I was talking to a rather successful technology developer last night [Hello Dave!] and we had a bit of a disagreement [quelle surprise!] because I didn’t agree that it was always right for a company to jump on emerging technological advancements.
Of course a ‘first mover’ strategy can have its advantages but history shows that quite often a more conservative approach to innovation – based on mixing old and new technologies – is even more successful.
[A perfect example of this is Apple … in the late 80’s/early 90’s when they were obsessed with ‘innovation’, they created some of the World’s most expensive disasters. However today – with a philosophy of ‘trend exploitation’ [also known as techno-evolution] they are enjoying the most profitable and successful times of their lives.]
Anyway Dave said that ‘disruptive innovation’ was the most powerful way for him to create market leadership – however my view was that there were just as many examples of ‘second mover’ [or ‘fast follower’] strategies that have been equally effective for brands.
So I thought I’d look a bit more at this and found business writer, Nicholas Carr, had a different view to both of us.
In Carr’s opinion, the most successful strategy may be something he calls ‘Third Mover’ – the fusion of old and new technologies resulting in ‘consumer embraced technology’.
Eh?
Well he believes that consumers are reluctant to embrace anything that is too different, so by the time the ‘innovation’ has been established in the minds of the masses,that is the best time to enter the market and exploit the opportunity.
Now whilst I can see what he is saying, I am not sure this is strictly true … however I do appreciate that companies often get seduced by the thought of being an ‘innovator’ when being a ‘conservative innovator’ may actually be more financially rewarding. Infact, you could argue it’s even more effective than being a category pioneer because R&D investment and Educational Communication will be dramatically reduced and you have the benefit of offering consumers a product that is not beset with ‘bugs’ … something inherent in nearly all new technology.
Lets be honest, all the above opinions have merit … and I think you know I am a huge believer in ideas and technological innovation [I just hate it when it’s done because a company wants to flex its ‘innovation muscle’ rather than address some consumer need/want] … it’s just I believe this ever-present-attitude of ‘new always wins’ is something misguided and sometimes, irresponsible.
And yes, I do realise the ad industry is particularly bad for obsessively embracing the ‘new’ … which is why planners should not only inspire creativity to flow in all directions, but also ensure the consumer [and client] needs are naturally addressed within the resulting communication idea.
It’s not about doing what’s ’new’ … it’s about doing what’s right but always in an enthusiastic, motivating and entertaining way.
Carr, N. (2004) Bridging the breakthrough gap. STRATEGY & BUSINESS (USA)