{"id":8578,"date":"2011-06-21T09:00:04","date_gmt":"2011-06-21T14:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.friedyoda.com\/noisecast\/?p=8578"},"modified":"2023-12-21T17:25:51","modified_gmt":"2023-12-21T23:25:51","slug":"how-to-fix-rim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.friedyoda.com\/noisecast\/2011\/06\/how-to-fix-rim\/","title":{"rendered":"How to fix RIM"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research in Motion is in a tizzy. The recent first quarter earnings call showed a drop in net income, a projected drop in revenue of almost $1 billion, and the announcement of layoffs, sending the stock tumbling up to 20% in the aftermath. Furthermore, the PlayBook stats weren\u2019t promising either as RIM reported that 500,000 units were shipped so far. That\u2019s shipped, not sold. A third of that could easily be sitting around in the channel or on retail shelves. That\u2019s not too bad when compared with Android\u2019s Honeycomb tablets, which have had more retail time but only about 600,000 have been activated<\/a> in the field. The silver lining to all of this is that international revenues were up 67%, year over year. However, we\u2019ll get to how this is not necessarily a good thing later on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is RIM destined for failure? Will the BlackBerry brand end up being pawned off to some private investment group for peanuts? Can RIM ever get its mojo back? RIM may be bloodied and bruised, but it hasn\u2019t been KO\u2019d yet. Here\u2019s how it can save itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Bring in a new CEO<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Google\u2019s problem was that it had too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Research In Motion\u2019s problem is the exact opposite: too many Indians, not enough chiefs, but at the same time there are too many chiefs. Yes that makes absolutely no sense because RIM\u2019s corporate structure makes absolutely no sense as well. When RIM announced the upcoming layoffs, it said the layoffs were to be \u201cfocused on taking out redundancies<\/a>,\u201d meaning they\u2019re cutting out the excess fat and consolidating jobs that can be done by one person instead of two or three. RIM\u2019s executive structure of two CEOs and three COOs will remain unchanged, however.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis are the co-CEOs with Lazaridis also picking up the President role. Under their leadership RIM took off and became the wireless juggernaut that dominated the industry for more than a decade. Unfortunately, their business model remained relatively unchanged over the years and its rigidness and inability to adapt became clear in the post-iPhone era. A report called \u201cThe Rise and Fall of RIM under Balsillie and Lazaridis\u201d seems to be inevitable in the coming years if Lazaridis and Balsillie remain at the helm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this isn\u2019t a call for Balsillie and Lazaridis to resign completely. Keeping them as co-chairmen of RIM\u2019s board of directors will be the right choice, but their functions as co-CEOs and Lazaridis\u2019 function as President should be eliminated. After all, Lazaridis is probably RIM\u2019s biggest and most vocal cheerleader and you need someone like him on the board to be the \u201cyes we can\u201d guy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

However, in order to restructure like RIM is planning, there needs to be fresh guidance from the top, and unfortunately the top is made up of people who have gone from being entrepreneurs to being business owners. A fresh new face must assume the CEO role and its daily duties in order to steer the RIM boat clear from the jutting rocks. RIM doesn\u2019t need a visionary at the helm; RIM needs a thinker and a person that is highly technical. RIM\u2019s problem does not lie with innovation, but with refusing to acknowledge issues that exist. I believe Ray Ozzie would be a good fit for CEO at RIM because he will help restructure the company with other thinkers and technical people, instead of business executives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RIM needs to position itself in the market with clearly defined lines, something which it is not doing under the Lazaridis\/Balsillie umbrella. Ozzie\u2019s experience with software architecture and his understanding of productivity and social programs will allow for more money to be put in areas that RIM needs to give attention to, such as cloud computing, bulletproof OS, functionality, and security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The downside\u2019s to Ozzie is that he is not a seller. He is all technical and all thinker, but then again, so was Bill Gates. Ozzie also hasn\u2019t had much leadership experience, even when he worked at Microsoft. He never led any major projects and his last big accomplishment was Lotus Notes. Groove is still trying to find its niche as Microsoft SharePoint<\/a>. However, Ozzie was also responsible for Microsoft\u2019s FUSE Labs<\/a> which is doing some amazing things when it comes to merging social and productivity. But what\u2019s the current RIM leadership look like? Are Lazaridis and Balsillie technical guys or sellers?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lazaridis is clearly the tech guru of the team and Balsillie is the sales\/marketing\/PR guy. Because of that there is usually some sort of conflict that arises out of singled out interviews when both CEOs aren\u2019t present. Together they are left-brain and right-brain, but apart they\u2019re a disorganized mess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was a great relationship in the early days of RIM when they took Motorola\u2019s SkyTel pager system head-on. The exponential boom of the tech industry that followed required for a globalized company to have a global corporate structure. Unfortunately, RIM stayed with the closed structure that has changed little since 1984; the CEOs are performing the jobs that are should be performed by other executives. Take for example Jim Balsillie and his role as Chief Marketing Officer. He really doesn\u2019t hold that title but he has assumed all the duties since Keith Pardy left the position in March<\/a>. Which brings me to my next point\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hire a Chief Marketing Officer<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Research in Motion\u2019s marketing situation is in shambles and for some bizarre reason it has yet to fill the shoes of that position after more than three months of it being vacant. Insiders report that Jim Balsillie has taken over those duties. Does Balsillie think that marketing is a small enough beast that he can handle while performing his co-CEO duties in tandem? RIM\u2019s marketing strategy has been aimed towards saving the company money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of doing most of marketing and advertising in house, RIM offloads that to carriers, which is why most ads and commercials featuring BlackBerry also feature AT&T or whatever other carrier is running the promotion. Although this has worked well for RIM over the years because BlackBerry devices have sold themselves, the iPhone era has stolen the spotlight away from RIM\u2019s devices. The BlackBerry has lost many of its selling points and come this summer its last bastion of utility, BlackBerry Messenger, will take a major blow from Apple\u2019s iMessage service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The thing about offloading your marketing to your distributors is that your product portrayal is at their mercy. If a distributor doesn\u2019t really care for your product, it won\u2019t be depicted in the best way possible. Many times a carrier\u2019s marketing strategy is the wrong one, making ads about your product that are contrary to what the real message is that your product should be screaming. Take for example the following BlackBerry PlayBook commercial from Telus:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n