Month: January 2011

Leaning away from the list

By Mark Di Somma

Further to the last post on Michelin. Over at The Domino Project, Seth Godin and his team are clearly having the same misgivings about the publishing industry – that when you work to a prize (in this case a place on The New York Times list) that prize can have a huge influence on swathes of what you do, and the influence isn’t necessarily positive. Here’s two excerpts from their piece on why they will not be courting popularity with The New York Times Bestseller List: If you publish books (or write them) aimed at a mass audience, the Times list is never very far from your focus. It’s not just an indicator (the proverbial canary, indicating what’s going on in the mine) but it’s also an amplifier, a spark that can lead to ever more sales, conversations and credibility … … But there’s a cost. The cost is that you have to write differently, promote differently and do business differently. Simple questions about rollout, promotion, pricing, packaging, titles and distribution sooner or later come …

Staring at stars

By Mark Di Somma

The temptation to excel at what you do and, just as importantly, to be recognised for that is huge. It’s not always a good thing. Last night, finally got a chance to watch Michelin Stars – The Madness of Perfection, William Sitwell’s look at how a guide that started out as a simple way for motorists to find something to eat has evolved into a gastronomic obsession that makes and breaks restaurants and chefs. (The Michelin star story itself is actually an amazing story about the evolution of a brand, but I digress …) I saw immediate parallels with the advertising and design industries, where the drive for gongs can be equally strong and can also lead to an obsession with detail that any beyond the industry, and many within it, simply do not see, and certainly do not care about. As one creative director used to say, never forget that most consumers are watching your “art” with their tea in their lap. In other words, they have no interest in the kerning of headlines …

My thoughts on developments at MySpace

By Mark Di Somma

Another reminder this week that the social media space – just like every other market – is not one consistent goldfield. While the likes of LinkedIn and Facebook continue to build powerful brands and potentially public business models, MySpace has lost a lot of ground, and much of what I see here takes me back 10 years to the boom and bust of the dot.com times. Some parallels I noticed: Participation is not enough. If you don’t have a distinctive, clear and evolving money-model for your brand, it’s not enough to be in the same arena as those making money. You will be overshadowed and outperformed. Cash cows are grown, not born. The purchase price is no guarantee of anything. In the case of the $580 million that News Corp paid, it’s not even a barrier to entry for others. It just means you paid a high entry fee based on a perception of what lay ahead. There’s a recurrent warning in there too for valuing “new models”. In terms of fundamentals, there are no …

There’s a language for that

By Mark Di Somma

My lawyer friend Nicola used to say that a sure sign of a market coming of age was when the litigation started. I suspect she’s right. In which case, Microsoft’s petition to block Apple from trademarking the term “app store” is perhaps a sign that many can see a very bright future – perhaps the future – in this idea. Having successfully quartered “there’s an app for that”, Apple clearly identified, way back in 2008, that when you have dibs over the language around a concept, you potentially get to own the mindshare around that idea as well. You essentially force others to express their offering in language that the market sees as stemming from you. (The fact that an “app” is an abbreviation of Apple – coincidental or not – is inspired.) That of course is what Apple are so keen to protect and Microsoft so determined to challenge. Leading the conversation is hard. It’s risky. There are so many things that can of course go wrong. But there are benefits. You get discussed …

Plotting what counts

By Mark Di Somma

Interesting isn’t it how we see numbers. I was reflecting on this yesterday after someone made the point that whilst all of us would agree that words tell stories, we tend to forget that numbers tell stories too. Instead, we class numbers as facts or patterns or targets or science. We use them to add logic, objectivity, reinforcement. We make them a goal in themselves. We ask our people to report to them. But the numbers are not the business. They reflect what’s happening in, around and for the business. And they won’t fix themselves. They are a storyline – of growth or decay, belief or disbelief in the on-going value of something, levels of demand, people coming together … And what I always try and do is to link them that way. This isn’t a 5 year sales comparison, it’s a movie script. What is this P&L telling me has happened so far – how, why, and where were the turning points? I find that when you do that, you’re soon looking behind what’s …

Coffee’s cold …

By Mark Di Somma

I’m getting some mixed messages off Starbucks’ decision to par its logo back to an emblem. I’d like to think this is a sign of evolution. And at first glance that’s how it looks. Dolly up the icon, drop the name, drop the association with caffeine. Simple, clean, single minded, international. On reflection though, I’m more than a little concerned that Starbucks have once again lost their way and are trying to bridge their way to another strategy. I just can’t for the life of me put my finger on where or why. The market’s already been told that Starbucks is looking to diversify. This from the company blog dated 5 January: “… we see a world in which we are a vital part of over 16,000 neighborhoods around the world, in more than 50 countries, forming connections with millions of customers every day in our stores, in grocery aisles, at home and at work. Starbucks will continue to offer the highest-quality coffee, but we will offer other products as well – and while the …

Distinctualising: getting purely personal

By Mark Di Somma

It’s one of the great myths of the New Zealand tourism story that we have great scenery. But only in the sense that it implies other countries do not. Or that’s all New Zealand has. Of course we have eye-wateringly beautiful sites, as anyone whose been here or lived here can attest. But so do many other places in the world. Chocolate box is global. Just like sheep. And fruit. Many years back when I worked on the strategy that would lead to the 100% Pure programme, I remember a great presentation where we showed people scenes from around the world and asked them to identify where they were. It was sobering for all concerned that many of the places that were “unmistakeably New Zealand” weren’t in fact here at all. What was here that everyone raved about was the emotional reaction people had to what they saw; the warmth of New Zealanders themselves; and the amazing stories that sat behind what people witnessed. I think Tourism New Zealand have done a great job with …