The transfer of value from content to experience

The disruptive impact of the Internet on the content industry – Music, movies – is now a known fact. The nature of the disruption, however, is not so well understood. Music majors and large media groups have grown out of the necessity to manage limited bandwidth and related resources. Up until recently, physical constraints had limited the number of TV channels and radio stations, which meant that those stations acted as de facto gatekeepers and could select who would go on air and who would not. They worked hand in hand with the majors, who performed the same function upstream. In a world of plastic, launching a new song was very expensive: expensive studio material had to be used, discs had to be physically created and distributed, so artists had to be selected and only a few could be produced. The business was about how to fill available physical slots in the most profitable way. Thanks to these industry players, people in the twentieth century were able to enjoy music, as they had not been able ever before. Radio stations and majors played the indispensable role of gatekeepers and, logically enough, could set up tollbooths to be rewarded for their service.

(more…)

Framing – an important concept for disruptions

The reaction of an organization to a major disruption in its environment (technological, regulatory, etc.) has long been studied by scholars and consultants. An important concept has recently emerged, that of Frames. The idea is that, when facing a disruption, the organization needs to rethink the way it sees the world. Old concepts don’t apply anymore, new competitors emerge seemingly from nowhere, major uncertainties exist in the marketplace, etc. Consider the case of Kodak, struck by the digital revolution, who had to change from a core competence of chemistry to that of electronics and software. The challenge for the organization is to dump old frames and create a new one, which will guide the strategy.

The concept of frames was introduced in the psychology and cognitive literature, but it applies well to the field of strategy. Among the interesting work in this field, let’s mention that of Clarke Gilbert, from Harvard, who wrote his PhD thesis on the reaction of traditional newspapers to the rise of the Internet and digitization. Gilbert shows how newspapers had to rethink their environment, which some did while other didn’t. Unfortunately, the thesis  is only available in paper form (Clarke, a pdf on your page would be cool). Gilbert is also the author of a working paper titled “Can competing frames coexist” (free download) where he shows that the difficulty for an organization to react to a disruption is not always or not necessarily due to a problem of commitment to its value network that hinders change (unlike Clayton Christensen‘s explanation).
On the contrary, the difficulty seems to reside in the way the disruption is perceived by the organization. If the disruption is seen as a threat, the reaction will be one of rigidity (hence the name threat rigidity). If, on the contrary, the disruption is framed as an opportunity, the organization will react more positively and will more easily embrace change. On this notion of frames, the work of Sarah Kaplan, from Wharton, is also worth noting. Kalpan is the author of “Framing contest: micro-mechanism of firm response to technical change“.
The idea is that when facing a new world, or rather an emergent world where everything is so uncertain, the strategy making process consists in a framing contest within the organization between individuals, departments, groups, etc. If everything goes well, at the end of the process, a common frame emerges that forms the basis of the new strategy. Sarah Kaplan also wrote an interesting article on the cognitive factors influencing an organization’s response to a disruption, in the particular case of the pharmaceutical industry: “Discontinuities and senior management – assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotech“. It can be downloaded for free and is worth reading.

Can you clone the Silicon Valley elsewhere?

Last Thursday, there was a seminar organized by the Ecole de Paris du Management, hosted by Daniel Rouach, who is a professor at the ESCP-EAP business school and at the Technion, Israël. Rouach is a specialist of industrial clusters and the co-author of Creating Regional Wealth in the Innovation Economy: Models, Perspectives and Best Practices, a book based on the extensive worldwide reseach he has done on the topic.

According to Rouach, there is no unique model to reproduce, but a series of success factors that ensure the success and the longevity of the cluster. Those factors are: a university, a leading company, availability of venture capital, effective governmental action, entrepreneurial spirit, as well as good competitive intelligence and networking among people, the quality of infrastructure, in particular for the transport, and the quality of the environment. If one looks at Bangalore, one of the most vibrant clusters nowadays, one can notice that the city has weaknesses one three of these factors, namely: the quality of the infrastructure and of the environment, and poor governmental action (see the excellent article about Bangalore in The Economist from April 23rd called The Bangalore Paradox). These weaknesses undermine the long term prospects of Bangalore, not so much as an IT center, but as an entrepreneurial cluster. The importance of networking is very high, and using the diaspora is something Indian and Israelis have done very well.

The end of journalism as we know it

In a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Rupert Murdoch warned recently that newpapers as we know them would soon be a thing of the past. It’s not the first time such a prediction is made (see our post on Dec. 5th at http://portail-innovation.typepad.com/eng/2004/12/under_internet_.html), but when you know Murdoch is one of the largest "traditional" media moguls, such a warning is stunning. It’s a bit like the Pope declaring that the catholic Church has run its course.

(more…)

Internet Explorer: Microsoft’s dilemma

In a previous post, I explained why I think that Firefox does not stand a chance against Microsoft Explorer. I won’t comment on some hysterical reactions to this post of some open source extremists who accused me of all things – their excess and insults only undermine the "cause" they serve. Despite this, an interesting discussion was launched and I take comfort to see that some Web sites also question Firefox’s potential ability to dislodge Explorer. To sum up, my reasoning is that Firefox, despite its qualities, is not a radical improvement over Explorer. MIcrosoft hasn’t improved Explorer for years, secure in its monopoly after the Netscape battle. But as a result of the new pressure created by Firefox, it will only take a big effort from Microsoft – something they’re expert at – to catch up and introduce a new release that offers security, stability and ease of use. As a result, Firefox’s advantage will be reduced if not suppressed. Devoted open source militant will not switch back to Explorer for sure, but how many are they? Based on this I ventured to conclude that Firefox would not succeed against Explorer, except in some niches. Having said that, Microsoft faces an interesting dilemma with Explorer, and the future of Firefox might well depend on how the Redmond firm will solve it…

(more…)

“What it takes to innovate”

Fortune magazine last issue (March 7th, 2005) is dedicated to "The world’s most admired companies". Fortune took the opportunity to ask Hay Group to conduct a special survey on innovation. Hay Group polled 160 companies on the subject of innovation, which is one of the nine attributes on which the world’s most admired companies rankings are based.

The three best rated companies on the innovation topic are :

  • FedEx
  • Procter & Gamble
  • Alcoa

"Innovation is not something you can simply invoke or turn on or off" says Hays Group vice president Mel Stark. Hays study suggests instead it takes a stable environment made of discipline and organisation.

Full article can be read at : www.fortune.com/fortune/mostadmired/articles/0,15114,1032462,00.html

Jeff Raskin, father of the Mac, is dead

A minute of silence for Jeff Raskin, who invented the original concept of the Macintosh in 1979, and died last saturday. Raskin is an important guy, and not just for sentimental reasons linked to the Macintosh cult. Raskin is the typical lonely innovator fighting the bureaucracy and the politics that kill so many innovations, even in a young company like Apple in 1979. Raskin’s original idea for the Mac was to build a $500 computer. A very easy to use computer, at a very low cost, using a graphical user interface, a revolutionary concept at the time; but Raskin was no stranger to revolution in technology. His 1967 thesis was about something called Quick Draw, a graphical view of computer screens, which would be the cornerstone of the Mac graphical user interface seventeen years later.

(more…)

Startups: The Next Wave

An interesting data from Business Week: half the startups funded during the 1999-2000 period are still alive! Half of them! So contrary to what many believe, this period wasn’t all wasted time and money, but allowed for the launch of real businesses. Now that the burst of the bubble is behind them, it’s take-off time. Of course, everybody talk about Google, the poster child of this period, but behind Google are a host of smaller players that are lining up for the IPOs in 2005 and 2006. Future stars are called TellMe
Networks (voice application software), Vonage (Voice over IP), as well as Force10
Networks, Peribit Networks, and Calix in network equipment; of course the security business is hot and startups such as Fortinet, CipherTrust, and ArcSight are thriving. This "surviving" rate illustrates the old VC saying that the best startups are built during the bear market.
Read the BW article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_10/b3923117_mz020.htm

Technological, economical and usage breakthroughs: the case of the VCR

If you ask someone about the origins of the video tape recorder, you will most likely get answers such as JVC, Panasonic and the VHS standard. An older audience would probably remind of Sony and the Betamax. This selective memory is quite consistent with Michael Schrage theory about innovation : “innovation isn’t what innovators do ; it’s what customers and clients adopt.” A variation could read : “People don’t remember the invention, they remember when the invention became adopted by the public.”

So those who remember JVC and those who remember Sony as inventors of the video tape recorder are both wrong. The whole story is worth telling because it provides a good illustration of the different breakthroughs which go along with an innovation.

In 1951, Charles Ginsburg, a studio and transmitter engineer at a San Francisco area radio station received a call from Alexander M. Poniatoff, founder and president of the Ampex Corporation in Redwood City, California. Mr. Poniatoff believed Ginsburg could help him with an important project. Ginsburg’s mission was to develop the first broadcast-quality videotape recorder (VTR), which he did : the Ampex VRX-1000 (later renamed the Mark IV) videotape recorder was introduced on March 1956. The machine sold for $50,000 (approximatly the equivalent of today $424,000…). It was on that year that the video tape recorder became a reality ; ie. the technological breakthrough happened more than 50 years ago.

The video tape recorder would remain a purely professional machine for the next two decades. In October 1969, Sony introduced its “Color Videoplayer”, which can be considered as the prototype for the U-matic format, introduced in Japan in September 1971. The two initial U-matic products were a video cassette player, the VP-1100, which had a price tag of 238,000 yen (approximatly the equivalent of today $2900), and a video cassette recorder (the first VCR) the VO-1700, priced at 358,000 yen (approximatly today $4,400). Not exactly mass market products.

The Betamax format was announced by Sony on April 16th 1975. The first Betamax product was the SL-7200, a VCR combined with a TV set for a price tag of $1295 (approximately today $4,200). Less than one year after, the VHS (Video Home System) format was launched by JVC. Sony’s philosophy was focused on quality, whereas JVC was focused on lowering the price. The first JVC machine, the HR-3300, was priced at the equivalent of today $3,100. I won’t expand here on the “format war” (VHS versus Betamax) as a lot has already been written on the topic, but it might be worth noticing that Betamax cassettes were limited to one hour versus four hours for the VHS format (in the US, enough for an entire football game). In October 1977, RCA launched the VHS Selecta Vision VCR in the US with a $4 million advertising campaign. By the summer of 1979, VHS was already outselling Betamax by a margin of two to one in the US.

The economic breakthrough came at the beginning of the 80s. From an average US price of $800 in 1978 (today $2,100), VCR prices went down to $426 in 1987 (today $660) ; the actualized price had been slashed by almost 70%! It is quite interesting to notice that it took 30 years for the concept of video tape recorder to shift from technological breakthrough to economical breakthrough. Not surprisingly, the usage breakthrough came along the price fall : In 1980 less than one percent of all U.S. households owned a VCR ; by 1987, this number had raised to 50%.

The VCR life span as a mass market product, however, was only approximately 25 years. In November 2004, Dixons retailer stopped selling VCR because of the ever greater success of DVD readers and recorders. Nobody use VCR anymore.

For a trip at the origins of VCR, and for the fun, visit “Total Rewind”, the virtual museum of vintage VCRs, at : http://www.totalrewind.org.

Financial Times – Mastering innovation

If you’re not a subscriber, the Financial Times can hardly be read on the web ; probably 90% of the articles are for subscribers only. Those of us who share a special interest for innovation are all lucky, because ALL of the articles of last fall "Mastering Innovation" report are available for free !So if you’ve missed it, there’s no excuse for not reading it yet…

Let us give you an overview.

(more…)