Mavericks at Work: Why the most original minds in business win. William Taylor
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу Mavericks at Work: Why the most original minds in business win - William Taylor страница 5
But Kuhlmann is not a consumer activist or a politician, and he’s certainly not a preacher. He’s a banker. In fact, he’s the founder of one of the fastest-growing retail banks in the country, which happens to be a subsidiary of ING Group, a 150-year-old company headquartered in Amsterdam that ranks as one of the largest financial services conglomerates in the world. His operation, ING Direct USA, opened for business in September 2000. By the end of 2006, it had signed up 5.5 million customers, attracted nearly $60 billion in deposits, and begun generating consistent (and rapidly increasing) profits. During its first two years, the start-up absorbed losses of $56 million as it banked on future growth. Over the next two years, it posted profits of $127 million. In 2006, with just 1,500 employees, the operation generated profits of $250 million.*
Sometimes it seems that righteous indignation can pay handsome dividends. But Arkadi Kuhlmann is more than a banker with a brash attitude. He is a hard-charging maverick with a full-throated message about the future of his industry. He and his colleagues insist that they are not just building a bank. They are challenging the common (and misguided) practices of the whole banking business—a business that they believe is ripe for change and renewal. “People want to do business with companies that share their values,” Kuhlmann says. “We speak with a new voice—a different kind of voice for business.”1
Expressing that voice often puts Kuhlmann’s company at odds with its bigger, richer, more traditional rivals. We paid one of our many visits to Wilmington in June 2005, two months after President George W. Bush signed the laughably misnamed Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The law, the most sweeping revision of U.S. bankruptcy procedures since the 1970s, cracked down hard on cash-strapped individuals and families seeking protection from creditors. Its passage was met by howls of protest from consumer groups, law professors, even many bankruptcy judges, but inspired squeals of delight from banks, credit card companies, and giant retailers—powerful organizations whose executives and lobbyists had marched in lockstep for years on Capitol Hill. Virtually everyone who was anyone in the financial services sector applauded their glorious political victory.
Everyone, that is, except Arkadi Kuhlmann. He was the only CEO of a U.S. bank to oppose the bill publicly, comparing it to “using a cannon to kill a mosquito.” He submitted written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee, participated in a press conference with liberal Senate stalwarts Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, and took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post. Time and again, he raised the ire of his industry colleagues by raising a host of uncomfortable questions about their pet project on Capitol Hill. What about the tens of thousands of families who go bankrupt because of catastrophic illnesses and huge medical bills? What about the 16,000 military personnel who declared bankruptcy in 2004? What about the credit card industry’s stubborn refusal to curb its most aggressive marketing practices?2
“To the banking establishment, I’m sort of the bad guy,” Kuhlmann declares with undisguised relish. That reputation applies far beyond its challenge to the industry’s political strategy. Indeed, it’s at the heart of ING Direct’s business strategy. “Before we launched the company, we looked around and said, ‘The banking industry is bust. The consumer always loses.’ Then we said, ‘How can we do something radically different? How do we re-create and re-energize an industry? How can we build a company around a big new idea?’”
That big idea involves using the future-forward power of the Internet to champion the timeless virtues of thrift and financial security. ING Direct USA, essentially an Internet-based savings bank, is a direct-to-the-customer operation. (Customers can also bank by mail or phone, but more than 70 percent use the Web.) Everything about its operations emphasizes speed, simplicity, and low overhead. ING Direct has no brick-and-mortar branches, no ATM machines, no highly paid commercial bankers or smooth-talking financial advisers. It also charges no customer fees, requires no minimum deposits, and avoids paper like the plague. Most importantly, the bank offers a limited number of easy-to-understand product offerings: old-fashioned savings accounts (with no minimum balances), a selection of CDs (with no minimum deposits), nine easy-to-understand mutual funds (which can be combined into portfolios described as conservative, moderate, and aggressive), and no-frills home mortgages with an online application that takes less than ten minutes to complete.
The intentional simplicity of the company’s products and business model keeps ING Direct’s costs extremely low: in some parts of the business, they are one-sixth the costs of a conventional bank. Low costs enable ING Direct to guarantee higher interest rates to depositors (with some basic savings products, as much as four times the industry average) and charge lower rates to its mortgage customers. The end result is an online money machine that adds 100,000 customers (40 percent of whom are referred by word of mouth) and $1 billion in deposits every month. Indeed, by the end of 2004, ING Direct had become the country’s largest Internet-based bank, the fourth-largest thrift bank, and one of the forty largest banks of any sort.
But the bank’s animating spirit isn’t about low costs or fast growth. It’s about an agenda for reform. Kuhlmann and his colleagues declare that they are “leading Americans back to savings”—presenting a clear-cut business alternative to the excesses and shortcomings of how the financial sector does business. “Everything we do starts with our big idea,” the CEO says, “which is to bring back some fundamental values: self-reliance, independence, having a grubstake. One way or another, most financial companies are telling you to spend more. We’re showing you how to save more. What’s better than apple pie, the little guy, fighting for the underdog? We want to own that space.”
WHAT IDEAS DO YOU STAND FOR? STRATEGY THAT MAKES A STATEMENT
For decades, a well-defined set of parameters governed the logic of business competition. Strategy was about delivering superior products: Is your company’s automobile or appliance or computer cheaper, better, nicer to look at? Strategy was about selecting attractive markets: What demographic segments or customer categories matter most to your organization? Strategy was about mastering economics: What advantages in scale, costs, margins, and pricing allow your company to deliver superior performance in productivity, profitability, and shareholder returns?
Which is why, truth be told, so much of strategy has been about mimicry. Big companies in most industries have been content to compete from virtually identical strategic playbooks and to vie for advantage on the margin: Whose products can be a little better? Whose costs can be a little lower? Whose target markets can be a little more attractive? Think General Motors versus Ford, CBS versus ABC, Coke versus Pepsi. Every once in a while, of course, something genuinely new alters the trajectory of an industry: the rise of sport utility vehicles or zero percent financing in the auto business, the creation of reality programming in the television business, the ubiquity of bottled water and natural drinks in the beverage business. But inevitably (and almost immediately), innovation gives way to duplication. Every big player is quick to copy the original creative impulse (or acquire one of the creators), so that strategy returns to its familiar and predictable formulas.
In the 1990s, with the explosion of the Internet and the rise of a generation of ambitious, venture-funded start-ups, business competition took on a more heated, more frenetic, less copycat tone. Strategy was about designing radically new business models that would overthrow decades of perceived wisdom on how specific industries worked: