Small firms have flexibility to weather downturn
In March 2009, just days after The Big Money ran an article called "Little-Guy Economy," the Dow Jones industrial average reached a record low of 6,443. Unemployment reached the highest level since 1983, and there were about 15 million jobless Americans (there still are). China, the world's fastest-growing economy, experienced slower growth. As the U.S. economy constricted at the fastest rate in 50 years, penny-pinching replaced conspicuous consumption. Nearly everything fell except vitamin sales.
Yet in certain segments of finance, law, publishing, advertising, entertainment and other industries, small entities that embraced a lean, nimble approach stayed afloat and, in some cases, fared better than their larger counterparts. Focused less on cutting budgets, shedding staff and maintaining the status quo, small operations that operated fast, flexibly and on the cheap were positioned to fine-tune their models quickly -- or sink.
Big Finance lost institutions or stalled, thanks to frozen credit markets, while smaller firms that didn't rely as heavily on those markets endured and even closed deals. Big Law shed jobs and merged while boutique shops emerged. Media upstarts, albeit well-funded ones like the Huffington Post and Gawker Media, grew while the New York Times Co. and Time Warner contracted, thanks to broken business models. As publishers cut lists, branded writers received manna in the form of Amazon Author Stores.
One year ago, videographers Lindsay Johnson and Leo Borovskiy of Lush Life Productions went from project to project and hired help on an as-needed basis. Now the company is focused entirely on digital outreach for wine and spirits companies.
It still charges less -- it did one small project for $5,000 that a competitor did for $25,000 -- but the company has grown to 14 people, including six who work for Lush Life exclusively.
JDub Records has moved further into the niche music space, acquiring a Web site and partnering with another to create a larger fan base to distribute its music. It also branched out into producing and marketing cultural events and stole a marketing expert from Showtime.
"The lucky outcome of the recession was that we took a good look at ourselves and tried to be nimble. We didn't just spin our wheels and try to do a million different things," chief operating officer Jacob Harris said.
Meanwhile, with so many Americans out of work, more small entities began springing up. Instead of posting résumés to job sites or calling recruiters, laid-off or bored workers went solo or partnered with a friend to offer a new product or service. Some even worked for no pay.
In 2009, the number of new businesses being created reached its highest level in 14 years, and about 500,000 businesses were founded each month. To the dismay, perhaps, of list makers who tout the best of youth, baby boomers ranked highest in terms of entrepreneurial activity. Surprisingly, Oklahoma and Montana had the highest entrepreneurial activity rates. Of the 15 largest metropolitan areas, Houston had the highest rate of new-business development.
The business world at large, where mysterious fads prevail, virtually ignored the nascent ultra-lean start-up movement and its bare-bones approach. In January, Malcolm Gladwell described the work of economist Scott Shane, who explained that failed entrepreneurs are wildly undercapitalized, organize as sole proprietorships and don't write business plans. Successful ones, according to Shane, are well-capitalized, organize as corporations, write business plans and don't start from scratch.
But who wants to spend weeks and months writing a business plan? Though it can help founders focus, by the time a company finishes one, the landscape may have shifted entirely. Announcing the launch of a new product two years from now, as Eric Ries of Startup Lessons Learned said, equals a doomed product: "Most of the things that companies do are a waste of time."
Ries, who pioneered the Lean Startup methodology, praises the ingenuity of global supply chains but asks a salient question: "How can corporate America be so good at sustaining innovation and so bad at creating something new? One interesting question is not why it is so inefficient and bureaucratic, but, given that it is, how is it possible that it gets anything done at all?"