During times of economic hardship, companies tend to take a look at themselves and begin to reassess. Most try to cut costs, reduce labor, and many try to realign their corporate ideals, thinking, and processes. From this reassessment comes the promise of success, since once the company has realigned, and the economy has righted itself, it should be in a better position to take advantage of the market.
That said, I’ve been watching a lot of process evolution in the last few months, and have come across a few key areas that are having a big impact on business and the marketplace at large. Similar to the technology revolution of the eighties and nineties, these changes in thinking and process are leading to some drastic evolutions in technology…so much so that we could be looking at a whole new technological revolution within the next five to ten years.
Over the next few posts, I’ll be talking about specific case examples, including the evolution of the internet with the adoption of cloud computing, the evolution of green technology with advancements in solar cells, the evolution of the automobiles with the creation of the GM Volt, and the current trend in separation between design and manufacturing using AMD and Apple as examples.
Hopefully over the course of these articles, we’ll stumble upon some emerging ideas and get a better grasp of the overarching themes heading into the next generation of business.
I saw an article this morning about GM’s suspension of employee stock purchases in their 401k programs. It seems that with the recent dip in the stock price and the renewed excitement about the companies future, a higher number of employees than usual have been enrolling to buy stock from the plan and have bought up all the shares.
It’s really telling of how high expectations at this company are for the future of GM, and it’s also telling of their management. Your workforce generally knows before everyone else what the general disposition of the company is by how much they respect their managements decision making, and while it isn’t always always a good indicator of the overall success of the company, in this case, I think they have a lot to be excited about.
With changes to their product line such as upgrading the Malibu, the Chevy Volt, Cruze, and overseas investments, this company is starting to see signs of life that it hasn’t seen in years.
According to the article, management cannot buy or dispose of any GM equity securities that were acquired in connection with their employment. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act generally prohibits directors and officers from trading in their company’s stock when most participants in the company’s stock plans are not able to purchase or sell stock.
Government $25 billion dollar incentive loan for ailing car companies may be approved by Friday of this week. Detroit right now is holding their breath.
I caught a clip of the News Radio episode Super Karate Monkey Death on Hula the other day. Thinking back to 1997 when I saw the episode first air, I remember thinking it was hilarious, but the reason it’s so fun is because it so deftly pokes fun at the rigid archetypes that the culture hangs on people in the business world, as well as the utter absurdity of business culture at large.
As we’ve seen in recent years: we’ve seen this depicted in Dilbert, in The Office, as well as the new Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates ad campaign.
So after all the hype around Google and Chrome in the last couple of weeks, I got to thinking about Microsoft, and how they were chalking up these days. The funny thing is, they really aren’t that exciting.
A couple weeks ago they bought Bloomberg for a bunch of money just so they could get their hands on Ciao.com, which is essentially one of a thousand sites set up to drive web traffic to other peoples sites…in this case retailers, but why did Microsoft require, what amounts to a billboard on the side of a concrete wall, in order to make their brand more visible? I already know who Microsoft is…in news and media this is just another tiny mark on their earnings board.
The Less is More Philosophy at Large
Microsoft over the years has relied on quantity over quality in regards to their brand. More is better has always been their slogan. It’s a Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer tradition that has worked well for them, but with other companies entering the marketplace, such as Google, Apple, Firefox, and Blackberry; each with better brand identities and a more focused business plan, Microsoft is failing to compete.
The Perfect Example of the Microsoft Strategy…think of this as being applied whole company.
The other day I watched a news program on CNET or CNN, I can’t remember which, advertising the newest version of the Windows Mobile platform. The guy from Microsoft that introduced the product seemed uncomfortable, and honestly the interviewer wasn’t giving him much of a chance to speak, so I really can’t blame him. However, the whole interview just demonstrates the lack of esteem that Microsoft products are held in these days.
In the world of cell phones for example, the products Microsoft presents lack the luster of products such as the Blackberry with it’s proprietary OS, or Apple, with it’s scaled down version of OS X. In the Blackberry, we have a product that is ergonomic and sensible, something that makes people want to pick it up and play with it. In the IPhone, we have something that has a little flair, but is still practical enough to use from the very first moment you pick it up. What I would compare Microsoft’s products too, and honestly their marketing in general, is that hunch back with the lazy eye from Young Frankenstein; you just keep looking at it, but that eye never goes away.
Most of their products are a little ugly. A little too techie maybe. Not organic enough. Not intuitive enough. Just something isn’t right about them. It just screams, stay away from me, I don’t want you. If I saw one on the counter next to one of the other two phones, I dare say it would probably scream at me if I picked it up.
Thinking back to the monopoly lawsuits Microsoft has gone through over the years, their branching across categories and industries, strong arm tactics, guerrilla warfare tactics and the like, their products mirror their corporate philosophy. In fact, it was the simple act of Bill Gates quitting as CEO and moving into a philanthropic organization that really gave Microsoft any sympathy in the media. Let’s face it, Bill Gates is the founder, and the face of Microsoft, and what he does dictates how the company is perceived.
The Current Face Of Microsoft
Microsoft is pretty well cemented in the workplace with products such as Windows Vista and their Office line. Their real world media empire is fairly secure as well. Companies such as Bloomberg help add to this content, but the company as a whole has an image issue, and all the synergy in the world won’t change that unless the leadership at the top takes the necessary steps to kick this company into gear.
Their brand has to change with the times, and become something that people want, not just require. Microsoft has the resources to do it, but it’s going to take a lot of blood sweat and tears to change a company culture that has long been mired in making the market come to them instead of making products for the market. It’s about time they recognized that competition is good for them…it promotes innovation…and they need some.
A very good reverse history of Apple Inc using video to show how the companies product line has evolved as the company has grown. I’ll be posting a similar article about Microsoft next week. Pretty cool.
A Brief Reverse-Chronological YouTube History of Apple
I ran into another ad by IBM as well. This one concerns collaboration and social networking, another topic I’ve talked a lot about on this site. As I’ve said before, as technology has shifted away from being “the cool new thing” to being more of an everyday consumer product, the social aspects of technology have become more prominent.
An article from Bloomberg yesterday states that Bankruptcy risk in American car companies may decline with U.S. loans. Like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, GM and Ford are both integral parts of the U.S. economy, both in the jobs they provide and the products they sell. A lot of American is wrapped up in these companies. Both companies have laid out significant rebuilding strategies, and the United States government isn’t likely to ignore them when push comes to shove.
As stated in the article:
The companies have made the loans their top lobbying priority as Congress returns today for a shortened fall session ahead of the presidential election. The automakers and their suppliers are trying to get the initial funding appropriated so it’s available before the new Congress and president take office.
The loans, intended to assist the shift to more fuel- efficient vehicles, will gain political support because of the importance of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania as swing states in the U.S. presidential election…
It’s a good article that pretty much lays out the issues pretty well. For more info read:
IBM has always been a forward thinking company, moving from mainframes and typewriters to personal computers in the 80’s, then to laptops and patents in the 90’s and ultimately becoming one of the worlds biggest overall solutions providers in the 2000’s. According to Wikipedia, IBM employees have earned three Nobel Prizes, four Turing Awards, five National Medals of Technology, and five National Medals of Science, so when IBM pitches you something, you just might be smart to listen.
With green consumerism becoming a popular subject in the media these days, and having written a few articles on it myself, I found it interesting to note that IBM has a popular ad campaign currently running along these lines. Check it out.
An interesting, albeit short, news piece about Googles ten year run to becoming the worlds leading search engine. The piece also covers growing issues such as monopoly concerns with their Yahoo deals, growing competition among rivals and the like.
Like I mentioned last week in The Search For Google Alternatives, with the release of Chrome web browser, as well as the Android mobile operating system, Google has positioned itself as the dominant brand on the internet, well ahead of past contenders such as Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, etc. According to one statistic posted on a Microsoft blog, Google currently makes up 70% of all web searches on the web. With the addition of Yahoo to their advertising stable, this statistic grows considerably. So essencially what the news piece is saying is that Google has become a vertical advertising monopoly.
To be honest, Google doesn’t really control the internet. I can go to any site I want regardless of weather Google wants me there or not. I can pick any advertisers I want on my site including Amazon, Google, and currently Yahoo, and the only stipulation I have is that they provide relevant advertising and hopefully…and I said hopefully…some money. The thing that makes their advertising better than others is brand recognition, since people can advertise through any service they so choose. Technically it’s up to individual sites to choose whom they use as advertising, and if Firefox or Microsoft came up with a better system of advertising then I’d use that. If Cuil.com decides one day to make an advertising program based on onomatopoeia and fuzzy logic, then I’ll use them too. As far as Yahoo plastering their site with Google ads, so be it, they have the authority to do so. The case itself is kind of crazy, and the fact that everyone loves to hear about the Google success story, and the fact they do well enough at matching ads to content, are the only two reasons they don’t have much competition.
Just remember how it works though…if they ever do become evil, there will be ten companies trying to pick up the slack…and six of them will be run by former Google employees, two from Linux Redhat, one from Firefox, and one from some guy in a bar that wrote his idea on a napkin and someone gave him a bunch of money for it. Googles going to be screwed.