Just think of how narrowcast that kind of publishing is. So occasionally, scaling down and intensifying gives you the big advantage. Bigger is not always better.
The great defect of scale, of course, which makes the game interestingāso that the big people donāt always wināis that as you get big, you get the bureaucracy. And with the bureaucracy comes the territorialityāwhich is again grounded in human nature.
And the incentives are perverse. For example, if you worked for AT&T in my day, it was a great bureaucracy. Who in the hell was really thinking about the shareholder or anything else? And in a bureaucracy, you think the work is done when it goes out of your in-basket into somebody elseās in-basket. But, of course, it isnāt. Itās not done until AT&T delivers what itās supposed to deliver. So you get big, fat, dumb, unmotivated bureaucracies.
They also tend to become somewhat corrupt. In other words, if Iāve got a department and youāve got a department and we kind of share power running this thing, thereās sort of an unwritten rule: āIf you wonāt bother me, I wonāt bother you and weāre both happy.ā So you get layers of management and associated costs that nobody needs. Then, while people are justifying all these layers, it takes forever to get anything done. Theyāre too slow to make decisions and nimbler people run circles around them.
The constant curse of scale is that it leads to big, dumb bureaucracyāwhich, of course, reaches its highest and worst form in government where the incentives are really awful. That doesnāt mean we donāt need governmentsābecause we do. But itās a terrible problem to get big bureaucracies to behave.
So people go to stratagems. They create little decentralized units and fancy motivation and training programs. For example, for a big company, General Electric has fought bureaucracy with amazing skill. But thatās because they have a combination of a genius and a fanatic running it. And they put him in young enough so he gets a long run. Of course, thatās Jack Welch.
But bureaucracy is terribleā¦. And as things get very powerful and very big, you can get some really dysfunctional behavior. Look at Westinghouse. They blew billions of dollars on a bunch of dumb loans to real estate developers. They put some guy whoād come up by some career pathāI donāt know exactly what it was, but it could have been refrigerators or somethingāand all of a sudden, heās loaning money to real estate developers building hotels. Itās a very unequal contest. And in due time, they lost all those billions of dollars.
CBS provides an interesting example of another rule of psychologyānamely, Pavlovian association. If people tell you what you really donāt want to hear whatās unpleasantāthereās an almost automatic reaction of antipathy. You have to train yourself out of it. It isnāt foredestined that you have to be this way. But you will tend to be this way if you donāt think about it.
Television was dominated by one networkāCBS in its early days. And Paley was a god. But he didnāt like to hear what he didnāt like to hear. And people soon learned that. So they told Paley only what he liked to hear. Therefore, he was soon living in a little cocoon of unreality and everything else was corruptāalthough it was a great business.
So the idiocy that crept into the system was carried along by this huge tide. It was a Mad Hatterās tea party the last ten years under Bill Paley.
And that is not the only example by any means. You can get severe misfunction in the high ranks of business. And of course, if youāre investing, it can make a lot of difference. If you take all the acquisitions that CBS made under Paley, after the acquisition of the network itself, with all his advisorsāhis investment bankers, management consultants and so forth who were getting paid very handsomelyāit was absolutely terrible.
For example, he gave something like 20% of CBS to the Dumont Company for a television set manufacturer which was destined to go broke. I think it lasted all of two or three years or something like that. So very soon after heād issued all of that stock, Dumont was history. You get a lot of dysfunction in a big fat, powerful place where no one will bring unwelcome reality to the boss.
So life is an everlasting battle between those two forcesāto get these advantages of scale on one side and a tendency to get a lot like the U.S. Agriculture Department on the other sideā where they just sit around and so forth. I donāt know exactly what they do. However, I do know that they do very little useful work.
On the subject of advantages of economies of scale, I find chain stores quite interesting. Just think about it. The concept of a chain store was a fascinating invention. You get this huge purchasing powerāwhich means that you have lower merchandise costs. You get a whole bunch of little laboratories out there in which you can conduct experiments. And you get specialization.
If one little guy is trying to buy across 27 different merchandise categories influenced by traveling salesmen, heās going to make a lot of poor decisions. But if your buying is done in headquarters for a huge bunch of stores, you can get very bright people that know a lot about refrigerators and so forth to do the buying.
The reverse is demonstrated by the little store where one guy is doing all the buying. Itās like the old story about the little store with salt all over its walls. And a stranger comes in and says to the storeowner, āYou must sell a lot of salt.ā And he replies, āNo, I donāt. But you should see the guy who sells me salt.ā
So there are huge purchasing advantages. And then there are the slick systems of forcing everyone to do what works. So a chain store can be a fantastic enterprise.
Itās quite interesting to think about Wal-Mart starting from a single store in Bentonville, Arkansas against Sears, Roebuck with its name, reputation and all of its billions. How does a guy in Bentonville, Arkansas with no money blow right by Sears, Roebuck? And he does it in his own lifetimeāin fact, during his own late lifetime because he was already pretty old by the time he started out with one little storeā¦.
He played the chain store game harder and better than anyone else. Walton invented practically nothing. But he copied everything anybody else ever did that was smartāand he did it with more fanaticism and better employee manipulation. So he just blew right by them all.
He also had a very interesting competitive strategy in the early days. He was like a prizefighter who wanted a great record so he could be in the finals and make a big TV hit. So what did he do? He went out and fought 42 palookas. Right? And the result was knockout, knockout, knockoutā42 times.
Walton, being as shrewd as he was, basically broke other small town merchants in the early days. With his more efficient system, he might not have been able to tackle some titan headon at the time. But with his better system, he could destroy those small town merchants. And he went around doing it time after time after time. Then, as he got bigger, he started destroying the big boys.
Well, that was a very, very shrewd strategy.
You can say, āIs this a nice way to behave?ā Well, capitalism is a pretty brutal place. But I personally think that the world is better for having Wal-Mart. I mean you can idealize small town life. But Iāve spent a fair amount of time in small towns. And let me tell you you shouldnāt get too idealistic about all those businesses he destroyed.
Plus, a lot of people who work at Wal-Mart are very high grade, bouncy people who are raising nice children. I have no feeling that an inferior culture destroyed a superior culture. I think that is nothing more than nostalgia and delusion. But, at any rate, itās an interesting model of how the scale of things and fanaticism combine to be very powerful.