Year: 2011

There’s a language for that

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

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 …

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

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 …