About our Blog

Welcome! Here you will find essays on technology, trends and our take on making things work. Beyond that, we post design examples we love, and other cool stuff we find.

Sites We Admire

Friends

Ideas of scale versus ideas of disruption.

Posted 05.19.09 by Adrian Ho

rogers-adoption001

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been thinking about the challenges of running a business of scale. I often think it’s something that we in the marketing industry don’t really know that much about as we’re, even in the biggest agencies, only really responsible for selling our “products” to a small number of people. However, when I walk through the aisles of a Nordstrom store (for example) – I realise that most of our clients’ businesses are very different. They make a living by selling to lots and lots and lots of people, over and over again.

The skills and ideas that grab small groups of people are very different from the skills and ideas that grab large numbers of people. I refer to one of my favourite models (above) to illustrate why. Ideas that only need to grab a small number of people can be extremely innovative and disruptive. They can appeal to the risk takers and ignore those who want familiarity, safety or tradition. Ideas that need to appeal to large numbers of people can’t make that sacrifice. In order to get to really large numbers of people, you have to start bringing in the more mainstream audiences. For these people, really new thinking isn’t going to be that appealing.

This difference comes to a head in the differing criteria that agencies and clients will apply when evaluating ideas. Agencies have always been proponents of innovative or disruptive ideas. Some of this has emerged from the need for communications to “break through the clutter” but often, if we’re honest, it’s simply been a product of ego. While ego is also a factor for some clients, more often, they’ll be looking for ideas that are going to deliver the biggest bang for the buck. These two viewpoints are always going to result in a completely different way to evaluate and judge the same idea.

I think this is another reason why we agencies need to develop a different aesthetic sense in order for us to become holistic marketing partners rather than just communications providers. I think we need to begin to celebrate ideas of scale rather than disruptive or niche ideas. I also think this will be an extremely difficult transition.

What do you think?

View all Posts
See more in: , , ,
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nien-Liu/10703357 Nien Liu

    I agree with the ego part of the post. I think sometimes we just have to be honest about what we have to work with and not try to overcompensate for it. Maybe we can also create a new category for it for one of the many award shows. =)

  • http://twitter.com/dlin dlin

    Again great though provoking post.

    The only potential issue from my POV is that all brands may not want to be mass-market or are catering for mass consumption.

    There is value of being perceieved as an “innovative” (and this inference also applies to “luxury”) brands. For these “passion” (and wannabe) brands, the disruptive idea or things that cater to the Brave segment of Rogers Innovation Curve can factor into their overall Influencer segments upstream.

    To your point, the Ideas of Disruption are probably not appropriate for most clients, but for some – I can see how catering to the agency/client/and brave segment egos still has a lot of value.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been thinking about “explorer” brands—companies that give you tools to learn and take control of your world in powerful ways.

    Microsoft and Apple are archtypes, but Gap in the day had some of the same power of pure explorer brands. Gap sold you beautiful elements like jeans and tee shirts, which you then could customize in cool ways with your stuff—a suit jacket or a scarf. You could become like one of the “persons of distinction” as they called their celebrity campaign.

    Explorer brands could also include Target, Home Depot, and AT&T. These are brands that not only let you do things, but empower you to do them. I think the concept of an explorer brand is one model for a large consumer company to partner with the consumer in an active way so they aren’t invisible, but do so by putting the customer in charge.

    I remember when I moved into my first apartment by myself, I went shopping at Room + Board. They were kind of the Ikea of the day. They didn’t sell me stuff–they sparked ideas in my head. Great ideas came to me because of them.

    You’re right about the challenge of understanding the client’s point of view. Someone once told me that advertising is about making things different, strategic consulting is about making things better.

    I think we need to find out how to do both. Thanks for a great post, as always.

  • http://geoffnorthcott.com/blog Geoff Northcott

    Hi Adrian,

    Interesting post as always. I’d definitely agree that often priorities can get skewed, and we’d do very well as an industry to start celebrating tangible results at least as much as we celebrate brilliant creative that never actually ran.

    However I think there’s still a place for disruptive or influencer-targeted activity that won’t necessarily scale, yet.

    One reason is on that adoption scale above, technologies and trends that become mainstream start off as niche. Companies that innovate around new technologies and platforms like say RFID, mobile applications, or Facebook, may not see dollar-for-dollar results in the next quarter, but the learnings they gain from their exploring may well provide the foundation for true business innovations in the years that come.

    Brands that only focus on what reaches the mass now may find themselves on the back foot in two years time when the masses have moved on, and their competitors or challenger brands in the space have all the domain experience as well as an pre-installed influencer audience base. We’re in an age where a platform like Facebook can reach 225 million users in three years, where mobile phones are becoming portable computing devices with all the inherent possibilities that come with that, where kids are growing up with digitally-enabled toys and expect everything to be connected. The pace of change is still accelerating, and ideas are becoming mass quicker than ever. Brands need to be thinking about where things are heading and trying things with the early adopters now that will be ready to scale when the moment arrives, not years too late.

    Also, I think in *some* circumstances early adopter and influencer buzz can have a halo effect that reaches and influences a mass audience. Google and Red Bull are examples of brands who do marketing that seems like it’d have negligible ROI when looked at in isolation, but en masse the activity creates significant perceived energy and an image around the brand that radiates strongly enough for the masses to pick it up and be influenced by it. And the fact that the chatter around the brand is coming from influencers rather than from the brand itself does give that activity a disproportionate weight with the mass audience.

    However I think overall your point is spot on and the balance is skewed, but had to weigh in on the devil’s advocate side!

    Also here are a few posts I’ve seen recently that I thought were related and might be of interest:

    Planning Lab blog discussion on awards-driven creatitvity vs results driven creativity: http://bit.ly/rKHit

    Modern Marketing post on breaking the campaign mentality. Key point for me here is the link back to client-side priorities: http://bit.ly/13t9Fk

    eConsultancy post on Burger King’s marketing garnering all the attention and PR but sales dropping vs McDonald’s: http://bit.ly/F8dkY

    Cheers,
    Geoff

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nien-Liu/10703357 Nien Liu

    I agree with the ego part of the post. I think sometimes we just have to be honest about what we have to work with and not try to overcompensate for it. Maybe we can also create a new category for it for one of the many award shows. =)

  • http://twitter.com/dlin dlin

    Again great though provoking post.

    The only potential issue from my POV is that all brands may not want to be mass-market or are catering for mass consumption.

    There is value of being perceieved as an “innovative” (and this inference also applies to “luxury”) brands. For these “passion” (and wannabe) brands, the disruptive idea or things that cater to the Brave segment of Rogers Innovation Curve can factor into their overall Influencer segments upstream.

    To your point, the Ideas of Disruption are probably not appropriate for most clients, but for some – I can see how catering to the agency/client/and brave segment egos still has a lot of value.

  • rohnjaymiller

    I've been thinking about “explorer” brands—companies that give you tools to learn and take control of your world in powerful ways.

    Microsoft and Apple are archtypes, but Gap in the day had some of the same power of pure explorer brands. Gap sold you beautiful elements like jeans and tee shirts, which you then could customize in cool ways with your stuff—a suit jacket or a scarf. You could become like one of the “persons of distinction” as they called their celebrity campaign.

    Explorer brands could also include Target, Home Depot, and AT&T. These are brands that not only let you do things, but empower you to do them. I think the concept of an explorer brand is one model for a large consumer company to partner with the consumer in an active way so they aren't invisible, but do so by putting the customer in charge.

    I remember when I moved into my first apartment by myself, I went shopping at Room + Board. They were kind of the Ikea of the day. They didn't sell me stuff–they sparked ideas in my head. Great ideas came to me because of them.

    You're right about the challenge of understanding the client's point of view. Someone once told me that advertising is about making things different, strategic consulting is about making things better.

    I think we need to find out how to do both. Thanks for a great post, as always.

  • http://geoffnorthcott.com/blog Geoff Northcott

    Hi Adrian,

    Interesting post as always. I’d definitely agree that often priorities can get skewed, and we’d do very well as an industry to start celebrating tangible results at least as much as we celebrate brilliant creative that never actually ran.

    However I think there’s still a place for disruptive or influencer-targeted activity that won’t necessarily scale, yet.

    One reason is on that adoption scale above, technologies and trends that become mainstream start off as niche. Companies that innovate around new technologies and platforms like say RFID, mobile applications, or Facebook, may not see dollar-for-dollar results in the next quarter, but the learnings they gain from their exploring may well provide the foundation for true business innovations in the years that come.

    Brands that only focus on what reaches the mass now may find themselves on the back foot in two years time when the masses have moved on, and their competitors or challenger brands in the space have all the domain experience as well as an pre-installed influencer audience base. We’re in an age where a platform like Facebook can reach 225 million users in three years, where mobile phones are becoming portable computing devices with all the inherent possibilities that come with that, where kids are growing up with digitally-enabled toys and expect everything to be connected. The pace of change is still accelerating, and ideas are becoming mass quicker than ever. Brands need to be thinking about where things are heading and trying things with the early adopters now that will be ready to scale when the moment arrives, not years too late.

    Also, I think in *some* circumstances early adopter and influencer buzz can have a halo effect that reaches and influences a mass audience. Google and Red Bull are examples of brands who do marketing that seems like it’d have negligible ROI when looked at in isolation, but en masse the activity creates significant perceived energy and an image around the brand that radiates strongly enough for the masses to pick it up and be influenced by it. And the fact that the chatter around the brand is coming from influencers rather than from the brand itself does give that activity a disproportionate weight with the mass audience.

    However I think overall your point is spot on and the balance is skewed, but had to weigh in on the devil’s advocate side!

    Also here are a few posts I've seen recently that I thought were related and might be of interest:

    Planning Lab blog discussion on awards-driven creatitvity vs results driven creativity: http://bit.ly/rKHit

    Modern Marketing post on breaking the campaign mentality. Key point for me here is the link back to client-side priorities: http://bit.ly/13t9Fk

    eConsultancy post on Burger King's marketing garnering all the attention and PR but sales dropping vs McDonald's: http://bit.ly/F8dkY

    Cheers,
    Geoff

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    A new category just for ego? :D

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    This is true but being perceived as innovative can be off-putting to mainstream people. I remember doing research for Sony where we talked to people about Apple. There was a definite sense that Apple is cool, “but not really for me.” Microsoft is trying to play on this right now. In terms of the influence model working through the different segments, you should read Moore’s classic, Crossing the Chasm. While he wrote about technology, I think his principles are applicable to many categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Yes, good point, I think we do look to brands to embody attributes we don’t have and to lead us to some extent. I’m not sure, though, that a brand can lead me into being someone that I’m not – I’m not sure a brand can make me more adventurous or brave than I am, but I could be wrong.

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Great links, especially the BK/McDonalds one which sort of proves my point ;)

    But you do have a great point – we need to be aware of all segments and target parts of our business to different audiences otherwise we run the risk of losing relevance among opinion leaders.

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    A new category just for ego? :D

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    This is true but being perceived as innovative can be off-putting to mainstream people. I remember doing research for Sony where we talked to people about Apple. There was a definite sense that Apple is cool, “but not really for me.” Microsoft is trying to play on this right now. In terms of the influence model working through the different segments, you should read Moore's classic, Crossing the Chasm. While he wrote about technology, I think his principles are applicable to many categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Yes, good point, I think we do look to brands to embody attributes we don't have and to lead us to some extent. I'm not sure, though, that a brand can lead me into being someone that I'm not – I'm not sure a brand can make me more adventurous or brave than I am, but I could be wrong.

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Great links, especially the BK/McDonalds one which sort of proves my point ;)

    But you do have a great point – we need to be aware of all segments and target parts of our business to different audiences otherwise we run the risk of losing relevance among opinion leaders.

  • http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ maewan ho

    This is an interesting problem, but I have often wondered why clothes , for example, aren’t designed to be customised, which should be really easy to do nowadays. I’ve walked away from clothes that are almost right but not quite. This could bridge the gap somewhat between selling lots and designing for innovation.

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Hi Mom! (My mom everybody!),

    That’s a great solution a hybrid model where “innovation” is supplied by the buyer. I wrote about this tangentially a while ago – basically the information to create a thing and the thing itself can be separated in some instances and manufacturing can happen at point of sale. This would be a scenario where your model would be possible. In fashion, I think it’s probably coming. Levis tried it in the early 90s but it was a bit before its time. I think it’s probably much more feasible technically now and we’re also probably more likely to want it today.

    http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/information-is-the-product-part-1/

  • André Galhardo

    That’s why I believe the “big idea” era is over. Would be much better show, let’s say, 100 “small ideas” – and help clients implement them. If 20 survive after a period… bingo. Then we must have another 100 heady for the next “innovation cicle”…

    BTW, congratulations, Mrs Ho – you have a very bright son. ;)

  • http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ maewan ho

    This is an interesting problem, but I have often wondered why clothes , for example, aren't designed to be customised, which should be really easy to do nowadays. I've walked away from clothes that are almost right but not quite. This could bridge the gap somewhat between selling lots and designing for innovation.

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Hi Mom! (My mom everybody!),

    That's a great solution a hybrid model where “innovation” is supplied by the buyer. I wrote about this tangentially a while ago – basically the information to create a thing and the thing itself can be separated in some instances and manufacturing can happen at point of sale. This would be a scenario where your model would be possible. In fashion, I think it's probably coming. Levis tried it in the early 90s but it was a bit before its time. I think it's probably much more feasible technically now and we're also probably more likely to want it today.

    http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/information-…

  • André Galhardo

    That's why I believe the “big idea” era is over. Would be much better show, let's say, 100 “small ideas” – and help clients implement them. If 20 survive after a period… bingo. Then we must have another 100 heady for the next “innovation cicle”…

    BTW, congratulations, Mrs Ho – you have a very bright son. ;)

  • http://www.bolindigital.com/ taulpaul

    Are “BIG ideas” big because they’re high burden (cost)? Are they big because their measurable impact is high? Do they inherently change the way we do business, or live our lives?

    You’re onto some meme with the Ego piece. A couple thousand years ago, marketing meant building a Pyramid to make your mark for all time. Now it’s just a brand mark refresh to say you did something for a product.

  • http://www.bolindigital.com/ taulpaul

    Are “BIG ideas” big because they're high burden (cost)? Are they big because their measurable impact is high? Do they inherently change the way we do business, or live our lives?

    You're onto some meme with the Ego piece. A couple thousand years ago, marketing meant building a Pyramid to make your mark for all time. Now it's just a brand mark refresh to say you did something for a product.

  • http://faseidl.com F. Andy Seidl

    This strikes me as very reminiscent of the type of problem Geoffrey Moore tackled in “Crossing the Chasm” (and a number of sequels).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm

    Moore focused on selling high-tech products to mainstream customers, but the basic idea–that what appeals withing one segment (of the curve) may not appeal in the next and that a marketer should focus on one segment at a time–seems like it applies here, too.

  • http://tbrunelle.extendr.com tbrunelle

    Well, another great post, Adrian! I wish my mom jumped into commentary on my blog.

    I wonder how media plays a role in this discussion. You note, “The skills and ideas that grab small groups of people are very different from the skills and ideas that grab large numbers of people.” The same could be said of media venues.

    To move mass quantities of goods, one might presume you need mass quantities of impressions.

    Yet it seems that we’re moving, in some instances, towards a desire for quality or intimacy or strict relevancy of communication–which contradicts the old “reach/frequency” model. Is there a contradiction in developing “innovative” ideas then displaying them in mass media? Is that the crux of BK and the post cited by Geoff Northcott?

    Thanks, as always, for the brilliant insights.

    Tim

  • http://faseidl.com F. Andy Seidl

    This strikes me as very reminiscent of the type of problem Geoffrey Moore tackled in “Crossing the Chasm” (and a number of sequels).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm

    Moore focused on selling high-tech products to mainstream customers, but the basic idea–that what appeals withing one segment (of the curve) may not appeal in the next and that a marketer should focus on one segment at a time–seems like it applies here, too.

  • http://usefullunacy.typepad.com tbrunelle

    Well, another great post, Adrian! I wish my mom jumped into commentary on my blog.

    I wonder how media plays a role in this discussion. You note, “The skills and ideas that grab small groups of people are very different from the skills and ideas that grab large numbers of people.” The same could be said of media venues.

    To move mass quantities of goods, one might presume you need mass quantities of impressions.

    Yet it seems that we're moving, in some instances, towards a desire for quality or intimacy or strict relevancy of communication–which contradicts the old “reach/frequency” model. Is there a contradiction in developing “innovative” ideas then displaying them in mass media? Is that the crux of BK and the post cited by Geoff Northcott?

    Thanks, as always, for the brilliant insights.

    Tim

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Thanks Tim,

    Great observation about the mismatch between mass media and niche ideas – I think this is probably a fairly common mistake.

    You’ve definitely got me thinking though, there’s more going on in your question than I can figure out right now. I think there may be another post here. Rogers adoption model and communications theory tell you to do different things. There’s something interesting in that.

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Thanks Tim,

    Great observation about the mismatch between mass media and niche ideas – I think this is probably a fairly common mistake.

    You've definitely got me thinking though, there's more going on in your question than I can figure out right now. I think there may be another post here. Rogers adoption model and communications theory tell you to do different things. There's something interesting in that.

  • http://www.meetschmidty.tumblr.com/ Mike Schmidt

    This is interesting in the context of Google Wave. Ad Age points out that it needs scale to be effective (http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=136955), but it’s also definitely disruptive to our accustomed behavior of communicating. I think it will succeed first with the creative and technology communities using it internally, and then spread out similar to Twitter’s growth.

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Yes will be very interesting to see what happens, I know I want it NOW. However, the interesting question to ask is whether this is really a disruption or an evolution of a number of different things we have already. It’s not completely new, but the idea of doing it all in one place is. I think Google isn’t really an innovator in the classic sense, they’re much more about making new stuff useful to everyone.

    http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/diffusion-confusion/

  • http://www.meetschmidty.tumblr.com/ Mike Schmidt

    That’s probably true, although the wave/wavelet/blip terminology at least might take some getting used to. Maybe that’s why they announced it all now, so we’ll be used to it once it becomes available.

  • http://www.meetschmidty.tumblr.com/ Mike Schmidt

    This is interesting in the context of Google Wave. Ad Age points out that it needs scale to be effective (http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=136955), but it's also definitely disruptive to our accustomed behavior of communicating. I think it will succeed first with the creative and technology communities using it internally, and then spread out similar to Twitter's growth.

  • http://zeusjones.com/blog adrianho

    Yes will be very interesting to see what happens, I know I want it NOW. However, the interesting question to ask is whether this is really a disruption or an evolution of a number of different things we have already. It's not completely new, but the idea of doing it all in one place is. I think Google isn't really an innovator in the classic sense, they're much more about making new stuff useful to everyone.

    http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/diffusion-co…

  • http://www.meetschmidty.tumblr.com/ Mike Schmidt

    That's probably true, although the wave/wavelet/blip terminology at least might take some getting used to. Maybe that's why they announced it all now, so we'll be used to it once it becomes available.

  • Sohan
  • Sohan
  • http://digitalpr.se/2009/05/31/kortbloggatdigitalprse-31-may-2009/ Kortbloggat/digitalpr.se-31 May 2009 — Niclas Strandh digitalPR, creative planning och sociala mediestrategier

    [...] Ideas of scale versus ideas of disruption. | From The Head Of Zeus Jones [...]

  • http://www.linksbracelet.com/ lisha

    yea

  • Lachlan

    I think you just rediscovered Leo Burnet / JWT / DDB et al. circa 1950-2000 ;0)

  • Lachlan

    … reminds me of a funny critique of ‘disruption’ (tbwa) and much of HHCL’s use of semiotics in the 1990′s both of whom used an interesting form of one-size-fits-all strategy, which was to say you find the category codes and then break them all. No matter who you are, or your situation.

    I’ve always agreed that for some brands the right thing is to nail the codes better and more appealingly than anyone else, not to ignore or break them.

    Could even argue that some big salient, old-school brand films like Sony Balls, pretty much do exactly that… Colour, like no other, wasnt new news, just a mass message greatly out-executed vs competition.

  • Lachlan

    I think you just rediscovered Leo Burnet / JWT / DDB et al. circa 1950-2000 ;0)

  • Lachlan

    … reminds me of a funny critique of 'disruption' (tbwa) and much of HHCL's use of semiotics in the 1990's both of whom used an interesting form of one-size-fits-all strategy, which was to say you find the category codes and then break them all. No matter who you are, or your situation.

    I've always agreed that for some brands the right thing is to nail the codes better and more appealingly than anyone else, not to ignore or break them.

    Could even argue that some big salient, old-school brand films like Sony Balls, pretty much do exactly that… Colour, like no other, wasnt new news, just a mass message greatly out-executed vs competition.

  • http://www.escrubz.com/ Lab coats

    Microsoft and Apple are archtypes, but Gap in the day had some of the same power of pure explorer brands. Gap sold you beautiful elements like jeans and tee shirts, which you then could customize in cool ways with your stuff—a suit jacket or a scarf. You could become like one of the “persons of distinction” as they called their celebrity campaign.

  • http://www.escrubz.com/ Lab coats

    Microsoft and Apple are archtypes, but Gap in the day had some of the same power of pure explorer brands. Gap sold you beautiful elements like jeans and tee shirts, which you then could customize in cool ways with your stuff—a suit jacket or a scarf. You could become like one of the “persons of distinction” as they called their celebrity campaign.

  • http://www.shoes-base.com/ calvin

    HI..
    welcome to our website http://www.shoes-base.com
    We sell all kinds of sport shoes.

  • http://www.jrlanguage.com/website-translation.html Chris

    We have recently seen an increase in companies that are looking to increase the scale of their footprint by marketing to foreign markets. Just by offering their products and services over the internet, in the language of the new market, they have seen a quick jump in sales. Our website translation services have been growing for the last 12 months.

  • http://www.usa-basketball-shoes.com/Kobe-Bryant-Shoes.html Kobe Bryant Shoes

    Here elaborates the matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support the write’s

    unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can go those Wisdominthemind.com Elegance-is-Edgy-Dress.com

    sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally

blog comments powered by Disqus

Top Tags

Archive

Recent Comments