The ability to innovate is an entrepreneurial quality that is essential for companies to succeed in today's fiercely competitive retail markets. However many companies may be locked in an inertia of change dictated by industry norms.
Most experts say you should work harder than ever during a recession, doubling your efforts both to increase your value and make up for production lost to downsizing. Likewise, many advise a similar tact in customer relationships during hard times; concentrate on keeping the customers you have since new ones are in short supply. Neither is wrong, but maybe there are better solutions.
This isn't news, but many industry-changing companies were created during past economic downturns. Microsoft, HP, GE, and FedEx are just a few of the brands delivered in a recession. These companies didn't succeed by fulfilling an existing customer need; they created innovations that customers didn't know they needed yet. The same can be said of the people behind those innovations. They were thinking outside the box, experimenting and researching during a time when fear prevents deviation from the norm.
What separates the winners and losers in social media? Why does one idea catch on while a similar one fails? Do the same principles that apply in other channels translate to social networks, blogging platforms, communities, and the like?
I don't have the answers to those questions, but I'm curious to find out what thoughts people have. Lately it seems Twitter and Facebook are the two dominant social platforms, but it wasn't so long ago that everyone was touting MySpace's 100 million members and the endless possibilities presented by SecondLife (anyone still own an island?). MySpace isn't dead yet, but many of its brethren are. What made Facebook and Twitter rise above the rest?
The answer probably involves some combination of timing, ease-of-use, usefulness in general, and building on the wave of early adopters to go mainstream. Certainly Everett Roger's diffusion of innovation theory and Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm could explain the randomness of which sites survived. If you're unfamiliar with either writer, I recommend at least a glance at Wikipedia to see if the topic piques your interest.
What do you think separates the social media leaders from the fallen? Which sites (defunct or currently operating) did/do you prefer, and why? Share your thoughts in the comments, join the discussion in our 1to1 Insiders LinkedIn group, or Tweet about it.
On October 22, I posted a blog titled, "The DMA Needs a Paradigm Shift," which garnered some passionate responses from readers about their frustration with the DMA needing to evolve.
Continue reading "Two New Companies Offer Innovative Solutions" »
I admire Wikipedia for trying to create a common knowledge database that everyone could access and participate in, but ultimately the site learned what politicians and sociologists realized long ago: when left to their own devices, people can't be trusted.
Continue reading "Is Wikipedia a Failed Social Experiment?" »
