Across the Sea, and to the Coast

Well, Tesco has finally decided to become the US-based company it always wished to be, the New York Times recently reported. Heck, even their name connotes something straight out of a US horizontal market, so they'll fit right in.

However, the focus is on the West Coast, which the demographic generally points to the "liberal minded", the "greener" state in the Union. And I don't know if Tesco's directors really know this as well as they should. Yes, Tesco has the trans fat department covered with little labels and mini-departments playing to the so-called health conscious shopper. But in terms of green conscious, eh, they're a little lacking.

In the UK they have a growing reputation with consumers of being a Wal-Mart type monopoly in the CPI (consumer products industry). They are marvelous in their direct marketing techniques, and IT strategies on a whole. However, in the US, especially in the West, the audience they're aiming at are going to want to know their environmental, organic intentions before they swap to what Tesco offers . And if the potential consumers were aware of the gruff that Tesco gets from it's consumers (hesitant, but contractual, it seems, nonetheless), Tesco may find itself struggling like any company who treads in foreign markets without a complete understanding of their new consumer.

Good Luck to them. But my bet's on Whole Foods move to London.

R.

Safe than Sorry

Recently did some research for a group presentation on implementing Web 2.0 technologies. The idea was to get varying degrees of opinion regarding the matter, report back, and present in a kind of round table discussion. These decisions depended on the fictitious company we were given.

The most surprising thing I realized during these meetings, and in the final discussion, was my group's (5 others) readiness to jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon. I remained skeptical of its competitive advantage, its ability to jump start discussion and collaboration; I don't know. I wasn't simply going to write it off as the means to an end.

Web 2.0 is just a sliver in the body of recent trends of so-called communicative devices attempting to be exploited for a competitive edge; that's a given. However, we need to realize that these devices have been around for ages--they're influence is subtle , so is their innovative progress.

In a sense, there is no such thing as a new invention. Something completely different, a stand alone product. The social context of the innovation is normally kept in mind. In another sense, innovation is a fancy word for scalability. These add ons, revisions we do in terms of--oh, I don't know--records managing, hybrid vehicles, dishwashers, Web 2.0 are simply riffs on a past version. Even the automobile was originally called the horseless carriage.

Though I think they're are great things happening under the rubric of Web 2.0, it just seems false in my opinion, to consider their abilities the big thing in company success and collaboration. Yes, indeed, they're defining ways of communicating, but most still fall back on the usual face-to-face interactions of the golden years. Some of the best means of collaborating is gossip, the ticklish whisper in the ear. Watch it fester, watch it grow at the speed of wifi.

A bit like dancing

That's merging and acquiring for you. Acquire a partner, and merge with them. It doesn't matter their size--we're just dancing, you know. But in the case of Google, it appears size in fact does matter. Those snobs.

Reuters reported today that:

Google Inc. has become more comfortable doing big acquisitions but still sees small technology deals as its primary thrust for buying businesses, its chief executive said on Thursday.


Of course, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt quickly retorted that the big companies they acquire (YouTube, DoubleClick) are to "plug holes in businesses." And this comes to no surprise with rumors of Yahoo! and Microsoft merging through Microsoft's hefty acquistion (the share price of Yahoo! went up leaps and bounds after the rumor broke, according to the NY Times).

All this interesting in the sense of trends.

We look at the sort of big 3 or 4 in terms of internet dominance: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Time Warner, etc. etc. And all are acting like politicians vying for the acceptance and vote/support of the undetermined, unsatisfied voter. Of course, as consumers, we have much to choose from in terms of options for what we want out of our internet providers (for loss of a better word). But like politics, Oscar races, etc., an underdog is always there; stealing the show in the 4th quarter. So it would not surprise me if there is another service that enters the arena in the next 6 months and threatens the aforementioned 4.

Whether or not merging and acquiring allows for successful entrances into emerging markets--especially in e-markets--this is left to be determined. Yet, watching Google, one can surmise that collecting various forms of Web 2.0ing merely only walks on the trends, rather than actually getting under the soil, cultivating solidity.

But we'll see.

R.

Hope Floats

Reuters reported recently that findmypast.com is putting the entire list of the Titantic's guest list from its final voyage on their website. It is completely free for a week. This should give many genealogists additional help in their constant search for missing family links. Like the Mayflower, the Titantic is and was the ship to be on to prove your family's somebody.

This says something about digitization, does it not? Like the issues surrounding digitizing the national archives in the Library of Congress, the Titantic's passenger list was in desperate need for dissemination, and electronic formating. What I think those who oppose Google's Book search will later see, aiding society is a very trendy thing to do. The massive attempts of BP and Toyota to flash neutral colors of green at society are simply doing the CSR (corporate social responsibility) thing. If these publishing companies wish to keep their heads above water, they may indeed need to embrace digitization and implement a new strategy of marketing based on dual representations of a their product (books, magazines). This is simply inevitable.

R.

Casting a thing called business development

Marketing a campaign (or more aptly, marketing campaign) for a new product has a variety of interests at stake. Take Tom Ford. The Gucci's boy designer who, after 14 years, brought the old maid to what can be deemed heel-clicking sexy (semantics, semantics), is finally putting his own line of menswear on the fashion market. The subtlety of his advertisements--a single, male eye wrapped in aged thirtysomething wrinkles-- makes a striking contrast to the grandiose, hullabaloo of Dior's or Prada's layouts. What this image of the eye tells us is not a masculine feminine, but rather an ambiguous new design called Tom Ford. In other words, Mr. Ford's company is casting a wide net with a very tight weave--his line is immediately capturing a variety of markets with this tired retina.

It does make one think.

If a start-up company is wishing to enter an unregulated market for this or that technology product (per se), it generally finds a niche within it. It find a crevice to bury itself in, hoping to trip the occasional consumer waltzing by their services. But what if these little companies begin to do the Tom Ford thing? Would they be biting off more than they can chew? Should they take steps?

Mr. Ford has taken steps, gigantic ones at that. He is tossing out perfumes like nobody's business. But since the market for luxury goods is ever expanding should he not simply niche it up for a bit? Is there not plenty of the all-arounders out there (Mark Jacobs, Burberry, and now Louis Vuitton)? Versace is designing hotel suites, and yachts. Prada has it's PDA. What if Mr. Ford decides to put his own laptop design on the market?

The morale here is: if entering a new market, is it better to stick to a simple product or service (say outsourcing consulting, or Welsh jams), or from the get-go--or a little after (a year or so)--dabble in each of the departments or niches under the rubric of choice? It could mean less profit upfront, but dabbling may just be method of choice. With such a decision, diversification is anticipated, and will allow for a swift, and hopefully painless, shutting-down of this or that niche which isn't succeeding. In the meantime, we take our hats off to Mr. Ford, and take-up our binoculars for his anticipated spectacle.

Either/Or?

Supposedly The Week, the weekly magazine, is publishing an edition online: Online Experiment for Print Magazine. Interestingly enough, Lexus, part of Toyota Motor, is sponsoring this move, according to the New York Times. Whether or not this will be profitable is still undetermined.
However, costs in production is certainly obvious. It appears The Week, which is part of Dennis Publishing, is making a significant example out of itself as a supporter of "green dissemination." Considering the approaching Earth Day, this move is cultural, economical and moderately "hip." Consumers enjoy the conscious company. In many ways, this allows for lucrative avenues for exploitation--preoccupation of the readers is key.
Regardless, this is an interesting step for a solely printed weekly. And its results could prove indicative of an advancing market.
--
Knowledge@Wharton, a monthly trends report put forth based on a collaborative effort between professors at Wharton Business School, has recently published an analysis of the Washington Post's attempts at digital media: Web vs. Print: Online Successes at One Newspaper Raise More Questions Than They Answer. The Washington Post's online version of their national newspaper has been hailed as a premier example of what a media website should look like. The interaction with the reader is certainly admirable.

The analysis reports:

"You can chat online with reporters, watch award-winning documentaries or see the cherry blossoms bloom with time-elapsed photography. Wondering whether Jesus is the Son of God? Go to "On Faith," a popular multi-contributor blog where high-profile panelists ponder theological questions. Foreign policy junkies can find a similar venue at "PostGlobal," and true procrastinators will like the vapidly addictive "On Being," where complete strangers talk with warmth and enthusiasm about random topics like why they are annoyed by crowded elevators."

However, the revenue from the online edition is still a small percentage of its twinned print version. It still remains a force to be reckoned with. And considering the small amount of time that the internet has given media companies to "cross-over," this evidence of the Washington Post is, in some sense, prophetic of what's to come. Indeed, this counters many arguments regarding the commodization of IT related technologies (Nicholas Carr is immediately brought to mind)--the media industry is most relevant example of such possibilities and heterogeneity. The focus, perhaps, should be on creating an entirely new advertising structure devised from a business model unlike the "hard" version. The ability to advertise, as we have seen with various search engines and video-sharing sites, is best sought online when it's done in an unorthodox manner. And this manner can only be discovered, as Joel Waldfogel suggests, through "[sic] experimenting, experimenting, experimenting until something works."

Welcome

Hello,

This is first post for this site. I do hope you enjoy it and wish you respond to any of my comments. Doing so is greatly appreciated.

R.