Comments on: The End of Marketing as We Know It? http://www.debaillon.com/2010/02/the-end-of-marketing-as-we-know-it/ Thierry de Baillon 's bilingual thoughts about the crossing between social media, collaborative organizations and human behaviors in the workplace. Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:08:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tweets that mention The End of Marketing as We Know It? | Sonnez en cas d'absence -- Topsy.com http://www.debaillon.com/2010/02/the-end-of-marketing-as-we-know-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1224 Tweets that mention The End of Marketing as We Know It? | Sonnez en cas d'absence -- Topsy.com Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:25:16 +0000 http://www.debaillon.com/?p=548#comment-1224 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Avi Joseph, thibaut brousse, Alejandro Ambrad , zards, Ralph-Christian Ohr and others. Ralph-Christian Ohr said: RT @tdebaillon: The end of marketing as we know it? http://bit.ly/aAp11j #innovation #marketing [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Avi Joseph, thibaut brousse, Alejandro Ambrad , zards, Ralph-Christian Ohr and others. Ralph-Christian Ohr said: RT @tdebaillon: The end of marketing as we know it? http://bit.ly/aAp11j #innovation #marketing [...]

]]> By: Thierry de Baillon http://www.debaillon.com/2010/02/the-end-of-marketing-as-we-know-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1221 Thierry de Baillon Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:10:39 +0000 http://www.debaillon.com/?p=548#comment-1221 Thanks for commenting, Venessa. Yes, when considering Jobs, we can consider this is art. Can we? In a previous life, I worked for the fashion industry as trend spotter, and learned a lot about art, trends, and design. For me, true artists express a deep self, which resonates (or not) with our own personality, then a market is hopefully built from scratch around this resonance, mostly around this person2person relevance. On another side, I see great designers as individuals gifted enough to capture weak emergent cultural signals and to respond to them with products which will grow the market. I don't think, for example, that Akyo Morita was an artist when he invented the Walkman. To stay in the fashion realm, but this might apply to a lot of industries too, I see Schiaparelli as an artist, and Christian Dior as a designer. An artist's vision is egoistic, while a designer's vision is catalyst. And technology gives us more and more tools to be able to capture these weak signals from the conversation. This might be more crowdmining than crowdsourcing, and requires particular talent, but I am sure that enabling the conversation through social media will allow for more similar kind of innovation. Thanks for commenting, Venessa.
Yes, when considering Jobs, we can consider this is art. Can we? In a previous life, I worked for the fashion industry as trend spotter, and learned a lot about art, trends, and design. For me, true artists express a deep self, which resonates (or not) with our own personality, then a market is hopefully built from scratch around this resonance, mostly around this person2person relevance.

On another side, I see great designers as individuals gifted enough to capture weak emergent cultural signals and to respond to them with products which will grow the market. I don’t think, for example, that Akyo Morita was an artist when he invented the Walkman. To stay in the fashion realm, but this might apply to a lot of industries too, I see Schiaparelli as an artist, and Christian Dior as a designer.

An artist’s vision is egoistic, while a designer’s vision is catalyst. And technology gives us more and more tools to be able to capture these weak signals from the conversation. This might be more crowdmining than crowdsourcing, and requires particular talent, but I am sure that enabling the conversation through social media will allow for more similar kind of innovation.

]]> By: Venessa Miemis http://www.debaillon.com/2010/02/the-end-of-marketing-as-we-know-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1219 Venessa Miemis Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:18:33 +0000 http://www.debaillon.com/?p=548#comment-1219 i like that sentiment - apple is a design company, not a 'tech' company. though they make physical products, what they really strive for is to sell you a better experience. as far as the 'to hell with focus groups' comment.. check out this recent article from the NY Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/weekinreview/31lohr.html">Steve Jobs and the Economics of Elitism</a>. It says Apple represents the “auteur model of innovation,” where there is a tight connection between the personality of the project leader and what is created. They give examples of other people who operate like that as Alfred Hitchcock & James Cameron. It's interesting.. so for Jobs this is very personal. it's an aesthetic - he's manifesting a bit of himself in the products, and he's doing it because that's how he feels it should be. And so you can look at it as 'the hell with focus groups,' or just 'hey, this isn't about you.' (and apparently he's on to something...... he's staying true to himself, and people love his creations.) in the end, it's art. - @venessamiemis i like that sentiment – apple is a design company, not a ‘tech’ company. though they make physical products, what they really strive for is to sell you a better experience.

as far as the ‘to hell with focus groups’ comment.. check out this recent article from the NY Times Steve Jobs and the Economics of Elitism. It says Apple represents the “auteur model of innovation,” where there is a tight connection between the personality of the project leader and what is created. They give examples of other people who operate like that as Alfred Hitchcock & James Cameron. It’s interesting.. so for Jobs this is very personal. it’s an aesthetic – he’s manifesting a bit of himself in the products, and he’s doing it because that’s how he feels it should be. And so you can look at it as ‘the hell with focus groups,’ or just ‘hey, this isn’t about you.’ (and apparently he’s on to something…… he’s staying true to himself, and people love his creations.) in the end, it’s art.

- @venessamiemis

]]> By: Thierry de Baillon http://www.debaillon.com/2010/02/the-end-of-marketing-as-we-know-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1215 Thierry de Baillon Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:14:01 +0000 http://www.debaillon.com/?p=548#comment-1215 You are right, Ben, Apple is about innovation first. And, interestingly enough, this position had helped it finding new ways to deliver; marketing isn't integrated into the sales process, but into design, which allows it to see the product as a cultural artifact, not a technological one. Things changed since Treacy's book, and I see both product innovation and customer service becoming the two ends of the same focal line: building/creating a new customer experience throughout the whole product lifecycle. Not such a bad definition of design thinking. You are right, Ben, Apple is about innovation first. And, interestingly enough, this position had helped it finding new ways to deliver; marketing isn’t integrated into the sales process, but into design, which allows it to see the product as a cultural artifact, not a technological one.
Things changed since Treacy’s book, and I see both product innovation and customer service becoming the two ends of the same focal line: building/creating a new customer experience throughout the whole product lifecycle. Not such a bad definition of design thinking.

]]> By: Ben Kunz http://www.debaillon.com/2010/02/the-end-of-marketing-as-we-know-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1210 Ben Kunz Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:31:24 +0000 http://www.debaillon.com/?p=548#comment-1210 The irony of this is Apple is one of the few companies that markets themselves as a high-tech firm. Its products look revolutionary (aluminum and glass), it constantly surprises, and it builds things we don't want yet then think we need. The science fiction writers of the 1950s expected technology to leap ahead and Apple is one of the few firms that projects that vibe. In terms of strategy, Apple reminds me of Michael Treacy's "Discipline of Market Leaders," in which Treacy proposed there are three basic focal points for business: product innovation, customer service, or operations/low cost. Companies in the same industry can take different positions; IBM, for instance, in the 1970s was customer service-focused, trying to be all things to all people. Apple is all about product innovation -- and to hell with focus groups. This is not right or wrong, smart or stupid; it's merely a focused company strategy that helps Apple lead in a certain area. Apple leads because it really is not a technology, software or computer company -- it's a design company. It makes tech products pure enough that people lust for them, and for that Apple can charge a premium. A lot of people whined that the tablet missed features (webcams etc.) and cost too much. Of course. Apple will gradually reduce the price while adding feature upgrades as it pushes that device into the broader market masses. For Apple, innovative design wins. It's not for everybody, but it certainly is a focused market position. The irony of this is Apple is one of the few companies that markets themselves as a high-tech firm. Its products look revolutionary (aluminum and glass), it constantly surprises, and it builds things we don’t want yet then think we need. The science fiction writers of the 1950s expected technology to leap ahead and Apple is one of the few firms that projects that vibe.

In terms of strategy, Apple reminds me of Michael Treacy’s “Discipline of Market Leaders,” in which Treacy proposed there are three basic focal points for business: product innovation, customer service, or operations/low cost. Companies in the same industry can take different positions; IBM, for instance, in the 1970s was customer service-focused, trying to be all things to all people. Apple is all about product innovation — and to hell with focus groups. This is not right or wrong, smart or stupid; it’s merely a focused company strategy that helps Apple lead in a certain area.

Apple leads because it really is not a technology, software or computer company — it’s a design company. It makes tech products pure enough that people lust for them, and for that Apple can charge a premium. A lot of people whined that the tablet missed features (webcams etc.) and cost too much. Of course. Apple will gradually reduce the price while adding feature upgrades as it pushes that device into the broader market masses.

For Apple, innovative design wins. It’s not for everybody, but it certainly is a focused market position.

]]>