In a recent essay on redefining globalization, Mark Zuckerberg cautioned that globalization was something that was considered normal by people and governments across countries, are now being increasingly seen and used that contradicts the very outcome of globalization. Instead of connecting societies across the world, policies are most likely resulting in isolation, inequitable distribution of wealth and increase in poverty. At the initial stage, he planned to visit all the states in his home country and make people aware of the issue.
Does it sound like he is panicked by apparent anti-globalization policy of the current administration, or Britain’s voting to quit the European Union? In fact, he openly denied such connection. But rumors know no bound. According to an article by Huffington Post, Zuckerberg could be a presidential candidate in 2020 or 2024. Others disagree. The new essay is simply a revised manifesto of creating a connected world through strong global communities. In the backdrop of recent political events, he might have just felt that the previous manifesto needed to be re-asserted with stronger emphasis. Here is the essay you might be interested to read (Click).
Google Home is actually a smart speaker, powered by Google Assistant. Simply put, it is a voice activated device, combining Google services like calendar, search, and so on. It did not happen in a day, of course. Since the day you opened your Google account, the day you bought your first Android phone, the day you took your first picture, and so on, Google is collecting all our usage behavior data. Presumably, their database about “us” is huge. Combined and programmed together to give us a highly customized solution with amazing device interface, Google is now mature enough to “keep talking” (video) to us through machines (using artificial intelligence), that would amazingly sound “relevant” to what we are. But how far this “Home” thing will go in future? How much compromise of privacy will it ask for? What do you think?
With ELon Musk at the helm of Tesla, it seems like it will make a headway in the mainstream car market in future. Being the performance leader in its category, Tesla has been highly consistent in what it has been doing- making Tesla a promising electric car that all other brands are zealous of! Yea, look at the pioneer Toyota and Nissan who started making electric cars (Hybrid though) with their special models. The development did not go far while Toyota was following a niche strategy with its electric car. High price and efficiency of batteries were also a few limiting factors for adoption of electric cars. Most likely, “economy” brand Toyota was following a wait-and-see strategy in this segment. On the other hand, Tesla invested in battery innovation, the heart of electric car. Their more affordable model is just about to roll-out that might actually help spreading their business in developing countries.
In the tech-world, “wait-and-see” would result in new brands picking up the trend and leave you behind the race. It appears that Tesla is now taking the lead in that direction, while Toyota is now aggressively coming back with their electric car models. Future would most likely favor the innovative and aggressive brands. What do you think?
Titan is Apple’s car project! Since its reported inception in 2014, there appears to be many ups and downs in the secret (?) project. It started out like an innovative and a strategically diversifying idea for the mobile phone maker, however, industry sources indicate that the project is shifting its focus from making a full-fledged vehicle towards more of vehicle-related “smart” devices and software.
The initial plan required huge research and development budget, which, of course, Apple invested in— along with hiring the best possible talents from the car industry. Lately, leaked accounts indicated that the project was scaled-back, jobs were cut, and focus of the car project shifted towards more of developing supportive software than of making full-fledged “Apple” (or Titan) cars. Could this be the result of new calculations stemming from the rising success of Tesla and Google cars? Could Apple fall behind compared with the “would-be” giant Tesla and Google cars in the smart car segment because of their (Apple’s) starting “late”? Perhaps they are just discovering the classic fact that businesses should focus on whatever they do the best, i.e., making smart devices with excellent software; and just make one more of this thing for the car industry! What do you think?
While rebranding could be an option for failed or weak brands, it’s expensive. It is like an ascending aircraft that failed to maintain its consistent pace on the runway, while deciding at the end that it needs to take-off right away, requiring above-average energy to push it up harder. Maintaining consistent speed and taking off at the right point could have been less expensive!
Yes, when it comes to branding, it better be done right the first time! Cheap experiments with brands could be utterly expensive in the long-run. Look at the initial craze of Mojo cola in its early years that pushed the highly competitive soft-drink market towards its advantage. The early “investment” in widespread promotion appeared to be successful in its critical positioning. Mojo’s contemporary domestic competitor like “Pran” cola, later coming back with the brand name “Maxx”, seems to be struggling with apparently meager promotion campaign. Although we don’t see widespread promotion of Mojo right now, its already-established positioning probably helped a lot in maintaining its steady market situation. In fact, it seems that it took-off the runway at the right point, and now soaring in the sky without the need for huge energy! Doing it right the first time not only saves time and money, but also leads to a stronger brand.
Nokia is coming back with a couple of android smart devices. After being taken over by Microsoft in 2014, the ban on introducing “Nokia” branded devices is expiring in 2016. Industry experts opined that it was Nokia’s failure to adapt to the changing smart phone market that accelerated its decline in this segment. The question is: could it revive itself after coming back to the core trend? The answer could be a mild “yes” with “it depends”.
Global Smartphone market share is already dominated by Apple (23%), Samsung (15%), Huawei (8%), Oppo (5%) and geographical leader Xiaomi (4%). All of them have their own unique proposition to their target segments, with Apple and Samsung at the forefront of tech innovations. The question is: will Nokia be able to outsmart these established competitors with its novel design, features and innovative functionality? Recent past didn’t look so bright for its Lumia range (“Nokia Lumia” was marketed as “Microsoft Lumia” by Microsoft). While Lumia had the major share in the Windows phone market, the fact remains that Windows holds less than 1% of the global smart phone market share. Will its android devices offer anything new? That is something we will need to wait and see.
While Nokia had reputation for its engineering superiority of feature phones in the past, it is quite doubtful whether the same design skills are retained after all these ups and downs in the company. If it is another “me-too” product, only the brand name “Nokia” can hardly recover the reputation once it had.
Expert marketers may oftentimes skim your marketing plan and can tell you the prospect of its success at the end. It is possible because professionals handled similar situations in their lives, and can do a good guesswork of forecasting failures. Why not encourage risk-taking leading to failures? Learning from failures is good, but nobody wants to ensure that you fail at the end willingly. This is where lies the inept program design that is doomed to fail.
Cutting corners while preparing advertising budget could be the biggest candidate for future failure by design. Lowering product quality could cut down cost and increase profit, but only at the cost of losing customers’ loyalty. Losing a key executive might save you few bucks at the end, costing long-term creativity in your marketing strategy. Let’s not forget the loss of relationship based assets in this process. Insufficient distribution plan could cost you market share. In a nutshell, failure by design is about “cutting corners” when you need to create sharp edges to push your boundary. It is about preparing a product to fail after hard work, which could easily be avoided by preparing sharp edges, and not cutting corners.