Who ever thought that not only would we not need to go to a physical record store, but that we organize our music, create playlists in seconds, or not have to do it all...letting AI figure it out based a selection we make. You couldn't imagine this in the 70's and 80's.
So, you probably can't imagine how we could do marketing planning using the technology we have today. And maybe it's not a technology problem, but a problem of consensus. No one yet agrees on the best way to plan products, or plan marketing. And with failure rates so high, maybe no one knows the best way to do it yet. So we definitely don't want to automate that stuff!
Really interesting analysis on how how disruption can happen in the martech industry.
In my view, in order to disrupt, one requirement is that the angle you come from cannot be copied by incumbents - i.e. a different business model that doesn't align with the incumbent's existing business model.
I can't see exactly how it would look at this moment, but coming from the "planning" angle would most likely result in a different type of business model than that of incumbents, which would be hard to mesh with their existing business model, thereby enabling the pre-conditions for disruption.
Yusuf, one things I (and others) have noticed is that most disruptive things get more of the job done, and have fewer visible features. Clay Christensen saw that as starting with something "good enough." I both agree and disagree. The iPod was not only better than good enough with regard to existing solutions, but it was also better at getting the entire job of listening to music done than all of the cobbled-together solutions and consumption journeys. I tried to describe that visually in posts using a "struggle stack."
The korean car companies that built crappy cars are not really a solid example in my opinion. In a digital world, no one will accept "crappy" as a disruptor unless it gets more done than just transporting me from A to B. Also, we don't have 30 years for them to move up stream. Digital moves too quickly for that. Focus on getting more of the job done.
If you're doing what they're not paying attention to, and/or do not have the inputs to understand why you're doing it, there's not a lot they can do but acquire you :)
Incumbents are 100% theater. But I think I pointed out that any on-stage production requires a lot of planning and rehearsal. It's all highly integrated.
Who ever thought that not only would we not need to go to a physical record store, but that we organize our music, create playlists in seconds, or not have to do it all...letting AI figure it out based a selection we make. You couldn't imagine this in the 70's and 80's.
So, you probably can't imagine how we could do marketing planning using the technology we have today. And maybe it's not a technology problem, but a problem of consensus. No one yet agrees on the best way to plan products, or plan marketing. And with failure rates so high, maybe no one knows the best way to do it yet. So we definitely don't want to automate that stuff!
Really interesting analysis on how how disruption can happen in the martech industry.
In my view, in order to disrupt, one requirement is that the angle you come from cannot be copied by incumbents - i.e. a different business model that doesn't align with the incumbent's existing business model.
I can't see exactly how it would look at this moment, but coming from the "planning" angle would most likely result in a different type of business model than that of incumbents, which would be hard to mesh with their existing business model, thereby enabling the pre-conditions for disruption.
Yusuf, one things I (and others) have noticed is that most disruptive things get more of the job done, and have fewer visible features. Clay Christensen saw that as starting with something "good enough." I both agree and disagree. The iPod was not only better than good enough with regard to existing solutions, but it was also better at getting the entire job of listening to music done than all of the cobbled-together solutions and consumption journeys. I tried to describe that visually in posts using a "struggle stack."
The korean car companies that built crappy cars are not really a solid example in my opinion. In a digital world, no one will accept "crappy" as a disruptor unless it gets more done than just transporting me from A to B. Also, we don't have 30 years for them to move up stream. Digital moves too quickly for that. Focus on getting more of the job done.
If you're doing what they're not paying attention to, and/or do not have the inputs to understand why you're doing it, there's not a lot they can do but acquire you :)
Incumbents are 100% theater. But I think I pointed out that any on-stage production requires a lot of planning and rehearsal. It's all highly integrated.
The big challenge is getting the planning part "right." The current standard 🤣 may not be the right standard.