This weeks retort:
To the idiots @ Sirius and XM.
What is the most expensive marketing cost that every company incurs? New customer acquisition. I recently read an article about programmers writing software for windows media 9 and windows mobile that allows listeners to get access to XM radio on their pda and smart phones. XM and Sirius are siccing their lawyers on these open source programmers. Wait, let me get this straight. Programmers are creating a new niche market for you with hundreds of thousands of potential customers, a market you have debated entering since its inception, a market that is growing daily with the likes of Vcast, EDGE and other cell-phone based music networks, AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF IT? Open source developers are creating your apps for FREE, removing all stops for a new customer to sign up and try your service, and you're pissed? We all know you make your money selling subscriptions. As more cars come equipped with satellite radio, as live internet radio feeds grow, and as consumers continue to clammer for a "do-it-all" iPhone-Camera-Organizer-Email-device, the market for your $99 personal satellite receiver is disappearing. If you have a chance to leverage the work of others and gain NEW subscribers for FREE, what is the problem. You should be partnering with these developers, not suing them. Why not give them an incentive and put some marketing dollars behind it. Each developer gets a flat fee or residual for each new subscriber they sign up. The money is not in the software or the device. The long term market for online music is with subscriptions. Contracts will become the word of the day. The bell is tolling; time will tell whether cell phone carriers or 3rd party providers become the streaming music source of choice. Sirius and XM, for your own sake, I hope you're listening.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
Winning the race that has no finish...
I just finished reading an article on money.cnn.com. It was lamenting the woes of industry leaders and poining out the real benefits of "second mover" advantage. Throughout b-school you hear, "First to market is the key to success." This may be true of some specialized products and industries. But in the world of commodity goods drafting your opponent and forcing them to pave the way may well prove to be the best strategy of all.
The problem with corporate leadership is this: there is no end to the race they run. CEO's retire, investors cash out, employees come and go. But the business itself must remain; forever sustainable, profitable, and improving. There is no way to pace oneself for a race that has no end. Move too fast and you risk running out of steam and money. Move to slow and you may find yourself perfectly positioned to deal with a world that no longer exists. The key to business success is not in pacing, its in definition. By redefining the 'venue' in business we find ways to .
One of the greatest strengths of the martial arts is its focus on self defense. In many disciplines you must wait for your attacker to move. As he does you so, read, understand, and react to his attack, disabling or disarming him in the process. Too many leaders equate business with a marathon, placing great emphasis on who is "out in front." In reality business is more boxing match than footrace. Components square off in a marketplace, bringing with them all the human and financial capital they will need to go the rounds. They throw punches with new products, new branding, and new management. Strategy defines when, where and how they throw their punches. The best competitors do not out box they opponents: they out think them. Lowe's beat Home Depot not because they were bigger or faster, but because they were smarter. They looked at where the competition was headed, and went in the opposite direction. In doing so they didn't have to outrun Home Depot on price; they beat them on quality. It is and will begin to be the same in every industry. Business is a boxing match. However thinks its a marathon is about to get knocked out.
The problem with corporate leadership is this: there is no end to the race they run. CEO's retire, investors cash out, employees come and go. But the business itself must remain; forever sustainable, profitable, and improving. There is no way to pace oneself for a race that has no end. Move too fast and you risk running out of steam and money. Move to slow and you may find yourself perfectly positioned to deal with a world that no longer exists. The key to business success is not in pacing, its in definition. By redefining the 'venue' in business we find ways to .
One of the greatest strengths of the martial arts is its focus on self defense. In many disciplines you must wait for your attacker to move. As he does you so, read, understand, and react to his attack, disabling or disarming him in the process. Too many leaders equate business with a marathon, placing great emphasis on who is "out in front." In reality business is more boxing match than footrace. Components square off in a marketplace, bringing with them all the human and financial capital they will need to go the rounds. They throw punches with new products, new branding, and new management. Strategy defines when, where and how they throw their punches. The best competitors do not out box they opponents: they out think them. Lowe's beat Home Depot not because they were bigger or faster, but because they were smarter. They looked at where the competition was headed, and went in the opposite direction. In doing so they didn't have to outrun Home Depot on price; they beat them on quality. It is and will begin to be the same in every industry. Business is a boxing match. However thinks its a marathon is about to get knocked out.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Retorts...
Sometimes I get sick of the following attitude: "With my x years of experience I now consideration myself qualified to comment as a de facto authority on everything under the sun. Because I have x years of experience my assumptions lay beyond reproach and my arguments are, therefore, infallible."
To these people I offer my weekly retort where I question there assumptions and assert my own infallible opinions. Enjoy!
This week, Thomas Friedman.
The World Is Flat v. How to keep the highground in a flat world...aka why America shouldn't worry. I'm reading Friedman's new book on the role of global expansion on America's future success. It reads like a horror story. I woke up one night in a cold sweat, with visions of legions of Indian engineers chasing me down, taking my job, evicting me from my house, stealing my wife and selling me as a slave to a Chinese widget factory. Everyone also seemed to be laughing manaically at me, a la Fantasia 2000. It was very strange.
Since that dream, a byproduct of Friedman's doomsday predictions for American youth, I have been unable to relax. I've been stressed out trying to find out what my niche is going to be in the world: corporate marketer, graphic designer, brand strategist, homeless sidewalk dweller. As I poured over my options, choruses of "America isn't producing enough engineers" ringing through my head, I realized something: My "pouring over my options" was exactly what was going to save America. To clarify: after reading an article last week on the growth of entrepreneurship programs in the US I realized that our entreprenuerial spirit will save us.
America, since the days of the revolutionary war, has fought dirty, I mean been "resourceful." When the redcoats sailed over to crush us, we met them on our terms, not theirs. By fighting from trees, ditches, hills and vales we picked off those bright red coats like fish in a barrel. (Or lobsters walking down a dirt road; take your pick. Personally I think walking lobsters is the better visual. And quite a bit funnier.) By changing the "terms" of war we won the war. It will be the same for globalization 3.0. We must meet the world on our term, not theirs. There is a vikings chance of winning the Super Bowl that our educational system, one with too many problems and not enough money to throw at them, can gear up to produce the necessary engineering minds to compete in the next century. But engineers don't start companies. A students work for B students who work for companies owned by the C students that worked their butts off. The next generation of Americans is not content to fight for positions or careers. We want market share. We want autonomy. We want the respect that comes from running a successful business. Resourcefulness has set America apart since its inception. When the chips are down we find new chips. We do not look at things as they are and submit. America looks at things as they might be and makes strides to see that it happens.
To say that America is doomed is just flat wrong. To say that our only solution is to breed the next generation of super engineers is equally erroneous. Our destiny lays not in competing for jobs, but in creating the companies that give foreign workers a home. Ideas will always reign, especially in the knowledge worker world of the future. Let us not back down. Let us not think how we can beat our foreign counterparts for jobs. Let us instead learn how we can hire, finance, buyout and leverage the talents of others for our own benefit. It's a concept as American as apple pie: we stole it from someplace else, made it better and claimed it as our own.
If you have an idea for a retort send it to me @ project|nautlius
To these people I offer my weekly retort where I question there assumptions and assert my own infallible opinions. Enjoy!
This week, Thomas Friedman.
The World Is Flat v. How to keep the highground in a flat world...aka why America shouldn't worry. I'm reading Friedman's new book on the role of global expansion on America's future success. It reads like a horror story. I woke up one night in a cold sweat, with visions of legions of Indian engineers chasing me down, taking my job, evicting me from my house, stealing my wife and selling me as a slave to a Chinese widget factory. Everyone also seemed to be laughing manaically at me, a la Fantasia 2000. It was very strange.
Since that dream, a byproduct of Friedman's doomsday predictions for American youth, I have been unable to relax. I've been stressed out trying to find out what my niche is going to be in the world: corporate marketer, graphic designer, brand strategist, homeless sidewalk dweller. As I poured over my options, choruses of "America isn't producing enough engineers" ringing through my head, I realized something: My "pouring over my options" was exactly what was going to save America. To clarify: after reading an article last week on the growth of entrepreneurship programs in the US I realized that our entreprenuerial spirit will save us.
America, since the days of the revolutionary war, has fought dirty, I mean been "resourceful." When the redcoats sailed over to crush us, we met them on our terms, not theirs. By fighting from trees, ditches, hills and vales we picked off those bright red coats like fish in a barrel. (Or lobsters walking down a dirt road; take your pick. Personally I think walking lobsters is the better visual. And quite a bit funnier.) By changing the "terms" of war we won the war. It will be the same for globalization 3.0. We must meet the world on our term, not theirs. There is a vikings chance of winning the Super Bowl that our educational system, one with too many problems and not enough money to throw at them, can gear up to produce the necessary engineering minds to compete in the next century. But engineers don't start companies. A students work for B students who work for companies owned by the C students that worked their butts off. The next generation of Americans is not content to fight for positions or careers. We want market share. We want autonomy. We want the respect that comes from running a successful business. Resourcefulness has set America apart since its inception. When the chips are down we find new chips. We do not look at things as they are and submit. America looks at things as they might be and makes strides to see that it happens.
To say that America is doomed is just flat wrong. To say that our only solution is to breed the next generation of super engineers is equally erroneous. Our destiny lays not in competing for jobs, but in creating the companies that give foreign workers a home. Ideas will always reign, especially in the knowledge worker world of the future. Let us not back down. Let us not think how we can beat our foreign counterparts for jobs. Let us instead learn how we can hire, finance, buyout and leverage the talents of others for our own benefit. It's a concept as American as apple pie: we stole it from someplace else, made it better and claimed it as our own.
If you have an idea for a retort send it to me @ project|nautlius
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Welcome...
After a much maligned attempt at convincing myself I have nothing to offer the world, here I am spilling my soul to the thronging masses of the worlds virtual realities. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)