In the late nineteen-twenties, two companies—Kellogg and Post—dominated the market for packaged cereal. It was still a relatively new market: ready-to-eat cereal had been around for decades, but Americans didn’t see it as a real alternative to oatmeal or cream of wheat until the twenties. So, when the Depression hit, no one knew what would happen to consumer demand. Post did the predictable thing: it reined in expenses and cut back on advertising. But Kellogg doubled its ad budget, moved aggressively into radio advertising, and heavily pushed its new cereal, Rice Krispies. (Snap, Crackle, and Pop first appeared in the thirties.) By 1933, even as the economy cratered, Kellogg’s profits had risen almost thirty per cent and it had become what it remains today: the industry’s dominant player. You’d think that everyone would want to emulate Kellogg’s success, but, when hard times hit, most companies end up behaving more like Post…

But although deep pockets help in a downturn, recessions nonetheless create more opportunity for challengers, not less. When everyone is advertising, for instance, it’s hard to separate yourself from the pack; when ads are scarcer, the returns on investment seem to rise. That may be why during the 1990-91 recession, according to a Bain & Company study, twice as many companies leaped from the bottom of their industries to the top as did so in the years before and after.

As I talk to friends, all I hear about are companies reactively cutting, cutting and cutting some more. This column from the New Yorker’s James Surowiecki this week — which looks at how companies that continue to invest during a downturn can come out as the big winners — should be required reading for all.

Notes

  1. maxchoong reblogged this from johncarney
  2. pegobry reblogged this from johncarney and added:
    chfdigital & johncarney)
  3. billda reblogged this from johncarney
  4. johncarney reblogged this from chfdigital
  5. chfdigital posted this