Harley-Davidson, a century-old firm, has exhibited stark contrasts in its history. In its first 60 years it destroyed all of its U.S. competitors and had a solid 70 percent of the motorcycle market. Then, in the early 1960s, its staid and unexciting market was shaken up, rocked to its core by the most unlikely invader. The intruder was a smallish Japanese firm that had risen out of the ashes of World War II and was now trying to encroach on U.S. territory.
Almost inconceivably, in half a decade Harley-Davidson's market share was to fall to 5 percent, even as the total market expanded many times over what it had been for decades. The foreign invader had furnished a textbook example of the awesome effectiveness of a carefully crafted strategy. In the process, the confrontation between Honda and Harley-Davidson was a harbinger of the Japanese invasion of the auto industry.
Eventually, by the late 1980s, Harley began to make a comeback. But only after more than two decades of travail and mediocrity. As it surged forward in the last of the old century, it had somehow built up a mystique, a cult following, for its big bikes. In January 7, 2002, Forbes declared Harley to be its "Company of the Year," a truly prestigious honor. But let us go back first to the dire days of the Japanese invasion.
Sales of motorcycles in the United States were around 50,000 per year in the 1950s, with Harley-Davidson, Britain's Norton and Triumph, and Germany's BMW accounting for most of the market. By the turn of the decade, Honda began to penetrate the U.S. market. In 1960 fewer than 400,000 motorcycles were registered in the United States. While this was an increase of almost 200,000 from the end of World War II 15 years before, it was far below the increase in other motor vehicles. But by 1964, only four years later, the number had risen to 960,000; two years later it was 1.4 million; and by 1971 it was almost 4 million.
In expanding the demand for motorcycles, Honda instituted a distinctly different strategy. The major elements of this strategy were lightweight cycles and an advertising approach directed toward a new customer. Few firms have ever experienced such a shattering of market share as did Harley-Davidson in the 1960s. (Although its competitive position declined drastically, its total sales remained nearly constant, indicating that it was getting none of the new customers for motorcycles.)
Faced with an invasion of its static U.S. market, how did Harley react to the intruder? It did not react! At least not until far too late. Harley-Davidson considered itself the leader in full-size motorcycles. While the company might shudder at the image tied in with its product's usage by the leather-jacket types, it took solace in the fact that almost every U.S. police department used its machines. Perhaps this is what led Harley to stand aside and complacently watch Honda make deep inroads into the American motorcycle market. The management saw no threat in Honda's thrust into the market with lightweight machines. The attitude was exemplified in this statement by William H. Davidson, the president of the company and son of the founder:
Basically, we don't believe in the lightweight market. We believe that motorcycles are sport vehicles, not transportation vehicles. Even if a man says he bought a motorcycle for transportation, it's generally for leisure-time use. The lightweight motorcycle is only supplemental. Back around World War I, a number of companies came out with lightweight bikes. We came out with one ourselves. They never got anywhere. We've seen what happens to these small sizes.[48]
Eventually Harley recognized that the Honda phenomenon was not an aberration, and that there was a new factor in the market. The company attempted to fight back by offering an Italian-made lightweight in the mid-1960s. But it was far too late; Honda was firmly entrenched. The Italian bikes were regarded in the industry as of lower quality than the Japanese. Honda, and toward the end of the 1960s other Japanese manufacturers, continued to dominate what had become a much larger market than ever dreamed.
In 1965, Harley-Davidson made its first public stock offering. Soon after, it faced a struggle for control. The contest was primarily between Bangor Punta, an Asian company, and AMF, an American company with strong interests in recreational equipment including bowling. In a bidding war, Harley-Davidson's stockholders chose AMF over Bangor Punta, even though the bid was $1 less than Bangor's $23 a share offer. Stockholders were leery of Bangor's reputation for taking over a company, squeezing it dry, and then scrapping it for the remaining assets. AMF's plans for expansion of Harley-Davidson seemed more compatible.
But the marriage was troubled: Harley-Davidson's old equipment was not capable of the expansion envisioned by AMF. At the very time that Japanese manufacturers— Honda and others—were flooding the market with high-quality motorcycles, Harley was falling down on quality. One company official noted that "quality was going down just as fast as production was going up."[49] Indicative of the depth of the problem at a demoralized Harley-Davidson, quality-control inspections failed 50–60 percent of the motorcycles produced. This compared to the 5 percent of Japanese motorcycles failing their quality-control checks.
AMF put up with an average $4.8 million operating loss for 11 years. Finally, AMF called it quits and put the division up for sale in 1981. Vaughan Beals, vice president of motorcycle sales, still had faith in the company. He led a team that used $81.5 million in financing from Citicorp to complete a leveraged buyout. All ties with AMF were severed.
Beals was a middle-aged Ivy Leaguer, a far cry from the usual image of a heavy-motorcycle aficionado. He had graduated from MIT's Aeronautical Engineering School, and was considered a production specialist.[50] But he was far more than that. He had a true commitment to motorcycles, personally as well as professionally. Deeply concerned with AMF's declining attention to quality, he achieved the buyout from AMF.
The prognosis for the company was bleak. Its market share, which had dominated the industry before the Honda invasion, was now 3 percent. In 1983, Harley-Davidson would celebrate its 80th birthday; some doubted it would still be around by then. Tariff protection seemed Harley's only hope. And massive lobbying paid off. In 1983, Congress passed a huge tariff increase on Japanese motorcycles. Instead of a 4 percent tariff, now Japanese motorcycles would be subject to a 45 percent tariff for the coming five years.
The tariff gave the company new hope, and it slowly began to rebuild market share. Key to this was restoring confidence in the quality of its products. And Beals took a leading role in this. He drove Harley-Davidsons to rallies where he met Harley owners. There he learned of their concerns and their complaints, and he promised changes. At these rallies a core of loyal Harley-Davidson users, called HOGs (for Harley Owners Group), were to be trailblazers for the successful growth and mystique to come.
Beals had company on his odyssey: Willie G. Davidson, grandson of the company's founder, and vice president of design. Willie was an interesting contrast to the more urbane Beals. His was the image of a middle-age hippie. He wore a Viking helmet over long, unkempt hair, while a straggly beard hid some of his wind-burned face. An aged leather jacket was compatible. Beals and Davidson fit in nicely at the HOG rallies.
In December 1986, Harley-Davidson asked Congress to remove the tariff barriers, more than a year earlier than originally planned. The company's confidence had been restored, and it believed it could now compete with the Japanese head to head.[51]
Shortly after the buyout, Beals and other managers visited plants in Japan and Honda's assembly plant in Marysville, Ohio. They were impressed by the discovery that they were being beaten not by "robotics, or culture, or morning calisthenics and company songs, [but by^rofessional managers who understood their business and paid attention to detail."[52] As a result, Japanese production costs were as much as 30 percent lower than Harley's.
Beals and his managers tried to implement some of the Japanese managerial techniques. Each plant was divided into profit centers, with managers given total responsibility within their assigned areas. Just-in-time (JIT) inventory and a materials-as-needed (MAN) system sought to control and minimize all inventories both inside and outside the plants. Quality circles (QCs) were formed to increase employee involvement in quality goals and to improve communication between management and workers. See the following Quality Circles Information Box for further discussion. Another new program called statistical operator control (SOC) gave employees the responsibility for checking the quality of their own work and making corrective adjustments. Efforts were made to improve labor relations by more sensitivity to employees and their problems as well as better employee assistance and benefits. Certain product improvements were also introduced, notably a new engine and mountings on rubber to reduce vibration. A well-accepted equipment innovation entailed motorcycle helmets with built-in stereo systems and intercoms.
The production changes between 1981 and 1988 resulted in:[53]
Inventory reduced by 67 percent;
Productivity up by 50 percent;
Scrap and rework down two-thirds;
Defects per unit down 70 percent
In the 1970s, the joke among industry experts was, "If you're buying a Harley, you'd better buy two—one for spare parts."[54] Now this had obviously changed, but the change still had to be communicated to consumers, and believed.
Despite its bad times and its poor quality, Harley had an almost unparalleled cadre of loyal customers. Company research maintained that 92 percent of its customers remained with Harley.[57] Despite these hard-core loyalists, the company had always had a serious public-image problem. It was linked to the image of the pot-smoking, beer-drinking, woman-chasing, tattoo-covered, leather-clad biker: "When your company's logo is the number one requested in tattoo parlors, it's time to get a licensing program that will return your reputation to the ranks of baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie."[58]
Part of Harley's problem had been with bootleggers ruining the name by placing it on unlicensed goods of poor quality. Now the company began to use warrants and federal marshals to crack down on unauthorized uses of its logo at motorcycle conventions. And it began licensing its name and logo on a wide variety of products, from leather jackets to cologne and jewelry—even to pajamas, sheets, and towels. Suddenly retailers realized that these licensed goods were popular, and were even being bought by a new type of customer, undreamed of until now: bankers, doctors, lawyers, and entertainers. This new breed soon expanded their horizons to include the Harley-Davidson bikes themselves. They joined the HOGs, only now they became known as Rubbies—rich urban bikers. And high prices for bikes did not bother them in the least.
Beals was quick to capitalize on this new market by expanding the product line with expensive heavyweights. In 1989 the largest motorcycle was introduced, the Fat Boy, with 80 cubic inches of V-twin engine and capable of a top speed of 150 mph. By 1991, Harley had 20 models, ranging in price from $4,500 to $15,000.
The Rubbies brought Harley back to a leading position in the industry by 1989, with almost 60 percent of the super-heavyweight motorcycle market; by the first quarter of 1993, this had become 63 percent. The importance of this customer to Harley could be seen in the demographic statistics supplied by the Wall Street Journal in 1990: "One in three of today's Harley-Davidson buyers are professionals or managers. About 60 percent have attended college, up from only 45 percent in 1984. Their median age is 35, and their median household income has risen sharply to $45,000 from $36,000 five years earlier."[59]
In 1989, Beals stepped down as CEO, turning the company over to Richard Teer-link, the chief operating officer of the Motorcycle Division. Beals, however, retained his position as chairman of the board. The legacy of Beals in the renaissance of Harley led management writer John Schermerhorn to call him a visionary leader. The following Information Box discusses visionary leadership.
By 1993, Harley-Davidson had a new problem, one born of success. Now it could not even come close to meeting demand. Customers faced empty showrooms, except perhaps for rusty trade-ins or antiques. Waiting time for a new bike could be six months or longer, unless the customer was willing to pay a 10 percent or higher premium to some gray marketer advertising in biker magazines.
Some of the 600 independent dealers in the United States worried that empty showrooms and long waiting lists would induce customers to turn to foreign imports, much as they had several decades before. But other dealers recognized that somehow
Beals and company had engendered a brand loyalty unique in this industry, and perhaps in all industries. Assuaging the lack of big bike business, dealers were finding other sources of revenue. Harley's branded line of merchandise, available only at Harley dealers and promoted through glossy catalogs, had really taken off. Harley black leather jackets were bought eagerly at $500; fringed leather bras went for $65; even shot glasses brought $12—all it seemed to take was the Harley name and logo. So substantial was this ancillary business that in 1992 non-cycle business generated $155.7 million in sales, up from $130.3 million in 1991.
In one sense, Harley's production situation was enviable, for it had far more demand than production capability. More than this, it had so loyal a body of customers that delays in product gratification were not likely to turn many away to competitors. The problem, of course, was that full potential was not being realized.
Richard Teerlink, the successor to Beals, expressed the corporate philosophy on expanding quantity to meet the demand: "Quantity isn't the issue, quality is the issue. We learned in the early 1980s you do not solve problems by throwing money at them."[61]
The company increased output slowly. In early 1992 it was making 280 bikes a day; by 1993, this had risen to 345 a day. With increased capital spending, the goal was to produce 420 bikes a day, but not until 1996.
Some contrary concerns about Teerlink's conservative expansion plans surfaced in regard to international operations. The European export market beckoned. Harleys had become very popular in Europe. But the company had promised its domestic dealers that exports would not go beyond 30 percent of total production until the North American market was fully satisfied. Suddenly the European big-bike market grew by an astounding 33 percent between 1990 and 1992. Yet, because of its production constraints, Harley could only maintain a 9 to 10 percent share of this market. In other words, it was giving away business to foreign competitors.
To enhance its presence in Europe, Harley opened a branch office of its HOG club in Frankfurt, Germany, for its European fans.
Table 5.1 shows the trend of Harley's revenues and net income from 1982 through 1994. The growth in sales and profits did not go unnoticed by the investment community. In 1990, Harley-Davidson stock sold for $7; in January of 1993, it hit $39. Its market share of heavyweight motorcycles (751 cubic centimeters displacement and larger) had soared from 12.5 percent in 1983 to 63 percent by 1993. Let the Japanese have the lightweight bike market! Harley would dominate the heavyweights.
Harley acquired Holiday Rambler in 1986. As a wholly owned subsidiary, this manufacturer of recreational and commercial vehicles was judged by Harley's management to be compatible with the existing motorcycle business and, in addition, would moderate some of the seasonality of the motorcycle business. The diversification proved rather mediocre. In 1992, it accounted for 26 percent of total corporate sales, but only 2 percent of profits.[62]
Big motorcycles, made in America by the only U.S. manufacturer, continued to be the rage. Harley's 90th anniversary was celebrated in Milwaukee on June 12,1993.
Table 5.1. Harley-Davidson's Growth in Revenue and Income, 1982–1994 ($ millions)
Year | Revenue | Net Income |
|---|---|---|
Source: Company annual reports. | ||
Commentary: The steady climb in sales and profits, except for a pause in 1985, is noteworthy. The total gain in revenues over these years was 631.9%, while income rose more than eighty-fold since 1983. | ||
1982 | $ 210 | def. $25.1 |
1983 | 254 | 1.0 |
1984 | 294 | 2.9 |
1985 | 287 | 2.6 |
1986 | 295 | 4.3 |
1987 | 685 | 17.7 |
1988 | 757 | 27.2 |
1989 | 791 | 32.6 |
1990 | 865 | 38.3 |
1991 | 940 | 37.0 |
1992 | 1,100 | 54.0 |
1993 | 1,210 | 68.0 |
1994 | 1,537 | 83.0 |
As many as 100,000 people, including 18,000 HOGS, were there to celebrate. Hotel rooms were sold out for a 60-mile radius. Harley-Davidson was up and doing real well.
The 1990s continued to be kind to Harley. Demand grew, with the mystique as strong as ever. The company significantly increased its motorcycle-production capacity with a new engine plant in Milwaukee completed in 1997 and a new assembly plant in Kansas City in 1998. It expected that demand in the United States would still exceed the supply of Harley bikes.
The following numbers show how motorcycle shipments (domestic and export) increased from 1993 to 1997 (in thousands of units):
U.S. | Exports | |
|---|---|---|
1993 | 57.2 | 24.5 |
1997 | 96.2 | 36.1 |
Despite continuous increases in production, U.S. consumers still had to wait to purchase a new Harley-Davidson bike, but the wait only added to the mystique.
The following shows the growth in revenues and income from 1993 to 1997:
Revenues ($M) | Net Income ($M) | |
1993 | 1,217 | 1,763 |
1997 | 18.4 | 174.0 |
As an indication of the popularity of the Harley-Davidson logo, Wolverine World Wide, original maker of Hush Puppies but now the largest manufacturer of footwear in the United States, entered into a licensing agreement with Harley to use its "sexy" name for a line of boots and fashion shoes to come out in late 1998.[63]
In its January 7, 2002 issue, Forbes declared Harley to be its "Company of the Year," a truly prestigious honor. In supporting its decision, Forbes noted that:
In a disastrous year for hundreds of companies, Harley's estimated 2001 sales grew 15 percent to $3.3 billion and earnings grew 26 percent to $435 million. Its shares were up 40 percent in 2001, while the S&P stock averages dropped 15 percent. Since Harley went public in 1986, its shares have risen an incredible 15,000 percent. Since 1986, GE, generally considered the paragon of American business, had risen only 1,050 percent.
Jeffrey Bleustein, a 26-year company veteran and then Harley CEO, was diversifying into small, cheaper bikes to attract younger riders as well as women who had shunned the big lumbering machines and who represented only 9 percent of Harley riders. The cult image was stronger than ever. Half of the company's 8,000 employees rode Harleys, and many of them appeared at rallies around the country for pleasure and to promote the company. In 2002, there were 640,000 owners, the parts-and-accessories catalog numbered 720 pages, and the Harley-Davidson name was on everything from blue jeans to pickup trucks. Harley would celebrate its 100th birthday in 2002, and some 250,000 riders were expected at the rally in Milwaukee.[64]
By 2005, a rental program, which had started in 1999 as a tool for Harley-Davidson to hook customers on riding and thereby entice them to buy, had ballooned from six participating dealers to 250, including 52 in Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Australia, France, and Italy. The number of days the motorcycles were rented zoomed from 401 in 1999 to 224,134 in 2004. Harley found that 32 percent of rental customers bought a bike after renting, and another 37 percent planned to buy one within a year. About half of the renters spent more than $100 on Harley accessories such as T-shirts and gloves.[65]
By 2006, the popularity of Rallies and the eagerness of many communities to welcome bikers seemed insatiable. The following Information Box describes this phenomenon.
One of Vaughan Beals's first moves after the 1981 leveraged buyout was to improve production efficiency and quality control. This became the foundation for the strategic-regeneration moves to come. In this quest, he borrowed heavily from the Japanese, in particular by cultivating employee involvement.
The cultivation of a new customer segment for the big bikes had to be a major factor in the company's resurgence. To some, discovering that more affluent consumers embraced the big, flashy Harley motorcycles was a surprise of no small moment. After all, how could you have two more incompatible groups than the stereotyped black-jacketed cyclists and the Rubbies? Perhaps the change was due in part to the participation of high-profile people like Beals and some of his executives at motorcycle rallies and charity rides.[66]
Technological and comfort improvements in motorcycles and their equipment added to the new attractiveness. Dealers were coaxed to make their stores more inviting.
Along with this, expanding the product mix not only made Harley-branded merchandise a windfall for company and dealers alike, but also piqued the interest of upscale customers in motorcycles. The company was commendably aggressive in running with the growing popularity of the ancillary merchandise and making this well over a $100 million revenue booster.
Some questions remained. How durable was the popularity of the big bikes and the complementary merchandise with this affluent customer segment? Would it prove to be only a passing fad? If so, then Harley needed to seek diversifications as quickly as possible, even though the Holiday Rambler Corporation had brought no notable success by 1992. Diversifications often bring disappointed earnings compared with a firm's core business.
Another question concerned Harley's slowness in expanding production capability. Faced with a burgeoning demand, was it better to go slowly, be carefully protective of quality, and refrain from heavy debt commitments? This had been Harley's most recent strategy, but it raised the risk of permitting competitors to gain market share in the United States and especially in Europe. The following Issue Box discusses aggressive versus conservative planning.
Invitation to Make Your Own Analysis and Conclusions
Do you think Beal's rejuvenation efforts could have been better handled? Support your conclusions.
Do you see any limitations to the viability and growth of Harley in thefuture? Discuss how these might be countered.
How durable do you think the Rubbies' infatuation with the heavyweightHarleys will be? What leads you to this conclusion?
A Harley-Davidson stockholder criticizes present management: "It is amistake of the greatest magnitude that we abdicate a decent share of theEuropean motorcycle market to foreign competitors, simply because we donot gear up our production to meet the demand." Discuss.
Given the resurgence of Harley-Davidson in the 1990s, would you investmoney now in the company? Discuss, considering as many factors bearing onthis decision as you can.
"Harley-Davidson's resurgence is only the purest luck. Who could havepredicted, or influenced, the new popularity of big bikes with the affluent?"Discuss.
"The tariff increase on Japanese motorcycles in 1983 gave Harley-Davidson badly needed breathing room. In the final analysis, politics is moreimportant than management in competing with foreign firms." What areyour thoughts?
Be a devil's advocate (One who opposes a position to establish its merits and validity). Your mutual fund has a major investment in Harley-Davidson, and you are concerned with Vaughn Beals's presence at motorcycle rallies hobnobbing with black-jacketed motorcycle gangs. He maintains that this is the way to cultivate a loyal core of customers. Argue against Beals.
As a vice president at Harley-Davidson in the 1990s, you believe the recovery efforts should have gone well beyond the heavyweight bikes into lightweights. What arguments would you present for this change in strategy, and what specific recommendations would you make for the new course of action? What contrary arguments would you expect? How would you counter them?
As a staff assistant to Vaughan Beals when he first took over, you have been charged to design a strategy to bring a mystique to the Harley-Davidson name. How would you propose to do this? Be as specific as you can, and defend your reasoning.
Do you think the public's willingness to promote biker rallies is reaching a saturation point? Why or why not? How does your prediction impact on Harley?
A major schism has developed in the executive ranks of Harley-Davidson. Many executives believe it is a monumental mistake not to gear up production to meet the burgeoning worldwide demand for Harleys. Others see the present go-slow approach to increasing production as more prudent. Persuasively support your position and attack the other side.
What is the situation with Harley-Davidson today? Has the cult following remained as strong as ever? How are the new lightweight bikes faring? Are many women being attracted to Harleys? Have any new competitors emerged? Has Harley diversified beyond bikes? Are rallies still drawing hundreds of thousands of bikers?
[48] Tom Rowan, "Harley Sets New Drive to Boost Market Share," Advertising Age, January 29, 1973, pp. 34–35.
[49] Peter C. Reid, Well Made in America: Lessons from Harley Davidson on Being the Best, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990, p. 10.
[50] Rod Willis, "Harley-Davidson Comes Roaring Back," Management Review, March 1986, pp. 20–27.
[51] "Harley Back in High Gear," Forbes, April 20, 1987, p. 8.
[52] Dexter Hutchins, "Having a Hard Time with Just-in-Time," Fortune, June 19, 1986, p. 65.
[53] Hutchins, p. 66.
[54] Ibid.
[55] "A Partnership to Build the New Workplace," Business Week, June 30, 1980, p. 101.
[56] As described in a Mazda ad in Forbes, May 24, 1982, p. 5.
[57] Mark Marvel, "The Gentrified HOG," Esquire, July 1989, p. 25.
[58] "Thunder Road," Forbes, July 18, 1983, p. 32.
[59] Robert L. Rose, "Vrooming Back," Wall Street Journal, August 31, 1990, p. 1.
[60] John R. Schermerhorn, Jr., Management, 6th ed. New York, Wiley, 1999, pp. 262–263.
[61] Gary Slutsker, "Hog Wild," Forbes, May 24, 1993, p. 46.
[62] Company annual reports.
[63] Carleen Hawn, "What's in a Name? Whatever You Make It," Forbes, July 27, 1998, p. 88.
[64] Jonathan Fahey, "Love into Money," Forbes, January 7, 2002, pp. 60–65.
[65] Ryan Nakashima, Associated Press, as published in "Harley Rents Bikes to Boost Sales," Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 5, 2005, p. C2.
[66] Peter Schroeder, "Their Economic Engines Are Harleys," Wall Street Journal, August 24, 2006, p. D8.