It seems like just about every marketing-related blog post I read mentions at least one of the three most overused words in the business world today: Death, Disruption, or Innovation.
I can’t help but wonder if some of these bloggers are trying to demonstrate their prescience by writing about the death of this or the death of that. There’s the death of traditional media, death of old marketing, and my favorite, the death of direct marketing.
My take: These death claims are reminiscent of those from the dot-com era, when pundits were proclaiming the death of everything traditional. Oh, there was a lot of death, alright — mostly among the dot coms.
The reality is that the new almost never swiftly replaces the old. In fact, the old often doesn’t even completely die. The new blends in with the old, and the parts that no longer work — from both the old and new — get left behind. Granted, more from the old gets thrown away than from the new. But it takes time, and it happens imperceptibly.
Then there are the folks who attach the label “disruptive” to every new technology announcement that comes along. And I’m not even referring to the people who sell those technologies.
One of my favorites in this category is the claim that P2P lending is “disruptive.” In an article titled Here Comes The P2P Economy in Harvard Business Online’s Conversation Starter, the author claims:
Peer-to-peer, or P2P, networks have thrown the media industry into turmoil. A shock like the one that jolted the media is poised to strike other industries, perhaps more disruptively. It is already being felt in financial services. It is only a matter of time before these digital systems close the arbitrage enjoyed by large banks, which lend at up to 15% interest but pay only about 5% on capital.”
My take: Disruptive, my foot. If and when the large banks start feeling the pain from P2P upstarts, what do you think they’ll do? They’ll close the gap. Any major FI in the US could replicate what the emerging P2P lending platforms are doing in a heartbeat. Not that they will, but they could. It’s simply a business model (and, to a certain extent, risk management) issue to them.
Finally, the calls to “Innovate or Die!” are deafening. One blogger recently claimed that “firms will not survive and succeed if they don’t innovate.”
My take: Nonsense. There are two secrets to survival and success. You don’t need to write them down, because I wrote them down for you:
1. Find a problem. Fix it.
2. Find an opportunity. Exploit it.
If it takes an “innovation” to fix the problem or exploit the opportunity, so be it. But “innovation” is not a prerequisite for accomplishing #1 or #2. My point is that there’s too much focus on innovation — as if it’s a panacea — and not enough on identifying underlying problems and opportunities.
Bottom line: The underlying motivations in the overuse of these terms run the gamut of reasons. But collectively, the excessive use of death, disruption, and innovation contributes to a “boy who cried wolf” or “the sky is falling!” kind of feel. More selective use of these terms would give them credence and weight. In my opinion, at least.
Technorati Tags: Marketing, Disruption, Innovation, P2P Lending
Ron Shevlin's Marketing Whims 
Quickly: we are in a time of seismic change and the easy way out is to deny.
Its not a sky is falling matter. Its a matter of change being brought about, largely by internet and the information/ social economic changes it brings. At one level each year is one year following the current year, and the things you do next year compared to this year are often incremental.
At another level, extreme other end of scale, change is remarkably slow …. the mouse arrived in JFK’s time in the 60’s not as many think during the 90’s/ internet arrived in the 70’s etc etc. The influencers of change generally take 30+ years to truly kick in. The influences of those changes are occurring all the time. The simple test is to consider one’s lifestyle in 1988, compared to 2008. Most were creating handwritten copy that was handed to a steno, who just got an IBM PC 2 years earlier, and IBM selectric typewriters were still predominant.
Yes those are technology comments, but the behaviour changes that were kicked off when the next gen PC’s were given direct to managers, and the steno was cut out, are more than just a simple change. Add in internet, and the ability to send the inputs direct to many, immediately, and the empowerment that was kicked off is monumental.
example: I support your premise about the quality of NPS, but I support NPS, only because it is a simple quick measurement of an old metric that will do until we figure out better ones.
Example: Direct mail. Why does the data that supports DM not get used to support consumers ability to promote their own product needs? Someone will figure that out soon.
Indeed, many, including me, are guilty of using “peacock” terms. I first ran into the concept of peacock terms on wikipedia. Wikipedia articles that people are passionate about, whether they be people or places, tend to get written about in this way. Writers use “greatest ever” and “important” when referring to their heroes, or “incredible beauty” when referring to their favorite scenic place. Such terms don’t tell the underlying facts. Peacock words don’t have a place in objective encyclopedias, and when used in journalism, it’s termed sensationalism. Show, don’t tell, why something is important. Let the reader conclude the importance from the facts. As the wikipedia article concludes, “Don’t Peacock Your Facts!” Your writing and persuasiveness will be the stronger for it.
@Colin: My blog post isn’t about denying change. It’s about the process of change, and the efficacy of communication.
What I’m railing against isn’t the underlying changes that the “death, disruption, and innovation” crowd is ranting about, it’s about the way they go about it.
The biggest challenge that marketers have today is NOT figuring how social media, P2P, etc. is going to rock their world.
It’s figuring out how to incorporate these new tools, approaches, technologies into the myriad other things that they do, and — most importantly — figure out the optimal mix of the marketing tools/techniques that they have at their disposal.
But I challenge you to find one social media or P2P supporter who has said that.
Is today’s credit crisis that much worse than the S&L crisis of the 80s? Did the system crumble as a result of that? NO. The losers were weeded out. That is good. Markets and economies ebb and flow. The current crisis — even with the inevitable bank failures — is not proof of “disruptive” change that paves the way to a return to a P2P economy.
Yes, that’s right — a “return” to a p2p economy. Which is what we had before the Industrial Revolution of the mid-1800s. But that’s a different story.
ron
Re: innovation, your post is a good reminder that innovation for the sake of innovation ( or just so you can say you innovated) is pretty pointless if its not about fixing problems. Its the lack of fresh thinking in solving those problems that concerns me…especially in the financial space. To me, that’s where the focus on innovation should be.
@jeff it’s not just about solving problems — it’s also about creating and exploiting opportunities. but it seems like all I ever hear is the “we need to innovate” part and not the “here’s the problem we need to fix, or the opportunity we’re trying to exploit” part.
Agreed. For some reason, it seems to me that more people recognize the ability to apply innovation to exploiting opportunities, than recognizing the ability to apply it to problem solving.
I liked your two simple secrets to survival and success, as well–nicely summarized. What is super-cool is when the two converge: when you exploit an opportunity to fix a problem no one else has already fixed.
“Innovate or Die!” — sounds like they are trying to get extra mileage out of the shock factor there.
@chad I didn’t even realize when I wrote that, that there were two of the most overused words in a three-word sentence. Damn, that guy was good.
@Ron … ok now i am hooked, and can’t answer without some thought.
RE: “It’s figuring out how to incorporate these new tools, approaches, technologies into the myriad other things that they do, and — most importantly — figure out the optimal mix of the marketing tools/techniques that they have at their disposal.”
We might be saying similar things, yet coming at it from different angles. I, personally, tend to take the view that change requires a kick in the pants, and without that kick, the change won’t occur.
The quote above from your post, sounds like a good case for innovation. The problem I have is that the going assumption is that the existing capabilities can be adapted to support marketing in the new environment. Obviously at any given time, some of marketing mix will be traditional, but the new stuff needs to be new, and that can only occur with innovation.
Ron,
I read the post and the comments. All I am left with is “Whatever”
– @dmgerbino
@David “Whatever” was #4 on the list.
People — mostly industry insiders — are overly obsessed with innovation. I think they’re just bored and looking for something new to do/think about.
Pingback: My del.icio.us bookmarks for June 30th through July 2nd | AccMan
Pingback: Which Banks get the Web Lifestyle | RBC « The Bankwatch
Pingback: My del.icio.us bookmarks for June 30th through July 6th | AccMan
Pingback: Goodness Gracious, Great Blogs of Fire! » The Buzz Bin