So a recent article in the NY Times talked about how Apple owes much of its success to the economics of elitism … and whilst I can see why they would say that, I still believe it is more about massperation than pure elitism.
The difference?
Well Apple have been able to find a way – by design or by good fortune – to still make their products desirable even when they’re the ‘establishment’ … and whilst I am sure many Apple owners think they’re better than individuals who don’t own or use their products … it could indicate the actual meaning of the word ‘elitism’ – like ‘luxury’ – has evolved and it’s definition can no longer be limited to simply representing a select group of people whose intellect, wealth, training or/or experiences enable them to be viewed by the masses as the group whose views carry the most weight or value.
Of course there’s many reasons for this high value perception … from the fact they beautifully under-design and powerfully engineer their products, right through to the fact that compared to their competitors [ie: Microsoft, IBM, SONY] they are smaller and less corporate so they have – and should have – a challenger brand persona. However regardless of the number of reasons [of which there will be many] the commercial value of this perception is huge because when people think of Apple, the general [Western] consensus will be that Apple make beautifully designed and engineered products that fundamentally understand people’s rational and emotional needs whereas the competition simply make products that perform ‘functions’.
Is this view fair?
Nope … and I do worry where Apple are going given they seem to be more focused on squeezing every last possible bit of profit from the iPod than the development of totally new tech [but as I wrote here, I can’t blame them]… however there was something in the article that I particularly liked and it was this:
Apple represents the “auteur model of innovation,” observes John Kao, a consultant to corporations and governments on innovation. In the auteur model, he said, there is a tight connection between the personality of the project leader and what is created. Movies created by powerful directors, he says, are clear examples, from Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo” to James Cameron’s “Avatar.”
Let me show you something:
Film director James Cameron
W+K founder Dan Wieden
Apple’s Steve ‘GOD’ Jobs
BBH founder John Hegarty
Not very cool looking are they?
I’d bet if you went into a meeting room and didn’t know who they were, your first reaction would be to discount their creative intelligence creds because they didn’t ‘look the part’.
Hell, I bet that if they worked in adland, they’d be out on their ear by now – deemed to be ‘too old’ to be relevant, which is quite funny given they are still producing things that are not just impacting our World, but regarded as highly creative.
As many of you know, I have quite a close relationship with both Virgin and Google … and one of the things I’ve always found funny is how many people say they’re ‘cool’.
Let’s remember, Virgin is a company run by a dyslexic, bad-jumper wearing beardy 60 year old and the other is founded by a couple of tech nerds who have a logo that looks like it was designed by a kindergarten teacher.
A pensioner and a couple of colour blind geeks … and the World thinks they have companies that are cool!!
The thing is – like Jobs and Cameron etc – they have all created companies/products that are a reflection of themselves … companies/products that reflect their unshakeable belief in their philosophies, values and approach … which is why they can spend enormous amounts of time and money on elements that a more process-driven corporation would regard as superfluous because to them it’s more than just achieving financial success, it’s about proving to their peers [and themselves] that their ideas are right, with the masses as the biggest jury in the World.
This doesn’t mean Jobs, Branson etc aren’t commercially astute – that is that’s so far from the truth it’s not funny – but it does mean they ultimately want to be judged by what they do, not what they say … which is why this bunch of old and/or nerdy men have been able to impact society to a much greater extent than all the latest trend spouting, web 2.0, uber-cool, media commentators and agencies put together.
Do all trend spouting, web 2.0, uber-cool, media commentators and agencies talk shite?
Of course not – just like all the pensioners and nerds of the World aren’t impacting the planet with their great ideas – however what I would say is these old/nerd guys believe in the power of DOING STUFF … stuff that crosses categories because they are built on values and philosophy, not just capabilities … whereas my industry – an industry that is supposed to be all about applied creativity let us remember – seem far too comfortable these days just talking about doing stuff.
But do you know why I personally like these guys so much?
Because they all have companies that value creativity, rather than devalue age … so as a near-40-year old man who still feels he has a shitload to prove and achieve, it gives me hope I’m not ready for the scrap heap quite yet!