I read an article over the weekend about LVMH's (Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton's) approach to ensuring ideas leadership in product development and corporate culture.
The key point was that instead of creating a corporate structure and then recruiting bods to fill the holes, they identified talent, hired and then allowed that person to carve out a niche for themselves within the company. This ensures that the business makes attracting the best available talent its Number 1 priority to ensure that it stays ahead of the pack in creating new products for its generally well-heeled clientele.
Another interesting observation was that the company ensures creative teams remain small - no design by committee. Its rationale is that the bigger the creative team, the more compromise and the greater the propensity to design products to the lowest common denominator i.e. pleasing everyone, qualified to comment or not and, in the end, standing for nothing.
To those who might argue that 'of course they can do that, it's reflected in their prices!' I would say there is no reason why this approach cannot work for any brand that knows its marketplace. All LVMH is demonstrating is that it clearly understands its history, its customers and its future success.
I have questioned before why organisations insist that every department that wants to 'have a say' in the way things are written, presented and marketed, gets it. LVMH clearly believes, as I have said before, that this is counter-productive to the creative process. It merely stunts thought leadership in areas of product design and new business opportunity.
There was a long period when I was involved in the auto industry where new vehicles were 'clinic-ed' to death. Design leadership was trashed by public viewings of proposed new models - only for the business to find out that the clinics merely resulted in style-compromised vehicles that looked out of date on the day they were launched.
The successful companies are those that lead the market in a considered way, guided by the best talent they can afford. I have never worked for LVMH but, if they are true to their PR, good luck to them for daring to lead.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Apple's MobileMe - the real game changer
There's no doubt the iPad's launch reinforces Apple's positioning as an innovator. But it does something more than that. From a commercial perspective, it has the capacity to suck people into the growing power of Apple's vortex, drawing them into a new world in the Apple 'cloud'. It's the natural environment for all our thoughts, memories and shared secrets. It is also an infinitely expandable universe of raw materials mined to inform, entertain and lose ourselves. It reaches 300 million people who already own Apple mobile devices.
The iPad is merely a gateway to Apple's core business, which is now largely driven by selling virtual consumer goods created for us by an eclectic mix of musicians, producers, journalists, artists and, maybe, marketers. Why maybe? Simple. Most of us haven't even worked out how to engage our companies and clients in the social media world, let alone the digital jungle of Apple's rapidly developing universe.
That is why Apple's transition to content provider for cool digital devices tailored to receive it is genius. Apple has worked out the best way to engage its customers is to build a world for them into which they can embed their daily lives. To own the jungle is the most elegant way to tame it, control the way it is used and by whom. And if you don't believe this is happening, consider that Apple is reportedly building the world's biggest data centre in Catawba County, North Carolina - the home of Apple's MobileMe internet 'cloud', where millions already store personal photos and documents and integrate their communications.
The challenge for us is to carve out our role in this world. Perhaps we should sponsor new apps, form partnerships with specialist apps creators, or develop unique and engaging content that people might even buy! At a time when most of the stuff created for traditional channels like television is crap, I believe this will prove an enormous challenge for the marketing business. To cut through a jungle, you need a machete - insight, sharp words, opportunism, improvisaton and, most of all, relevance to the lives of Apple's cloud people.
Welcome to the world of Web 3.0 defined and owned by Apple! MobileMe is the ultimate app. For a growing number, it is the internet.
The iPad is merely a gateway to Apple's core business, which is now largely driven by selling virtual consumer goods created for us by an eclectic mix of musicians, producers, journalists, artists and, maybe, marketers. Why maybe? Simple. Most of us haven't even worked out how to engage our companies and clients in the social media world, let alone the digital jungle of Apple's rapidly developing universe.
That is why Apple's transition to content provider for cool digital devices tailored to receive it is genius. Apple has worked out the best way to engage its customers is to build a world for them into which they can embed their daily lives. To own the jungle is the most elegant way to tame it, control the way it is used and by whom. And if you don't believe this is happening, consider that Apple is reportedly building the world's biggest data centre in Catawba County, North Carolina - the home of Apple's MobileMe internet 'cloud', where millions already store personal photos and documents and integrate their communications.
The challenge for us is to carve out our role in this world. Perhaps we should sponsor new apps, form partnerships with specialist apps creators, or develop unique and engaging content that people might even buy! At a time when most of the stuff created for traditional channels like television is crap, I believe this will prove an enormous challenge for the marketing business. To cut through a jungle, you need a machete - insight, sharp words, opportunism, improvisaton and, most of all, relevance to the lives of Apple's cloud people.
Welcome to the world of Web 3.0 defined and owned by Apple! MobileMe is the ultimate app. For a growing number, it is the internet.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The marketplace - Making a connection
I dropped in with family for a weekend in Sydney last week and visited its renowned Sunday market at The Rocks. I'm not into markets, but I was suckered into one store which, to my eye, was easily the busiest in the place. It sold monotone historical photos from throughout Australia and New Zealand.
What is it that drives so many people to buy photos from 100 years or more ago? It it just curiosity? Is it a deep-seated longing for when life was simpler? Or was it that this store was just a terrific 'child minding' facility for guys who just aren't interested in accompanying partners to aroma therapy and home-made jewellery stalls?
A quick glance at the demographic led me to believe it was probably a combination of all three. But what struck me most is that these old photos, presented and dated in their green cardboard mounts were actually doing good business. Compared with other stalls, they were doing great business. I would love to know why and understand the driver for this.
If I wanted to chance my arm at the underlying psychology, the sales were a by-product of personal connection. These old images project a story about where we come from, a sense of self in the flow of history, whether we've made progress and even how we might better plan for the future.
The Rocks market was a microcosm of retail behaviour. The store making the greatest personal connection was selling products that struck an authentic chord with its community. It was retail at its most basic, but it carried a contemporary message for brands.
What is it that drives so many people to buy photos from 100 years or more ago? It it just curiosity? Is it a deep-seated longing for when life was simpler? Or was it that this store was just a terrific 'child minding' facility for guys who just aren't interested in accompanying partners to aroma therapy and home-made jewellery stalls?
A quick glance at the demographic led me to believe it was probably a combination of all three. But what struck me most is that these old photos, presented and dated in their green cardboard mounts were actually doing good business. Compared with other stalls, they were doing great business. I would love to know why and understand the driver for this.
If I wanted to chance my arm at the underlying psychology, the sales were a by-product of personal connection. These old images project a story about where we come from, a sense of self in the flow of history, whether we've made progress and even how we might better plan for the future.
The Rocks market was a microcosm of retail behaviour. The store making the greatest personal connection was selling products that struck an authentic chord with its community. It was retail at its most basic, but it carried a contemporary message for brands.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Starting 2010 as a winner
Her name is Racine. Her sire is Untouchable. See who can be the first to tell me where I derived the name!
By the way, I only own a back leg!
Choose your words carefully
Hi to everyone in 2010. Hope you all had a good break over Christmas-New Year. If you didn't, consider your views on being indispensible and make sure you get one soon. There's a great article in the Australian Financial Review this morning about the personal insecurities that discourage people from taking leave, but that's another subject.
First week back at work for me this week and I've run into two items that highlight how customers can completely misconstrue messages. And in both instances, it all comes down to choice, or context, of words.
The first resulted in a call to my own office, where we had issued a letter to investors saying our fund was transferring to a new administrator. For this investor, the word 'administrator' translated to 'fund going into administration' rather than the true meaning, which was the fund transferring to a new member administration service provider. A huge gap in interpretation! Fortunately, as far as I know, we only had one investor who interpreted it this way out of 7,000 that received the letter. So let's no over-react!
The second encounter was a report that another superannuation fund had decided to remove an exclusion filter from its sustainable responsible investment (SRI) portfolio. A by-product of that story was a comment by the fund's head of investments, that a number of its investors mistakenly believed sustainable to mean 'reliable' i.e. will deliver reliable (positive?) earnings. This was far removed from the real meaning that money would only be invested in companies meeting specific social, environmental and governance criteria.
My view is that you cannot bullet proof communications against any possible misinterpretation because the wires in some people's heads are irrevocably fused in ways different to any other. But these are two examples of interpretation than, for some people, have resulted in wildly different meanings that could have disastrous consequences for their expectations and decision-making.
I think all communicators will get the point I'm making. But I caution there is one sector that will interpret and react to this blog differently - in-house lawyers. Their only interpretation will be that we need to cover the page with more disclaimers and footnotes! My advice is not to forward this URL to their inbox.
First week back at work for me this week and I've run into two items that highlight how customers can completely misconstrue messages. And in both instances, it all comes down to choice, or context, of words.
The first resulted in a call to my own office, where we had issued a letter to investors saying our fund was transferring to a new administrator. For this investor, the word 'administrator' translated to 'fund going into administration' rather than the true meaning, which was the fund transferring to a new member administration service provider. A huge gap in interpretation! Fortunately, as far as I know, we only had one investor who interpreted it this way out of 7,000 that received the letter. So let's no over-react!
The second encounter was a report that another superannuation fund had decided to remove an exclusion filter from its sustainable responsible investment (SRI) portfolio. A by-product of that story was a comment by the fund's head of investments, that a number of its investors mistakenly believed sustainable to mean 'reliable' i.e. will deliver reliable (positive?) earnings. This was far removed from the real meaning that money would only be invested in companies meeting specific social, environmental and governance criteria.
My view is that you cannot bullet proof communications against any possible misinterpretation because the wires in some people's heads are irrevocably fused in ways different to any other. But these are two examples of interpretation than, for some people, have resulted in wildly different meanings that could have disastrous consequences for their expectations and decision-making.
I think all communicators will get the point I'm making. But I caution there is one sector that will interpret and react to this blog differently - in-house lawyers. Their only interpretation will be that we need to cover the page with more disclaimers and footnotes! My advice is not to forward this URL to their inbox.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Happy New Year and good health for 2010!
Broke my sabbatical to drop in and say happy New Year and good health to all who might drop by the Bloggosfear! Posting will recommence soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)