Innovation and Risk: Why Google & Yahoo! Still know how and Big Brands Don't

Innovation and Risk, Why Google and Yahoo! Still Know How and Big Brands and Agencies Don't.

Canada, Culture, Hate Speech and Porn -- What's that got to do with Branding, Image, Risk and Innovation?

A recent commentary article by Jonah Bloom of Ad Age caught my eye today and I just had to get some stuff written.

The link is http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=115717 It's entitled, "Great Products, Stories Will Take These Small Companies Far.... Three Brands That Make Sure Operations and Brand Promise Are the Same Thing." I don't spend a lot of time reading blogs and online magazines. I usually run search terms in order to find relevant articles and discussions. I do occasionally (a lot if there is time) cruise Technorati, CNET, CNN, BBC, several news mags/online papers including some Canadian ones. I rely heavily on advertising and marketing related newsletters though like Ad Age and eMarketer. They come into my email box every day with headlines and teasers of the stories of the day. I don't have time to read everything I'd like to, so I find such things invaluable--both for industry trends and for insightful commentary about the state of media. (You may not be able to read the article without a subscription, but if you can, I encourage you to read it.)

Bloom's article resonated though, especially since it is in line with the things I talk about frequently (and some things I've been dealing with in the offline world lately. I'm not even doing my usual inspect-rewrite-rewrite-rewrite method with this posting. I want to get it written and out there before I lose my train of thought--hopefully, not too late already!!!) His stuff is usually insightful about the industry and encourages innovation and risk taking, harshly criticizing agencies and companies that back down the instant some lone individual cries foul. I agree with him and other critics that the so called 'leaders' of the industry aren't the ones that truly lead...it's the smaller, lesser known agencies and companies that really do the innovation and leadership. If you watch them, you have a much better idea of what is to come.

I'll give you a fair use taste of what Bloom wrote:
"The real brand heroes are so often the small guys. The guys who innovate because they can't spend; the guys who understand brand utility, because if they didn't their companies would wither before they sprouted their first bud; the guys who know their audience, because they, well, talk to them. They not only get that everything their company does has to be true to their go-to-market strategy -- but are sufficiently involved in all those things to actually make sure operations and brand promise are the same thing. Jig-a-Loo is big in Canada, and it has recently completed a $7.5 million private-equity deal to take a shot at the U.S. market. Watch out WD40. "

Small companies and unknown brands innovate because they are unknown and it's the only real way to make a big splash. Instead of just spinning the same old thing a different way, or taking an inferior product and pushing it into the light with a lot of expensive spending, they actually need to do something new, different and relevant. Innovation requires risktaking, which means you could fail. Big agencies and big companies don't want that kind of risk. They're afraid that even a single failure will somehow cause their entire world to come crashing down.

Likely it won't but that appears to be the mindset. FEAR. Everyone wants sure things, yet everyone knows that there is no such thing as a 'sure thing.' But still, too often the bigger companies (or bigger names in terms of artists) think that if they throw money at it, then they can force something to be a sure thing. (Look at all the copycat TV programs or films...and all the remakes of remakes of remakes...rather than new innovative shows that might offend someone somewhere in someway or that might really take off and become the next big thing.) Or they will buy into any agency or promoter that promises them a 'sure thing.' Kind of sounds gullible doesn't it? Yet, these are the big boys and girls with the big money? Why would they act so stupid? aka...FEAR...it makes you stupid and willing to believe anybody that tells you what you want to hear.

Diet books and schemes that promise 'eat anything and still lose weight' or gurus that tell you that with enough money or being 'thin' enough, you will be happy. Doesn't work, doesn't happen. Need I say more?

So innovation happens because there isn't any choice--no easy answers, no easy 'sure things'--and thus, the risk becomes acceptable. The up side is that we get new companies, new groups, new people taking those risks and giving us great new things to use or listen to or watch. That's why I spend so much time surfing MySpace looking for emerging talent and (when I do review them) am often disappointed with established big names.

It's also why I'm so often disappointed with a culture and society that accepts this kind of attitude that prefers cheap imitation over real quality. Following your dreams, your passion is all about taking risks--as those that do already know. Following others, imitating them, thinking that doing the same will make you successful, is not...but if you imitate rather than blaze new trails, you aren't alone. Billion dollar companies--that got that successful usually by starting as a small but risk taking company--live the imitation life every day now.

Some don't. Both Google and Yahoo! come immediately to mind, both have seen setbacks and criticizms, but both have never stopped taking risks and trying to find new ways to innovate and succeed. They are both internet companies, but while that may help them understand the fast-paced, snooze-you-lose attitude that is the Internet and Web, it doesn't automatically imply success. (Remember Netscape?)

However, both Google and Yahoo! are constantly trying to find new ways to reach people and entertain them. Yes, entertain. After all, if it doesn't engage you, if it isn't 'fun' in some way, even something like 'search,' then you aren't going to bother using some new site or program, are you? And if it requires a learning curve of some kind, why bother if it isn't relevant to your needs anyway? Some companies never seem to get that part about new products or services.

Like I said, both have had ups and downs. I even joke around by calling Google the New Evil Empire, meaning they have immense influence and power now. Are these companies evil? No. Are they angels? No. Google has come under attack for their China policy as well as allegations that their advertising only business model allows disreputable sites to operate, well, disreputably--while Google turns a blind eye. Do they? I don't know. I do know that the companies complaining the loudest are Google's competitors and also are the same ones declaring that Google's business model is unsound. It must really bug them that the textbooks seem to be wrong on this one and Google just keeps succeeding in spite of their 'unsound, shaky, can't last' business model.
And yes, if Google were encouraging grey or black hat SEO tactics, I would be screaming very loudly and angrily. Black/Grey hat SEO (Search Engine Optimization) are methods that use luring keywords, mislabeled content, false updated sites and so forth to raise the search list status (ie.. to get closer to the top of the list so that you, the searcher, will click on them.) Porn sites, especially illegal ones (child porn), or violent racial hatred sites are notorious for this kind of behavior--they especially try to lure the very young to their sites, to expose them to vulgar, violent and illegal images or hateful, bigoted views that encourage violence.

I've done a lot of research on predators (online and offline types), pornography effects, child porn and abuse, hate speech and social identity in the online space. I've seen and read things that I won't discuss here. I care a lot about these subjects and so applaud shows like Dateline's To Catch a Predator that bring the subject, in only a portion of its true horror, to a larger audience. If I thought Google were a part of that, believe me, I'd be screaming pretty loudly. So far, what I've learned is that while Google will play political games (China) in order to penetrate a market, like everybody else, they deal pretty severely with illegal activities and black or gray hat activities. Same with Yahoo!

If you are curious about some of my extensive academic research, a lot of it is still online (for a while...until I need the space)...the online stuff is meant to be online and presented in a online (visual, aural and kinetic) way--trying to both entertain and enlighten. Go to my main website and click on the Old Academic link. http://www.myuw.net/cganders (And yes, every child porn site I tracked down I reported to reputable agencies--problem usually is that these sites move around a lot or are hosted in countries that are unwilling to take action against them, or against local predators.) You'll understand then why I hate Larry Flynt and Hustler and don't think of Hustler as 'free speech in action.' You'll get why I like Canadian culture and their views of Hate Speech as illegal rather than the U.S. view of it as 'free speech.' Why I believe that pornography incites violence toward women, toward children and in general toward everyone, especially in a culture that already worships violence, accepts bigotry subconsciously and secretly needs to subjegate someone in order to feel powerful.

There are powerful social institutions at play involved here. That research effort, along with a related look at the Mai Lai massacre and the misleading, inaccurate and self-serving Bowling for Columbine movie, aren't online but were offline projects. Women, children and (if government approved) ethnic and so-called 'racial' groups are usually the easiest targets. The problems are all related and go back to cultural institutions, insider/outsider tribal patterns and social identity theory.
Sounds intimidating, I know, but it's true--and yes, I really do do that kind of background research on things. Cultural problems are complex and quick fixes need not apply. It also applies to marketing research and customer insight and media trends, believe it or not. {smile and wink inserted here!}

I may not do negative reviews on this site, but commentary is a different matter entirely. This stuff pushes my buttons, especially when I see companies, groups or politicos trying to trivialize such matters.

You may be able to throw money at your problems in the offline world and stave off your competitors, but on the Web, Innovation and Risk are the name of the game. The digital media world can do anything the old media world can do--and what's more, is gradually displacing it more and more. The marketing/ad mix models don't work the same on the Net. Content control doesn't work the same. Mass media doesn't work the same. Gate Keeping is gone. Time control is gone (and hence channel marketing, drive times and so forth.) Tracking ad/marketing/media effects is actually just as hard as it is in the offline world but also easier in some ways (unlike the offline media world.)

However, agencies and companies haven't adjusted yet to the new metaphors and hence still see it as more difficult rather than easier--and marketing dollars only flow when such individuals think they will get something 'risk-free.' It's not risk free in the offline world, but they grew up in that world and learned their trade in that world--they know that world and don't even recognize how shaky that world and its preconceived notions really are. That world is familiar and so seems more understandable and stable to them. A world that requires them to constantly innovate and take risks is frightening, especially since in the digital world, lack of control is more common than hierarchical control.

Cable took a lot of control away from broadcast TV, but you still have heads of broadcast companies not recognizing that a big part of getting a 20 or 30 share in the past was because of 'scarcity.' Three channels means three choices, period. Five hundred means less control, less loyalty and more choice. It also means better demographic segmentation but fewer dollars per channel. Fewer dollars and greater fear to spend (since it's less bang per buck now) means less original content, not more...which means less interest by viewers, which means less effectiveness for advertisers, leading to less money spent on that medium, which means less money spent on original content and so on. Downward spiral.

A newer medium (Net) is at least 'new' which implies interest (for a time.) How the Net will develop 'content-wise' is still to be seen, but develop it will.

By the by, social networking and viral marketing (i.e. a place like MySpace or YouTube and the way a cool vid, story or picture travels around the Net and gets seen by thousands to millions) are just another form of word-of-mouth marketing, a very effective and very old marketing method from the offline world. Still difficult to track but still probably the most effective (read targeted with great results) method there is. Thus, the offline world and online world are using similar methods, just different names sometimes. It also explains the intense interest by marketing and advertising folks in social networking and viral campaigns. The problem crops up because they don't want to relinquish control of the message and trust the online community--they want it risk free.

In the end, what does this mean to you as an individual, as a company or as an artist? Quite simply, it means stay true to your core beliefs (as long as they don't involve hurting other people in order to make you feel important--that's not a core belief, that's something much darker) and don't be afraid to push boundaries and follow your heart. Be willing to take the risks and risk failure. Don't follow every trend just because it's there (like all the big stars trying to be rappers or do hip hop because they think that's the hot trend right now.)

Naturally, you don't want to turn off your fans (or customer base) but don't let that fear overwhelm you. Your fans were attracted to you because you were you, not some cheap imitation (hopefully!) So IMAGE matters. If you've made your image true to yourself and NOT let someone else (company, agency, agent, music exec, TV exec, etc.) do it for you, giving you a fake image (Whitney Houston comes to mind)...then if you've defined a true you, then as you change and grow into a maturing artist, your fans will perceive that it is still genuine and should be willing to accept the changes. (David Bowie comes to mind.)

If your image was fake or faddish, even a gimic or part of some socio/political agenda, then the fans (or customers) still following you aren't true fans. They (like you, following the fad) are just there because they think it's the cool thing to do and that it (and you) will make them look better somehow. When the fad ends, you're dropped as fast as a squid sandwich. If they stay, it's hard to tell why they did. At its worst, you get obsessed fans that have tied up their worth with your identity, rather than their own self worth. (That, at its worst, can be deadly...but luckily, isn't as common as the headline/ratings hungry media makes out.) Just remember, that that is their identity problem...not yours! You just concentrate on being the best you possible--so push those boundaries, take those risks and change the world just by being...you.

So be true to yourself, as the saying goes. In this case, the saying gets it just right.

Keep in mind, these are my comments and my opinions. That said, they are also based on a helluva lot of research. (If you can't tell from the above stuff, I have a research/insight background to go along with all the tech and art) and I've delved a lot into social identity theory, insider/outsider (stranger or Other) research findings about group behavior, porn/childporn/violence and media research. So it's at least an informed opinion, even if big brands and media heads don't want to hear it and would rather dismiss it (and the changes to the media world) as just one person's opinion. It's why I write science fiction, thriller fiction and literary fiction...and why I did website projects that weren't dry and informational but tried to demonstrate the principles as well, making an emotional connection and creating a visceral experience...all are easier to use as a way of conveying social commentary than the whole lecture/complain/sound like a shrill idiot method or even the pontificating bastard format common to politics. :)

Still, every now and then, the whole commentary in a direct method way, is fun to do. ;)

CG Anderson
Little Dogs Media
Aha! Blogolicious!