Joe's already does today, which is to choose the best representatives of each food and beverage category, instead of 50 kinds of cereal. That said, TJ's is hardly a value player. Often, their house brands are more expensive than competitors. It's just the curation aspect of TJ's choosing the one best representative instead of offering the kitchen sink that makes them stand out.

As for the Telco recommendation, I'm fairly certain the existence of the Roku player, Hulu, and even the Xbox 360 is already pointing us to the ala carte future of having one fat pipe for all services. It's not fanciful, it's just the way technology is taking us.

I'm not convinced that all of these examples are "less for less." The three examples that do fit are the historical low-cost substitutes. And the most important thing to know about them is that they weren't successes simply because they were cheaper -- each had a performance benefit over the more expensive products they challenged. Toyotas were better because they had far greater fuel efficiency, not because they were cheap. Nylons were big because they were actually more durable than silk, not just because they were cheap. And cold cereal is far more convenient than eggs.

In other words, these ultimately seem to me to be more for less, to paraphrase Target's slogan. They cost less, but they offer greater benefits that will leave them differentiated once the road ahead is clear. And the only way to create a more for less offering is to truly understand what customers value, come up with a compelling new way to deliver that value, and then leave out everything else.

John Gabrick, MindMatters

January 14, 2009 10:29 AM

I think this is an interesting concept, but I'd liken it to maintaining a stock portfolio. Organizations should always be looking for a balanced portfolio, in this case the right mixture of 'less for less', 'more for more', and 'same for less'. As the environment changes, the mix changes to accommodate the organization's resources and strategy. Innovation comes in many shapes and sizes, and Raynor is giving sage advice on where to look for better ROI during this challenging economic time.


January 14, 2009 10:49 PM

I think "less for less" is a very commendable philosophy. In fact, you can even tie it in with saving the environment. For example. reducing packaging oe even removing it all together. Consumers are willing to suffer a bit of inconvenience to save cost and to do good at the same time.

Post a comment



What comes next? The Bloomberg Businessweek Innovation and Design blog chronicles new tools for creativity and collaboration, innovation case studies in both the corporate and social sectors, and the new ideas that have the power to change the way things have always been done.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!