October 2013 – artdiamondblog.com

After 25 Years of Government Harassment, A&P Was Finally Allowed to Lower Prices for Consumers

The two main types of creative destruction are: 1.) new products and 2.) process innovations. Much has been written about the new product type; much less about the process innovation type. Marc Levinson has written two very useful books on process innovations that are important exceptions. The first is The Box and the second is The Great A&P.

(p. A13) A prosecutor in Franklin Roosevelt’s administration called it a “giant blood sucker.” A federal judge in Woodrow Wilson’s day deemed it a “monopolist,” and another, during Harry Truman’s presidency, convicted it of violating antitrust law. The federal government investigated it almost continuously for a quarter-century, and more than half the states tried to tax it out of business. For its strategy of selling groceries cheaply, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company paid a very heavy price.
. . .
A&P was Wal-Mart long before there was Wal-Mart. Founded around the start of the Civil War, it upset the tradition-encrusted tea trade by selling teas at discount prices by mail and developing the first brand-name tea. A few years later, its tea shops began to stock spices, baking powder and canned goods, making A&P one of the first chain grocers.
Then, in 1912, John A. Hartford, one of the two brothers who had taken over the company from their father, had one of those inspirations that change the course of business. He proposed that the company test a bare-bones format at a tiny store in Jersey City, offering short hours, limited selection and no home delivery, and that it use the cost savings to lower prices. The A&P Economy Store was an instant success. The Great A&P was soon opening one and then two and then three stores per day. By 1920, it had become the largest retailer in the world.
. . .
While shoppers flocked to A&P’s 16,000 stores, small grocers and grocery wholesalers didn’t share their enthusiasm. The anti-chain-store movement dates back at least to 1913, when the American Fair-Trade League pushed for laws against retail price-cutting.
. . .
Thanks in good part to the Hartfords’ tenacity, the restraints on discount retailing began to fade away in the 1950s. Chain-store taxes were gradually repealed, and state laws limiting price competition to protect mom and pop were taken off the books. By 1962, when Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart, and other modern discount formats were born, the pendulum had swung in consumers’ favor.

For the full commentary, see:
MARC LEVINSON. “When Creative Destruction Visited the Mom-and-Pops; The A&P grocery company may be nearing its sell-by date, but a century ago it was a fresh, revolutionary business.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Oct. 12, 2013): A13.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Oct. 11, 2013, and had the title “Marc Levinson: When Creative Destruction Visited the Mom-and-Pops; The A&P grocery company may be nearing its sell-by date, but a century ago it was a fresh, revolutionary business.”)

Levinson’s book on A&P is:
Levinson, Marc. The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America. New York: Hill and Wang, 2011.

Fed-Mandated High Sugar Prices Drive Candy Jobs Abroad

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

(p. A1) On Friday, [Oct. 18, 2013] the U.S. sugar contract in the futures market settled at 22.28 cents a pound, or 14% higher than the benchmark global price.

U.S. prices can’t fall much lower because of a federal government program that guarantees sugar processors a minimum price. The rest of the world also has a surfeit of sugar, but fewer price restrictions, and big growers like Brazil are expecting a record crop for the current season.
The squeeze explains why Atkinson Candy Co. has moved 80% of its peppermint-candy production to a factory in Guatemala that opened in 2010. That means it can sell bite-size Mint Twists to retailers for 10% to 20% less.
“It wasn’t like we did it for (p. A14) profit reasons. We did it for survival reasons,” said Eric Atkinson, president of the family-owned candy maker, based in Lufkin, Texas. “These are 60 jobs down there…that could be in the U.S.,” he added. “It’s a damn shame.”
Jelly Belly Candy Co. is finishing its second expansion of a factory in Thailand that was opened by the Fairfield, Calif., company in 2007. The sixth-generation family-owned firm sells about 20% of its jelly beans, made in flavors from buttered popcorn to very cherry, outside the U.S.
Sugar makes up about half of the ingredients and cost of a typical jelly bean, said Bob Simpson, Jelly Belly’s president and chief operating officer. Thailand is the world’s fourth-largest sugar producer and gives Jelly Belly access to cheaper sugar, labor and other raw materials than the candy maker has in the U.S.
“You can’t compete shipping finished U.S. goods” anymore, Mr. Simpson said. In the U.S., Jelly Belly has had to raise prices “several times” in the past 10 years due to high sugar prices.
. . .
Three candy-making jobs are lost for each sugar-growing and processing job saved by higher sugar prices, according to a Commerce Department report in 2006.
In a sign that candy makers are taking advantage of lower sugar prices elsewhere, the amount of sugar contained in imported products surged 33% from 2002 to 2012, according to the Agriculture Department.

For the full story, see:
Wexler, Alexandra. “Cheaper Sugar Sends Candy Makers Abroad.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Oct. 21, 2013): A1 & A14.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Oct. 20, 2013.)

“Jelly Belly, whose facility in Fairfield, Calif., is shown above, is expanding its factory in Thailand.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Google Had the Most “Massive Parallelized Redundant Computer Network” in the World

(p. 198) . . . by perfecting its software, owning its own fiber, and innovating in conservation techniques, Google was able to run its computers spending only a third of what its competitors paid. “Our true advantage was actually the fact that we had this massive parallelized redundant computer network, probably more than anyone in the world, including governments,” says Jim Reese. “And we realized that maybe it’s not in our best interests to let our competitors know.”

Source:
Levy, Steven. In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Goldman I.P.O. Led to Pressure to Grow

Source of book image: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-ZF094_bkrvgo_GV_20131008133334.jpg

(p. B8) Steven G. Mandis, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Columbia University, takes a measured, academic approach to the question in a new book, “What Happened to Goldman Sachs,” an examination of the bank’s evolution from an elite private partnership to a vast public corporation — and the effects of that transformation on its culture.

. . .

Mr. Mandis said that the two popular explanations for what might have caused a shift in Goldman’s culture — its 1999 initial public offering and subsequent focus on proprietary trading — were only part of the explanation. Instead, Mr. Mandis deploys a sociological theory called “organizational drift” to explain the company’s evolution.
The essence of his argument is that Goldman came under a variety of pressures that resulted in slow, incremental changes to the firm’s culture and business practices, resulting in the place being much different from what it was in 1979, when the bank’s former co-head, John Whitehead, wrote its much-vaunted business principles.
These changes included the shift to a public company structure, a move that limited Goldman executives’ personal exposure to risk and shifted it to shareholders. The I.P.O. also put pressure on the bank to grow, causing trading to become a more dominant focus. And Goldman’s rapid growth led to more potential for conflicts of interest and not putting clients’ interests first, Mr. Mandis says.

For the full review, see:
PETER LATTMAN. “An Ex-Trader, Now a Sociologist, Looks at the Changes in Goldman.” The New York Times (Tues., October 1, 2013): B8.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date SEPTEMBER 30, 2013.)

The book under review is:
Mandis, Steven G. What Happened to Goldman Sachs: An Insider’s Story of Organizational Drift and Its Unintended Consequences. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2013.

“Steven G. Mandis is the author of “What Happened to Goldman Sachs.”” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Silicon Valley Is Open to Creative Destruction, But Tired of Taxes

(p. A15) Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
When the howls of creative destruction blew through the auto and steel industries, their executives lobbied Washington for bailouts and tariffs. For now, Silicon Valley remains optimistic enough that its executives don’t mind having their own businesses creatively destroyed by newer technologies and smarter innovations. That’s an encouraging lesson from this newspaper’s recent All Things Digital conference, which each year attracts hundreds of technology leaders and investors.
. . .
In a 90-minute grilling by the Journal’s Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook assured the audience that his company has “some incredible plans that we’ve been working on for a while.”
Mr. Cook’s sunny outlook was clouded only by his dealings with Washington. He was recently the main witness at hearings called by Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, who accused Apple of violating tax laws. In fact, Apple’s use of foreign subsidiaries is entirely legal–and Apple is the largest taxpayer in the U.S., contributing $6 billion a year to the government’s coffers.
Mr. Cook put on a brave face about the hearings, saying, “I thought it was very important to go tell our side of the story and to view that as an opportunity instead of a pain in the [expletive].” Mr. Cook’s foul language was understandable. “Just gut the [tax] code,” he told the conference. “It’s 7,500 pages long. . . . Apple’s tax return is two feet high. It’s crazy.”
When the audience applauded, Ms. Swisher quipped, “All right, Rand Paul.” A woman shouted: “No, I’m a Democrat!” One reason the technology industry remains the center of innovation may be that many technologists of all parties view trips to Washington as a pain.

For the full commentary, see:
L. GORDON CROVITZ. “INFORMATION AGE; Techies Cheer Creative Destruction.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., June 3, 2013): A15.
(Note: ellipsis between paragraphs added; italics in original; ellipsis, and bracketed words, within next-to-last paragraph, in original.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 2, 2013.)

Under Humble Austerity Policy China Builds $11.4 Million Giant Brass Puffer Fish

“A puffer fish statue in Yangzhong has raised ire in view of a government pledge to end spending on vanity projects.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 6) HONG KONG — Chinese Communist Party leaders’ vows of a new era of humble austerity in government may have met their most exotic adversary yet: an $11 million, 2,300-ton, 295-foot-long puffer fish.

The brass-clad statue, which shimmers golden in the sunlight and switches into a garish light show at night, was built by the city of Yangzhong, in Jiangsu Province in eastern China, . . .
. . .
Chinese news outlets said the brass and steel for the fish cost about $1.7 million, raising questions about where the rest of the money went. Construction of the fish tower began on a previously isolated and undeveloped river island in March, four months after Mr. Xi was appointed party leader.
. . .
. . . China is speckled with outlandish works of official art that vie with even a giant, glow-in-the-dark puffer fish for attention and outrage.
Critics berated a county in Guizhou Province for building “the world’s biggest teapot,” a 243-foot-high teapot-shaped tower, complete with spout, that was part of a $13 million project.
In Henan Province, in central China, a government-backed charity has been accused of corruption in spending about $19.6 million on a vast, unsightly sculpture of Song Qingling, the widow of Sun Yat-sen, a revered founder of modern China. Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan Province, is also home to a sculpture of two pigs in a frolicking embrace. From certain angles, the pigs might appear to be mating.

For the full story, see:
CHRIS BUCKLEY. “As China Vows Austerity, Giant Brass Fish Devours $11 Million.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., October 13, 2013): 6.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date October 12, 2013.)

“A sculpture of Song Qingling, the widow of Sun Yat-sen, a founder of modern China.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Larry Page: “At His Core He Cares about Latency”

(p. 184) Speed had always been an obsession at Google, especially for Larry Page. It was almost instinctual for him. “He’s always measuring everything,” says early Googler Megan Smith. “At his core he cares about latency.” More accurately, he despises latency and is always trying to remove it, like Lady Macbeth washing guilt from her hands. Once Smith was walking down the street with him in Morocco and he suddenly dragged her into a random Internet café with maybe three machines. Immediately, he began timing how long it took web pages to load into a browser there.
Whether due to pathological impatience or a dead-on conviction that speed is chronically underestimated as a factor in successful products, Page had been insisting on faster delivery for everything Google from the beginning. The minimalism of Google’s home page, allowing for lightning-quick (p. 185) loading, was the classic example. But early Google also innovated by storing cached versions of web pages on its own servers, for redundancy and speed.
“Speed is a feature,” says Urs Hölzle. “Speed can drive usage as much as having bells and whistles on your product. People really underappreciate it. Larry is very much on that line.”

Source:
Levy, Steven. In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011.

Puritan Slavery

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

We are taught in elementary school that the roots of America lie in the religious Puritans and Pilgrims. But I believe that there is something to Russell Shorto’s argument that we under-appreciate the contribution of the secular libertarian Dutch of New Amsterdam. In this continuing debate, it is useful to have an accurate history of all sides.

(p. A11) The great Puritan divine John Winthrop, founder of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, probably wouldn’t make it through Allegra di Bonaventura’s book without suffering a cardiac episode. Set principally in the seaport town of New London, Conn., “For Adam’s Sake” provides an astonishing worm’s-eye view of Winthrop’s beloved Bible Commonwealth in the throes of its ghastly unraveling, even as it narrates an intimate history of racial slavery in early New England through the entwined lives of five families (the Winthrops among them).

Many readers will be surprised to learn that slavery flourished in colonial New England–albeit on a smaller scale than on the plantations of the antebellum South. And they might be forgiven their incredulity: “New Englanders in the nineteenth century,” Ms. di Bonaventura writes, “studiously erased and omitted inconvenient and unsavory aspects of their region’s collective past in favor of a more heroic and wholesome narrative of their own history.” Such acts of moral cleansing all but obscured the lives of enslaved New Englanders well into our own time.

For the full review, see:
KIRK DAVIS SWINEHART. “BOOKSHELF; Not Your Parents’ Puritans; Slavery flourished in colonial New England. Yet the Puritans’ erasure of its signs have obscured their crimes well into our own time.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Aug. 5, 2013): A11.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Aug. 4, 2013.)

The book under review is:
di Bonaventura, Allegra. For Adam’s Sake: A Family Saga in Colonial New England. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2013.

The relevant book by Russell Shorto is:
Shorto, Russell. The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

Push the Flywheel, in Business and Life

Jim Collins makes wonderful use of the flywheel analogy in his Good to Great book. His point is that many achievements in business require long, gradual work to build to a major achievement that finally gets noticed by the business press and the general public. The business press often assumes that the success is overnight, when it is in fact long-building.

(p. C14) Flywheels – weighted wheels used for absorbing, storing and releasing energy – get used in everything from pottery wheels to car engines. Lately, they have showed up in corporate spin.

“Our more than 19,000 store global footprint, our fast-growing CPG presence and our best-in-class digital, card, loyalty and mobile capabilities are creating a ‘flywheel’ effect elevating the relevancy of all things Starbucks, and driving profitability,” CEO Howard Schultz said in a statement accompanying quarterly earnings last month.
“So we have the flywheel spinning in the right direction because it is spinning one way and letting us generate these margins, contribution margins,” said Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne last month. “And so now we can give some of that back and that makes it easier to get it spinning faster.”
“We are at the one-mile market (sic) in a marathon,” commented Symantec CEO Steve Bennett in an earnings call with analysts last week, “and the flywheel is just starting to spin.”

For the full story, see:
JUSTIN LAHART. “Overheard.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., Aug 6, 2013): C14.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug 6, 2013, and had the title “Ride a Painted Pony, Let the Spinning Wheel Fly.” The print version did not identify an author. The versions were slightly different in two or three places–when different, the version quoted above follows the print version.)

The Collins book, mentioned above, is:
Collins, Jim. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… And Others Don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001.

Dohrmann and Quevedo Survive Creative Destruction of Inacom

“Cosentry, an Omaha-based provider of data center storage and managed technology services, has a new CEO, Brad Hokamp, center. With him at the Cosentry data center in Papillion are company founders Kevin Dohrmann, left, and Manny Quevedo.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited below.

Innovation through creative destruction brings us the new products and processes that make our lives longer, richer and more satisfying. The major downside of creative destruction is the job loss of those working for firms that are creatively destroyed. Sometimes, in class, I use Omaha’s Inacom as a concrete example. Inacom was a value-added retailer of computer equipment. They would buy PCs from IBM, Compaq and the like, then add software and hardware, and re-sell and install for firms, at a mark-up. They were creatively destroyed by Dell’s process innovation of customizing and selling direct, at much lower prices than Inacom charged. When I arrived in Omaha, Inacom was one of a handful of Fortune 500 firms. Now Inacom is gone. But just because a firm is creatively destroyed does not imply that all those who worked for the firm are creatively destroyed. Dohrmann and Quevedo were executives at Inacom. They had the skills, knowledge, resilience and work ethic to create their own entrepreneurial startup that has thrived. Not everyone can do what Dohrmann and Quevedo did. But everyone should be able to improve their skills, knowledge, resilience, and work ethic, so that if creative destruction destroys the firm that employs them, they will still survive and possibly thrive.

(p. 1D) Cosentry’s regional data center footprint has grown far from its “humble beginnings” 12 years ago of just 4,000 square feet in the old Southroads Mall in Bellevue.

“Everyone saw it as a mall that was in deterioration, and I walked in and saw the most beautiful building in Omaha,” co-founder Manny Quevedo said, (p. 3D) remembering solid walls and below-grade space for computer systems.
Investments from Omaha firms Waitt Co. and McCarthy Capital along the way helped the firm grow; it was sold in 2011 to Boston private equity firm TA Associates but still has its headquarters at 127th Street and West Dodge Road.
. . .
The company’s workforce has approximately doubled in the last five years to nearly 200, more than half of them in Nebraska, and will continue to grow gradually with the expansion as Cosentry hires more engineers and technicians, Quevedo said.
Today the company has six data centers, including two each in the Kansas City and Sioux Falls, S.D., metropolitan areas. If you use utilities or health care services or do any shopping or banking in the region, there’s a chance some of your information has been stored or processed through Cosentry’s servers.
Cosentry started with what Quevedo said was a handful of clients and grew to hundreds within its first five years.
. . .
(p. 3D) Cosentry Timeline
2001: With investment from Waitt Co., Cosentry is started by Manny Quevedo and Kevin Dohrmann, former employees of InaCom, the former Omaha Fortune 500 computer dealer that began as a division of Valmont Industries but merged with VanStar of Atlanta in 2000 and later declared bankruptcy. Cosentry creates a data center in Bellevue.
2005: Cosentry, also called IPR Inc., sold its IP Revolution division to a Kansas firm, Choice Solutions. IP Revolution sold voice and data communications services and systems. Cosentry doubles the size of its Bellevue data center and expands to the Kansas City and Sioux Falls, S.D., markets.
2008: Omaha investment firm McCarthy Capital invests in the firm. At the time, Cosentry had 95 employees.
2010: Cosentry cuts the ribbon on the $26 million Midlands Data Center in Papillion, a joint project with Alegent Health, which uses the center to store electronic medical records.
2011: Boston investment firm TA Associates buys Cosentry for an undisclosed amount from McCarthy and Waitt. The local management team continues to operate and have an ownership stake in Cosentry. The firm expands with second data centers in both the Sioux Falls and Kansas City markets.
2013: Cosentry refinances its credit facilities to provide up to $100 million to enable expansion, including the expansion of the Midlands Data Center. Today, Cosentry has nearly 200 employees and six data centers in three metropolitan areas.

For the full story, see:
Barbara Soderlin. “A Growing Tech Footprint: As Businesses’ Data Storage Needs Expand, Cosentry Adds to Its Papillion Center.” Omaha World-Herald (MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2013): 1D & 3D.
(Note: ellipses added; bold in original print version of article.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the title “As Businesses’ Data Storage Needs Expand, Cosentry Adds to Its Papillion Center.”)

“Scott Capps of Cosentry’s Papillion data center with the cooling system that helped Cosentry earn an Energy Star certification, which is given by the Environmental Protection Agency based on energy efficiency and lower emissions. It’s the only data center in Nebraska with the certification.” Source of caption and photo: the archive online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited above.

Google’s Redundant, Fault-Tolerant System Worked with Cheap, Low-Quality, Failure-Prone Equipment

(p. 183) Google was a tough client for Exodus; no company had ever jammed so many servers into so small an area. The typical practice was to put between five and ten servers on a rack; Google managed to get eighty servers on each of its racks. The racks were so closely arranged that it was difficult for a human being to squeeze into the aisle between them. To get an extra rack in, Google had to get Exodus to temporarily remove the side wall of the cage. “The data centers had never worried about how much power and AC went into each cage, because it was never close to being maxed out,” says Reese. “Well, we completely maxed out. It was on an order of magnitude of a small suburban neighborhood,” Reese says. Exodus had to scramble to install heavier circuitry. Its air-conditioning was also overwhelmed, and the colo bought a portable AC truck. They drove the eighteen-wheeler up to the colo, punched three holes in the wall, and pumped cold air into Google’s cage through PVC pipes.
. . .
The key to Google’s efficiency was buying low-quality equipment dirt cheap and applying brainpower to work around the inevitably high failure rate. It was an outgrowth of Google’s earliest days, when Page and Brin had built a server housed by Lego blocks. “Larry and Sergey proposed that we design and build our own servers as cheaply as we can– massive numbers of servers connected to a high-speed network,” says Reese. The conventional wisdom was that an equipment failure should be regarded as, well, a failure. Generally the server failure rate was between 4 and 10 percent. To keep the failures at the lower end of the range, technology companies paid for high-end equipment from Sun Microsystems or EMC. “Our idea was completely opposite,” says Reese. “We’re going to build hundreds and thousands of cheap servers knowing from the get-go that a certain percentage, maybe 10 percent, are going to fail,” says Reese. Google’s first CIO, Douglas Merrill, once noted that the disk drives Google purchased were “poorer quality than you would put into your kid’s computer at home.”
(p. 184) But Google designed around the flaws. “We built capabilities into the software, the hardware, and the network–network– the way we hook them up, the load balancing, and so on– to build in redundancy, to make the system fault-tolerant,” says Reese. The Google File System, written by Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, was invaluable in this process: it was designed to manage failure by “sharding” data, distributing it to multiple servers. If Google search called for certain information at one server and didn’t get a reply after a couple of milliseconds, there were two other Google servers that could fulfill the request.

Source:
Levy, Steven. In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011.
(Note: ellipsis added.)