Magazine article Marketing

Not So Fast with Disruption

Magazine article Marketing

Not So Fast with Disruption

Article excerpt

Marketers looking to innovate must be precise in the language used for their brands - discipline in terminology brings clarity, which yields results.

Nowhere is the lexicon of marketing more testosterone-fuelled than in the arena of innovation. Once it was enough to aim for 'new and improved', through incremental innovation to an existing product line. No longer. The restless imperative now is to 'change the game', to achieve 'breakthrough' and, above all, to 'disrupt' - an injunction generally accompanied by the threat 'or be disrupted'.

The effect is to polarise marketing teams as they sit down for their innovation workshops. There are those around the table for whom the bellicose talk of 'killer innovation' and 'big, hairy, audacious goals' is meat and drink. They revel in the excitement and risk, and can't wait to traduce the traditions of their own market model in favour of some supposedly disrupting alternative.

Sitting at other stations around the table, increasingly uneasy, are the marketers who wonder why all this upheaval and risk is necessary for their otherwise well-managed, prospering brands. Their typical defence is silence. They may have good ideas, but, since these are on an altogether humbler scale - a new delivery mechanism, for example - tend to hold them for later, when the heat has died down, or file them under 'quick and dirty', leaving the big boys to do the category-busting heroics.

If you're planning such a session for your team, it would be well to be clear about what level of innovation the brand really needs - and why. That clarity starts with a little more discipline in terminology.

Do you, for example, really, truly wish to 'disrupt'? The term 'disruptive innovation' was coined by Harvard academic Clayton Christensen, and has become one of the most casually bandied-about notions in business - Christensen himself laments that it has come to mean 'anything people want it to'.

Like most academic concepts, it is more nuanced than it sounds. The theory holds that established brands improve their products along a steady trajectory - 'sustaining innovation' - and fail to notice or acknowledge the entry of much lower-priced competitors, which target hitherto unattractive customers with 'de-featured' offers. Often as not it is a leaner business model, not a technological leap, that distinguishes these newcomers: think the original easyJet versus the legacy carriers.

Gradually - so the theory goes - the newcomers improve, move up the value chain and sweep the whole market away on their own trajectory, which cuts a swathe across the classical dynamics of the category.

One of the criticisms of the model is that it tends to be better at explaining category-wide shifts after the event than helping individual brands predict when, how and whether to effect their own disruption. Examples of the theory in practice are often cited at the generic level - how the CD industry was disrupted by file-sharing and then iTunes, for instance. Mankind's adoption of agriculture has even been cited as a 'disruption' to the ancient hunter-gatherer way of life.

In my experience it's all but impossible for thriving brands' marketers to identify the moment when bet-the-business change to the current model is worth the consideration - if it ever is. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.